Greek derivative remains in our verfion, many of the paffages will be mifunderstood. Immersion is used only in one fenfe, that of dipping, which is alfo the genuine meaning of baptifm; for no one acquainted with the Greek will affert that Canliw, Canlw, or Canoua, can allude to any thing but the dipping of a body or part of a body in water. Hence immerfion, &c. will give the true fenfe of the paffages in which baptifm, &c. are used; but ftill the words dip, dipper, and dipping, convey the fenfe more clearly to an English ear, and equally correfpond with the original. As the tranflator thought it neceffary to change baptife into immerfe, he should have ftrictly adhered to the idea which the word ufed by him conveys; inftead of which, he fays, Chrift will immerse you with the holy fpirit.' In this paffage two miftakes feem to us to have been made: firft, fince he speaks of immerfion, it thould be immersion in the thing, whatever it might be fecondly, the original does not mean the holy fpirit, but a holy fpirit; and the prophecy was accomplished when the apof tles, on the day of pentecoft, were immersed in spirit and fire. In the vulgar tranflation of the Teftament little attention seems to have been paid to the Greek article; and this defect is not always remedied in the present work. Thus, the son of God' is ufed where the original means only a fon of God. The former title is fynonymous with Meffiah or Chrift; the latter is applicable to other perfons infpired with divine power. Leathern bottles and skins are properly ufed inftead of bottles in the common verfion, by which the parable is rendered unintelligible to many readers. Denier is a better word than penny, tax-gatherers than publicans, dæmons than devils; but we doubt whether the word eonian will be favourably accepted for everlafting; and as the fubftantive av is properly tranflated age, and in a note the tranflator tells us of his difficulty from the word age-lafting not being in common ufe, we were rather furprised at his not thinking that acnian would fhock the ears more than age-lafting, and could not convey fo good an idea to the reader.

We cannot fee the advantage of faying, in the firft chapter of St. John's gofpel, that the word exifted in the beginning;' or that the word became incarnate,' or before Abraham was born, I am.' We were particularly furprised at the laft tranflation; because, in this and feveral fimilar paffages, the words I am are put in capital letters; but, in every other place, the word he follows I am. It would be difficult to affign a reafon for this change in the reading. The addrefs of Agrippa to Paul is changed without caufe, from Paul, thou art mad," to Paul, thou art infane,' especially as the answer of Paul is retained. The word bleffed is, in fome inftances, very pro

1

perly changed to happy, grace to favour, charity to love; but bishop and church are retained. On the whole, however, the alterations tend to give the English reader a much better idea of the original than he can have from the common verfion.

A very judicious alteration is made in the mode of publish ing the work. The teftament is not disfigured by the ufe of veries, which continually mar the fenfe and deftroy the emphafis. The numbers, however, are properly retained in the margin. Another change is made, which at first appeared to us to be unneceffary; but, from greater attention, we are perfuaded of its utility to the generality of readers. The fubject is put at the head of each paragraph, and the dif ferent speakers in the dialogue are mentioned at the head of their respective fpeeches: Difciples-Jefus-Chief Priefts-Pharifees-Scribes, &c. But it would have been better, we think, if thefe words, instead of obtruding themfelves on the eye in the text, had been inferted in the margin. One advantage, however, to the reader who confults the Teflament for proofs of any doctrine advanced, is this, that he will at first fight diftinguifh between the fpeakers, and not give to Jews and Pharifees (as has fometimes been the cafe) that credit which is due only to our Saviour, or one really inipired. For the higher class of readers fuch information is unneceffary; but the gospel was originally proclaimed to the poor, and their improvement thould be the grand object with every fincere Chriftian.

Upon the whole, we highly approve the prefent undertaking; and if the perfons already engaged in it thould continue their exertions, we cannot doubt that a conftant attention to the Greek and English idioms will convince them of the neceffity of farther alterations, and qualify them to add a variety of improvements to affift the English reader in acquiring a knowledge of the fcriptures.

