now fast approaching their appalling and impious climax." (p. 237.)

It is a period which presents great difficulties to the harmonist and chronologer. St. Matthew and St. Mark are almost silent respecting it; and they add no facts to those which we find in St. Luke. The latter evangelist is here rich in discourses, buthe gives few notes of time or place. St. John supplies three chronological notices of three journeys towards Jerusalem, and some trace at least of these is to be found in St. Luke's gospel. Thus, St. Luke notices a journey (ix. 51), which is regarded as corresponding with the journey to the feast of Tabernacles, John vii. 10. There is a break at Luke xiii. 22, which is supposed to correspond with a second journey to Jerusalem about three months after the first (John xi. 1,) while it is a third journey which is noticed, Luke xvii. 11, (the parallel passages being Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1), which Mr. Ellicott identifies with the Lord's retirement to Ephraim (John xi. 54) shortly before the passover.

Urged to show Himself to the world, Jesus went to Jerusalem during the feast of Tabernacles, travelling by way of Samaria, and receiving ungracious treatment in one of its villages. He went into the temple and taught. Some of those who heard Him only speculated on the conduct of the rulers, but many believed in Him. The Sanhedrim was excited; but He was not arrested; and on the last day of the feast He preached again to the multitude. Upon the Sanhedrim, sitting in council, Nicodemus now urged respect for the law. (Luke ix. 51-62, and John vii. 2-53.) This too is the place assigned to the history of the accused woman. (John viii. 1-11.)

On the sabbath after the feast (John x. 14) occurred, probably, all that is described John viii. 12-x. 21, including the discussion with the pharisees about Christ's office and work, the gift of sight to the man who was born blind, and the discourse on the Good Shepherd.

Whither He went, on leaving Jerusalem, cannot be decided; but as St. John usually mentions any departure from Judæa, it is inferred from his silence that that country was the scene of our Lord's ministry till His next return to Jerusalem. If so, this was the interval in which He sent forth the seventy (Luke x. 1) and made His visit to Bethany (v. 38), and in which He delivered the discourses reported Luke x. 23 to xiii. 17; from which it may be gathered that his hearers were many, and that there was an eager desire to listen to the word of life. (p. 258.) . The feast of Dedication occurred in that year, on the 20th of our December. Our Lord, having been absent from Jerusalem two months, returned to the city for the celebration of that festival. He now spoke openly in Solomon's porch, proclaiming His divinity. (Matt. xvi. 20, and John x. 24, 5.) This, which

The

had, on former occasions, provoked the anger of His enemies (John v. 18, and viii. 59), now excited them to the extreme of fierceness. (x. 31.) He withdrew from the city, and crossed the Jordan, where He abode for about four or five weeks, teaching many who believed in Him, until His next return to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. To this time, Mr. Ellicott assigns the visit of the pharisees who warned our Lord of the enmity of Herod (Luke xiii. 31); after which He would remain three days in that ruler's province, and then depart for Jerusalem. He wrought cures (v. 32); He healed the dropsical sufferer in the pharisee's house (Luke xiv. 2), and He delivered the parable of the great supper (v. 16). Publicans and sinners crowded around Him (xv. 1); and to the scribes and pharisees, who murmured at His receiving such persons, He spake the parables of the lost sheep, of the coin, and of the prodigal son, and afterwards addressed to His disciples, in the hearing of the pharisees, the parables of the unjust steward, and of Lazarus and the rich man. (Luke xv. 4-xvi. 31.) conjecture which assigns this portion of St. Luke's gospel to the time of our Lord's abode beyond Jordan, receives some corroboration from St. John (x. and xi.), who, after noticing our Lord's withdrawal to Peræa, next tells of the message of the mourning sisters of Lazarus ; after which He remained two days where He then was, and would take two days more for the journey; and found, on His arrival, that Lazarus had lain four days in the grave. This seeming coincidence is confirmed by the use of the name of Lazarus at that time in the parable. Proceeding to Bethany, He wrought that miracle of power and of love, the account of which, and of its effects upon the people, is related in John xi. The chief priests and the pharisees, alarmed lest all men should believe on Him, took counsel together to put Him to death (v. 53), and He withdrew for a while to Ephraim, a town supposed to have been distant from Jerusalem about twenty miles. He had one journey more to make before the coming feast, mentioned by the first three evangelists. (Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1; Luke xvii. 11.) It was through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. Its recorded incidents are few. Now the ten lepers were healed (Luke xvii. 12); and Jesus was led to discourse on the coming of the kingdom of God (v. 20); and He spake the parable of the unjust judge (Luke xviii. 1). Under the guidance of Matt. xix. 1, and Mark x. 1, we next trace His steps to the country beyond the Jordan, and judge that He returned to the scenes of His recent preaching on that side, in Peræa, near to Judæa. Thither the multitude followed Him, and there the pharisees laid snares for Him, and tried to entrap Him by questions on the subject of divorce. There, too, occurred the incidents of His blessing the little children, and talking with the rich young man (v. 13, &c.). The journey to Jerusalem

