lofs, there is reafon to fuppofe that it was reduced to a calx by its union with pure air, because it recovered its metallic form by the expulfion of the fame pure air. To juftify the first conclufion, Mr. Kirwan thinks three circumftances fhould have been proved; ift, That, during the diftillation, no part of the nitrous acid had escaped into the water, over which the airs were collected. 2dly, Which is the contefted point, that the nitrous air produced during folution, did not contain fome part of the mercury. 3dly, That by the re-union of the two airs, the fame quantity of acid might be reproduced. To juftify the fecond M. Lavoifier fhould have fhewn that the mercury, during its revivification, took nothing from the fubftance to which it was united while a calx, of which fubftance the pure air might have been a component part. Mr. Kirwan then gives fuch an explanation of the experiment as feems to confirm, in a fatisfactory manner, the phlogistic theory. The marine acid comes next under confideration. The Author thinks it confifts of a peculiar bafis united to phlogiston and a certain proportion of fixed air, to both of which the bafis feems to have a strong affinity. Aqua regia is compounded of common marine acid and ftrong colourless nitrous acid, the former deacidifying the latter, while the latter dephlogifticates the former; or in other words, the marine acid takes a great part of the fixed air from the nitrous acid, while the nitrous takes the phlogifton of the marine. The phosphoric acid confifts of phosphorus united to the oxygeneous principle; but the antiphlogiftians will not allow phofphorus to contain phlogifton. If metals, in their metallic form, contain phlogifton, then phosphorus alfo contains phlogifton, for phofphorus precipitates metals, from their diluted folutions, in their metallic form. The faccharine acid, Mr. Kirwan thinks, does not pre-exift in fugar, but is formed by the operation that exhibits it; it derives the greater part of its acidifying principle from the nitrous acid, which, as well as the fugar itfelf, is decompofed during the operation; the nitrous bafis taking up the phlogifton of the fugar, while the fixed air of the nitrous acid combines with the faccharine bafis. The next fubject which engages Mr. Kirwan's attention is the calcination and reduction of metals. He here proves, moft fatisfactorily, the prefence of phlogifton, or inflammable air, in a concrete form, in metallic bodies endowed with metallic fplendour and peculiar coherence; and replies to the objections that have been made to his theory of fixed air, by whofe decompofition the calces of mercury are revived. He fubjoins fome curious remarks on the diffolution and precipitations of metals, and thews fhews that the antiphlogiftic hypothefis is involved in many dif ficulties. Such is the outline of the prefent performance, which we have found to contain many curious facts, and experiments confirming them: the Author's reafoning is clofe, and though his ftyle is fometimes intricate, his conclufions feem, nevertheless, juft, and well drawn. Before we conclude this article, we must point out a very material typographical error, which we difcovered in p. 56. 1. 16. where 59.8 cubic inches' occurs for, 59.8 grains troy weight. ART. XIII. Meffiah. Fifty Expofitory Difcourfes, on the Series of Scriptural Paffages, which form the Subject of the celebrated Oratorio of Handel. Preached in 1784 and 1785, at St. Mary Woolnoth, Lombard-ftreet, by John Newton, Rector. 2 Vols. 10s. 6d. Boards. Buckland, &c. 1786. HESE volumes feem to be published as the Author's Confeffion of faith; to declare his opinion on fome controverted points of divinity; particularly the five points that were the subject of the famous controverfy in the last age *. These are much enlarged upon in the courfe of the fermons; and the decifions are fuch as might be expected from one who has profeffed himfelf a Calvinift +. The Author urges every where the Calvinift's favourite scheme of a fubftitutive fatisfaction made in the perfon of Chrift. The reader is continually called upon to judge of the propriety of fuch a fatisfaction, for the vindication of the juftice of God in the pardon of fin. Vol. i. pages 13, 89, 96. Nay, human reason (though at other times much depreciated) is now appealed to, as competent to decide, and as deciding, that thus it muft be, if finners are faved, without prejudice to the honour of the divine government.' Vol. i. p. 99. We fhall only fay, that such a fort of justice as this, which fubftitutes the innocent in the place of the guilty, as the proper object of punishment, is contrary to all human notions