family of the human race: that this doctrine and the records of that intercourse were preserved pure in the scriptures of the Old Testament, but that both became distorted and corrupted in the minds of the heathens: that the doctrine pervades the details of the New Testament, is the true theory of the superior nature of the Saviour Jesus Christ, and shines with concentrated effulgence in the writings of St. John. Such appears to be the just inference from the consentaneous materials, both as it respects the term logos itself and the particulars constituting the doctrine, derived not only from the New and Old Testament, but from all collateral sources near and remote. 2. The doctrine of the logos affords an easy and entire solution. to all the exalted things both addressed to Jesus by his apostles while on earth and accepted by him, and asserted also concerning him by those whom he appointed and empowered to become the preachers of his Gospel to all nations. To the mind prepared with a knowledge of this doctrine, all those passages appear to stand forth in the most definite and brilliant relief; and the attempts. made to render them consistent with any humanitarian hypothesis. of the Messiah's nature seem not only to result from an unfor-tunate ignorance of the august meaning they plainly convey,. but to exhibit the most deplorable outrages of all legitimate: criticism. We particularly refer to the introduction to St. John's Gospel, the address of Thomas to his risen master, and numerous, other passages whose import clearly conveys the doctrines of the Saviour's pre-existence and glory; such as the following in St.. John's Gospel: i. 15, 18; vii. 27; viii. 58, 59; xvii. 5; vi. 62;: iii. 13; vi. 42, 46; viii. 14; v. 42; vi. 23; x. 30; v. 19. That the doctrine of the logos was familiar to the Jewish mind, is the solution of many incidents recorded in the New Testament. To this previous acquaintance with it we attribute the absence of surprise on the part of Nicodemus when he received our Lord's statements (John iii. 13-21), which have by some commentators been considered not as parts of our Lord's actual conversation with the teacher of Israel, but as gnomai of the evangelist upon the conversation. Upon the same principle we clearly understand the offence taken by the Jews that our Lord, who appeared without parade and ostentation, should claim priority of existence to. Abraham, not because they did not know that the Christ should have an unknown and even celestial origin, and abide for ever," but because their minds were too much swayed by objections Comp. Dan. vii. 13; Mal. iii. 1, &c.; xi. 27; xvi. 27; xxv. 31; Luke x. 27; Mar. viii. 38; 1 Cor. xv. 47; Phil. ii. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Heb. i. 3, 8; Eph. iv. 9.. For others see Kuinoel, Proleg. p. 114, sub finem. Comp. John vii. 27; xii. 34. derived derived from his outward condition ever to admit the idea that such prerogatives could belong to him." It was not the question with our Lord's contemporaries whether there was any divine logos, but whether that logos was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth. Nor did the termSon of God,' when first used by John the Baptist (John i. 34), sound in their ears with the strangeness of an unknown appellation; nor did the Sanhedrim revolt, like Mahomet, from the nature of such a relation, but simply from his assumption of it. Art thou the Son of God? Ye say that I am.' This was his blasphemy.' 3. While, however, we deplore the consequences which have resulted in the Unitarian interpretation of the New Testament from ignorance of this subject, we equally lament the extravagances in criticism, owing to the same cause, which are chargeable upon the advocates of a tritheistical hypothesis. The effort to maintain extreme opinions produces results which nearly coincide. Hence controvertists on both sides have done similar violence not only to the sacred text, but to all the auxiliary sources of information. How frequently have they adduced passages from both Jewish and Christian writers, which in an insulated state are flexible for almost any purpose, but which when restored to their proper connection speak a very different language! How foreign from the minds of the original writers may be the deductions derived from a series of such quotations! The consequence of such a proceeding on the part of writers reputedly orthodox has been that the Socinian has run to the opposite extreme, and, as Whiston remarks, by a sad ἀμετρία τῆς ἀνθολκής has been so affrighted by unjustifiable notions about the Trinity as to affirm that Jesus had no existence till he was born of the Virgin Mary. From among the many species of critical malversation alluded to, we will give one instance of overtranslation from Archbishop Wake's Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers, of the following passage, which, be it observed, is not attended by any various readings, at least by any affecting the point in view. Δοξαζων Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν θεὸν τὸν οὕτως ὑμᾶς Gopioavτa, which the Primate renders, I glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom.' The discerning reader is well aware that the sense of this passage, although an indubitable instance in which Jesus Christ is called God, is not correctly represented in this translation. The fact is that disputants on both sides have too often submitted their materials to the destructive standard of Procrustes. The time may come when extreme views on both sides may subside into the safer and more scrip 6 tural medium. Many partisans in each have yet to learn that the only legitimate province of the enquirer is to gather up the details of revelation, and practically to use them without either presuming or feeling