exist among the pirates of Cilicia. (Compare Plutarch, vit. Pomp. c. 37.) The expression άπо ávarоλwv is general, and should be so taken. It signifies all the countries lying to the eastward of Palestine, including the nearer, as Arabia, and the more distant, as Persia. That these Magi belonged to the sect of the Parsis, or Guebres, is rendered more probable, from the very remarkable portions of truth to be found in the Zend system-such as the notion of the Sosiosch, or expected Redeemer, which renders a combination of Jewish ideas with the national religion more probable in the case of the Persians, than of any other people. Some such combination must be assumed in this instance of the Magi, who were in search of the "King of the Jews," while the Persians in general expected a Redeemer from the family of Zoroaster.

Another circumstance, that the Magi are stated by St. Matthew to have been guided by a star, implies a familiarity with astronomy, with which the Parsis were acquainted. With regard to the report, that about the period of the birth of Christ, the prophetic announcement of the appearance of some great potentate had become widely diffused among the Eastern Heathens-it may be taken as a proof that great events, which exercise an influence on the human race, are heralded in certain preceding symptoms; but these dark anticipations cannot be fairly adduced in explanation of the visit of the Magi. Their faith, it is obvious, rested on firmer foundations than a mere indefinite rumour could supply: they recognized, in the new-born infant whom they sought, not merely a ruler but the Redeemer, their Sosiosch. At the same time, we must not fall into the error of attributing to them dogmatical views of a perfectly clear and precise nature.

The ancient Church recognized in the Magi the representatives of the Heathen world, which offered its homage to the Lord through them. It was a significant and beautiful idea, and full of deep truth. At an early period, on the strength of some allusions in the Old Testament, (Ps. Ixviii. 30, 32; lxxii. 10-Isaiah xlix. 7 ; lx. 3,) these Magi were assumed to be kings, and designated in the legendary account as Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar. As was to be expected, the supporters of the existence of myths, in the New Testament, interpreted this circumstance, of the appearance of the Magi before the new-born Redeemer, as a philosophical myth, devoid of all historical foundation. According to this party, the object of the narrative was to express the idea, to which the passages cited from the Old Testament had given birth, that the Messiah was to exercise an universal office extended beyond the limits of the Jewish people. But this interpretation, in the first place, does not agree with the fact, that in the Gospel of St. Matthew (whose main object was to prove the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies in the person of our Lord) this universal character of the office of Christ does not stand so prominently forward, as in that of St. Luke-and farther (even if we were to leave out of sight for a moment the inspiration of St. Matthew,) related as it is by a contemporary (in an historical period) we must admit the positive historical truth of this narrative, or it sinks into a gross fabrication. The simple fact is, that the "Mythical party" are driven to great straits, and conse. quently to glaring inconsistencies, in order to maintain their views. At one moment, they represent the Apostles as imagining the office of Christ to be confined to the people of Israel; at another, as having invented myths to display its universality. T. J. O.

ON THE ASSUMED PLURALITY OF ARCHANGELS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I SHOULD feel obliged if any of your valuable correspondents would be so kind as to inform me why the word Archangels has been introduced into the service of our church, when it does not appear that mention is made in the Sacred Scriptures of more than one Archangel (Jude v. 9; Dan. x. 13, 21; and xii. 1.) I am sure there was a good reason for it; but it would be gratifying to me to know what the reason is.

BEDELL.

ON THE TERMS FATE, CHANCE, FORTUNE, &c.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

A YOUNG clergyman lately received a friendly monition to the following effect: "You said in your sermon the fortunes of Israel.' This is heathenish. There is no such thing as fate, chance, hap, accident; fortune or misfortune; everything is providential. You perhaps only used a current word without thinking of its origin; but unhappily such language leaves a wrong impression on the mind."

I do not vindicate the particular phrase animadverted upon; though it is frequently heard in sermons, and found in the writings of men who are far removed from any intention of overlooking a divine overruling providence. But I respectfully submit that there is a hypercritical prejudice in many minds against a class of words which are necessary, or convenient, to describe effects without reference to second causes; but which are not meant to derogate from the superintendence of the first Great Cause; nor do I believe that they can be got rid of, or should be. The reprover twice uses one of the very words objected to-hap; and what difference is there between haps and accidents? or "per-haps" and "per-chance?" or "unhappily" and “unfortunately?" I have known a person speak of a casualty to avoid the word accident; but why is casus (chance) better than accidit (it occurs) ?

