stantial, and marks the veracity of independent writers of memoirs. This miracle was of great use and importance, as symbolical of the state and awful end of the Jewish people: it was an impressive warning and admonition, conveyed in a manner not unusual among them, and previously employed by the Saviour,* with whose benevolence and wisdom it was in perfect harmony.

It has indeed been objected that it was irrational for him to look for fruit upon this tree, inasmuch as it was not the season of figs; which phrase the objectors arbitrarily understand of a season at which no figs were to be found: therefore they accuse Jesus of ignorance and injustice in now expecting any: and they more than insinuate that he cursed the tree in a fit of peevishness and disappointment. The objection is contradicted, however, by the fact: and the charge is entirely unfounded. Our evangelist tells us that "the time of figs was not yet" -the season for gathering the figs had not yet arrived. Might not Jesus Christ, then, the rather hope to meet with figs upon the tree? Its leaves would appear to be in a state that indicated the presence of fruit. Amidst them he sought fruit-however, there was none. Can we wonder at his disappointment, or pronounce it capricious? What is there of an absence of either a sound judgment or of becoming feelings in his language and conduct on this occasion?

But is our interpretation of the parenthetical clause admissible? We submit that it is so exclusively: "the time of figs was not yet," may in the ears of an English reader be ambiguous language: not to him who reads it, as it came from the evangelist. In all cases, the import of the word kaupòs is to be ascertained by the connection and the subject: and, even irrespectively of these, we may, in the present instance, appeal to two passages, as fully bearing out Hallet's excellent criticism† on Mark xi. 13. Consult Ps. i. 3, in the LXX translation: and with this text compare Matt. xxi. 34. The "time" of the fruit is, "the time of its ripeness," of "its being fit for men's gathering it." In like manner, "the time of figs" is, "the time of figs being mature and ready for use." Had this time been over when our Lord Jesus visited the tree in question, he could not have been astonished at his seeing none upon it; whereas, in his actual circumstances, the expectation which he cherished and intimated was altogether rational.

The author of Leben Jesu rejects this criticism and the reasoning by which it is sustained. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." We pass no censure on Dr. D. F. Strauss for bringing the contents of the four Gospels under the most searching investigation: nor are we offended at the difference in his views and judgments from ours. What we perceive with some disgust and grief is, that on the subject of the withered fig-tree he borrows from Woolston both refuted statements and unworthy sarcasms.‡

Let us turn to a far more accomplished writer-the historian of "the Hebrew Monarchy." Even in his pages there is often a want of the reverent and sober temper which should be exercised in treating of the claims of the records of Religion, whether by their impugners or their advocates. We subjoin one or two illustrations, under our notice of

*John ii. 13-25.

+ Discourses, &c. Vol. II. 114—125.

L. J. [Tübingen, 1840], B. ii. § 222–238.

*

Luke iv. 24-28, "many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias [Elijah]; *** but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus [Elisha] the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian"]. If we would render justice to the characters severally of Elijah and Elisha, these passages in their history should not be forgotten. We repeat, their history: for our Lord evidently viewed the transactions as real, and matters of universal belief among his countrymen, notwithstanding the strength of their national self-love. The intercourse of these distinguished persons with the respective objects of their kindness, on the occasions to which Christ adverts, is greatly honourable to each of the prophets so is the narrative recorded in 2 Kings iv. 1-8, to the memory of Elisha. Why does the historian of "the Hebrew Monarchy" pass these things in silence: why does he satisfy himself with placing before us only one side of the picture? He who carefully peruses the references which have just been made, and impartially compares them with other parts of the narration, will not pronounce that Elijah and Elisha were altogether deficient in "the tenderness of spirit," which, however, we allow, marked in a higher degree some of their contemporaries.

Our remaining comments on texts of Scripture will be directed to incorrectness of translation, since this frequently produces doubts and difficulties that would not otherwise exist.

