is used; and the very first quotation by which he illustrates his position is a passage in which that word does not occur, but the other term, (Nephesh), is used; and so also of the other passages adduced, where the reviewer has been able to verify the reference-(these are Gen. xii. 5; Exod. xii. 4; Lev. iv. 2.) There is some mistake in the other references, and for this purpose it is not worth while to verify them. These passages are quoted to shew that the word (he ought to say ) is used in the sense of individuals. Let us see how it fares with the next series of passages, adduced to prove that the same word is used for the mere animal life, whether of men or beasts. It happens again that the same mistake is made. Mr. D. is right that the same word is used in these two cases, but he is totally in the dark as to what that word is. In the midst of all this floundering about a single word of Hebrew, Mr. Dayman has yet the modesty to call the translators of the Bible to account for presuming to translate the same word by the different senses of "soul" and "life," (p. 16.) Now it happens, unfortunately for this new revision of our translation, (which is entirely in the spirit of the modern march of mind, as abrogating all necessity of studying any subject in order to write and judge concerning it,) it unfortunately happens, that, in the instances here quoted, our translators have done no such thing. They have certainly translated, in one case, " a living soul;" and in the other, when applied to animals, by the phrase of "creature that hath life." But the word which they translate "life," or "living," happens to be the term, which is used as an attributive of W, and is constantly used in this sense. In Gen. ii. 7, on which this unlucky piece of criticism occurs, both the words now and are used; and of the first of these, Aben Ezra says, that it is (when applied to the life or soul) exclusively applied to the soul of man, while D is used indiscriminately of men and animals. Into the justice of this remark of Aben Ezra, the reviewer has not inquired sufficiently to pronounce any decision upon the matter, but the distinction is one familiar to every scholar, from the well-known passage of the Roman satirist, where he determines that the common Author of nature gave to animals and men the vital principle called anima, but to man alone the animus. The Hebrew word, however, it must be honestly confessed, applies, notwithstanding Aben Ezra's rule, to the breath of man, as in the passage of Gen. ii. 7. Thus much must suffice to shew the rashness of Mr. Dayman's endeavour to criticize the Old Testament, and to draw conclusions from the words used in it, without even the means of ascertaining what those words are.* The reviewer has not time, nor is there sufficient space here, were he inclined and able to cope with the whole subject, to put forth any elaborate argument on this momentous

Another proof of the advantage of a little knowledge of Hebrew will be found in Mr. Dayman's criticism on Gen. iii. 19. He does not seem to know whether thou is included in the verb, as in the case of the words, "thou wast taken," or is expressed by the pronoun. But how an address could be made to an individual, except by the use of" thou," or an equivalent in the form of the verb, does not appear. that Mr. D.'s conclusion, that the whole organized being must be meant, is one of the little peculiarities of interpretation for which this volume is remarkable.

So

subject; his object is only to shew that this writer is venturing beyond his depth. But, if no great authority in Hebrew, Mr. Dayman may be supposed at least a critic in Greek, or he would hardly venture to discuss the meaning of the New Testament in such an important particular. Let the reader then next look into p. 110 of this volume, and he will find the following passage :

"Mat. x. 28.-' And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.' "Parallel text, St. Luke, xii. 4, 5.

"In this passage, oupa, the body, is evidently used by our Saviour to signify the mere animal life of man; and xn, the soul, to denote his intellectual faculties: the one subject to the common lot of mortality, the other at the resurrection in the disposal of God alone. The parallel text from St. Luke has no allusion to the soul.

"To avoid useless repetitions, the reader is again requested to refer to chap. iii., where the various senses in which the term uxn is used throughout the Old Testament, are endeavoured to be explained, and which appear to be so equally applicable to the use of the same word in the New Testament, that it would be a waste of time to quote passages in support of that opinion. Vide Mat. xi. 29, xvi. 26, (par. text, Mark, viii. 36, 37,) xii. 18; Mark, xii. 30, 33; xiv. 34; Luke, i. 46; ii. 35; xii. 19, 20."

What reason does he allege for our receiving this interpretation of his,-viz., that ixn is his intellectual faculties, and oua, his animal life? But even if it be so, surely the one is distinguished evidently enough from the other! But Mr. Dayman will probably urge, that our Saviour means that they who can only kill the body cannot prevent its resurrection; and those who can take this on his authority will probably take many other of his opinions on an equally safe foundation. But what does he say himself about oua, in another part of his book? He quotes St. Paul (1 Cor. xv.35—58), and then adds:

"I will not mar the force of this admirable discourse (which, from several passages in the second epistle to the members of the same church, appears to have had the happiest effects, numbers of the mistaken converts renouncing their errors,) by any amplifications of my own, but will merely observe to those who do not understand Greek, that the word oupa, body,' which St. Paul constantly uses throughout this chapter in relation to man, both in this life and after the resurrection, like that by which it is translated, is invariably applied to denote material substance alone; and that throughout the whole composition there is not the remotest allusion to a reunion, at the resurrection, of any two substances (soul and body) which had been previously divided by death."

What do the words "invariably applied" refer to ? Are they limited to the use of oua in this passage, or do they apply to its use elsewhere? If they apply to its use elsewhere, what becomes of the criticism on Mat. x. 28; and how comes ouμа VEVμATÍKOV, in this very place, to mean, according to him, "spiritual body, his intellectual faculties"?