of juftice: contrary to every rule and maxim of juftice to be found in any book, from Ariftotle to Grotius: contrary to the practice of every court of criminal juftice in the world. What would ****** have given, might he have been allowed to stand in the pillory by a fubftitute? Befide the points which are calvinistical, there is another point every where infifted upon, peculiar to the Methodists 1,-a di * Extent of Redemption, Election, Juftification, Effectual Grace, Free Will. + Preface to Olney Hymns. The Quakers hold this divine teaching of the understanding; and with perfect confiftence throw the Bible away, as a dead letter, as ufelefs; a divine teaching must fuperfede human means and authority. Q 2 vine vine teaching. A teaching, not through the ordinary means common to all men, ftudy, and the inftruction of others; but a teaching by the immediate communication of the Holy Spirit. In vol. i. p. 157, the Holy Spirit is fpoken of as revealing and making a clear and fatisfactory difcovery how every hindrance to the free exercife of mercy on God's part is removed, and bo the demands of justice are answered; and we are made by this revelation to understand the caufes, nature, and defign of the fufferings of Christ. They who know all this, may fairly be faid to have known the mind of the Lord; and may claim to have been his counsellors in the work of redemption. They who think themfelves thus taught of God, will not doubt but that they are taught completely, and without error; will of courfe think that thofe who do not agree with them, are taught by another master: and this is hinted, perhaps not directly faid, in many places. Preface, p. xvi. when the Author fays, • he is not afraid of contradiction from those who are taught of God.' This indeed is qualified in another place. They who are taught of God, it feems, do agree in fundamentals, though perhaps not in other points. But what then are fundamentals? Why, fuch points as fpiritual perfons, who really depend on a divine teaching, are agreed in.' Vol. ii. p. 19. Well! it comes to juft the fame:-you are not agreed with us, fays the Methodist; and this doctrine is fundamental-why then, you are not a spiritual perfon, nor depend on the divine teaching; for all fuch do agree with us in fundamentals. Mr. N. objects much to the mufic in the Abbey, vol. i. p. 64, and fays, They fet God's meffage to mufic.' Had this meffage been delivered in a few and folemn words, it might have been improper to have fet fuch words to mufic, as it undoubtedly is, to fet fome awful paffages of Scripture. But this is not the cafe. It is the poetical paffages of the Prophets, and Pfalms, and the hymns in the Revelations that are fet to mufic. We know the Pialms of David, however different their fubjects, were fet to mufic, by himself or his chief musician, and we rather fuppofe the meffige delivered by the angel" On earth peace, good will towards men," was fung by the heavenly choir. However this be, the objections here brought are general; and hold again all anthems and choir- finging whatever. The antipathy of the modern Puritans both to the arts and feiences, exactly refembles that of their ancestors. Organs and cathedral finging were their abomination and our Author reprobates the Abbey mufic, and thinks the study of mathematics and philofophy at Cambridge ferves only to tharpen our natural proneness to vain reafoning." See Cardiphonia, vol. ii. p. 233. We are forry to obferve, what we think an illiberal reflection on the promoters of the feveral acts of toleration, from Locke and Hoadley, &c. to those who procured the last Act of 1779. But let the reader judge from the paffage itfelf, vol. ii. p. 152, We have reason to be thankful for our religious liberty to the good providence of God; but fo far as men are concerned, we are not indebted for it to a juft sense and acknowledgment of the right of private judgment, but to the prevalence of sceptical indifference and infidelity.' And it is immediately fubjoined - The religion of the Gofpel was, perhaps, never more d. fpifed and hated than at present.'—As if this contempt and hatred was owing to the Toleration! This is not faid in direct terms, but it is plainly implied, from the manner in which it is introduced, more difingenuous, than if it had been plainly affirmed. Much complaint is made by the Methodists of this way of fuggefting what the Author will not plainly fay, in Mr. Gibbon's famous history. It were well if the Methodifts would leave off fuch Gibbonifins themselves; none more abound in them. Notwithstanding the objections we have made to thefe Sermons, they contain much real piety, and may be read with profit by all, and, probably, with peculiar pleature by those who are of the party. ART. XIV. A Collection and Abridgment of celebrated criminal Trials in Scotland, from A. D. 1536 to 1784. With hiftorical and critical Remarks, by Hugo Arnot, Efq. Advocate. 