• But Dr. Priestley objects (Harm. p. 55.) that Mark defcribing the very fame progrefs, in language fimilar to that of Matth. i. 38, 39; yet fays, ii. 1, that he entered again into Capernaum after fome days only. And, p. 140, 141, he places fix day's between Jefus's departure from Capernaum and his return

to it.

But it has been fhewn in loc. on the authority of the beft critics, that di nusov imports as much as I fuppofc: and if as few days as Dr. Priestley allows had been meant, the number would probably have been expreffed: as Matth. xvii. 1. Luke ix. 28. John xii. 1.

The time allowed by Dr. Priestley for all the transactions, from leaving Judea, John iv. 3, to the arrival at Capernaum, Mark ii. 1, is only fifteen days. Harm, p. 140, 141. Let us fay now that from that part of Judea where Jefus dwelt to Cana was fifty miles, from Cana through Nazareth to Capernaum thirty miles, and let us allow that the progrefs about Galilee did not exceed even feventy miles; and during thefe fifteen days, Jefus must have journied ten miles each day, including Sabbaths. I have endeavoured to fhew that we cannot, with any probability, affign a fhorter period for the incidents during this interval than ten weeks to which must be added five weeks for the continuance in Jerufalem during the paffover, and afterwards in Judea and fome of the phrafes used by the Evangelifts are of fuch a latitude as to justify the plan of this and many other Harmonies in extending this whole time to almost a year. See John xxi. 25.

But, Ex. xxxiv. 22, wheat harveft was fifty days after barley harveft; and therefore, fuppofing the tranfaction of $33, "that is, Matth. xii. 1, &c. to have happened at this later harvest, it cannot be reduced to the fame year with the paffover mentioned § 20," that is, John ii. 13.

Jerome, indeed, fuppofes wheat harvest three months after barley harvest: fee Harmer, Obf. on Scripture, 2d Ed. i. 40: who obferves, "Nor can I eafily believe their wheat harvest was delayed to the clofe of July at prefent at Aleppo, barley harveft commences about the beginning of May, and the wheat as well as that is generally over by the 20th. In Barbary it comes at the latter end of May, or the beginning of June. Agreeably to this, Raimond de Agiles giveth us to understand that a great part of their harvest at Ramula or Ramah, was gathered in before the 6th of June in 1099." See alfo p. 68, 69: where Fulcherius is quoted as faying, that the harvest at Ramula was ripe, but not gathered in, about the middle of May, 1102; and Haffelquift is faid to have eaten half ripe ears of wheat roafted on the 14th of May, N. S. And I find in Shaw, 4to. p. 335: "Barley, all over the Holy Land, was in

full .

full ear in the beginning of April; and about the middle of that month it began to turn yellow; particularly in the southern districts. But wheat was very little of it in ear; and in the fields near Bethlehem and Jerufalem, the stalk was little more than a foot high." Mr. Mann's note on Luke vi. 1, is, " It was ἐν σαββατῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ, which could not be later than April. Philo de vita Mofis, 1. 2, fays, Barley and wheat in that country are ripe at the vernal equinox, p. 503. Ifidorus of Pelufium fays, at the time of the Jewish paffover. V. Petav. var. Differt. 1. 2. c. 11." Engl. ed. p. 169. See Philo, p. 686, ed. Par. 1640, where wheat and barley are faid to be ripe, TEXEIcyosida, in, the first month. [His note in the Latin ed. is, Ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ, feu poft paicha primo, itaque Aprilis 7°, quo tempore fegetes in Judæa maturæ erant. Lev. xxiii. 10.] Dr. Prieftley has extended this time to the third Sabbath after the whole pafchal feftival. Harm. p. 140, 141.

There is no difficulty as to the remaining part of our Lord's miniftry a paffover being mentioned, John vi. 4; and Mark vi. 39, and the parailcl places, implying that it was spring: (fee the Obfervations on $ 63:) and our Lord being crucified at another paflover.'

Bifhop Newcome juftly confiders the difcourfe on the Mount, Matth. v. 6, 7, as the fame with that Luke vi. and places it, according to St. Luke's arrangement, immediately after the appointment of the twelve apoftles. In anfwer to an objection drawn from the difference in the difcourfes themselves, he introduces the following remarks on the coincidence of expreffion which may be obferved in the narratives of different Evangelifts.