The wise and holy men who translated our English Bible, and compiled the Prayer-book, were not thus over-scrupulous. We read that it was Ruth's "hap" to light on the field of Boaz. Was it not a special providence? So also "By chance a priest came down that way;" "It may chance of wheat, or some other grain:" "Time and chance happeneth to them all." We read, in the Prayer-book translation of the Psalms, "They come in no misfortune like other folk ;" and we pray to be kept amidst " the changes and chances of this mortal life;" and I think, but am not sure, that the word "fortune" is used in the Homilies, as in the passage objected to, in the sense of events. Every Christian should avoid, as much as possible, whatever may perplex his weak brother; but objectors should also remember that the fault is sometimes in themselves. If those who object to the words in question, will try entirely to exclude them from language, they will find it impossible. How would they word the passages above quoted?

MODERATOR,

THE MINOR CEREMONIES OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I AM not a stickler for multiplied emblems and burdensome ceremonials in religious services; and I fear there has been an undue tendency of late to exalt them, even to the neglect of weightier matters. But those which we retain in our church are so moderate in number, and so striking and edifying in operation, that I would not, without some cogent reason, relinquish any of them. Even the slight ceremonial directed by the church in the Burial office, "Then while the earth shall be cast upon the body by some standing by," is one of thrilling interest, and strikingly impresses the mind. From powerful association the hollow echo from the coffin lid, as the minister repeats "earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust," brings before the mourners and spectators the full feeling of the solemn reality. Up to that moment it seems as though all that was earthly is not gone; but the falling earth closes the tomb; we have given up the mortal body, to see it no more till it is raised in incorruption, and made like unto Christ's glorious body. Even the sordid dust lying upon the tinselled lid is itself a moral.

I repeat that I would not make too much of a ceremony; but if it is retained, it should be with its customary impressive associations; whereas, at the funeral of the late lamented Princess Augusta, the published accounts of the ceremonial informed us that "the porter of the chapel scattered on the coffin a few grains of sand, which he brought in a little bag for the purpose.' The few grains of carefully prepared clean sand, in order not to defile the sumptuous coffin, puerilises the whole ceremony. Probably "the clods of the valley" were not found within that gorgeous abode of death; but surely the first handful of earth within reach, and without any consideration in scattering it, of soiling the splendid velvet which enshrouded mortality, had been more affecting, more monitory, more truth-telling, than this pinch-of-sand exhibition. I should not, however, have thought it worth mentioning, but that I have sometimes, in other matters, seen even clergymen practise or allow of little modern dandyisms, opposed to the primitive simplicity of the Anglican liturgy. I could mention several, but I forbear.

N. N.

ON THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER'S REMARKS ON SCHLEIERMACHER; AND OTHER PASSAGES.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

PERMIT a few words upon one or two passages in the present December Number of your valuable work, not of censure or correction, but only to excite further consideration.

Page 720. I hesitate upon the strict propriety of distinguishing the late Frederick Schleiermacher as "the ultra-neologian." Upon such as do not know his works and his character, an impression may be produced much more unfavourable than the truth would warrant. His merits, as a Greek scholar and a Platonist, all admit to have been transcendent. With regard to Biblical criticism and theological in

vestigation:-In the earlier part of his course he mooted questions and proposed theories most trying to the patience and afflicting to the hearts of believers in the Gospel. Among works of that description must be reckoned his Essay on the Gospel of Luke, published in 1817; upon which you have animadverted. Yet even from that book, as the few extracts of your correspondent M. J. M., shew, many original and valuable elucidations of the New Testament may be drawn. If that correspondent would enlarge his selections, he might render a good service to the faithful student of the divine word. It was about the same time that, I indulge the cheering hope, a most important and blessed change took place in him; but it is probable that it disclosed itself gradually and irregularly. His Body of Divinity ("Christliche Glaube ") first published in 1821 and 1822, is a most extraordinary work, of which I despair of being able to convey an adequate idea. Its plan is such as might baffle imagination to preconceive; yet it consists of a chain of positions, philosophically connected, leading to the most important results, whilst they strike the reader with surprise and admiration, and sometimes with different impressions. He has been considered to be a Sabellian, a Hegelian, a fatalist, and even a Pantheist; with what measures of truth I cannot venture to say. But the work, most profound and intricate as it is, breathes the spirit of the deepest piety, sublimest views of the divine perfections, and a strong attachment to the doctrines of grace. St. Augustine appears to have been his favourite author. The motto is from our Archbishop Anselm, and it justly represents the spirit of the work: "Neque enim quæro intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam.-Nam qui non crediderit non experietur, et qui expertus non fuerit, non intelliget."

