the Deity, and their fellow-creatures, and, of course, how far they are indebted to reason for the foundations of piety and benevolence.' This plan leads the author to examine the opinions and the manners of the Greeks and Romans: be contrafts them with the dictates and the confequences of Chriftianity, distinguishing between the genuine effects of revelation, and what appear to be polluted streams from so pure a fountain. This difplay is fometimes coloured a little too high; yet, on the whole, the reprefentation is fufficiently accurate. He attacks Mr. Gibbon for representing the pagans as tolerant ; and points out, properly, the general tenor of their penal laws,' and the officers entrusted with the execution. But we think he omits an evident distinction between the spirit of the laws, and the conduct of the people at the time of our Saviour's appearance. He himself obferves, that Tiberius proposed Christianity to the fenate as worthy of being admitted among their national establishments; but that they expected from the Chriftians the fame indulgence in favour of polytheifm. If this does not prove their tolerance, it at leaft fhows their indifference; and we must add, that the perfecutions raised in confequence of the Chriftians' refufal of this accommodating plan, though bloody,' was not, as our author represents,

mined' or long-continued.

deter

We shall felect a paffage from this Effay, as a specimen of our author's manner.

In order to inveftigate the caufes of intolerance among Chriftians, it would be neceffary to explore the page of ecclefiaftic history, from the beginning of the fourth to the middle of the prefent century. But the limits of this effay will permit us to glance only at a few well-known facts. Before the former period, the Roman emperors were familiar with defpotism and war they were accuflomed to receive from their fubjects unlimited obedience: and when they avowed themselves the patrons of Chriftianity, it was fuitable to their habits, to prescribe the faith of their fubjects, with the fame authority, with which they enacted the laws of the state; and to enforce their own formularies, with the fame violence, with which they extended the boundaries of the empire.

The barbarians of the north, who difmembered the western provinces, had blended the ferocity of their manners with the love of martial atchievements. They had introduced military notions, as much into their religious, as their civil, government. They had learned, from long cuftom, to repel a criminal accufation, and to defend the rights of confcience, by the keenness of their weapons, and the dexterity of their limbs: and when they had erected independent kingdoms on the ruins. of the western empire, their ferocity was eafily transfused into the temper of their vanquished fubjects,

At

At the revival of letters, the heathen writers were held in high eftimation. Their orators, poets and moralifts were perufed with avidity. They were believed to contain the rudiments of knowledge as well as of tafte; and, of course, were foon deemed effential to polite education. The ancient modes of thinking and of acting, their fyftems of policy and of morals, were, by thefe means, incorporated with the principles of Christianity. The wrath of an Achilles, the ambition of a Cæfar, the haughtiness of a Cato, and the revenge of a Gobryas were prefented to the mind under the most flattering appearances, at an age when it receives the ftrongest biafs, and admits the most lively impreffions. From this combination of heathen and chriftian virtues, arose that mixture of charity and bigotry, compallion and refentment, liberality and perfecution, forbearance and revenge, which, to this day, perplex and chequer the human character.'

The language, as the reader will perceive, is neat and elegant; but fome paffages remain, much more fuitable to the youthful candidate for the Norrifian prize than to the more advanced and more fedate enquirer. Thefe are little metaphorical allufions, which fhew more fancy than judgment; and, if they can even be confidered as ornaments, are, here at least, misplaced. We shall felect an example or two.

The goodness, righteoufnefs, and holiness of God, are fometimes confidered as different modes only of the fame perfection; as comprized within the general idea of divine benevolence: but, when applied to the moral prifm, like the rays of the fun, they appear feparate and diftinct; and diffufe, fome a more fplendid, others a milder and more gentle luftre over the eye of the beholder.'

The gradual progrefs of revelation is defcribed in the fame fanciful language. The divine light, he fays, at first seemed a glimmering but diftant ray; it afterwards became a star; and, at length, a conftellation.'

We have mentioned thefe little faults, because we think them blemishes in a compofition which shows the author to be poffeffed of real learning, with much information; in an Effay, not lefs diftinguished by elegance of language in general than correctness of judgment.

Evidence that the Relation of Jofephus concerning Herod's having new built the Temple at Jerufalem is either falfe or misinterpreted. 8vo. 25. Rivington.

THIS is an elegant tract, and a valuable addition to the

ftock of facred philology. The arguments are detailed with great strength, and compacted clofely, though they are

fo often shifted for the purpose of a fuller illuftration, and in order to display them in different lights, that there is sometimes the appearance of looseness and incoherence: it is, however, the appearance only. We fhall give fome account of the state of the queftion, and our able author's opinion.

The temple at Jerufalem was rebuilt, after the return of the Jews from their captivity, on the fcite of the former temple of Solomon, and adorned with all the magnificence which they, in their impoverished ftate, were able to bestow on it. The ornaments were not inconfiderable; yet there is no reason to imagine that it could nearly equal, in fplendor, the firft temple, erected by Solomon. Haggai's prophetic exclamation, relating to its glory and splendour, has always been, therefore, confidered as referring to the appearance of our Saviour, and his teaching in it. Jofephus, however, expressly tells us, that Herod rebuilt it previous to that event; and the best commentators have reconciled the prophecy and the rebuilding, by faying that the employment of the fame materials, in the fame fituation, for the fame purpose, in fact rendered the temple built by Herod no ways different from that of Haggai. Our author thinks the expreffions of Haggai fo directly pointed at, fo appropriated to the temple just finished, that his prophecy is in direct oppofition to Jofephus's words, and concludes that either the prophecy is not true, or that Jofephus, has accidentally or defignedly milled pofterity. He examines the collateral evidence, and finds that even the panegyrists of Herod, or his relations, have never mentioned a work of fo much magnificence, as they probably would have done, if Jofephus's account had been correct. Every ecclefiaftical reference to the temple fpeaks of it as the fecond temple, and of its being to be rebuilt, for the third time, when the Jews are collected in their own kingdom. Jofephus too, in his Hiftory and Antiquities, is fo inconfiftent; his language is often fo loofe and incorrect, as not always to be depended on. Each of thefe arguments the author infifts on very explicitly; and, at length, gives us his own opinion on the paffage, and confequently on the fubject. The words in difpute are the following.

