CHAP. XX. How great and how just is God's compassion.

Now we have found the compassion of God, which appeared lost to you, when we were considering God's holiness and man's sin; we have found it, I say, so great, and so consistent with his holiness, as to be incomparably above anything that can be conceived. For what compassion can excel these words of the Father, addressed to the sinner doomed to eternal torments, and having no way of escape: "Take my only begotten Son, and make him an offering for yourself;" or these words of the Son: “Take me, and ransom your souls." For these are the voices they utter, when inviting and leading us to faith in the Gospel. Or, can anything be more just, than for Him to remit all debt, since he has earned a reward greater than all debt, if given with the love which he deserves.

CHAP. XXI. How it is impossible for the devil to be reconciled. If you carefully consider the scheme of human salvation, you will perceive the reconciliation of the devil, of which you made inquiry, to be impossible. For, as man could not be reconciled but by the death of the God-man, by whose holiness the loss occasioned by man's sin should be made up; so fallen angels cannot be saved but by the death of a God-angel, who by his holiness may repair the evil occasioned by the sins of his companions. And as man must not be restored by a man of a different race, though of the same nature, so no angel ought to be saved by any other angel, though all were of the same nature, for they are not like men, all of the same race. For all angels were not sprung from one, as all men were. And there is another objection to their restoration, viz. that, as they fell with none to plot their fall, so they must rise with none to aid them; but this is impossible. But otherwise they cannot be restored to their original dignity. For, had they not sinned, they would have been confirmed in virtue without any foreign aid, simply by the power given to them from the first. And, therefore, if any one thinks that the redemption of our Lord ought to be extended even to the fallen angels, he is convinced by reason, for by reason he has been deceived. And I do not say this, as if to deny that the virtue of his death far exceeds all the sins of men and angels, but because infallible reason rejects the reconciliation of the fallen angels.

CHAP. XXII. How the truth of the Old and New Testament is shown in the things which have been said.

Boso. All things which you have said seem to me reasonable and incontrovertible. And by the solution of the single question proposed, do I see the truth of all that is contained in the Old and New Testament. For, in proving that God became man by necessity, leaving out what was taken from the Bible, viz. the remarks on the persons of the Trinity, and on Adam, you convince both Jews and Pagans, by the mere force of reason. And the God-man himself originates the New Testament, and approves the Old. And, as we must acknowledge him to be true, so no one can dissent from anything contained in these books. Anselm. If we have said anything that needs correction, I am willing to make the correction, if it be a reasonable one. But, if the conclusions which we have arrived at by reason, seem confirmed by the testimony of the truth, then ought we to attribute it, not to ourselves, but to God, who is blessed forever. Amen.

By Rev. John O. Means, East Medway, Mass.

It is proposed to give an exposition of the first chapter of Genesis, with the first three verses of the second chapter, which complete the narrative of the creation.

The object is, to learn what God teaches in this portion of . Scripture. It is important to bear this in mind. We receive the Bible as written by Divine inspiration. This passage, espe cially, must be regarded as purely matter of revelation. These facts could not be known in any other way. No human being was present to observe these scenes. This is, in the absolute sense, a Divine communication. Our object, then, is to learn what God designs to communicate

This relieves us from discussing the question, whether Moses wrote this narrative; and if he did, whether he consulted previous documents. It also renders it needless to ask, how Moses understood it, and what he meant to teach. The writer of this passage was the channel through which the revelation was made. He may have comprehended it; and he may not. It would confirm our judgment, to find that the writer who is believed to be Moses received the same meaning we put upon it. But it is possible he did not fully comprehend it. He might be inspired to record the revelation without being inspired to interpret it. As much as he knew may have been correct. But there may have been more included than he could compre. hend. The Apostle Peter represents the prophets who predicted the sufferings of Christ as not knowing what the spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ (1 Peter 1: 11).. So Moses might be commissioned to record this Divine statement of the work of creation, without being able to understand it fully himself. It is objected to some explanations of this chapter, that Moses could not have known what they imply, and therefore they are not true. If it is Moses speaking here, then no sense can be put on the words which Moses did not intend. But if, as we maintain, it is God speaking through Moses, then the only question is, what does God teach in these words?