it requisite to form an hypothesis from them; and that still more gratuitous and unphilosophical is the procedure of bringing a previously formed hypothesis to bear upon revelation. The great difficulty of the subject arises solely from the misapplied introduction into it of theory, which, of whatever kind, leads almost certainly to the fabrication of some nexus requisite either to give consistency to the whole, or to unite some of its several portions. Most cordially do we re-echo the following sentiment of a living prelate The only ancient, only catholic truth is, the Scriptural fact. Let us hold that fast in its depth and breadth-in nothing extenuating-in nothing abridging-in simplicity and sincerityand we can neither be Sabellians, or Tritheists, or Socinians.' The fact is that the catholic doctrine of our Saviour's person is often mistaken both by its adversaries and upholders, who may frequently be found contending for and against merely their own mistaken notions of it. That doctrine is thus comprehensively stated by one of its ablest expounders, Bishop Bull: Qui filium proprie dici posse auréosov hoc est a se ipso Deum, pertinaci studio contendunt. Hæc sententia catholico consensui repugnat.'a ▾ Dr. Hampden. Bampton Lectures, 1832, p. 149, 150. 6 ON ON THE MIRACLE OF JOSHUA. By J. VON GUMPACH. ALTHOUGH on the doctrine of miracles it will be difficult for theologians to agree, until they shall have first agreed on the precise nature and the definition of a miracle, yet the two most essential points of that doctrine are admitted by all, namely, that it is in the power of the Almighty to suspend the laws of His own creation whenever He may judge it proper so to do; and that the necessary qualification of a miracle is its answering some grand, lasting, and ostensible purpose. In cases, therefore, in which the miraculous character of an event related in Holy Scripture is subject to doubt, our first inquiry must be,-Does the narrative of the sacred writer point to an end so important, and of a tendency so lasting, as to warrant the conclusion on our part that, in order to accomplish it, the All-wise Being, whose eternal laws sustain the universe, should, though but for a moment, have disturbed those laws? and our second-Has the great aim contemplated been accomplished? If to these questions the context of Scripture returns us no satisfactory answer, it ought to be a proof to us that no miracle is spoken of, and that the difficulty we may experience in explaining the scriptural meaning, arises solely from our own deficiency in, or want of, that particular knowledge necessary for its natural solution.a Few passages in the Old Testament have attracted greater attention, and, as to their true meaning, have been more variously interpreted than the well-known passage in the Book of Joshua, ch. x. 12-14. The chosen people of God had entered the Promised Land; as far as Jericho and Ai the country had fallen into their possession, and the Gibeonites, under false pretences, bought peace from Joshua at the price of freedom. When the news of these events reached the ear of Adoni-zedek, the Jebusite king of Jerusalem, he at once, in unison with four of the most powerful chiefs of the Amorites, prepared to oppose the further Le miracle,' says Léon de Laborde, in his Comment. Geogr., p. 94, 'n'a pas besoin d'un grand appareil de science et de recherches; il suffit de lire le texte et d'y croire. True, where the text is clear and plain. Our readers will not, we hope, overlook that we speak of passages of doubtful meaning. In regard to such, we hold it to be as sinful, without due inquiry, to impute to the Supreme Being acts unworthy, as far as our poor understanding enables us to judge, of His infinite wisdom, as we would hold it to be to doubt the veracity of His distinctly written word. progress progress of the conquering invaders; and, in order to deter other tribes from following the example set by the Gibeonites, to inflict a severe chastisement, for their cowardly submission, on the latter, as well as to possess themselves of their strong and populous city. For this purpose the allied army had encamped before Gibeon. The sacred text, according to the authorized version, hereupon proceeds thus: Ver. 6. And the men of Gibeon sent unto Joshua to the camp to Gilgal, saying, Slack not thy hand from thy servants; come up to us quickly, and save us and help us for all the kings of the Amorites that dwell in the mountains are gathered together against us. 7. So Joshua ascended from Gilgal, he, and all the people of war with him, and all the mighty men of valour. 8. And the Lord said unto Joshua, Fear them not; for I have delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee. 9. Joshua, therefore, came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all night. 10. And the Lord discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Beth-horon, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah. 11. And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Beth-horon, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. 12. Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 14. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel. The majority of Christian expositors in adopting the view of Jesus Sirach (xlvi. v. 5), and of Josephus (Antiq. v. i. 17), have recognized a miracle in the event related in the latter verses of this passage. Yet if we apply to it the rule laid down above, it will lead, we apprehend, to a different conclusion. The issue of the battle against the five kings of the Amorites in favour of the children of Israel must necessarily be regarded as the ostensible purpose of the assumed miracle. This purpose certainly was accomplished. But were its results of a nature so vast and important, |