FROM IT! This sort of "liberality" we have never heard from the pulpit before. In another place, we have a distinction between the Apostles and Epistolary writers, where the latter evidently mean the writers of the New Testament Epistles! and a little below, we are told that God does not want a zeal in his service! These things must be set to the account of carelessness; but what must we think of carelessness in the Second Edition of a Sermon, preached in the Cathedral of Bristol, by a Prebendary of the city!

ART. II.-Annotations on the Gospel of St. Matthew, designed for the use of Students at the University, and Candidates for Holy Orders. By the Rev. M. BLAND, D. D. F. R. S. & F. A. S. Rector of Lilley, Herts; Prebendary of Wells; and late Fellow and Tutor of St. John's College, Cambridge. Cambridge: Deighton, Stevenson, and Newby. London: Whittaker. 1828. pp. 569. Price 16s.

A CONCISE and comprehensive abridgment of the several commentaries on the New Testament in a connected form is still a desideratum, and one too which is severely felt by the theological student. The Manual of Elsley, with Slade's Continuation, which, for want of a more useful compendium, has so long been the only refuge of the young divine, is in many respects rather a hindrance than a help, and throughout it is insufficient and incomplete. At best, it is but a book of reference to the opinions advocated by the respective interpreters; for the merits of which the works themselves must frequently be consulted; and from the ill-digested arrangement of the materials, and the want of all connexion in the several annotations, it is frequently difficult to discover their immediate design. An argument advanced by one commentator, is continually interrupted by the opposite opinion of another; again resumed, and again interrupted; till the reader is but in a labyrinth of controversy, which it requires no little ingenuity to unravel. In most cases, too, the heads of the arguments only are given; so that it is necessary, in order to a full investigation of any particular subject, to have recourse to a voluminous body of divinity, the expense of which it should be a principal object of works of this nature to obviate.

The Synoptical Digest of Mr. Bloomfield is open to the same objections; if indeed it can be looked upon at all in the light of an elementary work. We are far from wishing to detract from the praise which is justly due to the exertions of the Editor of this Compilation; or to question the cui bono of his long and laborious researches among the hidden treasures of foreign theology. We say foreign;

as he has in a great measure confined himself to the German Divines, studiously avoiding the ground which had been already occupied by Elsley and Slade. His work will therefore be unquestionably useful as a book of reference to the matured theologian, and as an index to the opinions, and the frequently tedious disquisitions of the writers, from whom he has made his selections. But to the mere student, and the candidate for holy orders, we do not think that an atom of advantage is derivable from this multifarious mass of Illustrations,—— critical, doctrinal, and exegetical. Besides, as a continuation or rather amplification of the "Annotations of Elsley and Slade," it is much to be lamented that the "Digest" follows too closely the plan of its prototype. It has the same want of connexion; the same inattention to perspicuous arrrangement; the same confusion of conflicting opinions and in the early part of the work more especially, the same incompleteness in the Analysis of the respective commentaries. Add to all which, the expense of eight bulky octavos is far too considerable, to admit of the prospect of a wide circulation.

Under these circumstances, we had hoped that Dr. Bland's Volume would have furnished the students with ample means for a complete acquaintance with the Gospel of St. Matthew; to be succeeded by Annotations on the remaining Books of the New Testament upon a similar plan. We had expected a copious analysis of the critical and expository labours of the principal English and foreign commentators, together with a selection of the best classical illustrations of the Sacred Text, which are scattered throughout the works of Elsner, Kypke, Albert, and other writers of the same class. It would have been easy to have compressed as much more than this into a volume of less dimensions than the one before us: and the author would have been amply repaid for any additional trouble to himself by the increased utility of his publication. The plan which he has pursued we consider to be at the same time deficient and redundant. Instead of a concise view of the different opinions on any disputed text, by which the merits of each might be appreciated by the reader, in the generality of cases the Annotation of Whitby, or Lightfoot, or some other Commentator, whose interpretation might appear preferable to the rest, is given in the words of the respective writer. It is true that we are thus put in full possession of the more received interpretation of each particular passage; but this will hardly be sufficient for the student in divinity, though it may perhaps for an ordinary inquirer into the sense of Scripture. That the attention should be more especially directed to that interpretation of a passage which is most commonly followed, we readily admit; but at the same time the opinions of those who advocate a different method should be concisely stated, together with a summary of their principal arguments, in order to afford a full

