of consecration and devotedness to his service, such as characterizes the world in carrying forward its enterprises? Notwithstanding all the past apathy and remissness of the church, I believe she will yet arise and give herself to this work, with a zeal and devotedness that will put the world to shame, and that, as the result thereof, "the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord Christ."

But with many there has been no difficulty in seeing the importance and need of such a professorship; but they do not see how it can be established at this present time. With me, however, there is no insuperable difficulty in its establishment, if only the need and importance of it is felt by those who are interested in the cause of foreign missions. A plan which has been suggested to me appears quite practicable for a trial measure, subject to subsequent modifications. For the present, let the professorship not be connected with any one of the Seminaries. Let the arrangements be made by which the professor will deliver his course of lectures at each of the Theological Seminaries once in two or three years, as may be considered desirable. The subjects of the lectures are such that the whole three classes in each Seminary could hear them at the same time, and be equally profited thereby; because it would not be necessary for the Junior Class to have attended upon any of the Seminary course as a prerequisite for attending them. And the students of the Junior Class may as properly consider the question of their own personal duty to the heathen at an early period of their Seminary course as at a later period.

It may be proper to present an answer to some of the objections that may be made to the establishment of such a professorship. By some it will be objected that it will take away a man from the place where he is very useful now to fill this new chair. This is, indeed, true. And the very best man for the situation ought to be sought. But if the necessity and importance of the professorship are as great and urgent as they are represented to be, then it will be a wise and proper position for the most useful and gifted

man; for it is a received axiom in such cases, that the man who trains others for greater usefulness in the ministry is doing more for his Saviour and his fellow-men than he could do by his own personal labor in the ministry.

The expense of the endowment of another professorship will be to some an objection. But to me this appears a very small matter. The endowments of all our seminaries together must amount to several millions of dollars. But not one dollar of this amount is with direct and specific reference to the foreign work of the church. When it is considered that this foreign work is regarded as of the very first importance, and that it is the most difficult; and when a single religious denomination aims to expend four, five, or six hundred thousand dollars annually in the cause of foreign missions, can it be considered an unwise expenditure to use some three thousand dollars in paying the salary of a professor to give suitable and specific instruction to those who go forth to carry on the work? I would consider it a most wise and judicious expenditure; and so would it be considered in every well-conducted worldly enterprise. But besides this, it has not unfrequently happened that great expenses have been incurred by men being sent to a field for which they were not adapted. In some cases the physical constitution of the missionary has been entirely incapable of enduring the climate; in other cases the mental endowments and acquirements were not suited to the character of the people; and hence these parties have very soon retired from the field. Very many of such mistakes would be obviated if the young men had the requisite information before making up their minds as to their field of future labor.

By some it will be objected, that the time of the students in their theological course is so fully occupied already, that it is difficult to see how or when time can be secured for attendance on a new course of lectures. [This and some other objections will be answered in a future Article on a subject of the same nature with the preceding].

ARTICLE VI.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF GENESIS I. AND II.

BY REV. SAMUEL HOPKINS, MILTON, N.Y.

§ 1. CREATING.

THE Genesis of the material universe has long been a sealed book. Modern science has broken its seals, and revealed to us some of its primary lessons, such as these:

The entire matter which constitutes the present cosmos was originally in a gaseous state. By process of natural causes, involving immense time, this primal mass was separated into individual masses; and these masses were gradually consolidated into those worlds and families of worlds which now, without speech or language or voice, declare the glory of God.

These and kindred matters are announced to us, not as the results of profound thinking merely, but as facts; as facts grasped by dint of laborious research and exhaustive calculations; as facts attested by the most eminent masters in the different schools of astronomy, physics, chemistry, and geology. Consequently, the several results, supported by such testimony, are rightly accepted as above controversy and beyond doubt.

There is another book of Genesis, written by the Hebrew prince who delivered his people from bondage; written in his vernacular, now an unspoken language for more than two thousand years. This book also sets forth a history of a creation. The wise and the good of many generations have cherished it with devout reverence; and Christian sages of the present age study it the more eagerly and the more profoundly, because of the new Genesis which science has brought to light.

As these two revelations are continually brought into comparison, it is proper that we distinctly define our own position with reference to each, before entering upon our attempt to expound the venerable document before us. We therefore give the following statements as covering the whole ground from which we make our survey. We do not give them as axioms, or as the results of demonstrations; but as simple points which may fairly be assumed and conceded by all.

Postulate 1.-The cosmogonic doctrine of modern science, as stated above, is true.

Postulate 2.- The Mosaic account of creating is consistent with itself, and with all other statements bearing upon the same theme which occur in the Hebrew scriptures.

-

Postulate 3. The language of the Mosaic narrative, whether shaped under divine supervision or not, is to be interpreted according to the known and universal laws of human language. In other words, as a writer, the Hebrew narrator stands on the same level with other writers, and is to be judged by the same rules.

With these simple points constantly in mind, and with a tremulous conviction that the health and thrift and moral power of the Church, the religious interests of the world, and inspiring views of God, are critically involved with right and wrong in the reading of the Bible's first leaf, we proceed at once to our investigation of its original text, and shall endeavor honestly and strictly to evolve the true force of its several parts. We shall aim also to give our reasons (such as they may be) for every expository step; never allowing ourselves to rest upon any mere conjecture, however plausible.

"In the beginning." There is no such thing as a “beginning" absolute. In all languages, the word is a relative term. Like the words "end," "middle," "whole," "part," "surface," "centre," and many others, it must, Hebraically speaking, be in the "construct state." It can never be written without a genitive after it, expressed or implied. In Deut. xxxiii. 21, its genitive is implied, and is to be found

by reference to the historical fact (Num. xxxii. 1-5, 33–36), that Gad "provided" for himself "the beginning of" the allotments of the several tribes. In Isa. xlvi. 10, the genitive is also implied: "declaring from the beginning of”— everything" the end of" everything. In the case before us, the genitive is expressed by "the heaven and the earth." "In the beginning of " them (i.e. " in their beginning) God did create the heaven and the earth."

The word "create" (7) requires our careful examination, with an eye particularly to the dictum of schoolmen, that its true idea is that of creation, out of nothing, of matter in an unformed state." Our only proper authority for appeal is Hebrew usage.

After carefully examining every single case in which this word occurs, and observing its several contextual relations, it seems to us very clear that it denotes uniformly the forming of matter after and beyond its mere being. In our view, it seems to stand always avowing, by its relative positions, its own definition without ambiguity, and without equivoque: "To produce something by operating upon some object, or objects, already existing." More laconically: "To produce something new out of something older." We refrain from citing each text in which it occurs, only because it would be a tedious and thankless task. And yet, even if this our conclusion be conceded, it does not prove that "to create," means in Gen. i. 1 the same which it means elsewhere. We therefore take another step. Our writer uses the two words, "to create" and "to make," to express the same divine acts. We give examples: God purposed "to make" man. (Gen. i. 26). What he did, was "creating" him (i. 27). If, now, the two words have different meanings, then did God purpose one thing and do another! But if they mean the same, then, with God, "creating" was the same as "making." "God created man in his [own] image" (i. 27). But also: "In the likeness of God, he made him" (v. 1); "in the image of God he made him" (ix. 6). "God created the heaven and the earth" (i. 1). "God made