began in this manner is in itself likewise incredible, since no writer, unless something had preceded, would say in those days.'

On the other hand, however evident it may be, that the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, from its very first existence, contained the two first chapters, yet, as this Gospel is a translation from the Hebrew (that is, Chaldee) of St. Matthew, it is still possible, that they were not contained in the original, that the original began, as Epiphanius says the Gospel used by the Ebionites began, with the words, it happened in the days of Herod the king, &c.' that the Greek translator prefixed a translation of some other Chaldee docu ment containing an account of Christ's birth, and that, in order to connect it with the commencement of his original, he altered the days of Herod' to 'those days. All this is possible: but it would be a very difficult matter to render it probable. It appears indeed from the Dissertation on the origin of our three first Gospels, ch. xv. that before any of our canonical Gospels was composed, there existed an Hebrew (that is, Chaldee) narrative of Christ's transactions, which contained only so much matter, as is common to the three first Evangelists, and therefore did not contain what is related in Matth. i. ii. But then it is further shewn in the same chapter, that this document formed only the basis of St. Matthew's Gospel, and that the Evangelist himself made very considerable additions and improve ments. There is no improbability therefore in the supposition, that the two first chapters were added by the Evangelist himself, especi ally since the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes really contained them, as appears from Notes 10. 11. and there is great reason to believe that the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes approached much nearer to St. Matthew's genuine original, than that which was used by the Ebionites, since the Nazarenes were descendants of the first converts to Christianity, the Christians of Judæa being called Naga, Acts xxiv. 5. while the Greek Christians were called Xia, Acts xi. 26. Absolute certainty on this subject is indeed

not to be obtained for want of sufficient data: but the same want of data makes it impossible to prove that St. Matthew was not the anthor of the chapters in question.-Among the various writers on this subject, no one has displayed more critical judgement than Professor Rau of Erlangen, in a short Latin dissertation published at Erlangen in 1793, entitled Symbole ad quæstionem de authentia i. et ii. cap、 Evangelii Matthæi discutiendam.'

The whole of the 5th chapter is employed on St. Mark's Gospel; which Professor Michaelis seems to think was written in Rome, with the assistance and under the direction of St. Peter. Here we find the curious passage which follows:

That St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, and for the use of the Romans, is likewise the reason why he has omitted many particulars in the life of Christ, which are related by St. Matthew and St. Luke. The genealogy, for instance, though interesting to the Jews, was not so to the Romans: and the same may be said of Christ's nativity at Bethlehem, a name well known to the Jews, but probably unknown to the Romans. His total omission of Christ's admirable

admirable sermon on the mount, which St. Matthew has given at full length, and St. Luke in short extracts, appears at first sight, to be rather extraordinary. But we must recollect that this sermon was in fact polemical, and immediately directed against the false morality of the Pharisees. To understand this sermon therefore, it is absolutely necessary to have a previous knowledge of the Pharisaic doctrines: but these doctrines were unknown to the Romans. The unlearned are not only incapable of comprehending this discourse, but are in danger without the assistance of a learned interpreter, of totally perverting its meaning. It is a known fact, that very erroneous moral doctrines have been deduced from it, and that these doctrines have been applied as objections to the Christian religion. It has been asserted, that Christ totally prohibited the administration of an oath, the repulse of violence, an appeal to a magistrate, or self-defence. For these reasons, St. Peter himself would hardly have delivered this discourse to the Romans: and for these reasons, St. Mark passed it over in silence. The same motive induced him to give in only a few words, ch. xii. 38-40. another discourse which Christ directed to the Pha risces, and which St. Matthew has delivered at full length.'

