ever, leads Dr. Russell into an investigation, | Scriptures," &c. is a presumption of this, and which we recommend to the reader, as containing the examination of many facts and opinions on this subject, highly deserving of inquiry.

is so urged by Grotius in one of his Letters to Vossius (Ep. 13). Had there been any text in the law of Moses, or any in the Prophets bearing directly the authority of express revelation, declaring the doctrine of the soul's proper immortality, our Lord would rather have adduced it, than have silenced the Sadducees by the indirect argument which is given by the Evangelist. It may, indeed, be said, that our Saviour did not quote the Prophets, because their authority was denied by the Sadducees. Perhaps this answer is sufficient to this particular argument; but without dwelling too much on any single text, surely it is hardly probable that in the case of so momentous a doctrine as that which we are now speaking of, God would have dropped the revelation of it, merely casually and in the parenthesis only of a prophecy relating to the temporal affairs of the Jews.

Warburton, indeed, affirms, that the promise of a future life was formally revealed to the Jews in a distinct covenant, of which he thinks he can find the evidences in the prophetical writings. But every one who reads that part of his work will immediately observe that he is merely propping up his favourite hypothesis. The miraculous providence under which the followers of Moses and their immediate descendants lived, was evidently withdrawn (as he thought) during the later period of their history; and, therefore, his hypothesis made it necessary that its place should be supplied by the belief of future rewards and punishments in another life. Nor was the mere belief of this doctrine sufficient; his argument required that the support of it should be divine revelation; and, therefore, a second covenant, distinct from the Mosaic, is assumed, the proof of which he finds in a passage of Ezekiel, which evidently had never been so understood by the Jews themselves, for whose use this supposed covenant was vouchsafed.

Assuming that the Egyptians believed in the immortality of the soul, at the early period of the Jewish captivity among them, (a point which seems to be admitted by all writers,) it would be almost a paradox to suppose that they had not taught it to the Israelites, among whom it is evident that the Egyptian learning was in much authority and esteem. As there is nothing however in the writings of Moses, or in the character of his laws, to destroy or contradict this doctrine, the natural conclusion is, that the Jews, after the Exode, retained the same belief respecting it, which they brought with them out of Egypt. Omitting this antecedent probability, we do not think that our author's proofs of the fact, in reference to the times of which he is treating, would carry sufficient strength to support the conclusions which he draws; but, connected with presumptive evidence in its favour, he appears to us to have succeeded in establishing his argument. With respect to his next position, of the belief of the Jews in a metempsychosis, we doubt whether he has not stated his conclusion somewhat too broadly. The passages and texts which he produces from the Apocrypha and from the New Testament, undoubtedly bear the construction which he puts upon them, and are sufficient to show that such an opinion must have been very extensively entertained; but, at least, an equal number of passages and texts might be brought forward, bearing an opposite conclusion. These Dr. Russell does not notice; and it is hardly worth while supplying his omission, as they must be familiarly known to those who have turned their attention to the point. We have no doubt that, in point of fact, there was no uniform or generally received doctrine upon the subject; in the absence of all knowledge, whether natural or revealed, opinion would be mere conjecture, which would vary as opinion always does, whenever there is no fixed point to reason from,municated to them by Moses is quite certain; and the only question is, which imagination is most probable. It is the belief of Warburton, indeed, that the doctrine of "future rewards and punishments" though kept back by Moses from the Jews of his time, was afterwards revealed to them by the Prophets. And, undoubtedly, there are many passages in the prophetical books, in which this truth is implied. But we are not to consider every thing which the Prophets spoke, as having the distinct authority of a formal revelation.

That the Jews did not so understand their writings is very evident, or there would have been no difference of opinion among them on an article so important. But when we find that one party among them denied the promise of a resurrection, and another maintained it, and a third understood by it the doctrine of the metempsychosis, it is plain that their respective opinions were built rather upon inferences from Scripture, than from any formal and au thoritative declarations of God. The celebrated answer of our Saviour to the Sadducees (Matt. xxii.) "Ye do err not knowing the

Now, whether the knowledge of a future state had been communicated to the Jews or not, is a matter which will not at all affect the truth of Christianity. That it was not com

and unless some much more weighty reason can be given for believing that it was a subject afterwards of separate revelation, than the mere convenience of Warburton's hypothesis, we should feel strongly inclined to think, that it was a point respecting which the Jews may have entertained more defined opinions in the days of the Prophets, than at their first settlement in the land of Canaan, but without any, or with very little, additional knowledge.

