outward expression in the countenance and gesture. It is folly, indeed, to refrain from this natural and effective expression, simply because some men fall into bad habits.

In conclusion, we sum up what has been said in a few words. We preach in the Christian church, because the WORD OF GOD exists and SPEECH exists. The Word of God is to be kept before the people, that they may "be built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." And, as speech is the fittest means of keeping this word before the people, speech must be used, according to its own laws, in the fittest way to accomplish the great end of edification. A truly scientific homiletics can occupy itself only about these two great points-the Word and its utterance; and will remember that ecclesiastical usage can alter or remove nothing that is essential to these. We hope that PALMER, to whom we cordially extend the right hand of fellowship, will elevate his mind to a greater unity of conception, and will employ the valuable materials which he has collected in the preparation of a new and scientific Homiletics, a work to which he evidently has a decided calling.

ART. V.-Reply to Rev. T. M. Hopkins on Jasher.

We took occasion, in a former number of the Review, (October, 1845,) to consider a series of arguments which had been adduced in the Biblical Repository of January, 1845, purporting to demonstrate that the passage in Joshua, which declares that the sun and moon stood still, is an interpolation. Our object was to seek and embrace the truth; to defend the integrity of our sacred Scriptures where they are not manifestly corrupted; and to rebuke the rashness that would yield, for slight reasons, to reject a portion of what is written therein.

The writer in the Repository, Rev. T. M. Hopkins, has seen fit to reply in a way which demands from us a brief notice.

We are sorry Mr. Hopkins chose to use, on such a subject, only vituperation and smart sayings, that might be considered discourteous if it liked us so to take them. We should have preferred his arguments. For by this means, calmly and candidly used, we may gain a clearer knowledge of Scripture; by the former, we shall mend neither head nor heart.

We are willing he should call himself Homer's frog, for the sake of calling us the snail; we only object to his trying to make

us hop. As snail, we like it best to crawl; and claim no kin to the hop-ping race. But we pass such dainties. Though they constitute the favorite dish of some, we presume the readers of the Review will not greatly relish them.

We propose to give simply a synopsis of Mr. Hopkins' reply, and show, in part, where he has misunderstood us; we will not say misrepresented, for that would imply a moral obliquity that we cannot lightly charge on a man and a Christian minister; and we are sorry, again, that he should have felt disposed so to charge us, because, in one place, we omitted a word, the use of which we probably did not perceive. But "the readers of the Methodist Quarterly Review, who may have read the statement" as we made it, shall have the full benefit of the author's own corrections.

He complains of us as "representing the writer [Mr. H.] to have said, that 'not a single expression in Habakkuk, chapter iii, can be, for a moment, supposed to have had reference to an act that ever transpired.' By omitting the word 'literally' in this sentence," Mr. H. adds, "he has put into the writer's mouth what the writer never said."-Bib. Rep., April, 1846, p. 293. Mr. H. will permit us to place by the side of this complaint what we did represent. We quoted his language, first, as follows: The expression in Hab. iii, 11, "The sun and moon stood still in their habitation," "should not be thought to have had a reference to an event which actually took place." And a few lines below: "No one supposes for a moment that a single one of the remaining declarations [of this chapter] ever referred to a transaction which at any time literally occurred." And when, a few lines after, we said in our own language, not using quotation-reference to any act that ever transpired-we thought, in the simplicity of our understanding, we embraced all his meaning; but if we did not, it was there in his own words. Of course, we would not write as our own language-literally transpired-though we did twice quote his expression, "literally occurred." We hope our works without words will show that we did not intend to represent unfairly; and we frankly say now to "the readers of the Methodist Quarterly Review" that Mr. H. wishes to say, "Not a single expression in Hab. iii can be, for a moment, supposed to have had reference to an act that ever literally transpired."*

It may not be improper to append here a few of the expressions of which it is so dogmatically asserted that "no one supposes for a moment that a single one of them referred to an event that ever literally occurred." Verse 5. "Before Him went the pestilence; and burning coals (margin, burning diseases) went forth at his feet." Now we read in Numbers xi, 33, "The wrath of

Our readers will now see our whole error. We acknowledge it. When quoting his language, we adhered scrupulously to his words -"actually took place”—which is good English—and “literally occurred" -a phrase which we could never consent to use in our own name. And because we chose not to imitate an unenglishism, which could add nothing to the sense, we are honored profusely with the charge of "misrepresentation," and unfairness, and want of "veracity."

We have been thus particular in exhibiting fully, and confessing the whole "head and front of our offending;" and we wish it distinctly noted and remembered, that this is the only instance in which even our lynx-eyed defender of literalities has found any unfairness in our presentation of his views and arguments. We wish it further noted, that he has not pointed out in our arguments a single sophistry, or a fallacy, or attempted a refutation. It will be remembered that in our former article our object was mainly to test the validity of the arguments for this new notion of his. In only three places did we present a proposition, which we argued the LORD was kindled against the people "-(one of the commonest figures to express strong emotion or sensation, that of heat, fire, burning, ardent, &c.,)— "and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague." Indeed, so great was the destruction, by plague, and the fiery flying serpents, and by various calamities, that two only of all that came out from Egypt entered the promised land. The carcasses of a nation fell in the wilderness. We are reminded, too, of the three days of pestilence in the time of David, not to mention other so frequent and heavy strokes of public calamity, by pestilence and burning disease, as well as the cutting sword. Was there nothing to which one might suppose this to refer? These awful judgments are frequently referred to in the other prophets and in the Psalms, in language similar to this of Habakkuk.

