of the appellation he saw fit to give to each. Far less is it necessary to suppose that all the beasts and birds appeared before Adam at once, or even on one and the same day...if we attend to the circumstances, we should rather infer that this was a work of considerable time." P. xx.

He further gives it as his own opinion, "that the flood was extensive only as human population." (P. xxi.) This is some addition to the calculation of Stillingfleet, who considers it only to have been "universal as to mankind." (Stillingfleet Orig. Sac. V. ii. 104.) to whom, as well as to Sullivan's view of nature (Vol. ii. p. 258.) we refer our readers for a more particular examination of the question.

In the Third Dissertation the distinction of animals into clean and unclean, is discussed at some length; but we must confess that after all the reasoning brought to bear upon the subject, it still remains involved in considerable obscurity. Generally speaking, we think there can be no doubt (for we have Scriptural record in our favour) that the rules were laid down for the purpose of making a separation between the Israelites and their idolatrous neighbours; but we are, at the same time, met by a difficulty not easily surmounted—namely, that the line of demarcation was by no means clear and distinct. We regret that it is rather more obscured than otherwise in the present work; for Dr. Harris and some of his authorities are at variance with facts. For instance, Dr. Harris, (P. xxv.)

says,

"That nothing separates one people from another, more than that one should eat what the other considers as unlawful, or rejects as improper."

And he quotes in his support a passage from Eusebius Emisenus, alluded to by Montfaucon in his Hexapl. Orig. which may be thus translated:

"God willed that they should eat some kinds of flesh, and that they should abstain from others, not that any of them in themselves were common or unclean; but this he did on two accounts; the one was that he would have those animals to be eaten which were worshipped in Egypt, because eating them would render their pretensions most contemptible. And pursuant to the same opinion, he forbid the eating of those kinds which the Egyptians used to eat very greedily and luxuriously, as the swine," &c. P. xxvi.

Now unfortunately swine, which were held in abomination by the Jews, were held in equal detestation by the Egyptians, who (says Herodotus, Euterpe. ch. xlvii.) "regard the hog as an unclean animal, and if they casually touch one immediately

plunge themselves, clothes, and all, into the water." The motive assigned by Plutarch for the prejudice of both Jews and Egyptians in this particular instance is, that the milk of the sow is supposed to occasion leprosies. Locusts also, which were considered as clean by the Israelites, were eaten, as Herodotus informs us, by the Nasamones, and other people of Africa (Melpomene, ch. 172). Other instances might be quoted of a great similarity in the religious and domestic economy of both Jews and Egyptians. Dr. Harris, therefore, proves too much, and affords another instance of the necessity of the caution to be observed by ecclesiastical writers-too many of whom, carried away by favourite theories, look only for evidence to support them; while others, bewildering themselves in a fog of mysticism, assign causes of the most fanciful, not to say ridiculous, description. Thus the learned Ainsworth in his commentary upon this subject assures us," that the parting of the hoof signified the right discerning of the word and will of God, the difference between the law and the Gospel, and the walking in obedience to the word of God with a right foot. The chewing of the cud signified the meditating on the law of God night and day." P. 30.

We now proceed to shew the plan of the body of the work, and to offer some casual remarks on a few articles taken almost indiscriminately.

Under the head "BADGER, Utachash," we have, in the first place, an instance of the doubts and difficulties so repeatedly occurring, when we endeavour to ascertain from the Hebrew word what animal is really meant. Thus Bochart thinks that Tachash refers to no specific animal, but merely to a colour. Dr. A. Clarke, to whom Dr. Harris refers, leans, in great degree, to the same opinion; and the Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, and Persic Versions, are at issue not only respecting the term, but the colour,-if colour it be. The Jewish interpreters are agreed, indeed, as to its being an animal; but are entirely at variance respecting the species. Jarchi affirms it to be a beast of many colours, which no more exists. Kimchi holds the same opinion. Hasæus, Michaelis, and others, labour hard to prove that it was a mermaid, or homo marinus: but, continues Dr. H. "most modern interpreters have taken it to be the badger; but, in the first place, the badger is not an inhabitant of Arabia," p. 29. Now, we say, Dr. Harris is here decidedly wrong; for had he consulted Dr. Shaw, he would have found in the very first line of his article upon the badger, that it is an inhabitant of all the temperate parts of Europe and Asia.

Under the head "Dragon," Dr. Harris himself admits the force of our remark respecting the difficulty of ascertaining the truth on points of natural history, by the following quotation from "Scripture illustrated." "We have had, and shall have again, repeated occasions of wishing for better acquaintance with the natural history of the East, especially in those interpreters whose public translation is the voice of authority."

"BEETLE." Under this name, chargol, there can be no question, that an insect of the locust kind is meant; but we are quite at a loss to account for its Greek rendering in the Septua gint, opoμaxns, as we are not aware of the existence of any hemipterous insect that fights with serpents; and we suspect that Golius, in describing one as an "insect without wings," which fights with serpents, must allude to one of the Silpha genus. These insects, although in fact furnished with wings, appear to an unobservant eye to have none; and it is well known to entomologists, that most of the Silpha genus do actually bury themselves in the carrion on which they feed; thus inducing persons, not conversant with their habits, to conclude that they are the executioners, as well as consumers. We remember finding a dead viper, the skin of which seemed perfectly animated by a host of the Silpha vespillo, which had concealed themselves within. We may add, too, that Dr. Harris is wrong in considering the Blatta Egyptiaca as the beetle worshipped by the Egyptians; the Blatta Egyptiaca, or Egyptian cockroach, being an hemipterous insect, perfectly distinct from the coleopterous Scarabæus, which is the true beetle so accurately pourtrayed and modelled in imperishable porphyry. Why it was an object of adoration, may indeed be a doubtful question. We are inclined to think Dr. Harris again erroneous as to the objects of Egyptian adoration. These were all, more or less, connected with benefits received, and not looked upon and worshipped as the visible authors of their sufferings, in hopes to render them more propitious for the future." "Thus," he says, "it is allowed on all hands, that the same people adored as gods the ravenous crocodiles of the Nile," &c. P. 42.

