God, is the reflection which, more than any other, will impress him with the all-sufficiency of God in creation, so it may inspire him with the hope of the Divine all-scfficiency for his moral recovery, and be even employed by God to image that sufficiency forth.

23. A being placed, and informed respecting the past and the future, as we have supposed, could not have recognized the signs of approaching change-if such signs there weresymptoms of the impending revolution of a portion, at least, of the earth's surface; and then have recalled before his mind the succession of new creations, which had followed from like revolutions before, without rising to adoration, and saying, in effect, "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands; they shall perish, but thou remainest; yea, they all shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou roll them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." And as he stood on the verge of the crisis, with the ominous shadows of the last evening settled around him, and all nature hushed in portentous silence, he could not picture to his mind the possibilities involved in the impending stage of the Divine procedure, without being conscious of an earnest desire to behold the creature, man, and the wondrous scenes which would signalize his eventful history.

23*

I HAVE been humbled at finding the view advocated in the text, spoken of by some - teachers of theology too—as an impeachment of the Divine disinterestedness; or, in other words, as an imputation of Divine selfishness. This misrepresentation might arise either from a jealousy of the Divine Greatness, or from a mistaken jealousy for it, accompanied with an indolent misconception of the subject. In the first of these instances, it is human self-importance entering into competition with Infinite Greatness and laboring to dethrone it, only that it might occupy the vacated seat.

In the second the objector appears to argue in oblivion of all the facts appropriate to the subject, and under the anthropomorphising impression that God" is altogether such an one as himself." First, he forgets that no objection can be alleged against the view that God will be his own end in the eternity to come, which does not equally lie against the view that He was his own end in the eternity past; and yet no one can raise a question on this point, for during the past eternity He alone existed. Secondly, the objector forgets that the view must be true in some high and substantial sense, for the doctrine that "of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things," runs through the Bible like a line of light. Thirdly, the selfishness which the view is supposed to impute or imply is purely anthropopathic, or arises from a mental transference to the infinitely blessed God of human passions, and, as such, it can have no place with God; for selfishness implies the appropriation of happiness, or of the means of happiness, belonging to others, whereas, in the present unique instance, the idea of appropriation can have no place, since all that man enjoys is of Divine impartation. Fourthly, the only alternative

to God being the chief end of creation is, that man be that end. But the only reason which could be assigned for this view is (not that it is right, as in the case of one human being benefiting another, but) that it appears to some to be more worthy of God; which is only saying, in other words, that that must be the end of creation which is most worthy of God, and most glorious to him— thus, in reality, affirming the doctrine in the very act of denying it. And, fifthly, the happiness of the creature requires that the manifestation of the Divine All-sufficiency be the chief end of creation. Surely, it could not conduce to the happiness of an intelligent creature to believe that the Infinite existed for the finite, and was subordinated to it. On the contrary, the blessedness of holy beings must consist mainly in their conscious and chosen dependence on infinite excellence; in the ever-present idea of its infinity contrasted with their limitation, leaving room for progress unending. Further, I might proceed to remind the objector that if it is thought no impeachment of any Divine perfection to believe (as he himself probably believes) that animal enjoyment, though an end of the animal kingdom, was not the highest end contemplated by the animal creation; that the manner in which it has contributed to the enjoyment, education, and well-being of the human race, is a yet higher end; so man's creation may, consistently with the same Perfection, point to an end beyond itself; and what end can that be, but the only one which is infinite? I can hardly bring myself to confess that, in more than one instance, I have actually met with an objection to the view I am now advocating, which amounted to this, "we do not object to the fact that the highest end of creation should be the manifestation of the Divine excellence; perhaps this is right; perhaps it is even unavoidable, and arises necessarily from the very nature of things; we only demur to the idea of the Divine Being designing it!" Evidently, their conception of the Majesty of heaven is that of a great human being; of one who, (to adopt the sentiment of the poet,) having "done good by stealth," is expected to "blush when he finds it fame!" He must not accept the homage of heaven as his right, but as praise unexpected and undeserved. He, not the adoring seraphim, must veil. Their beau-ideal of Perfection omits prescience; for how otherwise could the Creator fail to foresee the results of his own creation; and, foreseeing, how could He do otherwise than accept, adopt, or design them? But to do this is, in their eyes, to sacrifice the proprieties!! "O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee !"

NOTE B, p. 75.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was without form and waste, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.". Genesis i. 1, 2.

From a careful consideration of the subject, it is the full conviction of the writer, that the first of the two verses just quoted was placed by the hand of Inspiration at the opening of the Bible as a distinct and independent sentence; that it was the Divine intention to affirm by it, that the material universe was primarily originated by God from elements not previously existing; and that this originating act was quite distinct from the acts included in the six natural days of the Adamic creation. It should be observed that this interpretation by no means implies that Moses himself put this construction on the sentence, or intended to convey this meaning, He might; or he might not. He was only the organ for its transmission. But it is a well-known canon of Scripture interpretation, that the statements of the word of God are to be understood, not merely in that sense in which they were apprehended by the human instruments employed to make them, nor in that sense to which their hearers or readers at the time could reach, but in the sense which He himself attached to them. For example, there is ground to believe that Moses himself was not aware of the profound spiritual meaning of much of the ritual which he was employed to institute. It was an obscure text, which awaited the Divine commentary of the Christian dispensation.

Nor is it meant to be implied by this interpretation that the Bible was designed to teach astronomy, geology, or any other branch of natural science. When we are enlarging on the historical parts of Scripture, for instance, no one infers that we mean to affirm that the Bible was designed to teach either the mere facts, or the philosophy, of history. Its object, in such parts, is to teach the doctrine of God's government of the world; and all that we are supposed to mean is, that the events related in proof or illustration of the doctrine, were matters of fact, actual occurrences, divinely attested. So here; the obvious purpose of the inspired writer is to teach the great truth that God is the Creator of all things; and all that the nature of the case requires—and

1 See Dr. J. P. Smith's admirable work on Scripture and Geology. Lecture VI. Part II., and Notes P. Q. Second Edition.