water, except what little fprang up with the three pipes; but remembering Dr. Rutty's caution, which I knew to be well founded, I proceeded with all poffible expedition to make the mafons fecure the bottom of the breaft-work.

Sept. 23. The mafons began to lay the thorough foundation, but particularly to fecure the bottom of the breast-work, which extended about 15 feet from the bank, and in the mean time the labourers were clearing out and levelling about 20 feet more, which being juft accomplished they were hurrying in ftones to be ready for the mafons, except one man, who was left to throw out and level fome fmall matter which they left undone; but all the alarms and frights we had met with, were nothing to a fresh difcovery which that man first observed; the floor (which was clean, fmooth, and dry) opening, I was inftantly called, and when I got on the fpot, could clearly perceive the ground fwelling up and opening, and it foon extended to about the length of ten feet, turning rather foutherly at the weft end, and the crack or opening was about three or four inches wide in the middle. The tide was then about ten feet high, and in the middle of the crack we found the water beginning to fpring up, which gently increased to about a foot diameter, and fprang pretty faft. I called for another pipe of the fame length, and had it drove down in the centre of the ebullition, or boiling up, till it came to the rock, and having bored and cleared it as before, which eafed and gave it vent, we found the water rife up, and in fact the very fame fort as came up in the three former pipes, and to the fame level, although this pipe was 17 feet to the fouth of them; and we plugging up this pipe alfo, the men did all in their power to get in ftones and mortar ready for the mafons, and in the mean time the water that sprang up through the crack rose 18 inches deep in the lower part of the pit; but providentially we then had the mafonry built above fix feet high against the bank; but when the ebb came it defifted, and we foon got out the water, and laid the largest and flattest of our ftones upon the crack, fpreading fome litter under them, and before the next tide had that part of the foundation almost as high as the other; for, from the time of our getting the bridge taken down to high-water, we wrought both night and day, without one minute's intermiffion, as we had two fets of all forts of men that relieved one another alternately every eight hours, not excepting even Sundays, when our urgent occafions required it: yet, notwithstanding we had luckily conquered that fubterraneous water at fo critical a time, it never failed every tide, whilft we wrought in that pit to contribute greatly to the increafe of the pump-men's labour; but as we wrought with unremitted perfeverance and great expedition, we molt fortunately prevented its burting up upon us. And of this I am well affured, that if we had not that inftant loaded that opening of the ground, the fubterraneous water would certainly have broke in upon us, and if it had, there could have been

no

no kind of poffibility of ever building a fubftantial bridge in that place, confidering the condition that every thing was then in, and fo many thousand pounds worth of labour and materials would have been totally loft, and our then hopeful projects entirely at an end, as Dr. Rutty had told us.'

Leaving the curious to make their own reflections on the above mentioned fingular phenomenon, we fhall only obferve, that the bridge is built exactly after the model of that at Weftminster, both in the figure and proportion of the arches. But the foundations are more fubftantially laid on or near the folid rock, to which the workmen digged in large batterdeaux, which inclofed half the breadth of the river at once, and in which the foundations were laid dry and at leifure. It does not, however, appear in what manner the walls above the hances of the arches are built up, whether folid or hollow with counter-arches. It is, indeed, our opinion, that there is far too much loading above the arches; and that if it were neceffary that the pavement fhould be fo high for the convenience of paffage, and on account of the adjacent streets, we think it would have been beft to have raised the arches higher, or perhaps to have made but three larger arches instead of the five fmaller ones of which it now confifts. This method wouldhave been more graceful, ftrong, and convenient for the navigation under the arches, as well as have faved perhaps one third of the expence, as there would have been only two piers instead of four, and much less masonry above the arches.

The fecond part of this work is rather more methodical and better written than the former. It is chiefly employed in directions for laying foundations in water for all kinds of works or purposes, and raising them above the furface of the water. The author's general method is this: he furrounds the space intended for the foundation, by a batterdeau, either fingle, double, &c. according to the extent or the depth of the water, made of grooved piles driven down and fitting into each other, and well ftrengthened and kept together by cross braces, &c. This cafe is then filled up with small fiones, gravel, fharp clean fand, and finely powdered lime, thrown in promiscuously so as to mix equally together: this compofition, the author fays, will foon cement, harden, or petrify, into a compact fubftance as hard and firm as an entire rock; and therefore be abundantly fufficient to support the superstructure even after the timber which forms the cafe is rotted and fallen off. the proper execution of all the parts, he gives very particular directions, illuftrated by cafes of many kinds of works for different purposes, and of various fizes and depths of water, and with plates of the feveral upright and horizontal fections,

For

which are very numerous and diftin&t, conveying clear ideas of the methods of putting the feveral parts of the work toge

ther.

Mr. Semple may be fometimes led into errors, for want of a fufficient knowledge of the mathematical principles of me. chanics, as where he treats of the force and preffure of water againft different figures, or of the height and breadth of a bridge in proportion to the depth of water, or of the proper thickness of the piers; but as far as experience and common good fenfe will lead with certainty, he feems to have proceeded with fuccefs, and laid down many useful and valuable directions. for building under water.

A Harmony of the Evangelifts, in Greek; to which are prefixeds Critical Differtations in English. By Jofeph Priestley, LL.D. F. R. S. 4to. 14s. Boards. Johnson.