Mark vii. 22,"covetousness" [Aεorečiai]. We should prefer, excessive, inordinate desires. Let the word be taken generally, and not of a single class of habits of feeling and action that go beyond lawful bounds. For this interpretation, we appeal to a valuable article in Wakefield's Silva Critica.‡

1 Tim. vi. 2, "believing-faithful." In each of the clauses the original word is the same [STOùs]: in each the persons spoken of are the same, viz., Christian masters of a family. Why then depart from an identity of rendering: why affect a variety of phrase which tends to mislead the English reader?§

It is time, however, that we return to the Dane Professor's volume. He annexes to his Harmony [pp. 408-457] a long and able NoTE on THE RESURRECTION: in this he aims at elucidating the difficulties -principally chronological-occurring in the evangelical narratives of the greatest of the events of our Saviour's history. We do not, at present, even touch on the questions which it involves: looking at it altogether, we think it entitled to praise, as being intelligent, faithful and instructive.

"At the suggestion of a very learned and eminent clergyman of the established church, the [London] publishers have added in an Appendix an accurate and elegant translation of the late learned French Advocate, A. M. J. J. Dupin's Refutation of the eminent Jewish writer, Joseph Salvador's Trial and Condemnation of Jesus,' executed by the late distinguished American Lawyer and Statesman, John Pickering, LL.D., &c. &c."

* 1 Kings xvii. 8, &c.; 2 Kings v. passim.

+ H. Heb. Mon. pp. 282, 283.

+ P. i. § xli.

§ The same blemish is conspicuous in the P. V. at 1 Pet. v. 13, 14.

Every purchaser and reader of the volume will be interested by these fragmentary portions of it: and he will judge for himself which of the two conflicting authors is victor in the argument. Both treatises are illustrative of high talent. Our sympathies, and, it may be, our prepossessions, are with M. Dupin: we trust, nevertheless, that something additional and superior to these justifies our award in his favour. "The trial of Jesus Christ" was, in effect, the trial of his pretensions to be the Messiah: its actual forms, however, were grossly irregular. Pilate had no legal jurisdiction over him, on the charge of Blasphemy. Even that charge could not be sustained: it was abandoned-one of Treason was substituted-and the Judge's persuasion of the innocence of his prisoner yielded to his political attachments and personal fears"If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend :-Then Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required." Still, Jesus was not less the anointed and beloved Son of God, for his undergoing the death of the Cross. His claims were amply vindicated by his resurrection.

As the whole of our review of these labours of Professor Greenleaf concerns the testimony of the evangelists, and the substance and records of the Christian evidences, we shall, in taking leave of our readers, make a few observations, which perhaps could not so properly have a place in what precedes of this article.

Former days and other countries have witnessed the existence of Unbelief in Revealed Religion: our notices of this state of mind must be limited chiefly to what is visible among ourselves. We are earnestly desirous of being at once just and candid in our estimate of the opinions of our countrymen-of their studies, their intellectual tastes, their literary, social and moral character: and we believe that we shall not offend against either candour or justice in affirming that the Scriptures are thrown aside for knowledge merely or principally secular; and that, in consequence, Revelation is not submitted to its legitimate test, but to simply human rules, creeds and standards. In most other inquiries, men are careful, earnest, reflecting, consistent, are sensible of the alliance between means and ends, and of the necessity of employing appropriate methods for the attainment of given objects. Are they such in Religion? We speak of the mass of the persons who have leisure and capacity for these investigations: and we fear that, unless we be unfaithful to our own convictions, we must answer in the negative.

He who has made some progress in Scriptural knowledge, will have perceived that the Mosaic was introductory to the Christian dispensation. They are not one and the same: THAT is gratefully confessed. On the other hand, they are not mutually opposed, in respect of their Author and their general character and design. We ought to view them under the analogies of infancy and manhood, of the very young and of the advanced pupil. They should be seen and judged of referably to the periods of time when they severally appeared, the people among whom they had their origin, and the purposes which, both respectively and jointly, they were destined to fulfil. Had they always been thus studied, many an ill-considered, and, we are grieved to add, many an offensive, attack upon these Revelations and the records of them, would have been obviated.

It is the neglect-the contempt-of Scriptural studies, which renders men indifferent to Christian Truth. They have no attachment to this, 4 x

VOL. IV.

no disposition to seek it, none to avow it in the degree in which it is found. Therefore they proclaim that it is unattainable, is not, cannot be, the subject of our definite convictions, nor, in reason, be definitely professed.

There are more compendious methods, beyond doubt, of dealing with the Christian evidences and with Christian doctrines, than that of trying them by the Scriptures. Perverted Science and Philosophy (for the best things lie open to most and the worst abuses) are at hand: these studies take the place of some that are severer-some which call for greater patience and labour and self-denial. Can we be astonished at the results of the substitution?

