slander to do any harm, though tipped with the venom of political gall. The testimony of unprejudiced men, like the English Rear-Admiral Thomas, Commander Wilks, and other officers of the United States Exploring Squadron, saying nothing of the concurrent testimony of a host of Christian travelers, is all on file before the world; and in the chancery of public opinion it will outweigh as many anonymous sheets of calumny as would bridge the Pacific from Panama to Oahu.

If any reader be in quest of authentic Hawaiian annals, he will find his curiosity well gratified in the perusal of the late very full history by Rev. Hiram Bingham, Hartford; or that by Mr. Jarvis, issued in Boston, 1842; or a history by Rev. Sheldon Dibble, printed at the Lahainaluna mission press, Sandwich Islands. While they are each replete with information of substantial interest to the general reader, the last work, never reprinted in this coun'try, is to the Christian, perhaps, the most valuable of the three. We regard them all as well-sown seed-beds, from which the yet formless garden of Hawaiian history will largely draw. If we can contribute one worthy plant to be set out by the future historian in that fair garden, we are well content, and on it we inscribe Χριστῷ καὶ Εκκλησία.

ARTICLE IV.

EXPOSITION OF ROMANS 8: 19-23.

By REV. S. COMFORT, Sanquoit, N. Y.

THERE is a peculiar depth and scope in the writings of Paul. This was seen in his own time by Peter, and it led to the remark contained in II Peter, 3: 15, 16. From this entire passage it is clear not only that the writings of the former were known to the latter, but that Peter endorsed the plenary inspiration of Paul in the declaration that "according to the wisdom given unto him he had written unto them;" and that "in all his epistles he had spoken" more or less "of these things" of which Peter himself had then been speaking, namely, the destruction of the world by fire at the last day; in which epistles, on this and kindred topics, there "were some things hard to be understood," because he sunk to a depth which "the unlearned and unstable" are not able to fathom, and which "they wrested as they did also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

That the writings of Paul contain some things hard to be understood, is as true now as when Peter thus wrote. And that there are still those who are unstable and unlearned, is equally true. Nor is it less certain that persons of this character wrest

the Scriptures now as formerly, to their own destruction. The passage at the head of this article, is one which to many minds is invested with much difficulty, and about the true import of which there has been considerable controversy and still remains some doubt. It has been so interpreted as to favor the doctrine of the future existence of the brute creation, and the restoration of this world to its primeval state of order and beauty. But is either of these doctrines taught by the apostle in this passage?

Mr. Wesley it is well known, took the affirmative of this question, and urged his views in a sermon on this text, in a very ingenious and able manner. But his premises it seems to us are unsound, and his views incorrect. It is clear that in this discourse his entire superstructure is built upon the naked hypothesis that "creature," in this passage, means irrational animal. It is therefore certain that as far as the true doctrine of this passage is concerned, whether the restoration of irrational animals to another life be a doctrine of the Bible or not, Mr. Wesley was betrayed into the falacy called, "begging the question.". He takes for granted the very thing which should first be proved. The whole meaning of the passage turns upon the sense given the word "creature," "Tois which occurs four times in this passage. In its unrestricted meaning it comprehends all created objects. In a more restricted sense this word doubtless applies to irrational animals. In a sense still more limited it is applied to mankind. Hence, like other similar terms, its meaning must be determined by the context; and by this criterion its import must be decided in this passage.

But before the restoration of irrational animals from death to a future state is admitted as a Scriptural doctrine, whether taught in this passage or not, the ground on which it is predicated should be well understood. It is this-That inasmuch as brutes and all irrational animals were involved in great sufferings by the sin of man, it is the dictate of both justice and benevolence that they should be restored to that state in which they stood at their creation. And as the material world has also been impaired through the same cause, it must undergo a certain renovation before the blight it has received can be discharged. Hence it is claimed that the indemnification to which animals are entitled, not being received in this world, reaches forward to the future. This, as we understand it, is the position assumed. As a mere hypothesis, adopted seriously and in good faith, it deserves a candid examination.

To assume that animals have suffered in their own natures on account of man's sin, is to say they were created with constitutional appetites, propensities, and features of character different from those which at present distinguish them. Now this proposition is either true, or it is not. But where is the proof of the

affirmative? Is it in the Bible? Where in the Scriptures is it declared that they fell with man and on his account? What change have they undergone? Were they once less disposed to prey upon each other than they now are? Had not the vulture and the eagle when created, the beak and the talons which so well adapt them to their present modes of subsistence; and had they not then their present propensities? Or had they the former without the latter? And so of the lion and other carniverous animals. For all that we can see to the contrary, one of three things must have been true at their creation: either all those creatures among beasts, birds, fishes, and insects which prey upon other animated objects, no matter of what species, had at their creation the natural instruments adapted to such a mode of subsistence without the corresponding propensity, or they were created with neither, or they were created just as they now are. Were this question decided in the Scriptures there would be at once an end of the controversy. But this is not the case. The Bible is silent on the subject. It is a question which belongs to Natural Theology; nor is it without its difficulties in connection with that science.