commenced. Jesus set forth at the head of His disciples, and by the way He spake to them, for the third time, of the death which awaited Him. (Matt. xx. 17; Mark x. 32.) This was the singular time selected by the wife of Zebedee for her ambitious request in behalf of her sons, in anticipation probably of some great manifestation of the expected kingdom. Jericho was reached; the blind men received their sight; Zacchæus was called, and entertained the Lord. All men were full of expectation and to restrain misconceived hopes, the parable of the pounds was spoken. (Mark x. 46, and Luke xviii. 35-xix. 27.) Six days before the passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany. (John xii. 1.) (p. 276.)

Our necessary limits preclude our touching upon the history of those days, or on the following period which ends with the ascension. We can only testify to the nice discernment which is still exercised in the recognition and treatment of difficulties, and to the reverential tone which pervades the survey of that sacred season. We are thankful for the author's thoughtful labours in this as well as in the other parts of his lectures.

The attempt which we have made to give a summary of an important section of these lectures, affords, we are fully conscious, a mere skeleton, of the driest bones. It is incapable of giving any just conception of the real character of the book itself, which owes much of what is special in it to the lights which it throws upon the successive stages of the history, derived incidentally from the previous progress of events, or from some feature of the attendant circumstances. These often serve to account for actions which otherwise have nothing to explain them. For instance, the varying attitude of the people, and the progressive hostility and hatred on the part of the pharisees and their associates, is made to account for the course of our Lord's action at one time being different from what He saw fit to pursue at another. By such aids, Mr. Ellicott constantly finds a clue to the order of events, otherwise most uncertain, or a strong corroboration of the conclusions to which other considerations have conducted him. Hence a bare outline, such as ours has been, may fail to secure assent, where the author, speaking for himself, would satisfy the reader's judgment.

The notes are copious; and they and the text together provide ample materials for the exercise of criticism, and much on which we could write with pleasure. But we forbear, only repeating our thanks to Mr. Ellicott for the most interesting, instructive, edifying, and satisfying summary of the history of the Life of our Blessed Lord with which we are acquainted.

LORD AUCKLAND'S LIFE AND LETTERS.

The Journal and Correspondence of William, Lord Auckland, with a Preface and Introduction. By the Right Hon. and

Right Rev. The Bishop of Bath and Wells. In Two Volumes.
London: Richard Bentley, 1861.