The pretensions of inspired religious teachers ought, unquestionably, to be tried by the evidence on which they themselves rest those claims. When the Lord Jesus declares, "The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me," who can misunderstand him? Is not this an appeal, in the plainest terms, to miraculous and historical evidence? Can it be set aside by any principle of interpretation? It is utterly impossible to examine what we call the internal testimony,-that which flows from the Great Teacher's doctrine, character, and similar considerations,-before we have received the outward or historical testimony. Otherwise we are in the land of fairy-of fictions and of shadows; not in the world of realities.-We cherish a warm esteem for many individuals who speak and write, with zeal, of the Christian's spiritual and inward life: nor can we wish them to be less firm and less ardent in recommending it, so long as they do not confound together things which differ-things distinct, yet far from being reciprocally opposed-so long as they do not mistake, or lead other men to mistake, the genius and power of our holy faith for the evidence of its first teachers' special Divine mission. The language, the reasoning, of the valuable persons whom we allude to, is, at any rate, incautious; and we are sure that, against their wishes, and in despite of their more guarded statements, it has been productive of bad effects.

The question at issue is, not what constitutes a practical, devoted Christian. Happily, we are here unanimous. Would that we were more so in placing its deserved stress on the historical branch of Christian evidences, on the testimony of prophets, evangelists and apostles! True, there may be, there is, another witness yet none to which the bulk of men can resort so easily, so justly, and so safely.

"Christian is the highest style of Man :" and we wonder not that all persons around us are eager to claim and vindicate and retain it. This is as it should be. We deny not "the worthy name to any individual who challenges it at our hands, any who demands to be so considered. When we are called to discuss the abstract thesis, What are the grounds [not the objects] of a faith in Christianity? we may, within our closets, apply ourselves to the solution of this problem.

* John xiv. 17.

N.

LETTER OF WORDSWORTH TO THE LATE MR. FOX.

[The following letter, which is characterized by exquisite beauty of style, and which is alike honourable to the writer and to the distinguished man to whom it was addressed, has long been awaiting insertion in our pages. It is, we have reason to think, very little known, and is taken from Sir Henry Bunbury's volume entitled "The Correspondence of Sir Thomas Hanmer, Bart.," pp. 436-442.]

FROM WILLIAM WORDSWORTH TO THE HON. CHARLES JAMES FOX.

Grasmere, Westmoreland, Jan. 14, 1801. Sir, It is not without much difficulty that I have summoned the courage to request your acceptance of these volumes. Should I express my real feelings, I am sure that I should seem to make a parade of diffidence and humility.

Several of the poems contained in these volumes are written upon subjects which are the common property of all poets, and which, at some period of your life, must have been interesting to a man of your sensibility, and perhaps may still continue to be so. It would be highly gratifying to me to suppose that even in a single instance the manner in which I have treated these general topics should afford you any pleasure; but such a hope does not influence me upon the present occasion; in truth, I do not feel it. Besides, I am convinced that there must be many things in this collection which may impress you with an unfavourable idea of my intellectual powers. I do not say this with a wish to degrade myself; but I am sensible that this must be the case, from the different circles in which we have moved, and the different objects with which we have been conversant.

Being utterly unknown to you as I am, I am well aware that if I am justified in writing to you at all, it is necessary my letter should be short; but I have feelings within me which I hope will so far shew themselves in this letter, as to excuse the trespass which I am afraid I shall make.

In common with the whole of the English people, I have observed in your public character a constant predominance of sensibility of heart. Necessitated as you have been from your public situation to have much to do with men in bodies and in classes, and accordingly to contemplate them in that relation, it has been your praise that you have not thereby been prevented from looking upon them as individuals, and that you have habitually left your heart open to be influenced by them in that capacity. This habit cannot but have made you dear to poets; and I am sure that if, since first your entrance into public life, there has been a single true poet living in England, he must have loved you.

But were I assured that I myself had a just claim to the title of a poet, all the dignity being attached to the word which belongs to it, I do not think that I should have ventured for that reason to offer these volumes to you; at present it is solely on account of two poems in the second volume, the one entitled "The Brothers," and the other "Michael," that I have been emboldened to take this liberty.

It appears to me that the most calamitous effect which has followed the measures which have lately been pursued in this country, is, a rapid decay of the domestic affections among the lower orders of society.