But now, turning to the other question, has the rpoiyvu of Ro 8^ 1 1'' any special qualitative import ? God knows, foreknows. His people — what consti- tutes them His people, is there anything in them or about them whicli accounts for foreknowledge becoming foreordination, which explains the ground of election ? Here opinions ditler, and it is probable that each exegete will read into the word what agrees with his general doctrinal standpoint. Thus, to take one or two examples, Cremer appears to think there is no such import, the conception being complete in itself, and the word not indicating ' a decision come to concerning any one ' ; Grimm (NT Lex., Thayer's ed.) holds the meaning to be that ' God foreknew that they would love him, or (with reference to what follows) he foreknew them to be fit to be conformed to the likeness of his Son.' This explanation (that of foreseen love) is adoi)ted also by Weiss [NT Theology. % 88), while Godet (liomans, Eng. tr. ii. 109) takes ' faith' to be the other object of foreknowledge, tlie condition of salvation wliich God foreknew that His people would fulfil. It is doubtful, however, whethei St. Paul had followed out his thought on this side into a definite form. He vas concerned with the purpose of God, not with the ground of that purpose. Both in Gal 1",
as we have seen, in reference to himself, and in Eph P- " in reference to the Church, he lays stress upon the fact that God's action is ' according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace ' — ' according to tlie purpose of him who worketh aU things after the counsel of his own will.'
To these indications from the Pauline writings, the occurrences of TrpoyivauKeiv and Tplr/vuxris in other parts of NT (Ac 2^ 26', 1 P P-*, 2P 3") add nothing in regard to the questions we have been considering. St. Paul founds upon election, as the method appoLated by Providence for the education of humanity, his religious philosophy of historj'. Some are set apart for special privilege, but have also laid upon them special duty. The Jews are set aside until the Gentiles be come in ; salvation is extended to the Gentiles in order that the Jews might come to share its blessings ; but ' God does not cast ofl' his people \\ hich he fore- knew ' ; His purpose is not abandoned, but worked oui according to the dictates of infinite wisdom and perfect love. It has been suggested (Plumptre, Epp. of J^t. Peter, in ' Cambridge Bible for Schools ') that in the words ' the foreknowledge of God the Father ' (1 P P) 'we find, perhaps, the secret of their (the apostles') acceptance of this aspect of the divine government. The choice and the knowledge were not those of an arbitrary sovereign will, capricious as are the sovereigns of earth, in its favours and antipathies, seeking only to manifest its power, but of a Father whose tender mercies were over all His works, and who sought to mani- fest His love to all His children.' ' In what way,' says the same writer, 'the thought of man's freedom to will was reconcilable with that of God's electing purpose, the writers of NT did not care to discuss. They felt, we may believe, instinctively, half- unconsciously, that the problem was insoluole, and were content to accept the two beliefs, which cannot logically be reconciled.' In this condition of unsolved antinomy the Bible leaves all such doctrines as those of grace and election, a heritage of discussion and speculation to age after age of the Church ; yet, however diiticult to the intellect, constantly receiving its practical solution and reconciliation in the Christian experience of the soul, which is at once conscious of its ovra moral responsibUity and of its dependence upon God.
Literature. — In addition to the authorities cited at>ove, see Sanday-IIeadlam, Romans, U.cc. ; the Biblical Tlieolcigifs of Beyschlaj;, Bovon, and Scbmid ; Cunningham, Historical Theo- logy, ii. 441 ff. ; K. MiiUer, IMf- gottliche Zuvorersehunff und Erwuhlumj ; Bruce, providential Onlcr o/ the World (1897), Lect. X. ; and the Literature at end of articles Election,
peedestimation. a. Stewart.
FOREPART. — The forepart (always one word in 1611) is either the front portion of a thing (Heb. a-i^/ace), Ex 28" 39^ (of^ the ' ephod '), 1 K 6* (of the 'oracle'), Ezk 4'2' (of the 'chambers' of Ezekiel's temple, RV ' before ') ; or specifically the prow or bow of a vessel (Trpwpa), Ac 27*', where it is opposed to the ' liinder part' (so 1611) or stem (irpvpiva). RV gives 'foreship' in the hu^t passage, so as to correspond with v.*" (the only other occurrence of the Ur. word), where AV and RV have ' foreship.' The Oxf. Eng. Dirt, queries if ' forepart ' is obsolete in this sense ; it has founil no later instance than Dampier (1699), Voyages, II. i. 74, ' The head or fore-part is not altogether so high as the Stem.' Jor illustration of 'fore part,' meaning generally the front, takeT. Adams, J I Peter, on P ' There is a helmet for the head, a corselet for the breast, a shield for the foreparts; hut no guard, no regard for the back ' ; and Bunyan, Holy Hnr (Clar. Pr. ed. p. 224, 1. 35), ' Every door also was filled with persons who had adorned every one their fore-port against theil