« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
ciples made by John the Baptist, and Jefus.' But for this, and not being capable of abridgment, we must refer our Readers to the treatise itself.
In our Review for Feb. p. 83 and 85, we took notice of, what appeared to us, the strongest objections urged by Dr. Priestley against the common opinion, that our Lord's ministry continued three years and a half.
and a half. We shall now lay before our Readers part of the reply which Dr. Newcome makes to them.
• I have given,' says his Lordship, several * instances of charms in the Gospels, discoverable by a comparison of them with each other. The three first Evangelists record events scattered through the whole of our Lord's públic miniftry; and the largest f omiffions are those from the Temptation to the Preaching in Galilee immediately after John's imprisonment, and those I of the period during which our Lord attended the Feafts of Tabernacles and Dedication. St. John furnishes some of the intermediate events in both these intervals : and in his fupplemental Gospel has great omissions, and ß one of about a whole year. However the mode of writing used by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is not uncommon in the best writers of antiquity. And what was the end of their writing? That we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing we might have life through his name. What you say concerning the order of time, is just as applicable to notations of time. tal uses of the Gospel q did not require them.” “If we confi. der the immediate object of the Apostles and Evangelists in preaching Christ, namely to make their hearers good men, to affeet mankind with a sense of the truth and greatness of his character,' that they might live in the firm belief and expectation of his second coming, we shall not wonder at their not being solicitous about [noting the time of] incidents in their history; for this was a circumstance that had little apparent tendency to produce that effect **."
In regard to Dr. Priestley's fuppofition, that the greater part of our Lord's time was as fully employed as, according to the accounts of the Evangelists fome very thort periods appear to have been, &c. the Bishop obferves, the Evangelists thew that there were large portions of ft leisure and retreat in Jesus's life; and, if we except the last week of it, that he generally with
* No:es on my Harmány, p.4.
+ Matthew iv. 11-12, Marki: 13--14. Like iv. 13-14. | Matthew, c. xviii- xix. Mask c. ix-x.
§ Ch, v-vi.
1 John Xx. 312 a Preface to Differt. p. vui
** Observations on the Harmony, p. 74.
tt John iii. 22.
Matth. XV. 21. xvi, 13 John X. 40. xi. 54.
drew himself after its busy * periods, which indeed occur only four or five times. Enlarging the duration of Christ's ministry beyond a year, is not multiplying his miracles : it is only distributing the same miracles through a more extended period: which is giving scope for wisdom to display itself in occasionally avoiding the notice, and softening the resentment of enemies. And we may cease to wonder at any degree of perverse opposition and hardened incredulity in the Jews, when we consider the conduct of their + forefathers in the Wilderness, the infatuation of their Rulers in ascribing Jesus's miracles to Satan, and the national infidelity after the effufion of the Spirit, when the Apostles communicated extraordinary spiritual gifts to every believer, and thus multiplied miracles exceedingly.
To invalidate the objection which Dr. Priestley urges so strongly against the common opinion, from Herod's ignorance who Jesus was, his Lordship observes, that Herod may not have resided in his tetrarchy during the time in question, or may have resided chiefly in Perea beyond Jordan; that Herod was very attentive to the Romans, and consequently a visit to a Roman Governor at Cesarea or Damascus, or a journey to Rome, might engage bim during a great part of our Lord's ministry, that he might be employed in training his forces for war; that the peaceable and prudent behaviour of Jesus, prevented him from giving umbrage to the civil power; and that others besides Herod, when they heard of Jelus, thought that John was risen from the dead. The Bishop further asks, whether Dr. Priestley's scheme is not as strongly affected by this difficulty as the common one? We answer, No: the ignorance of Herod will be a difficulty upon every scheme; but increases in magnitude in proportion to the length of time that we suppose Jesus to have preached. His Lordship concludes, I am little concerned about the inattention or avocations of Herod and his friends about the strange doubts of caprice, or the strange resolves of a guilty conscience,' This, we must observe, is evading the difficulty, not removing it.
Dr. Priestley had given it as his opinion, that a single miracle wrought at Chorafin, and at Bethsaida, would justify all the denunciations of our Lord against those places. Upon this Dr. Newcome has the following judicious remaiks.
• From our Lord's mention I of Chorafin and Bethfaida as the scene of most of his mighty works, and of luch as would have
* Mark i. 35. iv. 35. vi. l. John vi. 15. After bealing great numbers, and preaching the Sermon on the Mount, be entered Ca
Luke vii. 1.11. pernaum, and went the next day to Nain. + Acts vii. 31. | Matth. xi. 20-22,
convinced Tyre and Sidon, I conclude that they had repeated; as well as ample, means of conviction.'
I think that Jesus often visited these places from Capernaum; and that he both taught in their fynagogues, and wrought miracles in their streets. Cities twice mentioned with Capernaum seem to have enjoyed like means of reformation with that favoured city : and the adopters of an hypothefis fhew theme selves embarrassed, who must almost necessarily recur to “ a single & miracle publicly performed,” or to." as much as was transacted at Capernaum in the evening of a single day,” as sufficient grounds for such awful declarations concerning the: impenitence and punishment of these cities.'
