• Perhaps air does not enter into the compofition of bodies till it is united with fome principle as yet unknown to us. In this cafe it would exift there under the form of a secondary principle, as fire under that of phlogifton. However this be, we ought to make a proper diftinction between this combined air, and that which is interpofed between the particles of bodies. The latter may be feparated by mechanical means; whereas the former can only be expelled from bodies by decompofing them.

Boerhaave on this fubject fays, that an infulated particle of air is not elaftic, and that it acquires this property only when it is united with others; which takes place by the union of thofe particles of air which are detached from bodies fubmitted to a chemical analysis.

We fhall not undertake at prefent to demonstrate the existence of air as performing the function of a principle in vegetable and animal bodies. This would engage us in details which would fuppofe the knowledge of a great number of things that must be first treated of. We have just confidered the effects of fire upon air; let us now examine thofe of air upon fire.

Air is the vehicle of combustion. Without it no combuftible bodies can be burned: they are even extinguished though well kindled when all communication with the external air is cut off. Many able philofophers imagine that the weight and elafticity of air are the only caufes which render it proper for keeping up combustion. By means of these properties, it unites and affembles the active fire, and applies it immediately to the combustible matters which remain to be burned.

• This theory appears infufficient for the explanation of the following phenomenon. Black charcoal is put into a box of iron or earth exactly closed; this is placed in a furnace and heated to a white heat. How violent and how long continued foever the heat is, it is found, after the box is cooled, that the charcoal has loft nothing of its weight, and that it has undergone no combuftion. It is, however, certain, that the matter of fire, in its igneous motion, has continually been very intimately applied to it, and that the inflammable matter of the charcoal itself has been in a kindled ftate.

It may be conjectured with a good deal of probability, that the charcoal in this experiment does not burn, because it is deprived of air, and of all thofe matters which perform the office of air in becoming confiderably rarefied on numerous

condition in which we find it." He has accordingly, by means of the nitrous acid and a pure earth, free from phlogiston, produced an artificial air of much greater purity than the atmospherical. This he terms dephlogiflicated air. See Experiments and Obfervations en Air, vol. ii. fečt. 3. J. A.'

occafions,

Occafions, but which cannot be volatilifed in clofe veffels. The inflammable matter in charcoal is not fufceptible of any dilatation; it is even, as we have remarked, more fit to abforb air during its combuftion, than to furnish it. The charcoal in this procefs is penetrated with fire, but a fire foreign to it. Its own inflammable matter does not confume, because it is incapable of dilatation.

It will be urged, that neither do vegetable or animal bodies, though containing much air, with oily and aqueous matters, &c. burn during their analyfis; but this is owing to the fire being raised by degrees, in order to detach these fubflances in fucceffion. Experience has fhewn, that when the fire is pushed haftily, explotions are occafioned, which may arife as well from the inflammation, as the dilatation, of thefe volatile parts.

From what has been faid, it evidently follows, that the concourfe of the air is abfolutely neceflary for the combuftion of bodies. It is upon this property that all the mechanifm and construction of furnaces is founded.'

In tranflating this Manual Mr. Aikin has acquitted himself with his ufual ability, and performed an acceptable service to the lovers of chemical knowledge.

Difcourfes on the Four Gofpels, chiefly with Regard to the peculiar Defign of each, and the Order and Places in which they were Written. By Thomas Townson, B. D. 4to. 73. 6d. in boards. Bathurst.

THE

'HE learned author divides this work into eight difcourses. In the first he gives us a general account of the peculiar defign of each gospel, the state of the church to which it was adapted, and the characters of the evangelifts.

