order in the evangelical hiftories, and from the different circumftances with which the fame facts are related by the different writers. It muft appear to every one who attends to the subject, that the Evangelifts often join together detached and distant events, on account of a fameness in the scene, the perfon, the caufe, or the confequences; that they make tranfitions from one fact to another without any intimation that important mat ́ters intervened; that they ufe particles which intimate an immediate connexion, with fome degree of latitude; that they neglect accurate order in the detail of particular incidents; that they are more intent on representing the fubftance of what is spoken than the words of the speaker; and that, by a felection of different circumftances, they often place the fame fact in very different lights. But the facred hiftory is not liable to any juft objection from this mode of narration; for, as the learned and ingenious Author of the prefent work justly remarks, if on this account objections are more cafily started, and it becomes more difficult to reconcile feeming variations, and to frame fuch materials into a regular body of hiftory, on the other hand, the Evangelifts are more fcrupulously examined and compared; they are ftudied jointly, as well as feparately; their confiftency ftrikes us more after an attentive inveftigation; all fufpicion of compact and collufion is removed; and the independence of their teftimony is established as far as antiquity afferts it.' The usefulness of an Harmony of the Gofpels is thus reprefented by the Bishop, in his Preface, from which we have taken the preceding extract. By the juxtapofition of parallel paffages, it is often the best comment; and it cannot but greatly alleviate the Reader's trouble in his attempts to illuftrate the phrafeology and manner of the Evangelifts. It fhews by intuition, that St. Mark, who inferts much new matter, did not epitomife St. Matthew's Gofpel. It affords plain marks, from the additions and omiffions in St. John's Gofpel, that his was defigned to be a fupplemental history. It illuftrates, in many inftances, the propriety of our Lord's conduct and words. The attentive Reader will make many remarks of this kind. I fhall felect a few examples. Thus previously to the call of the four apoftles, Mark i. 16-20, Andrew had been the Baptift's difciple, and had received his teftimony to Jefus *; Peter had been brought to Jefus by Andrew his brother; and Jefus had fhewn more than human know John i. 35, 40. ↑ ĺb. v. 42. $ 2 ledge, * ledge, and more than human power ¶, which probably had fallen within the experience of thefe difciples, or, at least, muft have gained their belief on the firmeft grounds. Thus the words of Chrift, John v. 21, 25, are prophetically spoken before he had raifed any from the dead; and his reproofs, Matth. xii. 34, Mark vii. 6, are uttered after he had wrought miracles during two feafts at Jerufalem. Thus our Lord first draws + the veil of parables over his doctrine, on the very day when his miracles were attributed to the power of Satan. Sce § 42, 47, 48, 49.'. After another inftance or two the Bishop adds, Laftly, ftrong prefumptions of their infpiration arife from an accurate comparifon of the Gospels, from their being fo wonderfully fupplemental to each other in paffages reconcileable only by the fuggeftion of a feemingly indifferent circumstance, and from their real agreement in the midst of a feeming difagreement. "Truth, like honefty, often neglects appearances: hypocrify and imposture are always guarded ‡." In this paragraph we cannot but think his Lordship miftaken. The differences obfervable in the accounts which the Evangelifts give of the fame facts, are a proof that they did not write in concert, and they, confequently, establish the independence of their feparate teftimonies, and add to the credibility of the general hiftory. That the evangelical writers may, by a diligent attention and a critical investigation, be reconciled to each other, is a proof that they were well acquainted with the facts they relate, and that they faithfully recorded them; but affords no prefumption that they were divinely infpired. On the contrary, the difficulties which occur in harmonizing the Gofpels, fome of which are fuch, according to the Bishop's own obfervation, that we may fay of them, as Le Clerc fays of the two genealogies, univerfam antiquitatem exercitam habuere ;' difficulties, which the united labours of all preceding harmonifts and commentators have been infuffi cient to remove, form in our opinion an infuperable objection to that plenary inspiration under which Chriftians in general have fuppofed the facred hiftorians to have written. If they had been divinely inspired in regard to the compofition of their hiftories, or even if they had conceived alike of the facts related. by them, it can fcarcely be imagined that they would have. placed the events they record in fo different a light, or would ¶John i. 48. ii. 11, 23. * Lege, were. I Welt on the Refurrection. Harm. p. 525. iii. 2. iv. 29, 45, 50. + Lege, drew. Ed. iv. 342. have related them with fuch different circumftances, that it fhould be frequently uncertain whether they be the fame or not, or that it should require fuch an attentive inveftigation, and fo great critical acumen to reconcile their feveral narratives to each other. Mr. Weft's obfervation is very juft with respect to mere human writings. Divine infpiration would fuperfede the ufefulnefs of all lower marks of veracity; and must be proved, if proved at all, not by internal characters, but by external evidence. The Reader will learn, from the title, what he is to expect from this interefting and useful publication; and as far as learning, candour, and ingenuity can give him fatisfaction, we may venture to affure him that his expectations will not be difappointed. Dr. Newcome appears to be well-acquainted with the writings of preceding harmonists and commentators, and to have made a judicious ufe of their fyftems and obfervations. When he adopts any of the improvements which later harmonists have made on the more ancient, he fails not to acknowledge it, with a due commendation of their attention and judgment; and, when he differs from them, he propofes his reafons with great frankness and ingenuity. While his own system and remarks are fupported in a manner which, if it do not convince, cannot fail to leave upon the mind a favourable impreffion of the Author. Dr. Priestley, in his Harmony of the Evangelifts, published about two years * ago, revived and defended Mr. Mann's hypothefis refpecting the duration of our Lord's