designs made in a higher style of art. Marc-Antonio Raimondi who flourished in the early part of the sixteenth century, was the first great improver of engraving in his own country. He emulated and equalled Albert Durer and Lucas Van Leyden; and his prints after Raphael are distinguished for the spirit and truth with which they render the productions of that illustrious artist. Mr. Ottley has given some interesting fac-similes of this great engraver, and one of Albert Durer. Having been fortunate enough to procure some of the original wood-blocks from Albert's designs, he has inserted in his ، Inquiry' impressions from several of the most valuable. It is with reluctance that we stop here: an after opportunity may possibly occur, of bringing this sketch of the early history of Art, down to our own times. Art. V. The Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, according to the Four Evangelists. From the German of John David Michaelis, formerly Professor of Philosophy at Gottingen, &c. 12mo. pp. 352. Price 6s. 6d. London. 1827. 1 upon the ADMIT,' says the learned Author of this treatise, that there is no part of the evangelical history which, whole, is so little satisfactory, as that which relates to the Resurrection. This is a startling observation to set out with, and we cannot but regard it as a very unguarded and erroneous concession. It is true, as Michaelis contends, that the fact of the Resurrection does not absolutely rest upon the testimony and details of the four Evangelists. We believe it,' he says, because it was believed and known to be certain and true about eighteen hundred years ago, and before the evangelists and the apostles had written. We believe it upon the testimony of disciples who say, they were themselves eye-witnesses of the fact, who saw Jesus after his resurrection,-who avowed it before the Synod at Jerusalem, although they knew that pain and anguish and misery would follow it; some of whom sealed their belief in the fact-(mind, not a belief in an opinion, for opinion, we know, will induce men to support their own ways of thinking at any risk,)-who sealed it with their blood, without any one of them recalling that belief or disavowing their knowledge; without any one of them revealing the deceit, if deceit there was, but confirming rather their mission by the working of miracles, and the communication of supernatural gifts; setting at defiance the Synod of Jerusalem, who never made any judicial inquiry into the subject as to where the body of Jesus was, or whether his disciples had actually stolen it.' Still, of whatever advantage or effect this argument is susceptible in defending the truth of Christianity against an unVol. XXVIII. N.S. 2P believer, who rejects the inspiration, or questions the credibility of the account furnished by the Evangelists,-it must have a most pernicious influence upon the minds of uninstructed persons, to find the certainty and harmony of the sacred records treated as questionable. I am not certain,' says Michaelis, whether we should not gain by admitting, that the Evangelists ' were fallible,'-gain, we suppose he means, by getting rid of the supposed difficulty of reconciling the minute discrepancies in their respective accounts. We regret that the Translator of the present Treatise should have passed over this remark without comment. What we should gain by so cutting the knot, may easily be estimated, for it is a pure negation; but the loss, though it would leave the truth of Christianity still certain and demonstrable, would, as respects the intrinsic value and doctrinal purpose of the New Testament records, be infinite, since it would altogether invalidate their authority as an infallible rule of faith. As historians, the competence of their testimony does not depend upon their inspiration, since the only qualities requisite to constitute a credible witness, are, accurate knowledge and inflexible integrity. But, as the depositories of revealed truth, the stewards of the Divine mysteries, in which high character they claim to be regarded by all who give credit to their testimony, their qualifications are absolutely dependent upon that inspiration which secures their infallibility, and stamps upon their communications the Seal of Heaven. This is not the place for entering at large into the proof of their inspiration. The learned Author remarks, that the Evangelists themselves say nothing of their being inspired; and Luke expressly states, that he had acquired his knowledge from the information of others, and had taken great pains to ⚫ ascertain whether it was accurate.' There is, certainly, this distinction to be made between Luke and the Apostles who wrote of the things which they had seen and heard; that the latter were eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses of the facts and sayings recorded. But, as inspiration would not, in their case, supersede, but merely assist their recollection, so, neither would it supersede, in one who was not an eye-witness, the careful collection of facts upon the testimony of others. Revelation and Inspiration, though sometimes confounded, differ essentially. Inspiration must be considered as a miraculous gift, a supernatural illumination of the mental faculties, whether of memory, judgement, or any other power; of which the gift of tongues was at once a striking instance, and a most irrefragable demonstration. The possibility of inspiration, its mysterious nature, and the fact that the Apostles were Divinely inspired, were sufficiently established by that one sign.' Re velation is something more than this. It is a specific commu- The Evangelists say nothing of their inspiration,' because they say nothing of themselves. Michaelis admits, however, that the passage in John xiv. 26, applies in the first instance to the Apostles,' and chiefly to the words of Christ, which ' are the main foundations of our faith.' Now, if the Apostles were sufficiently inspired to secure the certainty of the revelation which they have transmitted to us, this might be satisfactory, even if their inspiration did not extend to historical facts or matters of hearsay.' This partial and limited inspiration, such as should secure the greater matter and not the less, such as should secure their infallible remembrance of the words of Christ, and not assist their recollection of the facts they had witnessed, appears to us, however, more hard to be conceived of, and less likely to be admitted by the sceptical objector, than their constant personal infallibility both as witnesses and teachers. And if Matthew and John were thus miraculously guided into all truth by the Divine Remembrancer and Guide, few persons will think it worth while to contest