4to. 18s. Boards. Edinburgh printed, fold by Murray in London. TH HE intention of this performance is to lay before the Public fuch proofs, collected from authentic records, as may be thought fufficient to fhew what bitter fruits are produced under the gloomy climate of tyrannical government, and a fuperftitious priesthood. This is, furely, a laudable intention, fince, by comparing the bleffings and comforts we enjoy under a free government, in an enlightened age, with the hideous picture of human nature here delineated in days of ignorance and barbarifm, we have ample grounds for confolation that reafon prevails over fuperftition, and that the dark clouds of ignorance are difpelled by the bright beams of science. The trials Mr. Arnot prefents to his readers are judiciously abridged, fo that we escape the fatigue of wandering through heaps of rubbish, with which old records frequently abound; and the remarks which the Author has added, illuftrate the obfcurities of the originals, and afford both information and entertainment. He has divided them into diftin& heads; as-Trials for Treafon, for Leafing making, i. e. defamation;-Parricide,Murder,-Tumults,- Forgery,-Breaking of Gardens,-Inceft,Adultery, Fornication,— Blafphemy,-Other crimes against religion, -Withcraft. Q3 Among Among thofe for treafon we felect the following doom, pronounced over the dead body of Francis Mowbray, a prifoner, who was killed in attempting to make his escape from Edinburgh Caftle. A royal warrant was directed to Sir William Hart and the other Judges of the Court of Jufticiary, fetting forth in the ufual bombast ftyle of treafonable indictments, that the deceafed had been guilty of most high, horrible, and deteftable points of treafon; that the fame was verified by two or three witneffes; but that the deceafed obftinately perfifted to deny the charge. That he attempted to make his efcape from Edinburgh Caftle, which rendered his guilt more manifeft; and that in the attempt he had brought about his own miferable and fhameful death. The warrant, therefore, required the Court to pronounce fentence on the deceafed Francis Mowbray now prefented on pannel (i. e. produced at the bar), to be difmembered as a traitor; his body to be hanged on a gibbet and afterwards quartered; his head and limbs fuck up in confpicuous places in the city of Edinburgh; and his whole eftate to be forfeited. The warrant is dated Holyrood-house, 31ft January 1603, and is fubfcribed James Rex, Montrofe Cancellar, Marr, Herreis, Halyrud house.-Doom was pronounced accordingly.' On this curious proceeding Mr. Arnot remarks This, perhaps, exceeds every act of King James's tyranny. For, 1ft, This fentence of forfeiture, pronounced after death, was not adjudged by Parliament, but by the Court of Jufliciary, in confequence of a royal edit. 2d, No fummons of treafon was executed againf the heirs of the deceafed, nor any defender cited, unless the corpfe, which was produced at the bar, can be called a defender. 3d, No fpecific charge was exhibited against the deceased; nor any thing but a general accufation of treafon and leafe majesty, which, in those days, was fo far from conveying any precite and definite idea, that it might have been any thing which occurred to the whim of the King's Advocate, or that of his royal maiter. 4th, No proof was adduced in court, no jury called, nor verdict returned, establishing the charge upon which the fentence of forfeiture was pronounced.' 1 hefe reflections render it unneceffary for us to add any obfervation on the injuftice of the proceeding: the action increases our deteftation of tyranny, and excites our pity for the miferable objects on whom it was exercifed. The next trial Mr. Arnot thinks nonpareil. Archibald Cornwall was convicted of attempting to nail his Majefty's picture against the gallows. The trial concludes thus: The Justice-depute, by the mouth of Robert Galbraith, dempfter of the faid court, decerned † and ordained the faid Archibald Cornwall to forfeit life, lands, and goods, and to be taken to the faid gibbet, whereupon he prefied to hang his Majefty's portrait, and there to be hanged quhill he be dead, and to hang thereupon by the space of twenty-four hours, with ane paper on his forehead, cotaining the vile crime committed by him.' * Executioner; perhaps from the Latin word demo, dempf. + Decreed; from decerno. ‡ Attempted. § Until. 'A man |