Zoonomia; or, the Laws of Organic Life. By Erafmus Dar win, M.D. (Continued from Vol. XXIII. p.76.)

AFTER an interval longer than we intended to have made it, we now take up the fecond volume of Dr. Darwin's work. Indeed, to judge with precipitation of what may have been the work of a long courfe of years, would be difrefpectful to the author, and injurious to our own credit. We therefore trust that our readers will confider our delay in examining a system, in a great measure new, and in every view important, not only as a compliment to the writer, but as an advantage to themselves. When we looked into the fecond voluine, we found great room for reflection. Many opinions, which we had long cherished as facred truths, féemed to be doubted, and

fome to be denied: but, because we had cherished them, it was not neceffary that they, fhould be true; and we were confequently obliged again to examine them, and to investigate their connection with other parts of our own fyftem, and with various undifputed facts. Blindly to oppofe what is new, because it is fo, would deferve very fevere reprehenfion; and in our long wartare in these innovating times (we allude only to fcience), we have learned too inuch of the uncertainty of fyftems, to be unreasonably zealous in the fupport of any.

1

Dr. Darwin's first great principle, that diseases confift in the difordered motions of the fibres of the body, we are willing to admit ; and if difeafes are to be claffed from their proximate causes, we admit also the divifion of them into those of irritation, fenfation, volition, and affociation, rather indeed as a poffible, than as a convenient and applicable, diftribution. That difeafes fhould be claffed from their proximate caufes, however, the best nofologifts deny, for these reafons, that the caufes of fome diforders are not known, and that opinions respecting many others differ fo much, that no regular fyftem can thus be formed. Symptoms of difeafes, on the contrary, are the external obvious characters pointing out a change in the ftate of the fyftem, referible indeed to fome caufe, though the claffification will remain, whatever be that caufe. If any difference of opinion fhould arife, whether a difeafe fhould be affigned to one clafs rather than another, we plunge, in the firft cafe, into all the doubtful speculations of every innovating pathologift; but, in the fecond, the queftion is only about a fact, which obfervation can decide. It is therefore most convenient and prudent to adhere to the established fyftem. Even from the arguments adduced in support of our author's system, we collect a strong motive for oppofing it.

In fome other genera of nofologifts the fpecies have no analogy to each other, either in refpect to their proximate caufe, or to their proximate effect, though they may be fomewhat fimilar in lefs effential properties; thus the thin and faline discharge from the nof-: trils on going into the cold air of a frosty morning, which is owing to the deficient action of the absorbent vessels of the noftrils, is one fpecies; and the vifcid mucus discharged from the fecerning veffels of the fame membrane, when inflamed, is another species of the fame genus, catarrhus. Which bear no analogy either in respect to their immediate caufe or to their immediate effect.'

P. vii.

The want of analogy, here pointed out, is in the writer's fyftem, not in the fpecies alluded to. The difcharge, in each inftance, is fimilar, and proceeds, as many authors fuppofe, from a fimilar cause.

Another opinion of Dr. Darwin is better founded, viz. that what have been called genera of difeafes are really fpecies, and the species of authors, varieties. He has inftanced it in the fmall-pox; but he ought to have added, that the argument could not be fupported out of the febrile exanthe

mata.

The ufes of the method here offered to the public of claffing difeafes according to their proximate caufes are, firft, more diftinctly to understand their nature by comparing their effential properties. Secondly, to facilitate the knowledge of the methods of cure; face in natural classification of diseases the fpecies of each genus, and indeed the genera of each order, a few perhaps excepted, require the fame general medical treatment. And lastly, to discover the nature and the name of any disease previously unknown to the physician; which I am perfuaded will be more readily and more certainly done by this natural fyftem, than by the artificial claflifications already published.'

