Murray. Dr. Thomson's style is always clear, precise, and perspi euous, and is perfectly adapted to the object of the present work. As a fair specimen of the execution, we quote the section which gives an account of hydrogen.

Hydrogen, like oxygen, is a gas. It was first called inflammable air, and Mr. Cavendish must be considered as its real discoverer.

• It may be procured by putting some clean iron filings into a glass retort, and pouring over them sulphuric acid diluted with thrice its bulk of water. A violent boiling takes place, or, as chemists term it, an effervescence, gas issues abundantly from the beak of the retort, and may be received like the oxygen in glass vessels standing in a trough of water.

It is invisible and colourless, and possesses the mechanical properties of common air.

When prepared by the above process, it has a peculiar smell, ascribed at present to the presence of a little oil, formed by the action of the acid on the iron filings.

It is the lightest gaseous body known. Its specific gravity, according to Kirwan, is 0.0843, according to Lavoisier, 0.0756, according to Fourcroy, Vauquelin, and Seguin, 0.0887. According to these various estimates, 100 cubic inches under the mean pressure and temperature weigh 2.613 grains, 2.372 grains, and 2.75 grains Troy. It is about 12 times lighter than common air.

No combustible substance will burn in it; and no animal can breathe it for any length of time without death.

It burns when touched with a red hot iron, or when brought near a flaming taper. The colour of the flame is yellowish, and it gives but little light. If it be previously mixed with half its bulk of oxygen gas, it burns instantaneously, and with a loud explosion like the report of a pistol. If the mixture be put into a strong glass cylinder, standing over water, and kindled by an electric spark, the whole of the two gases disappear, and the cylinder is filled with the water. If the vessel be standing over mercury, or be hermetically sealed, its inner surface becomes coated with pure water. This water was found by Cavendish equal in weight to the two gasses. Hence it has been inferred that water is a compound of oxygen and hydrogen in the proportion of 853 by weight of oxygen to 14 of hydrogen.

100

Hydrogen is not sensibly altered or absorbed by water. cubic inches of water deprived of air absorb 1.53 inches of hydrogen.'

We conclude by remarking that, whereas in comparing the "Systems" of these two authors we gave a preference to that of Dr. Thomson, in contrasting their Elements' we must assign the superiority to Mr. Murray.

ART.

showing that they were worthy of their Divine Author, being fitted for the Accomplishment of the most important Purposes. By Henry Fergus, Minister, in Dunfermline. 8vo. pp. 136. Printed at Dunfermline, and sold by Underwood, London.

A

CCORDING to Bishop Warburton, the doctrines of the Divine Unity and of a Future State were taught in the Eleusinian Mysteries; and because these ceremonies were borrowed from Egypt, some persons have conjectured that Moses, having been "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” obtained his knowlege of the absolute Unity of God from their Mysteries: but they, who would thus account for this prominent feature of the Mosaic law, must be surprised at the Legislator's silence respecting a Future State. They seem also to forget that concealment was the master-principle of the Mysteries; and that it is not very probable that Moses, had he been solemnly initiated, would have violated his oath by divulging this great secret to the multitude at large. This hypothesis, moreover, which was invented to obviate the necessity of admitting the Divine Appointment of Moses, affords but scanty assistance in explaining the peculiar theocratic government under which he placed the whole Jewish nation. The laws and constitution of this people cannot be said to have been borrowed from any antient political or religious system; since they bear in their front a doctrine which was professed only by the Jews, and were avowedly meant to keep the tribes distinct from all other nations. The civil constitution and sacred ritual of the Israelites form, by their singularity, and by the express object of their appointment, a very curious chapter in the history of mankind; and, though inveloped in much obscurity, and constituting a favourite theme with Infidels, they are not easily to be explained without the admission of their divine origin.-In the short account before us, Mr. Fergus has given evidence of his having studied the subject; and his pamphlet displays, in a concise yet luminous manner, the several topics which the civil and ecclesiastical government of the Hebrews includes. He modestly informs us that his essay, is meant only as a sketch, and in his notes he refers to authors who furnish more copious details. It is detached from a History of the Hebrews, on which the author is employed, and is sent out (like the dove from the ark) by way of experiment; in order that by its reception he may calculate what kind of encouragement he is Jikely to receive from the public in the prosecution of his great undertaking. We should augur from this specimen that his abilities and industry are equal to the task in which he is

engaged; and, from the judicious reflections with which this work abounds, we should pronounce Mr. Fergus to be endued with a liberal and enlightened mind.

In point of territory and numbers, the Jews were an inconsiderable people. Canaan being 150 miles long, and its medium width about 50, it may be estimated, as Mr. F. remarks, to contain 7,000,000 of acres: but this extent is not equal to afford support to the existing nation of the Hebrews, if they could be all assembled in their antient land, and renders improbable the account given by Josephus respecting the population of Jerusalem at the time of its being besieged by Titus, though this was the period of the Passover.

It is the theocratic constitution of the Jews which alone confers importance on them in the eye of the historian; and, since our own religion has its root and foundation in that of this singular people, the Mosaic system will always merit the study of those who desire an accurate conception of the Gospel of Christ. Mr. F. has not overlooked the bearing of Christianity on Judaism, and has endeavoured to elucidate the Evangelists by adverting to the usages and modes of speech which were prevalent in Palestine at the time of our Lord's ministry. We find him attempting, in one of his notes, to explain" the cock-crowing" mentioned in the history of Peter's denial of his Master, and which has occasioned sacred critics so much difficulty. He supposes that the third watch, or three o'clock in the morning, was called "the cock-crowing ;" and that the meaning of Matt. xxvi. 34. is that, before the end of that watch, Peter would deny his Lord thrice: but, before he had ventured on such a comment, Mr. F. should have turned to Mark. xiv. 30. which mentions three cock-crowings in one. night. He must certainly abandon his position; and we think also that, when he re-considers his dimensions of the Levitical cities and the suburbs, he will prefer the reading of the Seventy, viz. 2000 cubits without the walls for the pasturage of cattle, to the 1000 cubits stated in the Hebrew. Two thousand cubits make only about three-fourths of a mile. Indeed, Numbers xxxv. 5. corrects the error of verse 4.