̓Ανελών δὲ τὲς αρχαίες θεμηλίες καὶ καταβαλόμενος ετέρες ἐπ ̓ αὐτῶν τὸν ναὸν ἡγειρε, μήκει μὲν ἑκατὸν ὄντα πηχῶν, τὸ δὲ ὕψος ἔίκοσι περιτίδις, ἐς τῷ χρόνῳ συνζησάντων τῶν θεμελίων ύπεδη. Whatever the hiftorian might have intended to fignify by these words, the common interpretation put upon them is, that " having removed the old foundations, and laid others upon them, he built the temple one hundred cubits in length, and in height, twenty more; but thefe in time, as the foundation fettled, gave way." And what

:

ever may be faid on the fubject of the twenty cubits having failed through fome defect in the foundation, which architects in general conceive improbable to have happened, this paffage is nevertheless thought to be plain evidence that Herod did not merely repair, but that he did actually rebuild the temple, de novo; which is fuppofed to be farther confirmed by what the hiftorian fays in the conclufion of this chapter, where his words are to this effect: "Now the temple having been built by the priests in a year and fix months, all the people were filled with gladness, and returned thanks to God for the quick despatch with which it was finished, and for the king's attention to them; with much feftivity celebrating The avάxTo the feaft of the new building." He then adds fomething that muft appear very extraordinary he fays, "the king upon this occafion offered up a facrifice of three hundred oxen, and others offered according to their ability, but what he could not fay :" exp:úye yàp to dúraolai weds annbar ii. e. he had forgot: and he finishes his chapter with fomething perhaps ftill more extraordinary"It is reported, that at that time, when the temple was building, no rain fell in the day, but only in the night-time fome gentle showers, fo that the work met with no interruption; TT λογον οι πατέρες ημιν παρέδωκαν and this tradition our forefathers have handed down to us." Is it ufual for people to talk of events as it were of yesterday being handed down to them by tradition and then, as a finishing ftroke, he fays of this wonderful event-" This is not at all incredible, if any one will reflect on the many other difplays of his favour towards us, which God hath made in our behalf." But what occafion for this reflecting, if it was a fact? many of Jofephus's own relations, who were alive at the time, must have known it to be fo, and he might have alledged them in teftimony of its truth, without any of this parade. Nay, it is not impoffible, that, when this account was written, fome perfons might have been ftill alive who remembered the whole tranfactions, and confequently he might have had living evidences to have appealed to for the truth of it. But, alas! it all fo very strongly olet mendacium, that this fingle circumstance which he has recorded is fufficient of itself alone to destroy the credit of his whole account.'

The author thinks that all these difficulties may be reconciled by a little attention to the words of Jofephus, and some other circumstances. The temple of Solomon was 100 cubits in length, that of Haggai but 60; the depth of both were probably the fame. He fuppofes, that when Herod added additional ornaments to the old building, he added to its height, and to its extent, by which it became of the fame dimenfions as the temple of Solomon. This is ftrongly confirmed by the words αρχαιες θεμελίες : the epithet has force only when applied to the foundation of Solomon's, not thofe of Haggai's

com

comparatively modern temple. This opinion he states in many different views, and anfwers the objections which may be made to it very fatisfactorily. It will explain the difputed passage of Jofephus which we have quoted; fince, in thofe parts where the additions were made, as well as in the height, the priefts only could work: it was a holy temple, which would have been polluted by vulgar hands.

It would lead us too far, to explain the author's answer to fome objections, which he ftates with candour in their utmost force, or his more miscellaneous remarks: it is enough to have detailed his opinion, and the general fcope of his arguments. The language is forcible and perfpicuous: there are a few expreffions which have too little dignity for his fubject, and perhaps approach too near vulgar language. Nonfenfical notion;"

let what will have rattled in the head', with fome others of the fame kind, we think debafe the value of this work. We have mentioned them particularly, because they occur but feldom. On the whole, this pamphlet deferves much commendation: it is clear, forcible, and comprehenfive; difcovers real learning, and great ingenuity.

The Afiatic Mifcellany, confifting of Tranflations, Imitations, Fugitive Pieces, Original Productions, and Extracts from curious Publications. By W. Chambers, Efq. Sir W. Jones, and other Literary Gentlemen. Small 8vo. 35. Wallis.

THIS

'HIS work is published, periodically, at Calcutta, and confifts chiefly of translations and imitations of the eastern authors, in profe and verfe. It does not appear to be the defign of the contributors of the original pieces, to introduce European ideas the whole is Afiatic; and even the imitation of the Amintas appears in its eaftern garb, in the robe and turban. In this manner what we lofe in originality, is compenfated by correctnefs; what is deficient in its native wildness does not difgut by an abfurd mixture of fable. The separate works are very different from what we commonly meet with, in their images, the metaphors, and the defcriptions: they are fufficiently Afiatic to be pleafing and new; fo that we may apply to them, what was faid of Pope's Paftorals, if they are not wholly eastern, they are something better,

It would be ufelefs to defcribe the nature and tendency of each piece; for, to explain their fubjects, would be to write a commentary on the religion, the mythology, and the customs. of the Hindoos. We must be contented with felecting fpecimens of different kinds. The poetry which has pleafed us moft, by its varied fplendour and beauty, is the Hymn to Narayena, by

fir