find it already rolled away, and the body gone. Being exceedingly aftonifhed at this, they difperfed themselves to different places, to inform the difciples of what they had feen; for it is not at all probable, that, in their prefent ftate of fear and confternation, they were all together. Mary Magdalene went to Peter and John, who immediately ran to the fepulchre, followed by Mary herself; but ftaying longer than they did, and looking into the fepulchre, after they were gone, fhe faw firft the two angels, and then Jefus himself.

Suppofing the other women not to have quitted the garden, but to have waited for the return of Mary Magdalene, we may allow that they also were favoured with an appearance of Jefus to them, presently after the appearance to Mary, and before they had quitted the garden, when they were all permitted to embrace his feet, according to Matthew.

By this time, it is probable, that most of his disciples were got together, in confequence of the news they had heard, when Mary joined them, and informed them that he had feen Jefus himself, but they gave no credit to her. Some time the fame day, when the difciples were feparated, Jefus appeared to Peter alone, Luke xxiv. 34, who upon this, probably affembled as many of the difciples as he could, to inform them of it. After the appearance of Peter, our Lord joined the two difciples who were going to Emmaus, and dif covered himself to them; upon which they immediately returned to Jerufalem, and going to the place where the difciples were affembled, were informed by them that Jefus had appeared to Peter; and while they were giving an account of the manner in which he had made himself known to them alfo, Jefus himself appeared to them, and eat with them. Thomas, being informed of this, would not believe; but that day fevennight, Jefus appeared to them when Thomas was prefent, and was fully fatisfied. After this, all the difciples went to Galilee, where Jefus was feen by them, and the other difciples, many of whom refided in Galilee; and returning to Jerufalem, he afcended to heaven in the prefence of many of them, from the Mount of Olives.

I take it for granted, that John would not have given fo circumftantial an account, as he has done of the manner in which the refurrection was first notified, if it had not been for the fake of being more exact than the other Evangelifts had been. I have, therefore, followed his account, and think that the variations in the other Evangelifts, which cannot be easily reconciled with it, must be ascribed to their being misinformed, and mistaken concerning them. But they are things of no moment, fo that the variations with respect to them, serve to make the general account of the refurrection the more, and not the lefs credible.

All the Evangelifts, except John, reprefent the women as having feen the vifion of angels before any of them had been with the apoftles, but the account which John gives, makes the discovery of the refurrection more gradual and pleafing. It is alfo to be observed, that the manner in which they defcribe this vifion is remarkably dif ferent.

The reader will find much light thrown upon the hiftory of the refurrection in a quarto pamphlet of Dr, Lardner's, intituled, Obser

H 3

vations

to/

vations on Dr. Macknight's Harmony of the four Gospels, fo far as relates to the Hiftory of our Saviour's Refurrection. Dr. Macknight has made fuch a number of arbitrary and improbable fuppofitions relating to this part of the gospel hiftory, that, instead of fucceeding in his attempts to reconcile the different accounts of it, the unwarrantable liberties he has taken with it do, as Dr. Lardner obferves, exceedingly perplex and persert the biftory, which must be of bad consequence. No biftory, he oblerves, p. 16, can stand fuch treatment. My acCount of the order of the events agrees very nearly with that of Dr. Lardner, though it was written without confulting his. We differ in this, that he thinks all the writers had precifely the fame ideas of the order of the events, which to me does not appear probable.'

To this work the Author hath prefixed a manly and fenfible dedication to that friend of civil and religious liberty, and, in all refpects, most amiable character, Dr. Price. Some of our Readers will, perhaps, think themselves obliged to us for a tranfcript of it:

REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,

• Permit me, as a mark of our friendship, and of our love of the fame ftudies, to infcribe this work to you. It is not that I wish to fcreen myself behind your authority, or to make you refponfible for what is new, and may be thought too bold or hazardous in the opinions maintained in it; but I wish to have your countenance for the freedom with which I have treated this fubject, and especially for what I have faid relating to the inspiration of the bo ks of Scripture. This opinion is not only a bar to freedom of inquiry, but has operated in a manner very unfavourable to the credibility of the gofpel history. With refpect to other matters of a fpeculative nature, relating to Christianity, I cannot be more ready to take, than you are to allow, and encourage, the greatest freedom of thinking and writing, and confequently the moft open and avowed difference of fen timent; fince what is moft effential to the Chriftian temper and conduct is perfectly confiftent with this difference.

