take place at the same period, but at intervals. At one time, the false friend took Jesus as his companion into the city, and they went together to the temple. What part the pinnacle is, is not easy to say; but it is quite clear that it " was not miraculously, but merely for the sake of a walk and conversation, that the false friend led Jesus to the top of one of the porticoes. All of these were so constructed, that men might eat, drink, and sleep on them, as on all oriental roofs." It is curious to observe how extremely Rosenmüller is discomfited by the verses in which the Tempter is related to have taken our Saviour to the top of a high mountain. His note deserves to be given entire. Ver. 9. “poσxvve is not here strictly to adore, or address prayer to, but "in sensu civili," to supplicate, to fall on one's knees for the sake of showing respect to! The Tempter seems to have persuaded Jesus to use royal power and dignity, and at very outset of his office, to take possession of his empire. For which purpose perhaps he offered his assistance. I will give you,' says he, all these kingdoms,' i. e. by my advice and effectual co-operation, I will cause you to possess not only Judæa, but all other countries, if you will pay me the honour which minor kings pay to greater ones." The first observation alone makes nonsense of the whole passage; for unless the Tempter required worship to be paid to himself, what would be the meaning of Christ's reply, that God alone is to be worshipped? But besides this, how could a man of Rosenmüller's understanding ever suppose that a private Jew could persuade Jesus that the could make him master of the whole world? And where was the

the

impiety, at all events, of requiring the same respect as tributary princes pay to their superiors? These are the fruits of coming to the Scriptures with a mind pre-occupied by human systems!

In Ch. VIII. the explanation of the casting out of the devils, and allowing them to go into the herd of swine, is beyond all comprehension, Of course, Rosenmüller begins with saying that the possest were mad people merely; and he adds, that he himself has seen a mad woman, who said she was a devil! Then the question of the possest to Jesus" What have we do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God?" &c, is explained after Wetstein's notions, "that the madmen remeinbered the tortures they had undergone in the hands of the physicians, bleeding, living by rule, and taking nauseous and purgative medicines, and that they deprecated a repetition of the treatment." Their request that they might be allowed to go into the herd of swine, is thus lucidly interpreted. "The dæmous are said to have asked leave to go into the herd of swine; but by the dæmons are meant the lunatics, whose fixed idea was that they were devils. These are therefore the words of the lunatics, who thought that they could not find any fitter abode after the graves, than the swine."—" Thep they went and rushed on the swine, not into their bodies; for who could see the devils going into the bodies of the swine? The sense is—these mad men running across the fields, drove the swine down the precipice." Let us now look to the whole story according to Rosenmüller's version. There were some mad men who lived in the tombs, and faucied they were devils. On seeing Jesus, they were afraid of being caught and put into the physicians' hands, and begged Jesus to allow them to run after a herd of swine, and drive them into the e sea. He gave them leave, they did so, and were thus healed! Another of these German divines,

with any semblance of a miracle here, says, that Jesus finding that the mad man (for only one is mentioned in St. Luke) fancied himself a legion of devils, and that he should be therefore tortured by Christ and sent to hell, humour. ed his fancy, in order to cure him, and ordered him to run after the swine, in order that when they had perished, he might fancy that the legion of devils had gone out of him into them!

În Ch. XIV. With regard to the miracle of the loaves and fishes, Rosenmüller states the explanation of Paul of Jena, to the effect that many of the people had brought food with them, and that when Jesus said "Give ye them to eat;" (ver. 16) he addressed those who had provisions, and desired them to divide them among the people, so that no miracle was worked. Of this Rosenmüller disapproves; but in Ch. XV. where the similar miracle is recorded, he refers to this explanation with the words "Novam Paulli explicati onem aliis examinandam relinqui hus," signifying, at all events, his opinion that it is worth attention.

On the transfiguration, in Ch. XVII. after mentioning Paullus's opinion that the disciples had been asleep, and that on waking, as the sun happened to shine bright, and they saw Jesus walking with two persons unknown to them, they called them Moses and Elias; and Gabler's still more delectable notion, that all this was a dream of Peter's, and that (as is usually the case) on the first moment of wak. ing, he still saw the objects of his dream dancing before his eyes; our author quietly says, "De hac (ul. tima) conjecturâ quid statuendam, alii viderint. Qui plura desiderat, adeat Kuinolii commentarium. Nos nihil definimus."

In Ch. XIX. v. 28. the promise that the Apostles should sit on twelve thrones in the Resurrection,

In Ch. XXI, v. 3. where Jesus sends his disciple for the ass, Rosenmüller states that it is quite clear that Jesus was known to the masters of the beasts, and that that was the only reason for their sending them.

I cannot but observe on this place, that Rosenmüller was wholly ignorant of Mede's learned expla nation of verses 15 and 16, from the 8th Psalm.