Michaelis supposes that St. Mark availed himself of several written documents in the composition of his Gospel, but that he made no use either of St. Mathew or St. Luke. That he wrote before and that his gospel was used by St. Luke, the author positively denies. The chapter is concluded by the

following sentence:

No writer of the New Testament has neglected elegance of expression, and purity of language, more than St. Mark. The word des occurs incessantly, and he abounds likewise with numerous and harsh Hebraisms. Yet his Gospel is very valuable, because it contains several important though short additions to the accounts-given by St. Matthew. For instance, the answer of Christ, which St. Matthew has recorded, ch. xii. 48-50. would be thought very extraordinary, unless we knew what St. Mark has related, ch. iii. 21.: but from this passage we clearly perceive the reason of Christ's answer. Sometimes he has additions, which more clearly ascertain the time, in which the events happened, as in ch. iv. 35. vi. 1, 2. It is therefore unjust to suppose that St. Mark neglected the order of time more than the other Evangelists, and still more so, to reject his arrangement for that of St. Matthew or St. Luke, in places where the time is positively determined by St. Mark.'

Here we must suspend our analysis of these volumes, for the present. In our next Number, we propose to resume the consideration of them.

ART. XIV. Elements of Chemistry; comprehending_all the most important Facts and Principles in the Works of Fourcroy and Chaptal with the Addition of the more recent Chemical Discoveries which have been made known in Britain and on the Continent; and with a Variety of Facts and Views which have never before been communicated to the World. Intended for the Use, not only of those who study Chemistry, with those professional Purposes to which this Study is commonly referred, but also, for Farmers, Manufacturers, Dyers, and the other Artizans of the Chemical Arts in general, &c. By Robert Heron. 8vo. pp. 628. 12s. Boards. Longman and Rees.

1800.

FROM the preface to this volume, it appears that the author

is much dissatisfied with the various elementary works that have hitherto been published, even by the most eminent chemists. He observes that in all former systems of chemistry,except only that admirable treatise the Philosophy of Chemistry by Fourcroy,-there prevails an unscientific confusion of arrange ment, exhibiting the different chemical substances, not so much in the order of system, as if they were taken up, one after another, out of a heap carelessly thrown on the floor of the Laboratory, or from the shelves in an Apothecary's shop.'The Preface is replete with many similar censures on the writings of modern chemists; and even the chemical Lecturers do not escape the lash of Mr. Heron, who says (p. 10.) that the exhibitions at chemical Lectures are much like the slight of hand tricks of jugglers.'

An attack is also made on the authors of the different systems of chemistry, on account of neglect of style; and here, as well as after every other article of censure on others, this writer, with singular modesty, points out the superior merits of his own book and of himself. He remarks (p. 30.) 'that there exists not at present in English any work upon chemistry, in which the Student may find so much information within so little reading, and at so small an expence. This argument comes so directly home to mens' pockets and hearts, that to enlarge upon it, were needless.' He then concludes his Preface in the following manner: inaccuracies in language, errors in facts, vanities of theory, deficiencies and redundancies, sometimes disorder-and sometimes pedantry-of arrangement, will no doubt be easily discovered in the course of this work. Yet if its judges were to be only the candid and judicious; perhaps, the author would have little reason to dread extreme severity in the sentence.'

We are very sorry that we cannot agree with this writer in the good opinion which he so evidently entertains of his own performance. When a work is introduced to the world with

a title

a title and preface full of so much pretension as those now before us, the public have a most indisputable right to expect something above mediocrity at least; and an author who thus comes forwards must also expect to be weighed in the same balance, which he has employed with so little diffidence and lenity in judging the merits of others. We shall not, however, scrutinize this work with extreme minuteness and severity, but shall make only a few remarks.-The book undoubtedly contains a great portion of matter, but it is brought together in a more negligent manner of compilation than we have seen in any of the works to which Mr. Heron so liberally ascribes this defect; and while he condemns the style of other chemical writers, his own appears peculiarly turgid, affected, and confused. We perceive that great liberties have been taken with nomenclature. Light (for example) is pedantically called Lumen: Ceylonica is employed for Zirconia; and we also find the terms Phosphor, Muria, Borate, Fluore, Silice, and Strontiana. Without entering into any discussion to shew the impropriety and little necessity of these alterations, we must observe that, although great and eminent chemists (such as Scheele, Bergman, Klaproth, and Kirwan,) may be allowed to alter and fabricate names, even sometimes more than cool sense and sound judgment can deem requisite, yet the same latitude never can nor will be granted to every compiler of what are called systems of chemisty.

