of learned criticism; but we must declare it as our decided conviction, that, notwithstanding all the attacks upon it hitherto made, it still remains uninjured, still unimpaired in all its majesty and strength.

Having used much freedom in our strictures upon Mr. Vansittart's performance, it would be unfair towards him not to present to our readers a specimen of the manner in which he meets some of Mr. Davison's objections, and we select the fol lowing.

"We next come to Mr. Davison's objection to the Orthodox, that they look through the Mosaic dispensation to Abel's Sacrifice. This objection must also fall to the ground, because it hath always been considered, not only the legitimate, but the safest and best mode of interpretation, to interpret Scripture by Scripture, and to compare spiritual things with spiritual. Hence if Abel and the High Priest were types of Christ, so must their Sacrifices be the same. Hence too, if it be declared in the law that the blood is the life, and the blood makes the atonement, so we may conclude that the blood of Abel's Sacrifice was atoning also: for as we are assured that Noah knew the truth that the life was in the blood, so we may also conclude that the like truth was known to the Antediluvians, by the remonstrance which the Lord God made with Cain, The voice of thy Brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. Hence we may conclude that the blood of Abel's lambs, because his sacrifice was accepted, and procured for him the testimony that he was righteous, free from the imputation of sin, which is the least we can say of the word dikaιos, made an atonement for him. The blood of sacrifice, like our Saviour, was the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever: therefore, if Abel's sacrifice were a type of Christ's, and if his sacrifice purged away death, the wages of sin, and rendered him guiltless of its imputation, then the blood of his lambs must have been of an expiatory nature, and typical of the Lamb of God. Besides, since the Scripture hath declared that Christ was foreordained as a Lamb before the foundation of the world, and slain as a Lamb from the foundation of the world, it necessarily gives to blood its atoning virtues from that time. The foreordaining of Christ to be a lamb of sacrifice necessarily sanctified blood to be an atonement for the soul; therefore, from that period the blood of Abel's lambs, and the blood of the Mosaic lamb, have been identified together in the effect of cleansing from sin with the blood of the Lamb of God.' P. 32, 33.

In both the publications upon which we have been commenting there is a great deal that we approve; the authors have come forward with manly boldness in the cause of what they deem truth, and it is but just to add, that they have on several points successfully combated with their opponents; yet we must in fairness say, that we are not altogether satisfied with their

labours. Much in our judgment still remains to be done before the question respecting the origin of the rite of sacrifice can be finally set at rest. We have abstained from taking a decided part in the discussion; and though we may have shewn the bias of our private opinion, our aim has been, as critical reviewers, to point out how far the advocates on either side are supported by argument, and by the authority of sound Biblical interpretation. For the present we take our leave of the dispute, not without the hope that our attention will be speedily called again to a renewal of the contest by other champions skilled to wield the lance in the field of controversy.

Nuga Hebraica; or an Inquiry into the Elementary Principles of the Structure of the Hebrew Language. By a Member of the Royal Irish Academy. London. Rivingtons. 1825.

WE can hardly doubt, that the hieroglyphical system of the antients had a certain influence on Asiatic tongues; although we certainly have not sufficient data to define the bounds within which that influence was confined. Hutchinson, Ely, Bates, and Parkhurst from a false assumption that a certain mystical signification of words was inherent in the Hebrew, have hence produced a most absurd and incongruous scheme, in which grammatical precision has been disregarded, and the grossest ineptiæ have been detailed with a judicial gravity, more worthy of a burlesque than of sober criticism. The Hebrew language was a sacred tongue, because the sacred oracles were delivered in it, not from any claim which it could institute to that title from its formation, beyond the Chaldee or the Arabic. Nor have we any Biblical authority for its existence prior to the settlement of Abraham in Canaan, who may be supposed from the admixture of his native Chaldee, with the language of the people among whom he had fixed his residence, to have become the father of it.

This writer seems to have founded his hypothesis on the preceding theory; and the obscure style in which he has introduced it, bears a striking resemblance to that of the author of Mosis Principia. Fancy must afford important aids to him, who can see the different representations depicted in the diffe rent characters; for instance, is considered the representation of the human mouth in an expanded state, and the ideal cha

racter of is said to be separation or expansion. From hence, he proceeds to the other characters united to it, and making it when united with as "to denote a mouth, and when followed by as " to indicate separation, so that in the former Biliteral, the significant exerts its representative character, while in the latter Biliteral, it exerts its ideal character." What can be more vague and trifling than these puerilities, which have no other existence than the author's ill-regulated imagination? and to what possible use in the study of this language, can these singular reveries be applied?