view of the merits of the case. Herein then Dr. Bland's Volume is greatly defective; not that he has not occasionally enumerated a few of the conflicting opinions on a difficult text, but that is only or chiefly when it is done to hand by the Commentator whose words he cites. Now it happens with most of our own early divines, that their language is discursive, and full of quaintnesses, which, however beautiful in themselves, are little accommodated to the nicer ears of modern times; so that the marrow of their excellent observations may frequently be brought within narrow limits; and make way, by the omission of their redundancies, for the admission of more valuable matter from other quarters. What the student wants is not a detached annotation from this or that author, as his opinion may coincide with that of the compiler; but a connected detail of the many learned and ingenious expositions which have been given of each passage in succession, incorporated in a concise and comprehensive analysis. In most cases also of classical illustration one or two examples of similar phrases, or forms of construction, are as good as a hundred and will be sufficient to guide the reader's attention to a multitude of others, which he may have met with in the course of his own reading. At all events so great a number of citations, as Dr. Bland has occasionally given, are not necessary to be written at length; and the room which they occupy would have been spared advantageously for more important materials.

But although we do not think that Dr. Bland has supplied the deficiency in our theological literature to the extent that we could wish; we are far from affirming that he has failed in producing a work, which may be useful to a certain extent in a College lecture room. Had his object been merely to supply a series of annotations for the University student, the plan which he has adopted might have been deemed sufficiently extensive; but when he includes the candidate for holy orders in the number of his readers, we are inclined to give the Manual of Elsley, with all its wretched imperfections, a decided preference. The student will there, at least, be referred to the author, where he will find a particular argument discussed at large; but the names of the several writers, from whom he cites, are in a very few instances only afforded by Dr. Bland. Not that we should quarrel with the omission of the references, provided that we were furnished with a complete analysis of the interpretation of different writers; though it might be as well to know the advocates of each method, as well as the method itself. We are as surprised that the Doctor should not himself have felt the defect of which we complain; as we are sure that he could have easily and ably supplied it. The interpretations which he has selected are generally correct; and they are supported by the most cogent and satisfactory comments. He must, therefore, have

weighed the several arguments pro and con in his own mind deeply and attentively; so that it would not have been difficult to have benefited his reader with the result of his meditations. And it is surely an object of interest to know the opinions of those who differ from us on any important question, and the reasons of their dissent; if it is not, indeed, absolutely necessary, in order to be satisfied of the superiority of our own conclusions.

The ability with which Dr. Bland has otherwise executed his work, only serves to put this sad defect in a more striking light. His mode of illustration is simple and pleasing; and in those passages, where the elucidation of a fact is required, his manner is all that can be wished. The following is a fair specimen :

MATT. iv. 5.

ἁγίαν πόλιν] This is frequently used to express Jerusalem, because it was honoured with the temple and worship of God; and because antiently the Schecinah, or visible symbol of the Divine presence rested between the cherubims in the temple. Chrysost. on Ps. lxxviii. says of it, èkeiden ʼn wnyǹ tŷs εὐσεβείας, καὶ τῆς θεογνωσίας αἱ ῥίζαι καὶ αἱ ἀρχαὶ. Διδασκαλεῖον ἦν τῆς γῆς. And Jerome ad Hedib. qu. 8, Vocatur civitas sancta ad distinctionem omnium civitatum, quæ tunc idolis serviebant: in hac enim sola fuit Templum, et unius Dei cultus et vera religio. The inscription on their coin, the shekel, was "Jerusalem the Holy;" by which name and title the Turks distinguish it. See Isai. xlviii. 2: lii. 1: Neh. xi. 1: Dan. ix. 24: Matt. xxvii. 53: Luke iv. 9: and Josephus and Philo continually. In 1 Macc. x. 31, Demetrius in his letter to Jonathan says, Ιερουσαλὴμ ήτω ἅγια καὶ ἀφειμένη, καὶ τὰ ὅρια αὐτῆς. In like manner the heathen writers often called those cities holy, in which any of their deities were supposed to hold their special residence. Thus Homer calls Ττον ἱερὸν Ίλιον, and Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον, Οι. a. 2. And Aristophanes calls Athens iepaν Tóλv, Pac. 1034. and ieporárny xúpav, Equ. 586. Thus also Pindar has iepâs Eikvāvos, Nem. 6. 127. So also Rome was called Urbs sacra, and Sacrosancta Civitas. Josephus says such towns were exempted from foreign garrisons, like Delphi.