Verse 6. "He beheld, and drove asunder the nations." Drive out, is the expression commonly used respecting the Canaanites, Jebusites, &c., who were displaced to make room for the children of Israel in the promised land. Who can prevent the association if he would? The mind will "refer," whether the prophet intended it or not.

Verse 9. "Thou didst cleave the rivers of the earth." Was Jordan parted?

Verse 10. "The mountains saw thee and trembled." Did Sinai quake under the thunderings of the Almighty?

Verse 15. "Thou didst walk through the sea with thy horses; through the heap of great waters." Ay; but which essaying to do, Pharaoh and his host perished.

Verse 11. "The sun and moon stood still in their habitation-thine arrows walked in the light," &c. Not so, says this purifier of holy writ—this is but the prophet's phrensy, and means nothing.

directly. The first was,―That in the course of human events it is not only possible, but probable, that after a glorious battle the rhapsodist should sing his song of victory before a history of the event should be written and published; and, in particular, that the history of Joshua was not written till after his day. Mr. Hopkins contents himself with calling it absurd; nay, the sublimity of absurdities, to suppose there could be a space of time sufficient even to wedge in the tiniest ode between the act acted and the history published. And upon this position of his hung his vitalest argument. The second was, to sustain our denial that Josephus refers to Jasher. This entire position of Mr. H., which, if made good, was, in our judgment, his weightiest one, he now abandons, and agrees with us on this point. The third was, that profane tradition does attest the miracle. He is evidently in doubt whether to receive the story of Phaeton as veritable tradition, hence originated, or not. For the rest, he has generally misunderstood us. But we proceed to give the synopsis.

The first argument against the genuineness of the passage that records the miracle, was,--" It is evidently an interruption of the narrative; an interruption which, when considered with reference to its own statement at the close, destroys the credibility of the passage."

On this Mr. H. says we "admitted the first argument in all its force." If he means such force as would bring us to his conclusions, he misunderstood us. We admitted his first premise, to wit, "It interrupts the narrative;" that is, of the battle, while the writer pauses to insert in its own place an account of the miracle. But from this premise we denied that any argument could proceed till this problem is first solved, to wit:--If the passage were genuine-for that is the question-how would it the less interrupt the narrative? Our conclusion was stated in these words, which we will do Mr. H. the charity to believe he overlooked :-"It would seem, therefore, that before we could argue this passage to be spurious, from the fact that it interrupts the narrative, it were incumbent to show how it would not interrupt the narrative if admitted to be genuine."

The other assertion, to wit, that verse fifteenth (which says that Joshua and the army returned to Gilgal) is not reconcilable with the context, we admitted in a qualified sense; not as he understands us to have done. But if admitted positively, we denied —that which Mr. H. has not yet attempted to prove--that there is any connection, natural or logical, between the fact of so stupendous a miracle and the question-where the army encamped the VOL. VII.-6

night after the battle. And we stated our conclusion, that " "if there be argument here, it certainly resolves itself into this: because the context, and the nature of things, seem to forbid the supposition that Joshua returned to Gilgal as stated in verse fifteenth; therefore, the Almighty did not put forth his power to arrest the sun and moon, as stated in verses twelfth and thirteenth."

If, then, this reviser of the sacred canon claims that as his argument, it is very true we admitted it "in all its force."

But Mr. H. misunderstood us again just here. We did not propose to reject verse 15. We only intimated that it seemed to us more rash in him to reject four verses than in Dr. Horne to reject one. We distinctly stated, that we think the whole difficulty of this verse is in the word Gilgal; and suggested two ways by which the difficulty might be relieved; one of which Mr. H. afterward attempted to quote, for a special object. He should have remembered this fact in connection with the gratuitous charge of excision. We are sorry again, now that his memory is so short; for certainly he could not have intended wrong.

We are next taken by an actual surprise. We confess it. Our critic has turned antiquary. He says he has got the book of Jasher-the real Jasher. He says it is as big as a Pentateuch. He says he can give "an extract" from it; and "a larger one than the disputed passage, yet one that embraces it!" How Euclidian! And this he utters apparently with the air as if he fancied himself the repositary of the mighty secret of the existence of such a book. For, after a complacent pause, he leniently proceeds: The reader will, of course, allow himself to smile at the idea just advanced; yet it is most true. 'The Book of Jasher is now lying before me; the veritable 'Sepher Hajasher,' (literally 'correct record,') with its chapters and verses, [!] and with the passage in dispute, is at hand.f... Presuming the reviewer [that's ourself] will be satisfied with the assurance that it claims to have been," &c. We certainly should be very ungrateful not to make our acknowledgments for such information thus assured But he goes on to increase the obligation, thus :-"The reader, it is presumed, and possibly the reviewer, [that's ourself again,] will be glad to see the entire passage from which the verses in dispute are thought to have been taken."

to us.

*

Our astonishment in all this is not at the modest presumption and the proffered "assurance," but that a man, and a divine, should * Does that word now imply anything? Perhaps there is another secret. Is at hand (?) We know what "is at hand" means, in the phrase commercial, and the phrase epistolary.