To suppose that the animal kingdom was not made as we now see it, but that other and different attributes have been received since the Fall, especially by those species which are cruel and hostile, seems incompatible with the declaration that the work of creation was finished in six days. To our apprehension it is less difficult to reconcile the present character of such creatures with the declaration that all was "very good." But how much of what we call derangement in the natural world, resulted from the first transgression, it is impossible to say. But not so with the moral world. Sin was a moral act. As such it opened the gate to a flood of moral desolation. Man is the only moral inhabitant of this world. As he alone unites in himself the intellectual and the animal, so he possesses in his compound nature the attributes. of both. The natural and the moral world meet in him; or, better expressed, he belongs to both worlds.

That there are difficulties to our reason if not to our faith in the animal kingdom, will not be disputed. How can the sufferings of animals, together with the instruments of attack and destruction natural to those species which feed upon other animals, be more satisfactorily resolved than by adopting the conclusion that all animals, birds, fishes, reptiles, and insects were originally made as they now are, in anticipation of man's then future defection from God? And if the poison of serpents, as well as the claws and talons of carniverous birds and animals can be thus resolved, why may not the poison of noxious plants be resolved on the same principle? There is no reason. Nor do we see any valid objection to this mode of meeting the whole difficulty.

We cannot fathom the depths of Divine wisdom. All was present to the Divine Mind from eternity. And if the Divine procedure can be justified, viewing as He did foreseen results, in making the world at all, it can be as easily justified in making it as it is. If the atonement was not an after-thought, but a provision previously conceived, adopted, and brought in at the time to meet a foreseen exigency, so that Christ can be called "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;" why may we not suppose that the natural world, animate and inanimate, was, with the exception of those changes on the surface of the earth occasioned by the deluge, made as we now behold it? being thus adapted to man in anticipation of his future sin and consequent fall as a state of discipline or probation for a glorious after-life.

But should an objection be raised on the ground that many animals are unknown to a majority of mankind, and consequently neither minister to man's wants nor serve in any way as instruments of moral discipline to his mind, and therefore seem to have been made in vain or only to be devoured by other animals; we are sure, that to say that the Supreme Being in creating this world had no other end in view but to serve man, is not only unduly to magnify him, but to exclude all reference to His own glory in what He has seen fit to bring into existence. We must not make our knowledge the measure of the Divine wisdom. A worthy end, present to the Divine Mind may have been accomplished in the creation of the ephemeral which commences its being in the morning and perishes in the evening, though that end be hid from us. The animal which toils under the hand of man, whose flesh supplies him with food, whose wool with clothing, or whose skin with leather for his use, may thus answer the end of its being. Man in the mean time is accountable for the use he makes of the creatures of God.

But against the immortality of brutes, several objections may be urged. How can creatures which are not under law be subjects of reward? Animals are governed by instinct, not by laws proposed to their reason. And instinct never looks at consequences. It never ponders, deliberates, or judges in view of motives. It is blind, and acts without forethought or remorse. Besides, on the admission that a future existence will be allotted to animals with a view to reward them for service done to man or for sufferings endured on his account; why will not the hostile and injurious among them be as justly deserving of punishment, as the docile and useful are of reward? And what must be the nature of either to creatures by nature incapable of intellectual and moral happiness or misery?

Admitting that the animal creation was cursed on account of man's first offence, have we not reason to look for some proof, or at least some intimation of it, in the Scriptures? That the ground

was cursed with sterility for man's sake is specifically stated in Gen. 3: 17. This stands in connection with the curse pronounced upon the man, woman, and serpent. But there is no allusion to animated nature. The conclusion therefore seems to us inevitable, that the notion of a direct curse upon animals for man's sake, is both gratuitous and mistaken. That they share with man in exposure to hunger and thirst, sickness and death, is not denied. And that those which have been domesticated suffer by the imposition of unequal burdens and cruelty at the hand of their tyrantmasters, is also undeniable. But do they suffer more from man than many species do from each other? And the two cases of suffering bear to each other this relation-the former is by Divine permission; the latter by Divine appointment.-The conclusion to which we are brought is this, that the use of animals is permitted to man; for their abuse he must give an account. And their hostile propensities, to which their natural instruments for taking life in some species so exactly correspond, must be resolved into the constitution of things as ordered by Divine wisdom. The ways of God are not the less wise, good, and just, because they are to us inscrutible.

But a conclusive evidence that this passage has no reference to brute creatures is seen in the fact that the original word T1015, creature, is the word used by Mark 16: 15, in the great commission to preach the gospel; also in Col. 1: 23. In both these places naon in xuσs in all the world, refers to the preaching of the gospel in all nations. In Matt. the term is different though the commission is the same as in Mark. Here лаvia tα εOvη all nations, explains the words used in Mark and Col. And πασῃ τῇ κτισει in Mark and Col. show the force of the same words, naoa Tois in Rom. 8: 22, and the other three instances in which is occurs in the passage under consideration. The connection and scope of the entire passage confine this application of "creature" to all mankind. But before these are considered, it will be important to determine the true import of several other terms used by the apostle. Made subject to vanity, verse 20 is generally understood to mean, was subjected to a frail and dying state." But whether this sense should be given to paralons, vanity, in this place, is very questionable; at least it may be regarded as subordinate to a higher and more important one. This word occurs only three times in the New Testament. By comparing these passages we shall be able to determine its import in the present instance. "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their minds:" Eph. 4: 17. That it is used here in a moral and not in a physical sense is indisputable. The Gentiles addicted themselves to every species of idolatry. They thus both evinced and indulged the emptiness, foolishness, vanity of their minds. Not only did they