tercourse with the Son of God than by their bodily senses; but the disciples, on the other hand, in whom the inner organ was to be found, could maintain a near and intimate communion with the Redeemer even after his bodily departure. In the pregnant use of language as employed by John and Christ 50 means to lead a true life in God: consequently," since I myself lead a true life in God, I can communicate it to others also, and in this manner bring them into an inward and spiritual intercourse with myself."

The two passages which follow will be found nearly related in character to the passage already quoted on 14: 6, "I am the way,' etc. They develope a great principle, worthy of more extended remarks than our limits will permit us to make. Chap. 15: 1, "I am the vine," etc. "The Author of the realin of spirits is also the Author of the realm of nature; both kingdoms develope themselves according to the same laws. Wherefore, those comparisons which the Redeemer derives from the realm of nature are not mere comparisons serving to throw light on the topic in hand they are inward analogies, and nature is a witness for the realm of the spirit. This truth floats dimly in the twilight of the allegorizing cabbalists, (and also in Swedenborg,) who did not lack in principle, but only in the application of the principle. Their principle was

every thing that is in the kingdom of ,בְאַרְעָא הָכִי נָמִי בְעֵילָא

the earth is found also in the kingdom of Heaven.' Sohar ad Gen. f. 91. c. 362. Were it not so, those comparisons would not have the power of conviction which they do exercise over every unperverted mind. The Redeemer, then, here also wishes to say, that the same relation which exists between the vine and its tendrils, is a relation which manifests itself in the highest manner in the connexion which He sustains towards those who believe in him. As nature is here a witness in regard to the facts of the spiritual kingdom, so, on the other hand, these facts are, as it were, fulfilments of the prophecies of nature. Comp. on diŋevos remarks on 1: 9. 'I am he in whom the relation of the vine to its branches is revealed in the deepest manner.'

Chap. 17: 3. “Avrŋ ¿orìv & Swon, This is life. There is no necessity to assume a metonyme here; to know God is life in itself; see on 1: 4. Zuinglius: quo magis Deum cognoscimus in Christo, hoc magis vivimus.' In like manner it is said in 12: 50, that the commission of God to Christ, the doctrine

of Jesus, is eternal life; it involves it within itself, and becomes outwardly manifest so soon as it passes over into man, whenever faith as the spiritual chyle assimilates it, so that it becomes flesh and blood in man."

In the above passages, the truth is presented by its living symbols, without attempting to analzye it into simpler elements. It is presented in the form in which the spirit apprehends it, and feels its life giving energy. Interpreters sometimes seem to forget in their eagerness to analyze metaphorical language, that spiritual truth must be apprehended, not by obtaining intellectual notions of it, but by feeling its living power, and, therefore, must the symbols employed in communicating it be given in their living form, and not in the form of lifeless elements. If the charge of obscurity is brought against the terms employed, when used in their highest meaning, as spiritual life, for example, we reply, that the same charge lies against the terms when used in a lower signification, as animal life. Who has ever yet analyzed a living power of any kind? Yet this inability does not prevent our knowing the existence of such powers, or knowing the condition of their manifestation. And in conformity with this view is the language of Scripture employed. God is called our Father, not because the result of his dealings with us is similar, in some important respects, to that which is brought about by the treatment of an affectionate earthly parent. Our pious feelings are outraged by a supposition which thus robs the sacred attribute of mercy of all its glory and loveliness. The Christian's heart and the Bible both testify that God is our Father more nearly and dearly than an earthly parent possibly can be. And, when we thus regard our Heavenly Father, the story of the prodigal son becomes, not an illustration merely of a truth different in its nature from itself: but the truth itself— the undying nature and subduing power of paternal loveembodied in the familiar form of an earthly father's love to his penitent son. As sure as God made that Father's heart to dissolve in pardoning love over his returning son, so sure will His own heart dissolve in pity over His prodigal children who return to Him. If God has planted in the heart of a human father a quenchless paternal love, it is only because he has made that heart in a small measure after the archetype of His own undying and infinite love. Thus the government of God becomes one golden chain, extending from our lowest earthly relations up to our infinite concerns with the Father of our spirits.

Our limits will only permit us to add a word respecting the translator's execution of his task. It will be sufficient praise to say that but few passages will be found, where the course of thought seems to be impeded by the trammels of a foreign idiom. We congratulate him on bringing before the public a work which will promote the study of the Scriptures, and be honorable to his own judgment and learning. We cannot but feel some regret, however, that he should feel himself called upon, in his preface, to enter the lists in behalf of a particular branch of the church. Even if the other writings of Tholuck should furnish some materiel for the remarks he has made, we do not think that the caveat he has entered is particularly needed in reading the Commentary on John.

