but we must glance at the special adaptation of Mr. Foster's book to promote holiness of heart and life. We must allow him to speak for himself, so far as to indicate his peculiar power in amplification, explanation, argument and persuasion. The first object of a writer, is to be understood; and whoever would appreciate the manner in which Mr. Foster accomplishes this object, must read all the didactic parts of his book, but especially from the thirty-seventh to the seventy-eighth page. He has given an able analysis of the different views in answer to the question, "What is the highest attainable moral and spiritual excellence in this life?" He then anticipates an objection-No two men are alike; and all should be, if raised to the same standard of moral excellence. He explains :

"There is one thing which ought to be taken into the account here, as having a most important practical bearing on the subject; the influence upon character, of both body and mind--an influence quite as discernible in the sanctified state as in other stages of religious experience. Two men equally, and, if you please, entirely holy, may, under certain circumstances, appear with very different advantage, and may generally indeed exhibit quite variant manifestations of character. If judged of without respect to constitutional make and educational influences, and peculiar circumstances and temptations, they may seem most dissimilar, when in truth they are equally holy in the sight of God. It is for this reason mainly that we ought not to judge without palpable indications. One man is of a highly nervous temperament-another is as decidedly imperturbable; one is sanguine-the other distrusting; one is impulsive-another dispassionate: now let all these be brought under the influence of sanctifying grace; it will not change their temperaments all into one -it will not remove the constitutional differences between them, but only control and regulate them. They will be seen, and will impart diversified shade to character, and to different minds will increase or diminish the admiration or otherwise, which character must always awaken," &c.—Pp. 66, 67.

The whole paragraph should be read. We have not room for it. But what relief it affords to a doubting mind, and what a rebuke to cold and invidious criticism!

Our author thus proceeds to show that "holiness is a state in advance of mere justification and regeneration:

"Regeneration is not entire sanctification: the merely regenerate are not sanctified; they are not entirely freed from sin; they are not perfect in love. Their sins are pardoned; their nature is renewed; they are become children of God; a wonderful and glorious work has been wrought for them and in them, by which they are rescued from the dominion of sin, and become heirs of the promises: but great and glorious as the work is which they have experienced, and exalted and blessed as are the privileges and destiny to which it entitles them, and will assuredly secure to them if retained, yet it is not a complete qualification for heaven-an entire freedom from sin; they are nothow glorious soever their estate, how much to be esteemed and prized, and no language can magnify its moment-they are not completely holy, entirely sanctified; the old man of sin is not dead, but subjected--not cast out, but bound-not crucified, but brought into captivity."-Pp. 69, 70.

We regret that we have not room for other extracts from the ex

cellent "advice to those professing holiness." We would refer with commendation to the cautions given on pages 214–217.

But many will say, We understand, but do not believe you; to which he replies with a torrent of argument, both direct and indirect, that is absolutely overwhelming. The following is taken from the introduction to his argument from the Bible:

"It (holiness) breathes in the prophecy-thunders in the law-murmurs in the narrative-whispers in the promises-supplicates in the prayers-sparkles in the poetry-resounds in the songs-speaks in the types-glows in the imagery-voices in the language-and burns in the spirit, of the whole scheme, from its alpha to omega, from its beginning to its end. Holiness! Holiness needed! Holiness required! Holiness offered! Holiness attainable! Holiness a present duty-a present privilege--a present enjoyment, is the progress and completeness of its wondrous theme! It is the truth glowing all overwebbing all through revelation; the glorious truth which sparkles, and whispers, and sings, and shouts, in all its history, and biography, and poetry, and prophecy, and precept, and promise, and prayer; the great central truth of the system. The wonder is, that all do not see, that any rise up to question, a truth so conspicuous, so glorious, so full of comfort.”—P. 80.