In the fecond he proves, on the authority of ancient writers, 1. That Sr. Matthew was the first writer of a gofpel; that he compofed it early for the inftruction of the Jewish people, and published it in Judæa. 2. That St. Mark was the second evangelift; that his gofpel was revifed or even dictated by St. Peter; that it was compiled for a mixed fociety of Jewish and Gentile converts; and moft probably published at Rome, or in Italy. 3. That the next evangelift, St. Luke, wrote with a more peculiar view to the converted Gentiles, and, as it seems Jikely, in Achaia. 4. That St. John wrote his gofpel after the destruction of Jerufalem, in Afia Minor.

In the third difcourfe the author fhews, by a great variety of parallel paffages, that each foregoing gofpel was known to the following evangelists.

VOL. XLVI. Auguft, 1778.

H

Оп

On this ground he enquires, whether the gofpels, compared with each other, bear any relative marks of the order, in which they were published. And they appear, he thinks, to have many fuch, especially if the following propofitions are juft.

1. The gofpel, by which the expreffions of another gofpel are explained, and rendered either clearer in themselves, or to the converted gentiles, was the later gospel.

2. The gospel, in which the doctrine taught in another is adapted to a more enlarged state of the church, was the later gofpel.

3. A gofpel published among the gentiles, was later than that, which was published among the Jews.'

As a corollary to his obfervations on thefe heads, he adds, that a gofpe! defigned to be of the most extensive benefit to the people of the Jews, muft have been written in a language which was moft generally understood by them. If therefore it was published in Hebrew, as the fathers teftify, for the fake of the common people of Jerufalem and Judea, it must, at the fame time, or very foon afterwards, have been published alfo in Greek; as that was more familiar than Hebrew to a great body of the difperfion.

In the fourth difcourfe he proceeds, in his manner, to evince the priority of St. Matthew, compared with St. Mark. • Matth. iii. 6. Were baptifed of him in Jordan.

Mar. i. 5. Were baptifed of him in THE RIVER of Jordan. The addition of the word RIVER in St. Mark may feem a flight circumftance, on which to found an argument; and yet I think it affords a ftrong probability, that St. Mark wrote at a distance from Judea, and not fo near it as Egypt: for I much question whether this is not the only place, either in the Bible or Apocrypha, where this river is called any more than fimply Jordan. So famous was it in Paleftine, and the countries round, and among these in Egypt. But at Rome it was a name little known, except among the learned, till after the wars of Titus Vefpafian, and the trophies erected on the conquest of Judea. And fince to be baptized in Jordan, like St. John's expreffion, John alfo was baptizing in Enon, does not of itself determine, whether a river or a place were intended, one would be apt to fufpect, that a queftion of this kind had been asked, and gave occafion to the inferting of the word river. Elfe it was extreme. ly natural for St. Mark to speak of Jordan, as all the other facred writers have done.

Matth. ix. 14. Then came the difciples of john faying, Why do we and the Pharifees faft oft, but thy difciples faft not?

Mark ii. 18, AND THE DISCIPLES OF JOHN AND OF THE PHARISEES USED TO FAST. And they come to him and fay unto

bim, Why do the difciples of John and of the Pharifees faft, but thy difciples faft not.

Here a little explanation is premised, but the next instance is more striking.

• Matth. xv. 1, 2. Then came to JESUS Scribes and Pharifees which were of Jerufalem, faying, Why do tby difciples tranfgrefs the tradition of the elders.

• Mark vii. 1—5. Then came together unto him the Pharifees and certain of the Scribes which came from Jerufalem. And when they faw fome of his difciples eat with defiled (THAT IS TO SAY, WITH UNWASHEN) bands, they found fault, FOR THE PHARISEES AND ALL THE JEWS, EXCEPT THEY WASH THEIR HANDS OFT, EAT NOT, HOLDING THE TRADITION OF THE ELDERS. AND WHEN THEY COME FROM THE MARKET, EXCEPT THEY WASH THEY EAT NOT. AND MANY OTHER THINGS THERE BE, WHICH THEY HAVE RECEIVED TO HOLD, AS THE WASHING OF CUPS AND POTS, AND OF BRAZEN

VESSELS AND TABLES. Then the Pharifees and Scribes asked bim, Why walk not thy difciples according to the tradition of the elders?