Two motives appear to have influenced Lord Auckland in the publication of these memoirs of his father. The one, the laudable desire of contributing some interesting materials to the history of an eventful period; the other, the no less laudable purpose of placing his father's character in a juster light, and freeing it from the imputations cast upon his memory in some memoirs of his contemporaries, published in the last few years. He alludes particularly to the memoirs of Lord Malmesbury, and those of the Right Hon. George Rose. The Right Rev. prelate has, in our opinion, been successful in both respects. His father, the first Lord Auckland, was evidently a man of high integrity, an accomplished statesman, and a patriot; he was also a person of the most refined taste, and some of the letters now published deserve to be quoted as amongst the purest models of epistolary composition. We might mention one, announcing his intended marriage to a friend, which is not surpassed for grace and delicacy by Cicero in ancient, or by Cowper in modern, times. We wish we could add that something more of Cowper's piety had been visible in this correspondence. Lord Auckland was a virtuous, and according to the standard of the times, even a religious man. Much of his time was spent abroad: and he appears to have respected the Lord's-day, and never to have forgotten that he was a Protestant. Of a diplomatic functionary of the time of George III., this is a great deal to say; and we trust there may have been a depth of piety beneath which does not appear upon the surface.

Lord Auckland, then Mr. Eden, became under-secretary of state in 1772, and while yet a young man, gave his attention to a subject then shamefully neglected-the mitigation of our harsh laws; and in 1778, carried an Act, 19 Geo. III., the principal objects of which were, to enforce a strict and salutary attention to the morals and health of prisoners, to introduce a system of solitary imprisonment for certain crimes, and to establish penitentiary houses. He was understood to have had the friendly assistance of Mr. Howard and Sir William Blackstone in framing that Act; and Howard was appointed one of the three inspectors. In the same year, he was appointed one of the commissioners to America, for the purpose of restoring peace. He was young for such an office, being only in his thirty

fourth year; and he was associated with four other commissioners, persons of considerable importance: the Earl of Carlisle, Lord Howe, Sir Henry Clinton, and Mr. George Johnstone. Yet the great Lord Mansfield appears to have regarded him as the main stay of the whole affair. "I wonder," he says, "that they (the ministry) part with you. I do not see who can, in any degree, fill your place at home. I fear you will be fatally missed... With respect to the commission, I rejoice in it exceedingly. I am now sure no mischief will arise from an improper exercise of extraordinary powers, which I dreaded before; that alone is doing great good. I keep my thoughts of the measure to myself. I pray God I may be mistaken.. I think the confidence you are known to be in, as well as your own talents and knowledge of business, give a dignity and an air of seriousness to the commission, which I was afraid it would have gone without." On his return, he accepted the appointment of chief secretary in Ireland, when the Earl of Carlisle was lord lieutenant. In 1785, he was appointed minister plenipotentiary to the court of Versailles; in 1788, ambassador to Spain; on his return, he was promoted to an Irish peerage; and the next year, 1789, he was appointed ambassador to Holland. Soon afterwards, he took office under Mr. Pitt, and entered the cabinet as post-master general. On the resignation of Mr. Pitt in 1801, Lord Auckland, who had differed from him with respect to the policy of the catholic question, remained in office under Mr. Addington. On the return of Mr. Pitt to office in 1804, Lord Auckland resigned. He seems from this time to have belonged to the party of Lord Grenville; under whom, in 1806, he took office as president of the board of trade, and sent in his resignation with the rest of the ministers the following year.

From this period of his life, he passed his time in retirement. His last years were embittered by the loss of his eldest son William, in 1810. Lord Auckland never recovered the shock, and died suddenly on the 28th of May, 1814. Thus it will be seen, that the affairs in which he bore no insignificant a part, were of the highest importance; and that the period in which he discharged the duties of a British statesman, was one of the most stirring in the national history.

The law of politics seems to follow the newly-discovered law of storms. The motion, though always onwards, is not direct; not in straight lines, but cycles. At stated periods, the same subjects return upon us, almost in the same order, but with some new combinations, and with augmented force. We have now, at the beginning of 1861, just concluded a great commercial treaty with France; we have, at the same time, great misgivings, which we do not even effect to conceal, with regard to the disposition of France towards us. Precisely the same