Now had Dr. Harris consulted Diodorus Siculus (lib. i. ch. 6 and 7.) he would have found that such animals as wolves and crocodiles were not adored under any idea of appeasing them, but for the reason we have alluded to. The wolf, because it resembled the dog, their faithful companion; or, according to another account, because when Isis and her son Orus were ready to join battle with Typhon, Orus came up from the shades below in the form of a wolf, and assisted them. The crocodile, because its presence defended them from the irruptive încur

sions of robbers from Arabia and Africa; or because one took up and carried an ancient king, Menas, across the lake Moris, when set upon and pursued by his own hounds; in gratitude for which he built a city, and called it Crocodile,commanded crocodiles to be thenceforward adored as gods, and dedicated the lake to them for a place to live and breed in. We are inclined to think that the Egyptian Scarabæus (possibly the Nassicornis, to which the sculptures bear a close resemblance,) was one which, according to the habits of its genus, rioted in the luxurious deposits of the Nile; and thus, appearing at the season of the fall of its waters, became associated with the fertility and blessings conferred by the inundation of that river.

"BEHEMOTH, na." We have here, of course, a long dissertation upon the nature and qualities of this animal and the Leviathan; and again it is shewn by reference to scriptural authority that it is doubtful whether any particular species or even genus be meant, or whether it be not a term applicable to beasts in general. The results, however, of our author's enquiries we think fully justify his readers in considering the leviathan and behemoth to be, most probably, the crocodile and hippopota

mus.

"BLUE." Under this head we regret that Dr. Harris has not furnished a better article than we find drawn up. The question concerning the colours used by the ancients must always be interesting, inasmuch as it must more or less involve their chemical knowledge, and connect itself with many minor points of domestic economy, by no means unimportant. In the case before us, we find no allusion whatever to the mineral dyes and modes of preparing colours of a more permanent quality than those used merely for articles of furniture and dress. Indigo is the only substance directly noticed, with the exception of a slight reference to the Tyrian purple, in which the reader is not even informed that it was extracted from a shell of the genus Murex, common in various parts of the Mediterranean; immense heaps of which are even to this day to be seen at Tarentum, pointing out distinctly one place, where a manufacture of this precious liquor was established. In the coasts of Guayaquil and Guatimala, in Peru, a similar species is found, from which, as we learn from the Abbè Raynal, a purple dye is extracted, incomparably superior to any modern colour, either as to lustre, liveliness, or duration. But, exclusive of this, we know that other blues were used, probably of a mineral origin, requiring much skill and care in the preparation. The composition of colours seems to have been an art demanding much science-thus 2 Chron. ii. 7. we read, "send me now there

fore a man cunning to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in iron, and in purple, and crimson, and blue," &c. : and in such estimation was it held that Hercules himself was complimented as the discoverer of the Tyrian blue. It is well known that the most ancient buildings and images were ornamented with colours of the most brilliant and permanent nature, which we have reason to believe, from the experiments of Sir H. Davy on specimens from the Fresco paintings within the baths of Titus, were preparations of copper. Analysis has shewn that they consisted of a frit of copper, and soda, and silex. It is singular, indeed, that some arts so much more called into practice by the luxury and necessities of modern times, should be still so inferior in points of infinite importance, as to admit of no comparison with the degree of perfection to which they had attained in an age, which, in many respects, might be deservedly called rude, uncivilized, and ignorant.

"BRASS." From whence the Hebrew word лn, Nehest, is derived, which we construe into brass, is doubtful; but we can by no means conclude with Dr. Harris that it

"Must either mean minerals in general, or at least a native, and not a factitious mineral:" P. 55.

And therefore not the metal which we understand by the designation of brass, which was

"A mixed metal, for the making of which we are indebted to the German metallurgists of the 13th century. That the ancients knew not the art of making it is almost certain. None of their writings even hint at the process. There can be no doubt that copper is the original metal intended." P. 55.

Now in the first place, we conceive it was not confounded with copper, because, being more fusible, and not so apt to tarnish, it was far better calculated for the various uses to which it was applied; particularly for sacred purposes, where brilliancy must have been highly desirable. In fact vessels of brass are included amongst those particularly mentioned as consecrated to the Lord, (Joshua vi. 19. and 1 Kings vii. 45.) Again, we find that musical instruments, such as cymbals (1 Chron. xv. 19, and 1 Cor. xiii. 1.) were made of brass, or at least, of a composite metal more sonorous than copper. Brass, therefore, we conceive was known to the ancients, and very much valued by them, (see Turner's Chemistry, i. 203.) They used an ore of zinc to form it, which they called Cadmia. Dr. Watson has also proved that it was to brass they gave the name of Orichalcum, (see Manchester Transactions, vol. ii. p. 47.) Indeed Dr. Harris, when treating upon the article copper, in a great degree