It is plain,' fays his Lordship, that the oppofitions and amplifications in St. Luke are virtually contained in St. Mat thew and Grotius fays, me, ne diverfas effe narrationes putem, movent-Exordium idem, eademque peroratio." He might have added, that there is great fimilarity in the order throughout, and that St. Luke has not one precept distinct in every part. The truth is, thefe difcourfes differ no more than the two prayers delivered by our Lord, Matth. vi. 9, &c. and Luke xi. 2, &c. if we take the latter from MSS. and not from the prefent text; which is accommodated to Matthew, as many places in the Gofpels are to parallel ones. The famenefs of phrafe in the relations of the Evangelifts may be accounted for from this caufe. Homonymiis et redundantiis Anfam fubinde præbuere collationes privatæ, et deinceps magis folennes Harmoniæ Evangelicæ, pio et utili ftudio circa tertium feculum a Tatiano primum, dein Eufebio adornate; unde cognatæ voces, in margine primum adfcriptæ, exinde in textum admittebantur. Hac de re querelam primum inftituit D. Hieron.

Hieron. præf. ad 4 Evan. ad Damasum. "Magnus hic in noftris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem re alius Evangelifta plus dixit, in alio quia minus putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem fenfum alius aliter expreffit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum ceteros quoque exiftimavit emendandos." Pref. to Bp. Fell's Greek Teftament. Oxf. 1675. Dr. Prieftley has ingenioufly fuggefted another reafon for coincidence of expreffion and of arrangement in the Evangelifts; that, before they wrote, detached memoirs of Jesus's hiftory might have been committed to writing by the apoftles themselves, or by others from the mouths of the apoftles, which might have served as common originals. Harm. p. 72, 73, 87.'

The Bishop, in a note which we cannot tranfcribe or abridge, endeavours to prove that Levi's feaft fucceeded his call by an interval of at leaft fix months; he replies, we think, fatisfactorily to the objections which have been made to this arrangement; and obferves from Chemnitius, that these two events were feparated in all the ancient Harmonies, from Tatian in A. D. 170, to Gerfon in A. D. 1400.

Bifhop Pearce, in his Commentary on the Gospels, &c. observes that the phrafe is to megav is fometimes ufed when the place to which it refers, was on the fame fide of the water, provided a small bay or arm of the fea was croffed to reach it. Bishop Newcome has a note on the fituation of Bethfaida and the neighbouring towns, p. 28, the fubftance of which, though without intention, very much confirms his Lordship's remark. Dr. Newcome thus reconciles Matth. xvi. 4, and Mark vi.

12.

St. Mark means that Jefus ftrongly refufed the Pharifces and Sadducees fuch a particular fign from heaven as they at that time required; probably a fign that Jefus was to work out for them a temporal deliverance, fays Lardner: Cred. 1. 2. 90. ed. 3. Jewish Teftim. 1. 62. However, St. Matthew adds, that hereafter there would be a moft decifive proof of his miffion. Both Evangelifts agree that, according to our Lord's manner, no prefent fign would be granted at their demand.'

In our review of Bifhop Pearce's Commentary we gave our Readers his Lordship's learned and judicious note on Matth. xxvii. 63, to prove that μEra Tes nugas is fometimes equivalent to τῇ τρίτη ημέρα. Το the authorities which Dr. Pearce has alleged, Dr. Newcome adds, Deut. xiv. 28, comp. xxvi. 12: John xx. 26: Matth. xxvi. 2: xxvii. 63, 4: Mark xiv. 1. H. Stephens thef. voc. μετα, μεθ' ἡμέρας δύο, fecundo poft die. Et Plin. Cæfa fpina Ægyptiaca anno tertio refurgit, pro his Theophrafti, ὅταν δὲ κοπή, μετά τρίτου ἔτος EUDUS avabεbrass. And R. Stephens voc. poft. Cic. 3 Att. 7. 3

Eo

Eo die pueri tui mihi a te literas reddiderunt: et alii pueri, poft diem tertium ejus diei, literas alias attulerunt. h. e. Tertio die poftquam priores acceperam. See alfo a like mode of expreffion, Luke ii. 21, compared with chap. i. 59.".