In 1828, Schleiermacher was invited, and complied, to preach on the re-opening of Dr. Steinkopff's church (Evangelical German Lutheran) after being rebuilt. The sermon was evidently quite extemporary; the text, "Be renewed in the spirit of your minds," Eph. iv. 23, and the matter most striking, devotional, experimental and impressive; yet with peculiarities which might well surprise us. He appeared to consider the fact of the congregation's being there assembled, as a very probable evidence that they were all genuine Christians; and he addressed them apparently upon such an assumption. The sermon was printed (but not, I think, published) from the memories and notes of some of the hearers; and I remember to have heard that it was not even revised by him.

He published several volumes of sermons, of which I possess only one, published in 1833. It is occupied with the most evangelical subjects, and they are treated in a manner perfectly sui generis, yet without the least appearance of affectation, or being conscious of any thing extraordinary about his ways of thinking and expression. They manifest a remarkable tenderness and Christian sensibility. I have been told that it was his practice to receive small companies of young persons in his study; and, with flowing tears, to address them on the love of Christ, and the most important subjects of personal religion.

Soon after his death a post mortem portrait was published, accompanied by a beautiful hymn of Claus Harms on Heaven as the Christian's Fatherland: and under the picture the following inscription : "Happy end of a celebrated divinc.-On the morning of February

12, 1834, when the struggles of death had visibly commenced, Dr. Schleiermacher raised himself in a manner which appeared most wonderful to his family and attendants, and aroused his powers of life in a way which cannot be described. His almost extinguished eyes beamed with absolute brilliance. He uttered a few words upon the propitiatory death of Jesus Christ, and the memorial of it in the Lord's Supper, in which believers receive His body and blood. He then desired to enjoy the holy feast with the persons present. He raised himself in his bed with the appearance of strength, and began the administration. With a strong and clear voice he recited the words of Institution (1 Cor. xi. 23-26.) He then held out to each communicant the bread and the cup, taking them afterwards himself, and adding to the scriptural expressions his own testimony, in strong terms, to the foundation of his faith. His last words were,' Thus we are, and abide in, this fellowship one with another.' He laid himself back on the bed, intimated a wish for a change of posture, and, upon this being effected, breathed his last."

May those who admire the genius and learning of this extraordinary man, "follow his faith, considering the end of his conversation-Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for

ever!"

While my pen and your last Number are in my hands, I will notice two or three miscellaneous points.

At page 742, near the bottom, where you speak of Coverdale's dedication, and several times mention Queen Anne and Queen Jane, the printer has in one place printed "James's," for Jane's."

At page 745, line 15, some of our countrymen at the present time may need the information, that, in using the word "Dutch," Coverdale meaned, not the language of Holland, Friesland, &c., often so properly called the Low Dutch, the specific term being derived from the physical geography of the region, but which is now almost always signified by the single word Dutch; but that the illustrious reformer meaned the GERMAN (Teutsch or Deutsch,) and undoubtedly the translation of LUTHER, which was then in its glorious flow of circulation, and which, in addition to its sacred character as the vernacular manifestation of the word of God, has been, and ever will be, admired for its consummate beauty and energy as the highest German classic.

Page 752, &c. It may be useful to remark that, though the editions of the Bible by the London, Oxford, and Cambridge privileged presses, from about forty years ago, and a considerable time backwards, were frequently, and to a sad degree, deformed with errors of the printer, yet since that time, we might say during the last thirty or thirty-five years, there has been a most happy improvement in beauty to the eye, and in accuracy of the words. It has been my lot to observe this gratifying fact peculiarly in the Oxford Bibles; and by a less degree of observation, but with the aid of other evidence, I am persuaded that the same beneficial change has also pervaded the Cambridge editions.

It may not be useless to observe that, in the excellent paper of J. M. H. (and such are all his communications,) there is an oversight at page 772. Perfect accuracy, in citing the words of enemies, is important, lest we should be charged with unfairness. The kind of