In a variety of articles in metaphyfics, and speculative theology, it is probable that, having, at an early period, embraced very different general principles, you and I fhall continue through life to hoid very different opinions, and with respect to their influence in a theoretical fyftem, we may lay confiderable ftrefs upon them; but we agree in a firm belief of Chriftianity, and of the infinite importance of it to the virtue and happiness of mankind.

• Whether Christ was a man like ourselves, or a being of a higher rank, but between which and the Supreme, there is fill the fame infinite diftance, the authority of the gofpel precepts, promifes, and fanctions is the fame, and the higheft poffible, viz. that of the great being by whom Chrift fpake, who is his God and Father as well as Ours; and who, if we obey his will revealed to us in the gospel, will love and honour us, as he loves and honours him.

'I think myself happy in being united with you in the pursuit of natural science, and in an attachment to the natural rights and liberties of mankind; but I truft we shall both of us ever act upon the idea

of

KX

of the inferiority of all the civil rights of men to the privileges of
Chriftians, and of the infignificancy of all things temporal compared
with things eternal.'

ART. II. The Gentleman Farmer, being an Attempt to improve Agri-
culture, by fubjecting it to the Teft of rational Principles. By
Lord Kaims. See last Month's Review.-Farther Account.

A

(By a CORRESPONDENT)

GRICULTURE was long neglected by the inhabitants of Scotland; but all ranks, in that country, are now applying with unremitting affiduity, to the improvement of this ufeful art, from whence we expect, that they will, in a fhort time, rival even the ENGLISH, in this their favourite profeffion. We obferve, with pleasure, that feveral valuable (practical) treatifes on agriculture have, within the compafs of a few years, been published in that country. Thefe have in general one great advantage over moft of our English publications on this fubject. Being written by men, who have themfelves actually practifed agriculture, they abound more with ufeful precepts, adapted to the foil and climate (the refult of experience) than our more bulky performances. But, ftill, we have reason to regret that fo many of these authors, in imitation of our bookmakers, have thought it neceffary to fay fomething on almost every branch of agriculture; while it is impoffible that any man can be equally acquainted with every branch of the art. Accident, inclination, or genius forbid this; for from one or other of thefe caufes, fome particulars will always obtain a much greater share of attention than others; and upon these favourite points alone can the author become an useful instructor:-books are thus multiplied without neceffity, and the errors of former writers are not fuffered to fall into oblivion.

The work before as is, in fome measure, liable to this objection. Almost every branch of the farmer's bufinefs is here difcuffed, nor are all of them treated with equal fkill and judgment. But the book, nevertheless, contains fo many useful precepts, the refult of experience, that we confider it, on the whole, as a valuable addition to the general ftock of agricultural knowledge; efpecially to the inhabitants of Scotland, for whom it was in a particular manner originally intended.

The Public is indebted for this valuable treatise to the very ingenious Author of the Elements of Criticism; who, at a period of life when others only feek for eafe, is indefatigable in the pursuit of knowledge; and who, like another Voltaire, repelling the attacks of time, unites the experience of age with the fire and vivacity of youth. The prefs ftill teems with the varied productions of his unwearied pen; but, unlike the philofopher of Ferney, our Author is employed in conveying to his H 4

× Mather Mr D. a friend of y. Drs.

country

latter /

countrymen only useful knowledge and leffons of wisdom, by which pofterity will be benefited, long after the fprightly, but too often ill judged, fallies of the other will be totally for

gotten.

This work confifts of two parts, the firft on the practice, the fecond on the theory of agriculture, and an appendix containing fome pieces of a miscellaneous nature.

We mentioned, in our laft, the general contents of this work, and gave a few paffages from it, as fpecimens of the execution: to which the following extracts and obfervations may now be added.