Dr. Newcome is of opinion that the journey mentioned Luke ix. 51. xiii. 22. xiv. 25. xvii. II, 12, was one and the fame journey; and from the ferics of the hiftory concludes, that it was not our Lord's laft journey to Jerufalem, but that which he took when he went up to the feaft of dedication. John

X. 22.

His Lordship feparates the inftitution of the cup in the Lord's Supper from that of the bread, and places in the interval, John, chap. xiv. His reafons are, that the bread was broken, &c. εσθιόντων αὐτῶν, while they were eating, the cup given μετὰ TO SITVI, after they had fupped; that the apoftles being deeply affected by fo expreffive a fign or fymbol of his body broken, the difcourfe in John, c. xiv. was very pertinent; and that John xv. follows not unfuitably the inftitution of the cup. This we mention as a fingular opinion rather than as a probable circumftance.

We could willingly notice our Author's fentiments and remarks upon feveral other interefting paffages of the Evangelical history; but we pafs them over in order to lay before our Readers the refult of his inquiries respecting the transactions of that day on which our Lord arose from the dead.

The series of events,' fays his Lordship, is this: On the morning of the first day of the week, about the beginning of the fourth divifion of the night, Jefus rifes from the dead. A great earthquake happens about the time of his refurrection; and an angel appears, who rolls away the ftone from the mouth of the cave, fits on it, and ftrikes the keepers with great fear.

After Jefus's refurrection, many bodies of the faints arife from their graves, and appear to many in Jerufalem.

Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James, Salome, Joanna, and certain other women, go very early to the fepulchre, intending to pay honour to the body of Jefus by embalming it. On the way, they confult about removing the ftone, which they knew was rolled against the mouth of the fepulchre; but on their approach they find it removed; they enter into the cave, and two angels fuddenly appear to them, one of whom fits on the right hand, and mildly addreffes them.

Being commanded to affure the difciples of Jefus's resurrection, and that he would go before them into Galilee; they return to Jerufalem, and relate all these things to the eleven, and all the reft, and Mary Magdalene herfelf communicates them to Peter and John.

3

• The

The women are difbelieved: however, Peter and John haften to the fepulchre, and find that the body is removed, but Lee not Jefus.

Cleopas and his companion, having heard the report of the women and of Peter and John, leave the apostles and difciples, and prepare for their journey to Emmaus.

Mary Magdalene and the other women follow Peter and John to the fepulchre. Mary Magdalene, either arriving before the other women, or remaining after them at the tomb, or revifiting it apart from them, looks into the cave, and fees a vifion of angels, and, after he has converfed a fhort time with them, Jefus himfelf appears to her.

She joins the other women, who seem to have continued in the neighbourhood of the fepulchre; and as they are returning to Jerufalem, Jefus meets them.

The guards leave the fepulchre, and relate to the Jewish rulers all that had occurred within their knowledge.

The women relate to the disciples that Jefus was alive, and had been feen by them; but are disbelieved.

After this Jefus appears to Peter, then to the two difciples on their way to Emmaus, and then to the eleven as they fit at meat, with whom he holds a long conference: and thus end the great, and glorious tranfactions of the day on which Jefus rofe from the dead.'

This arrangement his Lordfhip has fupported by a minute. confideration and comparison of the feparate accounts of the four Evangelifts, and of the methods in which other Harmonifts and Commentators have attempted to reconcile them, and by a number of judicious critical remarks. We could have wished to have made an observation or two upon fome of the particulars : but this Article is already protracted beyond our ufual limits. We, therefore, here take leave of this ingenious and elaborate publication, and earneftly recommend it to the attention of every lover of facred literature, on account both of the fund of erudition that it contains, and of the candid and liberal spirit which it breathes.

ART. III. A Medical Commentary on Fixed Air, &c. &c. By Matthew Dobfon, M. D. F. R. S. 8vo. 3 s. fewed. Cadell. 1779.

EFORE the nature of fixed air, and particularly the chemical qualities of that fluid, were fo largely inveftigated, as they have lately been, phyficians were not inattentive to the falutary uses to which that fubftance might be applied in the practice of medicine. Though the late ingenious Dr. Macbride, in particular, probably erred in that part of his theory, REV. Oct. 1779.

T

where