ARTICLE VIII.

REMARKS ON PROFESSOR STUART'S EXAMINATION OF Gen. I. IN REFERENCE TO GEOLOGY.

By Edward Hitchcock, Professor of Chemistry and Natural History in Amherst College.

ALTHOUGH it is by no means my intention to enter into a formal controversy with professor Stuart, yet I hope I may be allowed a few pages for remarks upon his article in the last No. of the Repository, on the subject of geology in connection with revelation.

When I first learned that he would discuss this subject, I confess I was gratified; for, from my knowledge of his works, I had a right to presume that he would enter this field with the same liberality of feeling, enlargement of views, and acuteness in learned research, which he had shown elsewhere. And in my articles on this subject, it was not so much my object to build up any infallible system of geological theology, as to excite ingenuous and pious minds in this country, carefully and thoroughly to examine it; as has already been done to a great extent in England.

It is hardly necessary for me to say, that most of the principles of interpreting Genesis, advanced by professor Stuart, must commend themselves to every intelligent mind. One or two of

them, however, seem to be so palpably erroneous, that it appears to me proper for one not professionally devoted to philology, to point out their deficiency. And several instances of what I regard as erroneous facts and theories in geology or zoology, I cannot pass unnoticed, in justice to myself and the cause which I advocate.

ry.

Professor Stuart frequently apologizes for advancing opinions on points in geology, different from those of its professed cultivators; because he lays no claim to a scientific knowledge of the subject. But such apology seems to me wholly unnecessaFor who does not know, that some of the most valuable improvements in science have resulted from the suggestions of men of acute minds, who had not a particular knowledge of science. So that if a man chooses to run the risque of making blunders, he may greatly advance the cause of knowledge, by calling in question the soundness of the views of those who are its professed teachers, when they seem to him erroneous. Such teachers are very apt to get into the beaten track marked out by some pioneer in the science, finding it easier to go over this than to search out any new paths. But we have always regarded professor Stuart as a man

Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri;

consequently he is the man to set geologists right where he thinks them wrong. And one prominent reason why he is the right man for this work, is, that he will not expect geologists to admit his charges of error, if they can defend themselves. He will not, therefore, object to the freedom of my remarks, (unless he discovers in them a bad spirit,) in pointing out what I regard as erroneous principles in his article in the last number of the Repository. I sincerely thank him for the many kind. things he has said to defend me from the charge of scepticism and rashness in the positions I have taken; and I feel thankful, that though in some things respecting the geological connections of revelation we may differ, it is only de minimis.

In the remarks that follow, although it is difficult to arrange them very logically, I would not proceed without some system, 1. In the first place, I would caution the readers of the Repository against forgetting the true point of disagreement between me and professor Stuart.

In almost every discussion so much that is personal and so much irrelevant to the subject is introduced, that such a caution VOL. VII. No. 22.

57

as this is needful. And in the present case, I think that unless the reader makes a careful comparison of what professor Stuart and myself have written on this subject, he will almost inevitably conclude the difference between us to be much greater than it is in fact. In several instances he has argued against certain positions of geologists, or philologists, which I have also endeavored to refute; and he has not always informed the reader that we agree in such cases. Again, his article would lead the reader to suppose that I had decidedly adopted, as a part of my own private creed, many opinions which I have only described as the most plausible among those that have been proposed by others; and which it would be more reasonable to adopt, than to admit contradiction between geology and revelation. Indeed, I have merely taken this ground in respect to every point of interpretation in my essay, against which his remarks are directed. But the reader would infer from his article, that I am a sworn defender of the interpretations which he attacks.

What then is the precise point of difference between us, which being removed out of the way, we should have no controversy? I maintain that geology teaches us that the earth was in existence a long period before the creation of man and the existing races of animals, and that this opinion is not inconsistent with the Mosaic history. But professor Stuart contends, that Moses' account will not admit of such an interpretation; and that at present, little or no dependence can be placed upon the science of geology. We do not disagree as to the length of time which has elapsed since man and the existing races of animals were created, but only as to the length of time in which the earth has existed. I can hardly believe that any speculative opinion in religion is entirely disconnected with practice: but in the present case, I cannot see that any doctrine or precept of the Bible is affected disadvantageously by my views of the earth's chronology; though I think I can see how they enlarge our conceptions of the plans and benevolence of the Deity. Hence, there can be no apology for personal altercation, nor for the exhibition of strong feeling in the discussion of the subject. We both believe in the plenary authority and inspiration of the Bible, and even in the character of the great system of truth which it reveals; and in the general principles by which it is to be interpreted. Neither of us has ever had his faith in the truth of the Bible in the least shaken, or any fear produced that it wonid ultimately suffer, by the discoveries of science.