The description of the letters is commenced with —which "is called (i. e. HEAD) the original form of it having exhibited the representation of the HEAD of a HAWK :—the ideas of flowing forth and darting forwards were connected with it, from a reference to the movements of a flying hawk." Accordingly, we are favoured with sketches of hawks' heads, from which this character is presumed to have been modified in course of time. is supposed to have been originally in the form of a door,- in that of a bow,-pa cup, goblet or jug― a camel represented in most extraordinary caricatures- the noose or sling of a hunter- a plane, or adze, a girdle, or a zone-a scroll or roll of skin extended to be read-D the hoof of a horse- teeth set in the lower jaw- a hook—– a covered dwelling open in front- a wave of the sea- the terminus or cross of the Egyptians- a staple-】 unknown -the eye- the hand- a nail- and unknown.-We have seen these absurd observations before, and had hoped that they had long ceased to find supporters; for can we imagine that such trifling things, as those assigned to many of them, would have been of sufficient consequence to have an influence on the alphabet? and in many, nay, in most, we do not discern the similarity. Besides the present is the Chaldee character, and as the Samaritan is widely different from it, the application must be lost: and on the same principle we should expect to find symbols for every character in the Syriac, Arabic, Æthiopic, Sanscrit, and many other ancient languages, the speakers of whom were equally prone to the superstitions of the dark ages. The nature of ancient symbols, as preserved in Horapollo, Jamblichus, and others, was totally different from those selected by this extraordinary system; and because

meant an ox, whence the Biblical, we may with equal argument assert, that in Hebrew-in Syriac- and in Arabic or in Æthiopic were representations of the animal. Some have pretended that such was its form in the more antient Phoenician alphabet; yet, unfortunately, they

have been unable to determine, whether it were an ox or a General which was pourtrayed. But as the modern Hebrew character is Chaldee we have every reason to argue that the hierophants of Babylon would have selected more worthy symbols, and those more closely connected with their religion, for their alphabet; nor can we pretend to discover whence the names were given to the letters, or what might have been their earliest form.

Even in the chapter on the construction of words we remark nothing new, or of any moment: the grammars of Schroeder, Gesenius, &c. on one perusal would afford a greater knowledge of the language, than the whole of these nuga committed to the memory. We observe nothing beyond a compilation, and that compilation one of the most ordinary description: it appears a mere school boy's table of the force of the formatives, according to the part of the word in which they occur. The real power of the root, the primary signification elucidated from the cognate dialects or parallel examples in Hebrew, the particles peculiar to each verb in construction, the variations in syntax and a research into the more usual ellipses would have been beneficial to the biblical student, but from the present essay, it is impossible, that he can derive any critical knowledge.

The analysis of the language, which this writer projects, if it be conducted upon the same fanciful plan, will, we fear, add nothing more to the knowledge of the subject: no language is constructed on more simple principles than the Hebrew, and we regret, whenever we see it involved in a nebulous obscurity. The Masorites have already annexed sufficient difficulty to its grammar, which, in its original state, was certainly as plain and unsophisticated, as any grammar could be: we therefore deprecate any speculation, or extravagant theory, with which it may be proposed to encumber it.

If such be the Nuga, it may be natural to inquire, of what nature will be the Seria? The system of the Hutchinsonians has, in many instances, obscured the interpretation of the Bible, and given the rein to numberless uncontrouled excursions of the imagination, and we conjecture, that the present work is cast in the same mould. Be this as it may, it can never amount to an authority, it can be but an unsupported hypothesis, and therefore can be of no utility. We are aware, that it must have been a laborious work, as far as compilation is concerned, and applied to a private theory, but it is not for that reason entitled to the consideration of the public. Difficilis labor est ineptiarum !

Origines: or Remarks on the Origin of several Empires, States, and Cities. By the Right Hon. SIR W. DRUMMOND. 2 Vols. 8vo. London. Baldwin. 1824.

To all be they theologians, antiquarians, or historians, the origin of nations is a subject pregnant with the deepest interest, and upon which the human mind must ever dwell with a laudable curiosity not unmixed with awe, involving, as it does, the causes of many of those varied feelings which have displayed themselves in the great theatre of a world, wherein the Deity has condescended to appear in so conspicuous a form. In contemplating, indeed, a subject so obscure, yet so important, we feel the impossibility of unravelling the mysteries in which it is shrouded, and our utter inability to raise the veil which time has thrown over it. We must candidly admit, too, that in opening a work of Sir W. Drummond, we felt impressed with a degree of doubt, perhaps prejudice, as to the intentions and views with which such an author has undertaken such a book, but with equal candour are we free to confess, that with whatever doubts we opened these volumes, we closed them with a conviction that our suspicions were groundless, and that truth alone was the object of the author's attainment.

"I have determined (he says) to print this book because I flatter myself with the hopes that it may meet with the approbation of men of letters, who are engaged in pursuits similar to my own, but there is not a sentence in this work, as far as I am aware, and as my intentions have led me, which can give the slightest offence to the strictest theologian." Pref. p. vii.

However lax, not to say more than lax, were some of his former opinions upon the most sacred of all subjects, reflection appears to have effected a salutary change, and it is gratifying to find him "adverting to changes which may have taken place within the last few years, in his own opinion," p. 83. and honestly confessing that he has come to different conclusions from those published" in a work written some years ago." Vol. I. P. 276.

Having thus briefly touched upon the character of the work and its author, we must proceed without further delay to plunge into the depths of his unfathomable undertaking, and endeavour to compress within the limits of a few pages, a profusion of learning and research scattered over the two octavo volumes before us. We conceive, the most profitable line we can adopt will be to abridge as much as possible each chapter,