miniftry. Dr. Newcome, not fatisfied with the reafons produced in favour of that scheme, has adhered to the more common opinion, first advanced by Eufebius, and generally followed by harmonizers and ecclefiaftical hiftorians, that our Lord's miniftry continued three years and a half, and included in that space of time four paffovers; and we think that his Lordship has fhewn it to be very improbable that the feveral journies of our Saviour in Galilee, and the tranfactions connected with them, fhould have been performed in fo little time as Mr. Mann and Dr. Priestley have allotted to them. Not to add, as the Bishop does not fail to remark, that their hypothefis refts upon a fuppofition that there is an interpolation of a verfe, or at leaft of the words To má ̃x n, John vi. 4. Which fuppofition is not supported by the authority of a fingle copy, and is weakened by the probability (arifing from the circumftance noted of there being much grafs) that the miracle was performed rather before than after the pafchal season. • Vid. Rev. vol. lviii. p. 8, Number for February, 1778. Le Clerc having, in Dr. Newcome's opinion, exhibited the text in the most useful manner of any harmonist, he has adopted his method; though with much difference in the general and particular arrangement. His Lordship has divided the evangelical history into feven parts or periods. The whole Harmony is farther and more ufefully divided into fections; to each of which is prefixed a title, defigned to mark the general order of the history at firft view, and not faithfully to exhibit the contents.' Those paffages in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, and at the beginning of the Acts of the Apoftles, which contain an account of the inftitution of the Lord's Supper, of the appearances of Jefus to his difciples after his refurrection, and of his afcent in their prefence to heaven, are introduced in their proper places. At the clofe of the Harmony are two appendixes: the first containing Dr. Benfon's, the fecond Dr. Lardner's, manner of harmonizing the accounts of Chrift's refurrection, as far as refpects his firft appearances to Mary Magdalene and others, on the day on which he arofe. The extract from Dr. Benfon is taken from his Life of Christ, p. 520, &c. that from Dr. Lardner, from his Obfervations on Macknight's Harmony of the Four Gospels, fo far as relates to the Hiftory of our Saviour's Refurrection. To the whole are fubjoined, notes on the Harmony of the Gospels, and on the time and place of the tranfactions recorded in them. Thefe contain a variety of quotations and remarks, tending to juftify both the Author's general fcheme and particular arrangement of facts, and, in a few inftances, to explain and illuftrate the meaning of particular phrafes and paffages. From thefe we fhall give our Readers fome extracts, by which they may form an idea of the manner in which this part of the work is conducted, and judge of his Lordship's abilities as an harmonist and critic. We begin with the following: $2. St. John's introduction is rightly continued to ver. 18, though fome harmonifts fuppofe it to end with ver. 14. From the connection of the whole, ver. 18 appears to be its natural clofe, as it contains a reason why the word was made flesh. Ver. 15 refers to ver. 6, 7, 8; and in these paffages John's teftimony is anticipated in order of time, and is very fitly mentioned to illuftrate Jefus's pre-eminence. Ver. 16, 17, have a plain reference to ver. 14. The word was full of grace and truth, received a most honourable teftimony from one who was confeffedly a prophet, and communicated to us of his fulness; for by him came grace and truth: who for this purpose among others dwelt among us, the prophet, the representative, and the only begotten Son of the invifible God. N. B. The notes refer to the fections of the Harmony. • After After this St. John proceeds to a particular tranfaction, which will appear in its proper place.' The Bishop has a note, too long to be tranfcribed, on the genealogies in St. Matthew's and St. Luke's Gofpels, and the manner of harmonizing them. The following is the fubftance of his own remarks on the fubject. His Lordship is of opinion that many names have been omitted in the genealogy in St. Matthew's Gospel, through the careleffnefs of tranfcribers: these he has supplied as far as he was able from the Old Testament. He is perfuaded that ver. 17 of the firft chapter of St. Matthew, is a marginal note taken into the text. In this he agrees with Bishop Pearce, who confirms his opinion from Jofephus, Ant. 5. 9. 4. where it is faid "that David reigned and left the government to his defcendants, for twenty-one generations of men and as the Bishop obferves, there were twentyone reigns including David's, if we add to the nineteen in this corrected lift Jehoahaz, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 2, and Zedekiah, ib. ver. 10." Dr. Newcome takes it for granted that the genealogy in St. Luke is that of Mary the mother of Jefus ; and he is of opinion, with Spanheim, that Jofeph is called the fon of Heli, as he was his fon-in-law, by being married to Mary his daughter. This may be the beft folution of the difficulties attending the fubject, but being founded on arbitrary fuppofitions, cannot, we think, give full fatisfaction to the rational inquirer. The following is his Lordship's note on the vifit of the Magi, and the other tranfactions recorded, Matth. chap. ii. which have been thought, not without reafon, inconfiftent with St. Luke's affertion, chap. ii. 39, that after the purification of Mary, according to the law, Jefus and his parents returned into Galilee to their own city, Nazareth. § 13. The holy Family return to Bethleem, from Jerufalem, and not to Nazareth; to which latter place they did not go till after their retreat into Egypt. Mary, who attentively confidered every circumftance relating to her fon Jefus, might prefer Bethleem from Micah v. 2: and from the fame of the angelic vifion, Luke ii. 18. Bishop Chandler thinks it probable that the parents of Jefus had fome property at Bethleem. Vind. p. 456. But Calvin difapproves of this reafon, because in Bethleem Jofeph hofpitium nullum invenire potuit. Harm. fol. p. 50. Ordering their affairs, or bidding farewell to their friends, might have been among their reafons for going there. Their return to this place is to be inferred from the narration, (fee Matth. ii. 8, 13, 16) like the return into the High-priest's Hall, 133; and the return of Mary Magdalene to the fepulchre, § 147. 147. Thus the death of Jofeph is implied, John xix. 27. It may be collected from Matth. ii. 22, that Judea was S defigned |