P. vii.

This method can be no longer useful, than while the world fhall continue in one opinion, refpecting not only these proximate caufes, but the properties and ufes of remedies. On the other hand, if, in a proper nofological claffification from fymptoms, the natural orders be preferved, the fame advantages will be perpetuated in every fyftem: we fay a proper claffification,' not as referring to any new lyftem, but to that of Dr. Cullen. His orders are almoft all natural; and, whatever may be the changes of fyftematics, the nature and treatment of fevers, inflammations, exanthemata, hemorrhages, mucous evacuations, palfies, vefaniæ, &c. will be refpectively connected. On the contrary, in the fyftem now recommend ed, there is no place even for fever, unless it be confidered as confifting in a quick pulfe; for every fymptom, from the variety of its fuppofed proximate caufe, is a diftinct difeafe; a method very little adapted to the ufe of the practical phyfician, and tending to confufion rather than to elucidation.

Difeafes of the firft clafs, or those of irritation, arise from increased or from decreased irritation, and from retrograde irritative motions. Thofe which proceed from an increafe of irritation contain five genera; 1. with increased action of the fanguiferous fyftem; 2. of the fecerning fyftem; 3. of the absorbing fyftem; 4. of other cavities and membranes; 5. of the organs of fenfe. No good end can be attained by this claffification; for not only the genera are diffimilar in their nature and fymptoms, but even the fpecies of each genus will be found equally fo. The botanist perceives plants fo decidedly fimilar, that he groupes them together in a genus, giving it the name of the most com mon fpecies, or occafionally an arbitrary one. He thus faves his

labour by predicating of the whole groupe the general properties or characters of each. But how can Dr. Darwin include, under one head, the fpecies of any of his genera? The fpecies of his first genus are febris irritativa, ebrietas, hæmorrhagia arteriofa, hæmorrhagia narium, hæmoptoë arteriosa. The two firft agree only in heat and quickness of pulfe: they differ in their nature, in their other fymptoms, and their confequences. The arterial hæmorrhage includes the two laft; and there are various hæmorrhages, the particular fources of which cannot be afcertained. In the fecond genus appear fudor calidus and febrilis, hæmorrhoïs alba and crines novi, &c. Are thefe difeafes, or can they properly be ranked together? In the third genus, we have dry tongue, fkin, and nottrils, joined with the different calculi. Thefe are most remotely connected with their genus, and may, on the fame general hypothefis, be brought under any other. In other genera we might obferve not only fymptoms but caufes introduced as fpecies, viz. confternatio under the 5th; lice, crab-lice, and guinea-worm, under the 4th, &c. But we need not multiply remarks. We have rarely feen pretenfions to method fo ill fupported; we have feldom feen the ends, which it is calcu lated to ferve, fo counteracted by attachment to fyftem.

We have rested longer on this part of the subject, because the author feems to furvey it in his preface with peculiar complacency: one other fubject will alfo detain us, because it pervades the whole work-we mean the cause of the heat following cold applications or the cold fit of fever.

The irritability of the whole, or of part, of our system is perpetually changing; thefe viciffitudes of irritability and of inirritability are believed to depend on the accumulation or exhaustion of the fenforial power, as their proximate caufe; and on the difference of the prefent ftimulus, and of that which we had previously been accustomed to, as their remote caufe. Thus a fmaller degree of heat produces pain and inflammation in our hands, after they have been for a time immerfed in fnow; which is owing to the accumulation of fenforial power in the moving fibres of the cutaneous veffels during their previons quiefcence, when they were benumbed with cold. And we feel ourselves cold in the ufual temperature of the atmosphere on coming out of a warm room; which is owing to the exhauftion of fenforial power in the moving fibres of the veffels of the skin by their previous increased activity, into which they were excited by unusual heat.

Hence the cold fits of fever are the occafion of the fucceeding hot ones; and the hot fits contribute to occafion in their turn the fucceeding cold ones. And though the increase of ftimulus, as of heat, exercise, or diftention, will produce an increased action of