St. Matthew alone ascribes those titles of sanctity to Jerusalem, by which it had been distinguished by the prophets and sacred historians, and was known among the neighbouring nations. In the same way he testifies a higher veneration for the temple, which had a peculiar sacredness till the Son of God came to tabernacle among men. The notion of this sacredness St. Matthew continues on to the death of Christ: whereas no other writer of the New Testament calls it the Temple of God in treating of a time after the birth of our Lord. It has hence been inferred that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel several years before the others, and whilst the title and character were acknowledged which Jerusalem claimed by antient prescription.-Pp. 88, 89.

We shall now select an instance of the defect, which we so strongly lament; and which, we are apprehensive, will be a considerable drawback to that utility, which the student might otherwise expect to derive from the work.

MATT. XXVI. 17.

A question has here arisen which has perplexed the commentators, and given rise to different opinions. The Evangelists use expressions which at first sight may appear contradictory. Thus St. John seems to differ from the rest respecting the time that the Jews partook of the passover, and supposes

they did not eat it on the same evening as our Saviour; yet they all agree that the night of the day in which he eat what is called the passover was Thursday. He is also said to command his disciples to prepare the passover, and that he had earnestly desired to eat this passover with them. Yet we find that on the day after that on which he had thus celebrated it, the Jews would not go into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover. Now the law required that all should eat it on the same day. These difficulties, therefore, have been attempted to be explained in different ways; four of which may be mentioned. 1. That Christ did not eat the passover on the last year of his ministry. 2. That he did eat it, and at the same time with the Jews. 3. That he did eat a passover, but one of his own institution, very different from that eaten by the Jews. 4. That he did eat the passover that year, but not at the same time with the Jews. This last seems to be the most consistent with the accounts given by the Evangelists, and to reconcile the apparent contradictions. But if our Lord had determined upon observing the passover, and there be any difference between the Jews and him on the day on which it was to be eaten, the error would not be on the part of Jesus himself, but of the Jews who differed with him. We cannot believe that he disobeyed, in the slightest degree, the ordinances of the Mosaic law, in deference to any traditions which existed among the Scribes and Pharisees. If he refused to follow, upon this occasion, the practice of the High-Priest and others among the Jews, his refusal must be referred to some deviation in their practice from that which had been formerly prescribed to their forefathers. Whatever rules might have guided them, He at least would have eaten the passover on the day, ἐν ᾗ ἔδει θύεσθαι τὸ πάσχα. The Pharisees might defer, but our Lord would not anticipate the legal and proper day for the celebration of the Paschal feast. From an examination, therefore, of the law of Moses, from having shewn the uncertainty of all the theories that have been hazarded, and the impossibility of trusting to the assertions either of the Rabbinical Doctors or Epiphanius, and the consideration of other circumstances, Benson, in his Chronology, thinks it not improbable that the fifteenth day of Nisan might have fallen upon a Friday in J. P. 4742: our Saviour having kept the passover on the proper day. See his Chronology of our Saviour's Life, &c. Chap. vII. Sect. 2. p. 293.-Pp. 510, 511.

The question, which is the subject of this note, is decidedly one of the most difficult in the whole gospel; and the commentators are greatly divided in their opinions respecting it. We are perfectly ready to agree with Dr. Bland, in the preference which he has given to Mr. Benson's solution; but for all the student can infer to the contrary, any other of the three rejected opinions may be equally satisfactory; and he will as naturally look for the refutation of these, as for the confirmation of the other. He may find the discussion, it is true, conducted at length in A. Clarke's Commentary, or in Townsend's Chronological Arrangement of the New Testament; but this is not to the point. The grand object of the Doctor's work is, or ought to be, to give the pith of such discussion, for the purpose of sparing his reader the expense of the voluminous commentaries, throughout which the solution of this and similar difficulties are scattered.

Still then, we repeat, a work, of the nature above referred to, is a great desideratum in the library of the theological student. Should Dr. Bland proceed with his intention of illustrating the remainder of the historical books of the New Testament, we sincerely recommend him