It is pretty well understood now, that this admission may be made without any detriment to the proof of Christianity. At the time when Warburton lived, infidel writers had not fallen into the contempt with which they are now, for the most part, covered; and their attacks upon the truth of Revelation excited much greater anxiety and alarm than at present; and the defence was in proportion less fearless and judicious. Accordingly when Bolingbroke and Voltaire, and other deistical writers charged the Mosaic Dispensation as being of mere human contrivance; and in proof of its having no pretensions to divine revelation, alleged the

capacity. In the former sense, the truth of that miraculous providence under which the Jewish people were placed, was exemplarily manifested in every part of their history, from their going down into Egypt, until the very times in which we now live; but in the latter sense, we are not aware that there is any truth whatever in the fact, considered as a general proposition, further than is asserted in the New Testament, with respect to those who live under the Gospel. It is, indeed, a supposition absolutely necessary to the hypothesis of Warburton; because if the Jews, personally, were restrained solely by the arm of civil penalties and enactments, without any promise of miraculous reward in this life for virtue and obe

for transgressions of the law-in that case the extraordinary providence which watched over the NATION, cannot be supposed to have afforded any substitute for the Christian doctrine of rewards and punishments, as regards the conduct of INDIVIDUALS.

We have been led into this disquisition on the Divine Legation by the frequent reference to that celebrated work in the volumes before us; but we have to apologize both to Dr. Russell and the reader for the length of our remarks. So replete is that extraordinary performance with truth and paradox, with reason

are greatly mistaken, if he does not entirely misconceive the nature of that miraculous providence, under which the Jews undoubtedly were placed. His reasoning supposes that the extraordinary providence under which the Israelites were placed regarded them not as a nation, but in their individual capacity. That the promises of the Jewish law were merely temporal is quite certain; but that they were to be dispensed to each individual among the people, in exact proportion to his good or ill deserts in life is a proposition which is so very far from certain, that we believe it to be totally without foundation: at least we do not even know what the proof is, by which those who entertain this opinion are accustomed to prove the assertion. As far as the history of the Jew-dience, or any threat of miraculous punishment ish people may be depended upon, it does not appear to us to warrant any conclusion of the kind. We see good men suffering adversity, and bad men prospering in the world, pretty much after the same proportion and in the same manner as among ourselves, where the general rule is in favour of virtue and piety, though subject to innumerable exceptions. And if we look to the laws of Moses themselves, there are in them the same civil penalties and restraints of violence and wrong, as in all other legal codes. If from the history of the Jews and the enactments of their laws we turn to the prophetic promises and denuncia-ing the most acute and sophisms the most wiltions which their Scriptures contain, it is not said that good men shall be princes and rulers in the land, and bad men their servants and menial dependants: it is not said that the adulterer shall be afflicted with pains and fevers, but that he shall be put to death. Promises, indeed, there are, and threats, but they are such as regard the nation in general indiscriminately; rain and fruitful seasons, triumph over their enemies and deliverance from bondage, war, and the sword, and pestilence, and famine, and captivity: these are the subjects concerning which the Lord is constantly warning his people by the mouth of his prophets. If individuals are to be chastised by name, it is by special appointment, often long before proclaimed, and not as a matter of course, in consequence of the general principles of the divine government as it regarded the Jewish nation in particular. In all national judgments the innocent suffer with the guilty; and the sins of the fathers are necessarily visited upon the children: but to suppose, as Warburton does, that God had made this the standing rule of his government, in the case of individuals among the Jews, and that men were not only to suffer the consequences of the sins of their fathers, (as we witness every day in the world,) but to be directly punished for the guilt of such sins, the same as if they had been committed by themselves, implies a very harsh interpretation of God's dealings with the Jews; and one, indeed, which would almost serve to palliate their frequent desire of seeking to be governed by other gods.

By declaring such to be the principle of his government, it seems to us, that God plainly discloses the true nature of those temporal punishments and rewards by which he restrained the Jewish people: that they regarded the nation in its collective and not in its individual

ful, with learning the most various and profound, combined with criticisms and positions which would often do discredit even to a schoolboy, that it is difficult to get into the examination of any one part of the work, without being led away from subject to subject, and beyond the limits which discretion would prescribe.

We now close the volumes which have given rise to these and our preceding remarks, with the highest respect for the talents and learning and industry of the author. The great fault which we have to find with his work is want of arrangement. Not only does he recur too often to subjects and facts which are treated at length both in Shuckford and Prideaux, which as a continuer of these works, he ought to have avoided as much as possible, but he sometimes repeats himself; and in this way has not only made his work longer, but also somewhat less attractive than it might have been. The part of its subject which it remains for him to treat, is much more difficult as well as much more important than that which belongs, properly, to the present volumes. But there are also very many more materials to assist him; and we look forward to the completion of his labours with the expectation of much and useful instruction.