Among other particulars in the fecond chapter (on Farmcattle, &c.) we meet with a comparison between the expence of labouring with horfes or with oxen, which, like all other computations of this kind, of late, turns out much in favour of the former. We, who fpeak not from any great experience, can fee no valid objection to this calculation; but one peculiarity has occurred to us on this head, which deferves to be attended to. We know that, in old times, oxen were the only beafts of draught throughout every part of Britain, We know also that wherever, in this country, confiderable improvements in agriculture have taken place, oxen have been long difufed, and horfes have been employed in their ftead: and that although horned cattle are still put to the plough, in those rude and uncultivated parts of the country where agriculture is unskilfully practifed, yet that they never fail to difappear as the inhabitants improve in knowledge, and are as invariably fucceeded by horfes for draught. Whence, we would afk, proceeds this unaccountable phenomenon? We hear daily complaints that mankind are fo wedded to old practices, that it is a matter of great difficulty to perfuade them to adopt new ones, even when demonftrations of their fuperior utility are produced; but, in this inftance, although ftrong arguments are daily employed to convince men that they will do well to adhere to their old practice, they, nevertheless, relinquifh it, and adopt a new one, in favour of which they are not able to produce any argument that feems to be of weight. Such a peculiarity could not prevail fo univerfally without fome caufe. We therefore recommend this circumftance to the confideration of future writers, as an object that requires a more ferious inveftigation than it feems, as yet, to have obtained.

His directions about bringing land into tillage from the state of nature, are judicious, and the refult of actual experiment. The firft crop he recommends is turnips, after having brought the land into a mellow tilth by fallow and manures. This is an expenfive method in comparison of fome that have been recommended to the Public by farming quacks, who, by calcu

lations

7

lations that are perfectly faultlefs, fave that they have no foundation to rest upon, prove in the clearest manner that a barren heath is more valuable to its poffeffor, and will fooner enrich him than the mines of Potofi. What have not thofe to anfwer for, who thus deliberately fet themselves to ruin thofe ignorant and credulous perfons into whofe hands fuch chimerical treatifes may fall!

In treating of ridges, he obferves that, on a clay foil, the ridges ought to be twelve feet wide, and twenty inches high; to be preferved always in the fame form by cafting, that is, by ploughing two ridges together, beginning at the furrow that feparates them, and ploughing round and round till the two ridges are finished. To this form of a ridge we have fome objections: first, The fame plough can never be equally proper for plowing the hanging and raised fide of the ridge, on which account it would be neceffary to employ, at all times, two ploughs of different conftructions, otherwife one fide of the ridge, at leaft, must be imperfectly plowed: fecondly, When two furrows are turned towards one another in beginning to plow the two ridges, these furrows must either be laid quite close upon each other, or a part of the earth will be left fast beneath them; but if they are laid quite clofe at plowing, and an opening is afterwards made by the plough between thefe ridges, a part of the edge of the furrow will be raised higher than that part of the ridge which is immediately behind it, where the water will be detained before it can reach the furrow, and will damage the crop laftly, The rounding procured by raifing the middle of the ridge fo high, can be of no ufe in throwing off the water from the ridge during all that interval which occurs between plowing and harrowing (which is ufually the wetteft season of the year) as the inequalities formed by the furrow-flices lying parallel to one another the whole length of the ridge, prevent its defcent. For these reasons we imagine it would be more advifable to keep the ridges always flat in clay as well as other foils, only with the precaution of making the ridges narrow in proportion to the vifcidity and obduracy of the clay. A skilful plowman can always give narrow ridges (when plowed fo as to make what was the furrow the former year the middle of the ridge this year) a fufficient degree of roundness to allow the water to fall into the furrows. But the most perfect manner of ridging land of this kind, that we have yet feen, is that which is practifed in Effex. There the ridges are only about three feet wide, and are made to run in a direction right across the ridges of the former year, by which means the horses in plowing always ftep full across the former years ridges, fo as never to poach the ground with their feet in the smallest degree: an advantage of very great moment in a damp binding foil.

In