To Dr. Priestley's observation on the improbability that our: Lord would neglect to attend on the four public annual feasts, at which every Jew was bound to appear, his Lordship replies, * It was not because Jesus had not otherwise sufficient time to discharge the proper duties of his ministry, but for reasons of ex . pediency and prudence, that he did not statedly go up to Jerufalem at the four annual festivals : he knew what was in man; the fecularity and narrow prepoffeffions of the Jewish Rulers, and their insidious and captious jealousy when alarmed by the most indirect claims to the Melliahship: and he intermitted his attendance on those feasts which passed between John ii. 13. and ch. v. I. principally because at those seasons he could not have exercised his office, and published his credentials as the Christ, with the necessary degree of freedom and fortitude, without obstructing the course of his ministry. After fome further remarks in support of this argument, his Lordship adds, “We learn from the Gospels how neceffary this precaution was: for both at the Feast of Tabernacles, fix months before his death, and at the Feast of Dedication, three months before it, he was compelled to preserve bis * life by miracle: facts which strongly illustrate his prudence in absenting himself from other feftivals, as I conclude from the silence of St. John, who seems particularly intent on relating our Lord's actions at Jerusalem.'
We purposely omit our Author's remarks on the manner of our Lord's preaching, and the time that was requisite to answer the purpose of his mission and ministry, as the Bishop's fentiments on this subject nearly coincide with those we offered to the Public in our Review of Dr. Priestley's Harmony t.
There are many other particulars in this curious and entertaining treatise, which we could willingly lay-before our Read
But as we hall have occasion to resume the subject, when
8 Matth. xi. 21 - 23. Luke x. 13-15: # Letter, p. xvi. * John viii. 59. X, 39.
+ See Review for Feb. p. 80.
we take Dr. Priestley's second letter to the Bishop into consideration, we shall here close this article, with recommending the whole of the controversy to the attention of Scripture critics in general. It is with pleasure we can assure them, that in the prefent work, they will meet with the same ingenuity, candor, and liberality of difpofition, which, with so much reason, we noticed and applauded in his Lordship's former publication.
Art. XI. PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS of the Royal Society of
London. Vol. LXX. For the Year 1780. Part I, and Il. continued from Page 278, Rev. for April, and concluded.
MATHEMATICAL and ASTRONOMICAL. Art. 1. Calculations to determine at what Point in the side of a
Hill its Attraction will be greatest, &C, By Charles Hutton, LL. D. and F. R. S.
HE great success of the experiment lately made on the hill
may probably, Dr. H. says, give occasion to experiments of the fame kind to be made elsewhere : and as all possible means of accuracy and facility are desireable, in so delicate and laborious an undertaking, he has added this by way of supplement to his former paper on the subject ; since this best point of observation has never, that he knows of, been determined before, but has been variously guessed at, it being sometimes Accounted at \, and sometimes at of the height of the hill. In this paper he confiders the hill as a prismatic solid, and finds the point of greatest attraction, according to the principles before made use of by Clairaut, Maclaurin, &c. to be in general at about of the altitude of the hill from the bottom. Art. 5. An Appendix to the Paper in the Philosophical Transac
tions for 1778. No. XLII. p. 902, & seq. &c. By Francis Maseres, Esq; F. R. S. Cursicor Baron of the Exchequer. In the paper to which this is an appendix, is shewn a method of extending Cardan's Rule, under same limitations, to the irreductible case of cubic equations, that is to the case, to the folution of which it has generally been deemed inapplicable. These limitations are, firit, when the square of half the known side of the equation, being affirmative, is greater than the cube of į of the negative coefficient, of the unknown term of the equation that has unity for its exponent; and secondly, when it is less than the said cube, but greater than its half. And in this Appendix for this latter limitation, is given a series for the root that converges fafter than that in the former paper; for it seems as if the rule could not be applied at all to this limitation, without throwing one of the surds into an infinite series, which makes
it a very operose and troublesome business; and the roots of any cubic equation may be much more readily found by means of the tables ; viz. all the varieties of the irreductible case, by means of the tables of fines, and the other cases by logarithms, by the method given by Mr. Cotes, at p. 29 of his Harmonia Menfurarum, and which is well explained, and illustrated with examples by Dr. Saunderfon, at p. 718 of his Algebra, Vol. II.
BARON MASERES moreover tells us, that he does not know any method of extending Cardan's rule, to the limit, when the fqnare mentioned above is also less than half the cube-But, he adds, I have been informed by my learned and ingenious friend Dr. Charles Hutton, Professor of Mathematics in the Royal Academy at W.eolwich, that he has discovered such a method. Art. 12. A ConjeEture concerning the Method by which Cardan's
Rules for refolving Cubic Equations, were probably discovered by Scipio Ferreus of Bonona, or whoever else was the first Inventor. By the same.
This gentleman supposes that the first inventor of these rules tried a great variety of methods of reducing there equations to a lower degree, or to a more simple form, by substituting various quantities for the unknown one, in hope that some of the terms arising from such substitutions, might be equal to others of them, and, having contrary fignis prefixed to them, might destroy them, and thereby render ihe new equation more simple and manageable than the old one. And, among other trials, it seems natural to imagine, that he would subititute the sum or difference of two other quantities, instead of the unknown one sought, as being the most simple and obvious substitutions that could be made : and by doing this, the rules would of course come to be discovered, as well as the limitation of them.i.i... We allow that the rules might possibly be discovered in this manner, which is indeed the most usual method by which authors give their investigation. There is however another very natural way of effecting the same thing, from the obvious properties of the wellknown expression for the cube of a fimple hinomial, which not only investigates the rules, but also the method of fubftitution mentioned above, and that without trials. As
be feen in the 12th chapter of the 4th feation of Euler's Algebra. Art. 17. Theorems for computing Logarithms. By the Rev. John
Feilins. These Theorems are an improvement of the method given in Mr. T. Simpson's Trigonometry, Art. 18. (Numbered 17 by Mittake.) Connoissances Essentielles,
&c. i. e. Requisites, l’ential to form a Judgment of any new Kind of Mill for Sugar Canes, that inay be proposed. By Mons. Cazaud, F. R. S.
M. Cazaud, having as he tells us, made many very chargeable, and at the same time uble's experiments himself, here cautions 8