By making it our object, however, to discover the meaning God intends to convey, there is no room for arbitrary interpreta. tions. There are two conditions by which the explanation is necessarily limited: It must be such as the language will allow, and it must be such as is consistent with what God teaches else. where. It must be consistent with the language of the revelation. It must not contradict that language. It must express all that the language expresses. It will be no explanation unless it explains all and denies nothing that the words mean. But it may go beyond the record, or it may not, without being inconsistent with it. If the explanation contains more than the record, it is not necessarily inconsistent with it. On the other hand, it is necessary to gather such a meaning from the language as is consistent with the other revelations of God. No one can question that God has given man knowledge in other ways besides in the Bible. However we distrust reason, there are truths discovered by it which admit of no question. And this special revelation

cannot be inconsistent with them. There must be such a meaning in the record as will harmonize with other truths.

To understand this chapter, then, we must attend to the meaning of the language and to the facts of science. Some look only to philology, and say it teaches this. Others look only to science, and say it ought to teach, and, therefore, does teach, that. A true interpretation will harmonize the demands of the text and the demands of science.

It will clear the way for subsequent progress to make some preliminary statements.

1. There is an apparent conflict between the record and science. It is well to concede this. It has always been a perplexing chapter. The earliest commentators exercised their ingenuity upon it. The discoveries of astronomy opened new difficulties. Geology has seemed to conflict with it. Some maintain there is no difficulty. But this is not the feeling of persons of moderate intelligence. There are those who know so little of science that they are at ease. There are others who know so much that they find no difficulty. But to the great body of Christians there are perplexities in this chapter, arising from an apparent conflict between its statements and well-established scientific truths.

2. But, in the second place, it must be understood there is no real conflict. It is only apparent. We believe this record We believe the facts of science. And we believe they are consistent. There is a way in which they may be reconciled. Our object is, to find this out. And we shall keep trying till we succeed. Because the consistency may not now appear, we do not set aside either the Bible or science. It is unphilosophical to give up the Bible, and it is unscriptural to renounce science. They are both true, and the truth of each will yet be made to appear. Difficulties which seemed insurmountable have been removed. The progress of knowledge has cleared up obscurities. The difficulties we are called to meet are not so great as those which staggered the theologians of the seventeenth century. Those difficulties have been removed by further investigations, without any sacrifice of truth. We believe this will be the case in regard to the geological perplexities of this chapter. We may wait for further light, instead of asserting or denying too positively. No one can shake our confidence in the truth of the Bible. The evidence for it is so strong that it cannot be VOL. XII. No. 45.

8

set aside. It is true, we may misapprehend it. But the truth is there, and what is there is the truth.

And so there are facts

The dogmatism which

in science which cannot be set aside. denies these facts denies the reliableness of our faculties. And if our faculties are not to be trusted, we cannot trust them to study the Bible.1

3. While we are to believe there is no real conflict, we are not to expect to clear up every difficulty.

Let it be understood, that we are unable to reconcile everything to our satisfaction. Those who say there is a real contradiction between the cosmogony of Moses and the teachings of science, go too far, when they demand that we clear up the matter, if it can be cleared up. Because we cannot solve the difficulties now, it does not prove that we may not be able to, by and by. It is unreasonable to demand that all difficulties be removed at once. No one fully understands the record as yet; and no one has grasped all the facts of science. There are no inspired commentators of Moses. No one knows the mind of God so fully that he has the right to say: This is the meaning of God in this chapter. There are men who thus pronounce, it is true. But their assurance is in an unwise proportion to their knowledge. And then, the sciences are as yet in their infancy. They are growing. They have not nearly attained completeness. There are changes in the views of those most conversant with the sciences. In the nature of things, all difficulties can be removed only when the sciences are complete. When all possible facts are known and registered in their right places, when the science which is now but a segment of a circle is rounded to completeness, it will be fair to ask: Does revelation tell the same story? And the man to answer that question must have a perfect comprehension of the Scriptures. An inspired Bible interpreted by an inspired commentator, and a complete science understood by the same mind, is essential to remove every difficulty. We should not expect this at present. It becomes us to be modest and believing.

We concede that there is an apparent conflict between this chapter and the indications of science. We deny that there is a

1 On the apparent conflicts between science and revelation, see the admirable Article of President Hitchcock, entitled: The Relations and Consequent Mutual Duties between the Philosopher and the Theologian, in this Review, Vol. X. p. 166.