In p. 105. Pyrites are defined as compound Stony bodies. The Arrow headed Selenites (p. 184.) are mentioned as peculiar crystals, consisting of two sextine triangles joined together; yet every Mineralogist knows that these are only fragments of lenticular crystals, which have adhered to each other.-In pages 242 and 245, Adamantina and Sydneia are described as primitive Earths, although both have long been rejected as such. (Vide Klaproth's Beiträge 1795, p. 67. Phil. Trans. 1798, p. 110; and Babington's System of Mineralogy, pp. 113 and 115.) This error is the more remarkable, because Dr. Babington's book is quoted in p. 6 of the Preface.-In p. 263, the properties of Tungstate of Lime and Wolfram are strangely confounded under the name of the former; although, in the very same page, mention is made of the well-known experiments of Messrs. D'Elhuyar;- and in p. 508, the gaseous Oxide of Azote, or Nitrous Oxide, is confounded with Nitrous Gas.

We shall not follow the author through certain flights of fancy, such as that which induces him to believe that Lime is concrete Oxygen, &c. &c.-the preceding remarks must sufficiently prove that this work is of a very flimsy texture. quotation, Risum teneatis Amici? which the author has só flippantly

Dd4

The

flippantly applied to Count Rumford, might justly be retorted, did not the same great poet furnish some lines still more aplicable;

ART. XV. Elementary Treatises on the Fundamental Principles of Prac tical Mathematics. For the Use of Students. By Samuel Lord Bishop of Rochester. 8vo. pp. 400. 8s. 6d. Boards. Printed at Oxford, at the Clarendon Press. London, Elmsley 1801.

THE

HE learned author of these elementary treatises is already well known to the mathematical world, and principally by his complete edition of the works of the great Newton.-The plan of the present publication will be understood from the words of the preface:

We begin so low as with the principles of Fractional Arithmetic, Vulgar and Decimal, the business of Fractions being usually of the greatest embarrassment to a learner in the beginning of his Mathematical studies, not fron the difficulty of the operations, but by reason of the obscurity in which the writers upon this subject leave the principles involved, upon which the rules of operation depend. Our method is, in the treatise which is placed first, to deduce these principles from the general properties of numbers delivered by Euclid in the seventh and two following books of the Elements; and the treatise ends with the doctrine of Circulating Decimals, and the extraction of the Square Root of Fractions and Mixed Numbers. This introduces the learner to the doctrine of Infinite Approxima tions, and even brings him acquainted with Converging Series, in the instance of one of the simplest form. And as the examples of the extraction of the square root are given in calculations of the sides of Polygons inscribed in circles, the foundation is laid, in the end of this treatise upon Fractional Arithmetic, of the Construction of the Trigonometrical Canon.

From the Arithmetic of Fractions we proceed to Trigonometry, Plane and Spherical; the Elements of which we deliver in three books; those of Plane Trigonometry in the first; those of Spherical in the second and the third-the second, containing the general properties of Spherical Triangles; the third, the Trigonometry of the Sphere, that is, the resolutions of the several cases, as they are called, by the Trigonometrical Canon.'

From Trigonometry we proceed to the Projection of the Sphere, a subject, that has never yet been handled with the accuracy it deserves, both for its curiosity and its use. Considered in its utmost extent, it would be a branch of Linear Perspective. But we confine ourselves to the three principal Projections, the Orthographic, the Stereographic, and the Gnomonic, which we treat in four Books; the first, containing the principal properties of Cylindric Sections, which are

the