IF

F we could diveft ourselves of all the prejudices of education, and read the writings of the four evangelifts with abfolute impartiality, we fhould be ftruck with the fimplicity, and, at the fame time, the majefty of their narrations, the fublimity of their doctrines, and the purity of their precepts; we should find a thousand inconteftible marks of their integrity, and fhould naturally conclude, that to frame a fyftem of morality, furpaffing the wifdom of all the philofophers and legislators of antiquity; to feign the life and actions of a Meffiah, exaaly corresponding with the various predictions of the Jewish prophets; to reprefent the Deity under the most endearing, honourable, and exalted character, to give us a profpect of a future ftate, perfectly coinciding with our moft refined ideas of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness, is a fcheine, which four poor, illiterate men were no more able to invent, than they were to create a world.

Though they wrote at different times, and in diftant places, and have evidently purfued their own plan in the choice and arrangement of their materials, yet they are perfealy confiftent in every effential article. Their variations are fuch only as would be found in the memoirs of a man's life and actions, written by any four eye-witneffes of the strictest veracity. The evangelifts feem to differ, because they felect and combine different circumftances, and present the reader with different views of the fame tranfa&tions. But their general uniformity in matters of importance is a ftrong prefumptive evidence, that their hiftories are founded in truth.

As the subject of which they treat is of the highest importance, a number of ecclefiaftical writers have attempted to

bring their feveral narratives into one view, and to range our Saviour's actions and difcourfes in the order of time.

In the execution of this defign almost every one has varied from his predeceffors. There is indeed a great number of incidents in the gospel hiftory, which cannot be confined to any particular period. In these cafes harmonifts have followed their own judgement or caprice: and it would be difficult to determine, which of their opinions is the moft reasonable.

Ofi.der*, among the more ancient harmonists, and Dr. Macknight among the modern, proceed upon a fuppofition, that all the evangelifts relate every thing in chronological order; and that all thofe incidents, which differ in but one circumftance, though they agree in many others, were distinct, and must be referred to a different time; juftly alledging the probability of our Saviour's having repeated the fame difcourfes and miracles; but not confidering the improbability of these difcourses and miracles being attended with a multitude of the fame external and accidental circumftances. The harmonifts, who have pursued this plan, make no difficulty of repeating such an incident, as that of our Saviour's driving the traders out of the temple †, as often as they have occafion for it; on which Dr. Priestley obferves, that, by the fame rule, we might make more than one baptism of Jefus, more than one inftitution of the Lord's-fupper, more than one crucifixion, and more than one refurrection.'

Some writers of harmonies adopt the order of the history, obferved by one of the evangelifts, tranfpofing the reft, whereever they judge it neceffary. Sir Ifaac Newton, and before him Lamy, thought the order obferved by Matthew and John the most authentic, because they were eye-witneffes of the things they have related: for which reafon they transposed Mark and Luke. On the other hand, Le Clerc, Whifton, and others, follow the order of Mark and Luke, because they agree between themselves in most particulars, and are not inconfiftent with John; and because Luke in his preface affirms, that he wrote nabens, in order: but then, becaufe this makes it neceffary to tranfpofe Matthew in places, where he has exprefly afcertained his own order, Mr. Whifton has taken a very fingular method to obviate the difficulty: fuppofing that Matthew's gofpel was originally compofed in the order obferved by the others, but that, through fome accident, it has been totally difturbed from the beginning of the fourth chapter, to the end of the thirteenth.

* Ofiander died, 1552. Joh. ii.

† Matt. xxi. Mar. xi, Luk. xix.

There

There are other harmonifts, who do not approve of the order obferved by any of the facred hiftorians, but transpose their narratives without reftriation, notwithstanding the parts of the history, which they feparate, are connected by expreffions, that apparently determine the facts to have happened at the times, and in the order affigned.

The author of the prefent Harmony has printed in a larger character what appeared to him to be the most authentic, and the most circumftantial account of every important ivident, collected from all the gofpels promifcuoufly, and the parallel paffages, in a smaller type, and in feparate columns.

His plan, as he informs us, was fuggefted by reading Mr. Mann's Differtations on the Times of the Birth and Death of Chrift. Finding in this treatife fome fundamental errors in ail preceding harmonies rectified, and the general outline of a quite new and better harmony laid down, I was led, he says, to confider the fubject with fome attention, and immediately fet about the fcheme of a harmony on his principles. And though, in the profecution of this work, I was led to depart from his difpofition of many particular events; yet a variety of additional arguments occurred to me in fupport of his opinion.

The fupernatural infpiration of the evangelifts has been generally admitted. But our author thinks, that this hypothefis is not fupported by fact, and muft therefore be given up.

For he is perfuaded, that in the courfe of thefe obfervations it will appear, that tranfactions unquestionably the fame, are related with circumftances, that are abfolutely incompatible; and that, in fpight of all the ingenuity in the world, their perfet confiftency, and confequently the high notion, commonly entertained, of the inspiration of the writers, is indefenfible.'

In this point he feems to be fo perfectly fatisfied, that he fays, by giving up the opinion of the infpiration of the evangelifts, as writers, we gain two very confiderable advantages. The firft is, that we place the gospel history on the fame unexceptionable footing with other credible hiftories, refting on independent teftimonies, in confequence of their agreement in all things of importance, and appearing to be independent of each other, by their difagreement in things of no confequence. In the fecond place, by this expedient we difencumber the evilence of the gospel hiftory of many objections, infignificant indeed in themfelves, but rendered of the greateft magnitude, and ever abfolutely infuperable by our profeffing to maintain the plenary infpiration of the Scriptures. In a word, we fecure, in the most effe&ual manner, the evidence of all the important

8