escape from the bondage of superstition is called by the great philologist, the Oxford professor already quoted, in language which would seem extravagant in other lips, "the most momentous in this momentous century."1 The very sight of Christian men and women and Christian family life is working a wonderful result in all who behold it. The silent, yet resistless power of the spiritual in Christianity is well expressed by the saying of an African chief, who, when asked to send his children to school, replied: "I am afraid of that white man; he comes and sits down softly in my country; I don't know what he will do." 2 Finally, the missionary work is peculiarly attractive to youth. In addition to the lofty motives that inspired the pioneers, there is now an accumulated impulse from their own character. Missionary biography affords delightful attractions. There is nothing more instructive in all recent literature, nor more worthy the attention of scholars, than the volumes which record their life and work. All classes of men may find absorbing interest in the life of Bishop Patteson, whose piety and self-devotion shine through every trait of his brilliant culture. It is for the youth of our day to study these inspiring examples. That is the period of life when spiritual forces take strongest hold. Then selfsacrifice is easy, and appears glorious. The mind is not bound by custom, nor hampered by suggestions of worldly prudence. The movements of this missionary age originated in the minds of the young. Youthful enthusiasm pressed them into life and efficiency when older men doubted and condemned. The twenty-five years which remain of this century are years of vast importance to the world. Those now entering upon life will doubtless witness remarkable changes, in which they may take an important part. Let them remember that with the missionary work all other Christian work is vitally connected. Let them remember that no church can be truly prosperous that does not 1 Lecture on Christian Missions. 2 Gammell's History of American Baptist Missions, p. 252. stretch forth its hands to aid the diffusion of the gospel to the ends of the earth. Let them remember that Christ makes distant things near; that we ourselves are the children of those who were converted from heathenism by heralds from afar; that we are now living on the other side of the world from the birth-place of Christianity; and that the remotest pagans are more accessible to us than Italy and Spain were in the days of Paul. The coming generation of Christians may carry the triumphs of the gospel to every part of the world, and only on condition that they are faithful to this high calling can they expect to retain its power at home. ARTICLE II. AN EXPOSITION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF GENESIS I. AND II. BY REV. SAMUEL HOPKINS, MILTON, N.Y. § 6. LIGHT. THE first potential act of creating is expressed by the divine word, "Let light be." We know no definition of light so complete, terse, and unexceptionable as that given by a Christian apostle: "Whatsoever doth make manifest is light" (Eph. v. 13). Without any philosophical pretension, it covers all applications of the word. We accept it. We are content with it—the more readily and perfectly, because philosophers themselves have so remarkably failed, differing among themselves in their own definitions. We say, then, that the light here introduced to our notice was the somewhat which made material objects manifest or visible. "Let light be." In all languages the verb of existence is more often used to denote some qualified or some local existence than to denote it only in the abstract, or irrelatively. When the verb and its subject stand alone,-without surroundings, precedents, or sequences, it then denotes existence merely. As in the statement "God is," in distinction from this, "God is good"; or from this, "God is in this place." In the case before us, the verb and its subject do not stand alone, but with qualifying surroundings. Place and condition of place are its immediate antecedents, essentially qualifying its import: "the waters," place; the waters in "darkness," condition of place. At this point the writer limits himself to the field of this our own world in its then condition-earth-solid and waterdeep and darkness. The next statement, therefore, is not that God called light into being, but that he called it to be here on the face of the waters-in the place where the darkness was. A definite presence, in a definite locality, and in lieu of a definite light-absence, is the simple idea presented. Standing, as the words do, in close sequence to the statement of a contrary and preceding state, they legitimately signify only, let light be in the place of that darkness. They do not present the idea that there was no light in existence; and therefore we have a right to say that there may have been light elsewhere, when upon "the deep" there At least, we have no right to reverse our supposition, and to interpret the phrase as signifying that there was no light elsewhere; no right to suppose that the "thick darkness" the world's " swaddling-band "- was "thick" as infinite space. Indeed, the invocation intimates, if it does not signify, that there was light somewhere else, and that the foreign light should come. was none. Thus, for aught which yet appears in the text, there may have been light elsewhere at the very moment next preceding the invoking word. If the words indicate anything on this point, they indicate that there was; and if any reader or interpreter be disposed to exclude all idea of light existing away from the surface of the deep, he should at least pause and ask himself: "How do I know that there was none?" This interpretation detracts vastly from the grander and electric idea of the birth of light,-of cosmic light, of universal light, commonly considered to be here expressed; and, as we are aware, it must seem almost profane to those who have hitherto clung, with reverent awe, to the traditional and sanctified interpretation. But we cannot, for we may not, read here," ubiquitous, first-born light" for the writer himself forbids us. He does so by expressly defining our horizon, the narrow limit of our own world. How can we extend the horizon? Would not this be "profane"? 1. Scientific experts tell us of "cosmical light"—a light co-extensive with the universe. We have no disposition to question their philosophy; as little, to question that so great a light was sufficient for the case in hand. But, if we understand them correctly, their doctrine is this: That the primal state of universal matter was that of inconceivably boundless and minute diffusion, and also of absolute quiescence; that, moreover, the first grand orgasm of this universal matter was productive of a flash of light co-extensive with itself. Be it so. Now it has been assumed, somewhat axiomatically, that this light was the light which came in obedience to the invocation here recorded. Was it? or was it not? We think that the assumption disproves itself; and for this reason,that the sacred historian here brings to our view not primal matter universally diffused and unindividualized, but a specific portion of universal matter already solidified and individualized, viz. our own world, and which had also attained to its solidity and individuality long before. Therefore cosmical light, which must have been evolved long before any condensation and separation of world-bodies, could not have been produced at the time when this creative drama opened. To say that it was, is simply to perpetrate a very great anachronism. -- 2. Again. Was this light an entity latent in "the deep," or in "the darkness" on the deep, a light which God commanded to come out thence literally? (Lange, pp. 130, 165.) Sometimes called "auroral," because the polar night (!) is presumed to "give rise to the northern aurora"! We have two grave objections to such statements. First, they are purely conjectural. They have no more support from the text than any other conceivable possibility has. We cannot allow ourselves to admit conjecture to the office of interpreter. Secondly, the statements are inconceivable. To us it is not conceivable that light, which "makes manifest," should be where there is no manifestation; that it should be hidden within an opaque body, except in the sense of being boxed up, as "under a bushel" a sense too low and puerile for a theme so august. It is also inconceivable that light should be in darkness, which is simply a nonentity -the absence of light. The statement is equivalent to this -that light is present where it is absent! If any one cites that expression of Paul, referring to this same event," God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness" (2 Cor. iv. 6), we have only to reply, that this is English, and not Greek. Paul's words are: "OT Θεὸς ὁ εἰπών· ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψει. The Greek particle è, “out of,” like all particles, very variable in its significations, resents being made to represent an absurdity. Therefore we select for it one of its meanings which is not incongruous to its position here. We read it thus: "God who commanded the light to shine after darkness"; the particle denoting simply succession of time. Rejecting, therefore, and most decidedly, these two modes of answering our question, we repeat it: Whence came the world's light, when invoked? We will seek an answer which shall be in harmony with the obvious purpose and language of the writer, and independent of our previous interpretations. 1. The writer states, very simply: There was darkness on the deep; God commanded light to be on the deep; light was on the deep. This was written for the purpose of giving information. It was written to be understood, to be understood by usgentle and simple, learned and unlearned alike who know of no other light to the world than that which comes, directly or indirectly, from the world's sun. Consequently, if we |