In the history of our Lord's death, we have many examples of Rosenmüller's propensities. The darkness described in ver. 45 of Ch. XXVII. is said to have been the sort of dark vapour usually atten dant on an earthquake, and remarked probably for nine or ten miles. A whole host of rational opinions is given on ver. 52, while after mentioning that most writers believe the veil of the temple to have been miraculously rent, (ver. 52.) he remarks, that if it was made of thin materials, it would be rent asunder by the earthquake without any miracle. In Ch. XXVIII. v. 2, 3. af~ ter observing that many think the angel is mentioned here only because the Jews commonly referred any events of which they did not know the cause to angels or invisible beings, he adds as his own opinion, that Matthew is here only relating what he had heard perhaps from some soldier or Jewish senator, af terwards converted. As there wa an earthquake, which is frequently attended by a storm, the stone was probably split by lightning. When the guards saw on the top of the stone" formam candidam et corus. cam," they immediately fancied it

was an angel. What Rosenmüller bere means by "forma candida et corusca," I do not exactly comprehend, for in ver. 2, he says, that as the soldiers were frightened, they might easily mistake lightning for an heavenly form.

I have passed over much that is objectionable in other parts of Rosenmüller's Commentary; but what I have adduced is amply sufficient to prove that his work is neither a safe nor a proper one to be put into the hands of young men preparing themselves for orders. At their age, from the great developement which has so lately taken place on their faculties, and the wonderful progress in knowledge and power which they have made, the natural pride of the human heart tends to make them believe that nothing is too difficult for them, and to revolt against all which is beyond their understanding. The system then which explains away miracles into facts of ordinary occurrence, and simplifies doctrines, by quietly rejecting whatever is beyond the powers of man's mind to understand, will find at that particular period a ready reception-and even if passing years and maturer know. ledge eradicate its falsehoods and its errors, it may still leave in the

Page Line 428 33

mind a bias to turn from and reject all the more exalted and spiritual doctrines of Christianity, which, in fact, will take away the substance of religion, and leave only an external form and an empty name. I am, Sir, your's, &c.

R.

To the Editor of the Remembrancer. SIR,

I TRANSMIT to you certain emendations, made by my own judgment, or by conjecture if you please, in going through some of the Volumes of the New Edition of the Works of Bishop Jeremy Taylor. They may be acceptable perhaps, though somewhat mortifying, to such of your readers as are possessed of that edition. In return, I should esteem it a great favour to receive from you, or from any of your correspondents, the emendation of certain passages, which I apprehend can only be made by collation; the means of which are not within my reach. You will observe, that at present, I only go through Volumes II. III. and IV. from the fear of being troublesome.

For

sincerely

I am your's truly,

Read insincerely intension

X. Y.

SIR,

THE following paragraph appeared in a Newspaper published in the beginning of the month of January

last.

"London Missionary Society Tuesday evening a numerous meeting of Ladies and Gentlemen of different religious denominations, took place at the Freemasons' Tavern, Great Queen-Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. Sir George Keith, Bart. was unanimously called to the chair, who, after a preparatory prayer had been read by the Rev. Mr. Churchill, addressed the meetitig at some length, describing the happy results likely to arise from the present institution, which had for its object the evangelising of the poor inhabitants of London and its vicinity. Resolutions were agreed to, in unison with the objects of the Society."

The members of the Society, who were assembled on this occasion, had, doubtless, in view, the spiritual improvement of the poorer classes of the immense population of London and its vicinity. And this is surely in itself a laudable object, worthy of being prosecuted with all the zeal that is consistent with a sound discretion. It is indeed devoutly to be wished that the spirit of pure and undefiled religion were infused into the mass of this population, for the prevention of crime, for the security of society, and the honour of our common Christianity. But it may reasonably be doubted whether this desirable purpose is likely to be effectually attained by the union of persons of different religious denominations." It is obvious that those who profess different religious sentiments, cannot cordially unite in any one common system of faith; and that they must be at variance as to what articles

* Gen. Even. Post. Jan. 8 to 10, 1822.

lief and acceptation of those whom they undertake to instruct. The Churchman, if he is a true friend to the establishment to which he professes to belong, cannot consider any article of his Creed of such subordinate importance, as that it may be conceded to the claims of his dissenting brethren: he cannot abandon the doctrine of his Saviour's divinity and atonement, in compliment to the Socinian or Arian: neither can he consider the govern ment of his Church by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, lawfully or dained, as a matter so indifferent, that self-appointed teachers may allowably intrude themselves into the Christian ministry; nor think that the solemn duty of a religious instructor may be usurped by any ignorant enthusiast or fanatic. Those, on the other hand, who dissent from the Church, will be equally tenacious of their own peculiar opinions, and anxious to im press them earnestly upon the minds of their disciples. Unanimity cannot subsist between persons of discordant principles. There has hardly been any association, founded on such principles, which has not, in fact and experience, found its designs frustrated. It is not therefore to be expected, in this case, that the work of "evangelising the inhabitants of London and its vicinity," should prosper in the hands of per sons of different religious denominations."

But, beside the improbability of any society, so constituted, uniting cordially and effectually in the prosecution of such a scheme, it proceeds upon the extraordinary as sumption, that "the poor inhabitants" of the Metropolis and its neighbourhood have not the Gospel preached to them. A project of this kind must appear extraordinary and unnecessary, when it is considered what effectual provision has