Take the following as a specimen of the fearless and triumphant manner in which Mr. Foster sustains his position:—

"Again: if holiness is not attainable in this life, then it cannot be required; or if it is not attainable, and yet is required, then an impossibility is required. [Mr. Foster almost seems to imagine he has Mr. Rice in his fingers again.] If the last consequence is assumed, then it follows that God is guilty of the grossest injustice; for he requires an impossibility. No Christian mind certainly can embrace this alternative for a moment. But, then, take the remaining alternative. Such a state is not required. What follows? Manifestly this: if entire freedom from all sin is not required, then some sin may be felt or indulged properly, innocently, without guilt; for it is contrary to no requirement-the transgression of no law-and cannot, therefore, involve guilt or crime. But, further, admit that God does not require men to be free from all sin, then this follows,--entire freedom from sin is not best, (it is better to have some sin remain;) or, if entire freedom from sin is best, better then that some sin should remain, and yet God does not require it, then the unavoidable consequence is, God does not require what is best. Neither one of these postulates can be admitted-no one will contend for either: but their admitted absurdity is fatal to the premises."-Pp. 95-97.

We have room for no further extracts upon this mode of amplification. Our readers will perceive that Mr. Foster is a close and powerful reasoner. Indeed he absolutely crushes an opponent. He shuts him in and pelts him with such merciless severity as really to excite our sympathy. If Mr. Foster gets sight of an error, explanations and even apologies in its behalf are just as impossible as they would be useless.

But our author realizes that multitudes are saying, We are convinced, we both understand and believe you, but we do not intend to act. He must therefore try his power of persuasion. Listen to his appeals:

"You attach value to wealth, beauty, learning, good name, happiness. It is well. These are all desirable; but how less than dust in the balance are they when compared with conscious, inviolable virtue! Would you not prefer to be the hero of a single virtue, rather than conqueror of the world?—a martyred Paul, shining in radiant vestments, rather than a bloody Alexander, dazzling with the splendours of conquest? Why do you attach the idea of beauty and glory to angels? Is it not because they are holy,-because they love with a perfect love, adore with perfect adoration, and glow with a perfect fervour? If they sing sweetly, is it not because they feel purely? Is it not holiness which spreads joy over all the celestial regions? which causes the gush and rapture of the skies? which kindles the lustre and awakens the song of heaven? which suffuses the very spirit of Jehovah with his ineffable glory, and the spirits of all his holy worshippers with inexpressible and everlasting bliss? Surely, if this be so, we are correct, when we assume that there is, in the very nature of holiness, an infinite motive to its gain. Rubies are not so precious, and nothing that can be desired can be compared unto it.-Pp. 186, 187.

What Christian can read this passage without feeling his heart burn with desire to be holy? The persuasion is powerful, and it is followed by others equally so. Purchase the book-read it over and over again-lend it-give it to your friends-scatter it broad-cast with your fervent prayers for the blessing of God upon its lucid instructions, its cogent arguments, and its irresistible appeals.

The precise relation of this book to the theme is that of a warm and stirring persuasive argument, characterized as an appeal to the heart. It is easy for the reader to see that the author writes because he wants something done. True, he explains, but it is that he may prepare the way for action; he reasons, but only that he may remove the obstacles to the results he wishes to achieve; and upon his attempts to rouse the Church, to induce the highest efforts of faith, and the actual experience of the glorious truth that "the blood of Jesus cleanseth from all sin," he concentrates all his explanations, all his arguments, and all his power. Persuasion pervades the work from beginning to end, and this is precisely the reason why we pronounced it a book for the times. The Church needs instruction, she needs building up in the theoretical faith of our fathers, of course, now as ever. But it is not this chiefly and peculiarly that constitutes the want of the present. Christians need to be roused to a sense of their duty, and induced to do it. And while such vigorous efforts are made to accomplish it, let every one see that they are not made in vain.

ART. II.-THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS IN THE INTRODUCTION TO JOHN'S GOSPEL, CHAP. I, 1-18.

[SECOND PAPER.]