Mr. Fergus has divided this short account into two parts, the first of which details the constitution and laws, and the second states the ritual of the antient Hebrews. In the former, he takes notice of the Ten Commandments, of the laws concerning Murder and the cities of Refuge, concerning Marriage, Theft, Usury, Succession, &c. and he offers the following remarks on their general spirit:

The law was the sole rule of action; and it was the same to all without distinction, No man could be compelled to do what it did

not

not enjoin: no man could be hindered from doing what it did not forbid: no man could be condemned but when it pronounced him guilty and no man could be subjected to any penalty but what it prescribed and applied to his particular case. In society, wealth_naturally creates influence: but in the Hebrew state this natural influence of wealth was not increased by law. In the eye of the law the poor and the rich stood, in all respects, on a level. No privi ledges, no immunities, fostered the pride of the wealthy and no degrading disqualifications depressed the spirits of the poor.'

:

• Some of the laws are laid down in the form of precepts, without any special penalty annexed to the transgression of them. But even those precepts had this great sanction, the displeasure of an omniscient legislator and king, who could easily inflict severe calamities on those who disregarded his authority. Accordingly his authority is often urged as the ground of obedience: I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD. Besides, such transgressions, prior at least to the full establishment of the law, were, on an appeal to the Sovereign, punishable according to his pleasure. The favour of God and many blessings were promised to the obedient: but curses were denounced against the disobedient. Severity of punishment was no prominent feature in the law of Moses. Instead of terrifying from crimes by excessive penalties, it aimed at the prevention of them by instilling into the mind right sentiments, and training to virtuous habits. Devotion, benevolence, equity, industry, and sobriety, became, by means of education and discipline, familiar to the subjects. The object of the law-giver was to make the people happy, by making them good and virtuous.

tice.

The laws of the Hebrews were few and simple; but, as the transactions of the people were of the same description, those laws were sufficient for the preservation of order and the administration of jusThey were all framed by JEHOVAH before the settlement of the people in Canaan; and they were unalterable. No person was invested with power to repeal an old statute, or to enact a new one. To do either was expressly forbidden. The rulers might make such rules as we commonly call by-laws; but the law of Moses was the unalterable law both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Thus those invested with authority were prevented from increasing their influence and expenditure by new establishments and new offices, and from oppressing the people by endless taxations.'

High Treason, Organization of the Tribes, Constitution of the Tribe of Levi, Tithes, First Fruits, Punishments, National Council, the Judge, the Oracle, and the Defence of the Country, are subjects which are distinctly considered and explained. Under the last of these heads, Mr. Fergus takes a comparative view of antient and modern war:

In the Hebrew state there was no standing army; but the whole of the people capable of bearing arms could be summoned to the defence of the country on any emergency. This national militia served without pay; and consequently the Hebrew armies could not long keep the field, Nor indeed was this needful in the mode of warfare

D 4

practised

practised in those countries. War was not, as in modern Europe, reduced to a science. Tactics were unknown. One bold attack, short struggle, and bloody pursuit commonly terminated the campaign. The Hebrews were forbidden to multiply horses and in their armies there were no cavalry. The mountainous nature of Canaan was not favourable to the rearing of horses, and rendered them of no great service in war. The same circumstance, together with the crowded population of the country, gave the ox a decided preference for agricultural labour.

War is a dreadful evil; and an awful responsibility attaches to those rulers who plunge a people into its horrors, without exhausting all the means of conciliation. Accordingly the Hebrews were not allowed, like the tiger that springs from the thicket upon the unwary passenger, to fall insidiously upon an unsuspecting neighbour. It was not lawful for them to commence hostilities till they had offered terms of peace,'

The Mosaic ritual having for its object the acknowlegement of Jehovah as the King as well as the God of the Jews, many of its parts directly point to this end. To us the idea is gross. and anthropomorphic: but to furnish a table for the Deity was not a revolting thought in idolatrous ages; and among a people not accustomed to mental exercises, it was necessary to express the feelings of the heart by the use of visible objects. Thus, in one point of view, the sacrifices under the Mosaic law furnished a table for the king, and may be considered as a tax for supporting the crown and the officers of state. They were also mulcts for transgressions of some of the laws of the theocracy; expiating sins committed against JEHOVAH considered merely as king of the Hebrews, and entitling to life in the land of Canaan. In a religious point of view, the sacrifices and oblations of the ritual expressed by action what prayer utters in words; gratitude, petition, confession, and supplication,'

After the sacrifices, Mr. F, enumerates the various Feasts, the Distinction of Animals into clean and unclean, Circumcision, Purifications, &c. observed by the Jews; and, in conclusion, he justly remarks that the institutions of Moses were adapted to a state of manners, opinions, and circumstances extremely different from our own; and therefore we are very liable to error when judging concerning these institutions. It is no way surprising though we be unable distinctly to perceive and illustrate the wisdom and propriety of some of them.' To prevent or suppress polytheism and idolatry was manifestly their object, and so far they have succeeded; for however the moral character of the Jews has been affected by their becoming a dispersed and trafficking, instead of a quiet, agricultural, and pastoral, people, they of all nations have the most sacred reverence for Jehovah as One God.

ART,