the virtual inspiration of the other Evangelists, whose gospels, * 1 Cor. xi. 23, xv. 1. +1 Cor. ix. 1. Gal. i. 11. The distinction between Inspiration and Revelation is not less important in reference to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Michaelis, who can see no proof of the inspiration of the Evangelists in relating historical facts, because a revelation was not necessary for that purpose, says: I hold the same opinion with respect to the historical books of the Old Testament, with the exception, however, of one book, which no reasonable man would attempt to compose without the help of revelation; namely, the history of 'the Creation.' Here, Revelation and Inspiration are treated as synonymous; in our judgement most erroneously. The question is, Were the writers inspired men ? according to the voice of all antiquity, come down to us impressed at least with apostolic, that is, inspired sanction. Supposing, then, that there could be detected in the several accounts furnished by the four Evangelists, a discrepancy apparently irreconcileable, and amounting to a seeming contradiction, the authenticity of the record and the integrity of the writers being admitted, and their inspiration, following as a necessary consequence from their credibility,-it would be as fair to infer from their inspiration, that the contradiction could not be real, but must be only apparent, as it is deemed reasonable to build upon the discrepancy an argument against their inspiration. And instances enough might be cited, of apparent contradictions which have vanished before further investigation and clearer knowledge, to justify and strengthen this mode of argument. But what are these appalling difficulties in the history of the Resurrection, which are supposed to bring into question the inspiration of at least two of the Evangelists? For Michaelis is disposed to give up the inspiration of Mark and Luke, in order to cut off all ground for cavil,-a very dangerous and unnecessary expedient. The cases of apparent contradiction which he refers to, are these: 1. The last twelve verses of Mark, (xvi. 9—20.) contradict another Evangelist. 2. The remaining or genuine part of Mark contradicts another Evangelist. 3. The Gospel of Luke contradicts another Evangelist.' All these cases of supposed contradiction relate to the circumstances attending the visits of the women to the sepulchre. They affect, as will be immediately perceived, not the certainty of the fact, but the accuracy (and consequently the infallibility) of the sacred historians. In no other light, would the discrepancy be material. But in this point of view, the subject is of the highest importance; and the present Treatise, which contains the substance of a course of lectures delivered by the learned Author in 1782, though not completely satisfactory, and containing, as we have shewn, some erroneous and dangerous positions, is an interesting contribution to Biblical literature. The first apparent contradiction is thus stated. 8. "Neither said they any thing to any man, for they were afraid." If the eight following verses of Mark are genuine, and from the hand of Mark, I know not how to extract any other sense from the verses 8-11, than the following, but which I am at a loss to reconcile with the narrations of the other evangelists. The other women only saw the angels, but not Jesus personally. The angels commanded them : to convey the intelligence of his resurrection to his disciples, but they were afraid to do it, and mentioned it to no one. Mary Magdalene saw Jesus himself, and she carried the information of his resurrection to his disciples. But this is an evident contradiction of Matthew and of Luke. According to the two last, the other women see Jesus as they go away from the grave; and, as has been hostilely observed, on their return to Jerusalem, and at some distance from the grave; whilst Mary Magdalene, on the contrary, sees him close to the sepulchre. Nor does it promote our object to say, that Matthew and Mark relate in the plural number, what properly is confined to Mary Magdalene. If, however, we attempt to obviate the difficulty, by saying, Mark does not deny the fact of Jesus shewing himself to the other women, but that he appeared, in the first instance, to Mary Magdalene although this explanation is scarcely reconcileable with the words of Mark, still, another difficulty arises, for the other women had already left the grave, and returned to the city, when Mary Magdalene comes a second time, with Peter and John, to the sepulchre, and then Jesus appears to her. (John xx. 2-18.) If he appeared to the other women, as they returned to Jerusalem, they must have seen him sooner than Mary Magdalene, and, as we may conclude from Matthew and from Mark, carried the intelligence to Jerusalem. I have candidly stated my difficulties to my readers, as I feel them; and if the last eight verses of this 16th chapter are genuine, I am not in a situation to reconcile them. But these difficulties are not, however, of any great magnitude. We have only to follow the example of the ancient writers, who, more than 1400 years ago, rejected them, because they were found in such few Greek manuscripts, and the difficulties vanish. In this case, there is no longer any contradiction between Mark and any other evangelist, but between an unknown writer, (whose object has been to complete the gospel of Mark,) and Matthew and Luke. Before I come to the 9th, 10th, and 11th verses of this chapter, I shall state the arguments for and against their authenticity. But, if we reject these verses of Mark, as I am much inclined to do, the case is quite altered; the eighth verse does not convey a meaning at variance with the other evangelists, but it becomes to a certain degree more unintelligible. It is impossible that he should have meant, the women never said any thing of what they saw, to any man; for how could Mark know what they related, if they preserved an eternal silence? It is evident, he wishes to describe the history of the resurrection of Jesus: and how strangely would it terminate, if no one had ever seen him alive, but that even the women, who find the grave empty, and who see the angels, do not mention it to any one? The case, therefore, may stand in this way: Mark had written thus far, and designed to write more, perhaps to add what is contained in the other evangelists; perhaps, to state that Jesus had himself appeared to the women, and that they had returned to the city to convey his commands to his disciples, or whatever it might be; but some circumstance, unknown to us, hindered him, and he left his gospel unfinished, but ending with these words, "for they were afraid;"-words which seem cer |