St. Mark's narration goes hand in hand with St. Matthew's for a good way together, both in the preceding and fubfequent parts; except that he has inferted this note for the fake of those who were strangers to Jewish cuftoms; of which there is no fuch explication in all St. Matthew's gofpel, because they for whom he compofed it did not want any.

We meet with another little note concerning Judea in the xi. chapter of St. Mark, v. 13. where giving an account of the barren fig-tree he fays, For the time of figs was not yet. St. Matthew does not make this obfervation, as every one who lived in that country muft know, that the full feason of ripe figs was not till fome time after the lateft paffover. Compare Matth. xxi. 19.

• Matth. xv. 22. And behold a CANAANITISH woman came out of the fame coafts, and cried unto him.

• Mark vii. 26. The woman was a GREEK a SYRO-PHOENICIAN by nation, and fhe befought him.

• Phoenicia was part of ancient Canaan; but the latter name was grown into difufe. It is mentioned no where in the New Teftament, except here, and A&s vii. 11. xiii. 19. where St. Stephen and St. Paul fpeak of remote antiquity, and speak of it to a Jewish audience. Jofephus ufes it only with regard to the higher ages. St. Mark therefore explains Canaantish by Syro-Phoenician, which was more generally understood. By faying, that, the woman was a Greek, he means that she was not of the Jewish religion.

As the term Canaanite was become obfolete, may we not conclude, that a tranflator of St. Matthew from the Hebrew would have rendered it either Syro Phoenician with St. Mark, or fimply Phoenician, as is often done in the Septuagint?

H 2

This

This therefore is one of the prefumptive proofs, that the Greek of this gospel is from the hand of the author himself. And the preference of an antique to a modern word in this place makes the conjecture already mentioned more probable, that Gergefa and Gadara were names of the fame city, of which St. Matthew chofe the more ancient."

In the fame manner the author endeavours to prove, that St. Matthew wrote before St. Luke.

St. Matthew, ch. iii. 3. quotes a paffage from Ifaias, which is likewife cited by St. Luke, with this additional claufe: and all flesh fall fee the falvation of God. Upon which the author has the following remark.

• St. Luke feems to have lengthened out St. Matthew's quotation for two reafons: because he wrote for thofe who were Jefs acquainted with the prophecy; 2. because the part, which he has added contains a promife, that the manifeftation, which God will make of himself by the gofpel, will be fuch a bleffing, as all nations will have a fhare in.

· Matth. xi. 11. There hath not risen a greater than John the Baptift.

Luke vii. 28. There is not a greater PROPHET than John the Baptift.

The gentiles being little acquainted with the character and office of John, whofe miffion had been confined to his own country, St. Luke very ufefully inferted the word prophet, that it might appear more evident, in which respect John was to be numbered among the greatelt of thofe that are born of

women,

Matth. xxiv. 15. When ye shall fee the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION, Spoken of by Daniel the prophet, ftand in the holy place.

Luke xxi. 20. When ye shall fee JERUSALEM compaffed with

armies, &c.

What St. Matthew had delivered in the figurative style of the prophet Daniel, St. Luke, palling over the reference to the prophecy, more openly declares, the boly place is Jerufalem, and the abomination of defolation are the armies encompaffing it, and encamping on this holy ground, with enfigns of idolatrous worship.

St. Matthew fays in the fame chapter, v. 29. Immediately after the tribulation of those days, fhall the fun be darkened, and the moon fhall not give her light, and the fars shall fall from beaven, and the powers of the beavens fhall be fhaken.

This is the fymbolical language of prophecy to fignify the ruin of great perfonages and kingdoms, and denotes the fame events, which are thus predicted in St. Luke:

xxi. 23, 24. There shall be great diftress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they fhall fall by the edge of the

Sword;