From the Christian Review. POLLOK THE POET. THE REV. Robert Pollok was born at Muirhouse, parish of Eaglesham (N. B.), October 19, 1798. His father still occupies the same farm, and is esteemed by his neighbours as a very worthy and intelligent person. Robert was the youngest of the family; and his early

every subject: he had great facility in composition; in confirmation of which, lie is said to have written nearly a thousand lines weekly of the last four books of the "Course of Time." The poem, as a whole, was, however, no hasty performance: it had engaged his attention long. His college acquaintances could perceive that his mind was not wholly devoted to the business of the classes; he was constantly writing or reading on other subjects. Having his time wholly to himself, he amassed a prodigious store of ideas. It was his custom to commit to the flames, every now and then, a great number of papers. He had projected a prose work of some magnitude-a review of Literature in all ages-designed to show that literature must stand or fall in proportion as it harmonizes with Scripture Revelation. But death has put an end to this, as to many other projects; and all that we can now look for, is a posthumous volume, for which we are glad to understand there are ample materials in the poems, essays, and sermons found among his papers. Such a volume, with a memoir of the lamented youth prefixed, cannot fail to prove an acceptable offering to the public: and we hope soon to hear that it is in course of preparation.

days were spent on the farm with his father, in such labours as the seasons called for. He was always fond of reading; and the winter's evenings were employed in this manner, when his companions were perhaps engaged in some trifling amusement. He is not known to have made any attempts at poetry when very young. At seventeen years of age he commenced the study of the Latin language; and a few months after this he produced the first poem which he is known to have committed to paper. In October, 1813, when seventeen years of age, he entered the University of Glasgow, where he studied five years: at the end of which time he obtained the degree of Master of Arts. While at college, he was a very diligent and exemplary student, and distinguished himself so far as to have several prizes awarded him by the suffrage of his fellows: besides the regular exercises, he composed a number for his own pleasure and improvement, and several of these were poetical. Before he had finished his curriculum, his health was considerably impaired. In the autumn of 1822 he entered the United Secession Divinity Hall, under the care of Dr. Dick. Here his discourses attracted considerable notice, and called forth some severe criticisms from his fellow-students. A mind like his could not submit to the trammels of common divisions: the form of an essay suited better the impetuosity of his genius; and he occasionally indulged in lofty descriptions, both of character and external nature. In May, 1827, he received license to preach from the United Secession Presbytery of Edinburgh.During his previous trials he was employed superintending the printing of his poem. His first public discourse is said to have produced a powerful sensation on the audience. The text was, "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." Some descriptive parts, respecting those who serve Baal rather than God, are said to have been awfully grand. He preached only three other times, when he was obliged to retire from public service. His labours had been too great for his constitution, in which the seeds of consumption had long before been sown. By some medical gentlemen of eminence in Edinburgh, he was advised to try the effects of a warmer climate: Italy was his intended retreat; and, after providing himself with letters of introduction to some learned men on the Continent, he set out, accompanied by a sister. He had got as far as the neigh-in both these instances, depend greatly on the bourhood of Southampton, when, overpowered with the fatigues of travelling, he was compelled to desist. He here fevered, and after a few days expired, far from the scenes of his birth and his studies. It is comforting to learn that Mr. Pollok's death was that of a true saint; his last moments being characterized by patience, resignation and faith.

Mr. Pollok's mind was certainly of a very su perior order; of this, there need no other proof be given than the encomiums which his "Course of Time" has called forth-encomiums, many of them penned before his death was known, but which did not appear till after he had gone beyond the reach of earthly applause. His habits were those of a close student: his reading was extensive: he could converse on almost

From the Christian Review.

MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE, WRITINGS, AND CHARACTER OF THE LATE JOHN MASON GOOD, M. D. By Olinthus Gregory, LL. D. 8vo. pp. 472. London: Fisher. 1828.

THERE is a pleasure in reading the biography of men of eminence or virtue, similar to that experienced in the contemplation of the decaying grandeur and magnificence of ancient monuments. The difference in the two sensations is, that in the former we look at humanity itself; in the latter, at its types and emblems: our spirits in the one holding communion with their kind, in spite of the gulf which parts them; our hearts yearning in the other after some link of union, some gathering sign to our thoughts and memory, and finding them in the sensible records, in the ruined and falling towers on which Time has written the memorials of by-gone greatness. Our feelings, however,

accidental circumstances attending the object of our reflections; and, consequently, the biography of eminent men affords a gratification varying in every possible manner, and calling into exercise every principle both of our moral and intellectual nature. As we look with widely different emotions on the ruined cottage, with its broken trellices and neglected garden, to those which occupy us in contemplating the dismantled castle or its grass-grown courts; so is the sensations we feel at reading the memoirs of some plain and simple-hearted man, whose life was distinguished by its quiet usefulness, very different to that which fills our minds while pursuing the story of erring genius, of stern and long-suffering patriotism, or of men whose power and intellect gave a colour and

While, however, this is the end which reflecting and philosophical minds will propose to themselves in this study, there is a lower one, which others, more desirous of practical improvement than speculative wisdom, will aim at. To these, the great use and pleasure they seek for in biography is the lessons of experience it affords them; the beaten track it makes over the broad plain of human life: and every incident which is recorded, every fact gathered out of the great common stock of human experience, is a valuable addition to the lessons they have learnt from the teachings of their own hearts.