Verse 13. Οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων (scilicet ἐγεννήθησαν),] This is added as a caution against the natural inference with a Jewish mind as to the mode of γενέσθαι τέκνα. This title the Jews claimed as exclusively applicable to themselves, (John viii, 41.) There were three ways in which alone persons became members of the Jewish Church, and these, accordingly, we think are expressly referred to by the several negations of this verse. The first and chief mode of being constituted a Jew was by descent from Abraham: on this all pure Israelites prided themselves and relied for favour with God, (compare Matt. iii, 9; John viii, 33, 34;) to this mode corresponds the present & aipárov. The Hebrew pluralis excellentia is here used for the singular, an idiom that even occurs in Euripides, Ion, 693, ἄλλων τραφεὶς ἀφ' αἱμάτων, sc. ἄλλης μητρός. The allusion to successive ancestors is doubtful. The article is omitted for the sake of generalization; q. d., no blood, however noble, that may flow through their veins. 'Ek shows their origin; or, aiμá¬wv being taken in the metaphorical sense of descent, it will then indicate the referential cause, in virtue of which ¿yevvýnoav is predicated.

Οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός,] The second mode of introduction into Judaism is here referred to; namely, by one's own choice (equa σαρκός, that is, ἴδιον) as a proselyte. Σάρξ is put continually in the New Testament for corrupt human nature, and here gives the invidious meaning of caprice to déλnua. The meaning, thus derived, that regeneration is not the effect of any personal efforts or native inclination, is consistent with the context and with sound doctrine. The view adopted by many interpreters, that the plural aiμárov implies the union of both parents in generation, and that caprós here signifies the female, and dvdpós the male, while véλnua indicates the sexual passion involved, is not only too gross, but too farfetched and hair-spun to be admitted when any other easy explanation can be found; for what need would the Evangelist have of guarding against a mistake as to regeneration so egregiously sensual? Under this supposition, moreover, σaρkóç and dvdpós would absolutely require the article, and even aiμárov could hardly dispense with it. Zapкóç needs no article here, because avrov is understood, which sufficiently specifies oapróç; if rs had been expressed without the reflexive avrov, the sense might have been

mistaken for human nature in general, instead of that of these individuals: oapkóc is in fact an attributive adjunct here, equivalent to φυσικόν. Θελήματος lacks the article, like αἱμάτων, for the sake of generalization,-q. d., any instinctive action of the will. 'Ex here marks the causal origin.

Οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός,] The third and only remaining mode of admission to Jewish privileges was by adoption into a native family; with allusion to this, àvôoóc here denotes some other person at whose instance (véλnua) the citizenship is granted. This could only be done by the male head of the family, ἀνήρ; ἀνθρώπου would also have too closely resembled the subjective oaρkós preceding. The other points are explicable as in the foregoing clause.

̓Αλλ' ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν.] Here the true mode of supernatural regeneration is introduced by the strong adversative åλλá. 'Ek is still used as the technical sequent of yevváouai, but continues its causal acceptation, only made more direct. Whether eyevvývŋoav has here its proper passive sense begotten, or the more general neuter one of born, is not to be too nicely discriminated; it may be observed, however, that the former strict use would rather have required vò Θεοῦ, ἐκ being properly applied to the female parent. Θεοῦ has no article, the phrase being really an adverbial one-divinitus. For a more full explanation of the doctrine contained in ἐγεννήθησαν, after Christ's emphatic statement in John iii, 5-8, we can only refer to that best expositor, experience. The proper recognition of the truths of this verse would have saved the Church many a practical error in after times!

Verse 14. Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο] The second part of the Introduction, the aspect of the Logos from without, here begins with the continuative of transition, καί. Σὰρξ is obviously used in its strictly physical sense, but by synecdoche for the entire human nature, including, as we believe, a proper soul as well as body. 'Eyévero of course only has reference to the outward form, and not the interior essence, the ethereal being assumed a fleshly shape, tangible to sense; yet the term precludes both the notion of a mere paois, like the spectral Æon of Gnosticism, and also that of a mere residence, as with some modern errorists, there was an actual identity (but not confusion) of the Divine and human natures within. this "Immanuel." The date of this event was the conception, compare Luke i, 35.

Kai kokivwoεv ev quiv,-] This comprises the duration of his incarnate state on earth, (uiv,) especially his ministerial career. This entire period was so short, contrasted with his pre-existence, that it is compared to a lodging in a okŋvý,—a figure familiar and forcible