Some useful rules might be derived to bio

impetus to the times in which they lived. The uses of the several styles of biography which answer to the different emotions it awakens, are also as various; and we are not a little surprised that the subject has been so seldom considered in a philosophical manner. The instruction to be derived from this interesting branch of literature is uniformly insisted upon; but it seems to have escaped general observation, that the moral lesson to be derived from one piece of biography is not the same which is to be derived from another, and that it loses more than half its usefulness when its separate styles and objects are not clearly understood. It is one among a thousand other stupid practices in vogue among schoolmasters and teach-graphers from a careful consideration of these ers, to cram together, in a mass, memoirs of all kinds, and consisting of the most heterogenecus materials. With a volume composed in this manner, they think themselves in possession of a good introduction to the knowledge of human nature and its history; and their pu pils are filled with an undigested crowd of facts about Alfred the Great and William Penn the Quaker, Joan of Arc and Howard the philanthropist. That any good can come from this, it is impossible to imagine. It is not the knowledge of facts merely that is of use, but the impressions they make upon the mind and heart; and these impressions are of no value but when they are distinct enough to be traced to their proper sources. Let the study of human nature be universal, but let it have its proper divisions and nomenclature. The confusion, however, attendant on this branch of literature is not confined to the class of readers we have mentioned, for it is equally great among others of better taste and more experience; and it is seldom, therefore, that we find it producing the benefit which naturally belongs to the subject. In biography there is the pith and kernel, and the outward husk; the heart and leaves of a most precious plant. It may be, and certainly is, useful to learn the manners and habits which belong to individuals in particular circumstances; and to collect together the notices of human fortune that may be gathered from private history; but the noblest and most valuable purpose to which the records of existence may be applied is one which can be attained only by a more careful study than is called for in the former instances. The development of our nature may be watched with greater closeness than is commonly imagined; and it is the observation of this development which forms the higher study of biographical readers; and the materials which biography offers for the purpose, the true foundation of its value. Different, therefore, as may be the degrees of pleasure, or the kind of pleasure, we receive from various pieces of biography, while it is studied with a proper regard to this its chief excellence, instruction of the most valuable kind may be gathered from its plainest as well as most brilliant pages. If the diamond be of the same value, of whatever its casket may be made; or if a book may be read with delight; whether its binding be plain or ornamented the same value ought to be set on the mind of man through whatever outward circumstances it may have to work, and the same interest taken in its study.

various purposes to which their branch of literature is applicable. They would be taught by such an observation to examine the tendencies of their subject to illustrate this or that moral truth, or to be made serviceable to the inculcation of this or that practical lesson; and they would see the value of minute circumstances, which often illustrate a character better than more important ones; and be more skilful in arranging and correcting isolated facts, so as to make them throw light upon the main truths of the narrative. It is not, however, in our opinion, the proper office of the biographer to philosophize upon his subject, or to be too eager in drawing out the moral of each chapter; and whenever a biographer is found doing this, we are inclined to set it down to one or the other of these causes: a want of skill in disposing of his materials, an insufficient acquaintance with the object of his memoir, a secret design to inculcate some particular opinion of his own, or a mistaken idea as to the proper method of conveying instruction by this species of composition. For it should be remembered, that, if a biographer inform us of all the particulars with which he would have us suppose him acquainted, he puts his readers into as good a condition for moralizing on the subject as he is in himself; and if he philosophize on impressions he has received from circumstances only known to himself, his philosophy is of no use to the reader, or is, in fact, altogether founded on a shadow. Moral lessons, also, that are derived from the guesses that writers of this class are sometimes fond of making, no more belong to biography, properly considered, than they do to a fable; and the mixture of this vague kind of reasoning with truth, which, as far as it goes, speaks for itself, destroys the really useful and legitimate aim of the composition. Biography, as well as history, is intended, when applied to its proper practical purposes, to furnish us with the materials of experience; but whether we get our experience from the busy and troubled scenes of the world and our engagements in its turmoil, or find it, like manna, on the fair and sunny field of literature, it must be sought for and gathered by ourselves, and be the treasure of our own earning. The efforts which a biographer makes to show us the moral of his history, reduces his composition to a flat and uninteresting essay. He has done that which he should have left for the head and heart of his reader to do; he has preached a weak sermon on a text which had already carried conviction to the bosom.