All this appears to the reviewer an arbitrary kind of criticism, which is not fitted to educe the truth on a difficult and abstruse subject; but, in order to lay before the reader what this book professes to prove, it will be necessary to enter on a few more details.

Mr. D., then, conceives that the scripture doctrine is clearly the doctrine of the materiality of the soul; that the notion of an immaterial spirit connected with it is an heathen refinement, introduced into the notions of the Jews by their intercourse with foreign nations after the

captivity. He has collected a vast number of passages of scripture relating to this subject, which he quotes at full length; and after interpreting them according to his own views, he determines that "the heathen notion (for it deserves no better name) of a material body and immaterial and immortal soul, when applied to the scheme of religion laid down in the Bible, is full of inconsistencies, requires the most unwarrantable assumptions, and cannot, without such a force being put on the words of scripture as ought never to be allowed, (and which its advocates themselves would allow in no other case,) be made to agree with it at all."-(p. 148.)

Mr. Dayman appears to think that this interpretation of scripture is necessary in order to reconcile it with the present state of philosophy. He accuses the metaphysicians of the last two centuries of having maintained very strenuously the immaterial view, and that when it was thus, as it appeared, indissolubly connected with Christianity, the researches of anatomy induced anatomists to reject Christianity altogether because they were convinced that immaterialism is untenable. One is, however, inclined to ask, whether anatomy really has taught such a result? That many have been led away by the study of it, and when they have spent all their energies and all their time in examining the body, have failed to turn their thoughts to the soul, and have never risen above the atmosphere of the dissecting-room, may be a fact, and if a fact, it is a melancholy one; but it proves nothing as to the lessons which anatomy, properly pursued, teaches, nor as to the results obtained from it by minds of a higher order. One is inclined to ask, whether modern researches have added a single probability to the doctrines of materialism, and whether they have shewn any portion of the matter which composes our frames to be anything beyond an organ of transmission to the thinking being? There may be sceptical anatomists, and, unhappily for the world, they may be made lecturers, and publish lectures on physiology; but the doctrines they advocate are repudiated with scorn and indignation by the purer spirits and the higher intellects which have adorned a profession thus desecrated by some of its unworthy members.

What research Mr. Dayman may have bestowed on the physiological part of the question, the reviewer has no means of judging; but it strikes him as rather strange, (not to say inconsistent with the present state of science) to assume this side as anything like proved. In conclusion, it shall only be said, that although some passages of scripture relating to this point may be dark, and create difficulties, there scarcely could be an attempt which savoured more of rashness than the endeavour to prove materialism to be the doctrine of scripture.

The Truths of Protestantism contrasted with the Errors of Popery; and the Character of Popery as illustrated in the history of past and present times; in a series of Lectures by Ministers of the City and Presbytery of Glasgow, 1836, 1837. Glasgow: M'Phun. London: Cotes. 1837.

WHILE the true and consistent son of the church of England will acknowledge that the ground afforded by his own church, and those churches which symbolize with her, gives, if not the only effectual

method of opposing popery, at least the safest and most tenable, he is ready also to confess, that the grievous errors and mischiefs of popery may be ably pointed out and exposed by members of other religious communities. He may not be able to go the whole length of the arguments used by them to maintain their own position, but to a considerable extent their arguments will coincide, and especially where the object is to expose the unsoundness of the arguments used by their common opponent. In this point of view, the above series of Lectures will be found an useful auxiliary in meeting the modern efforts of popery in England. It is written, in part, by well known and able authors such as Mr. Gibson and Mr. Lorimer,-and it takes notice of the very latest attempts of Romanists to proselytize England, particularly the mission of Dr. Wiseman. His remarks about the philosophical converts to Romanism, and also his comparison of Romanist and protestant missions, are ably met. These seem to the reviewer the most valuable parts of the work, in which, of course, there are some statements (especially those about Laud and the apostolical succession, No. 10, p. 49,) from which a member of the church of England cannot but dissent. But this will not, of course, vitiate the excellent portions of the work above alluded to.

The Acts of the Apostles, and Epistles, historically and geographically delineated according to Greswell's arrangement, &c., (size of the Chart, 5 feet by 4 feet 6 inches.) By R. Mimpress. London: Wertheim. 8vo. 1837.

THE former charts of Mr. Mimpress are already so well known as to need no commendation here. The task was not an easy one to arrange and represent so clearly, in charts and pictures, the whole gospel history; and it has certainly not been without its difficulties to reduce the later portion of the bible history to the same form. It is divided into seven distinct portions, and every aid is afforded by Mr. Mimpress to the study of this portion of the gospel history that a clear arrangement and convenient division can give. These works deserve general encouragement, from their obvious utility in facilitating the acquisition of an accurate knowledge of the facts of our religion, from the pains which have been devoted to them, and from the successful attainment of the objects aimed at.

Temples, Ancient and Modern; or, Notes on Church Architecture. By William Bardwell, Architect. London: Fraser and Williams. Large 8vo. 1837. MR. BARDWELL will be known to many of the readers of this Magazine as having competed at Cambridge for the building of the Fitzwilliam Museum, by a model which, although unsuccessful, was admired as a most splendid design by many in the University. The present work goes over a very large extent of subjects, and is illustrated by a very large number of engravings, which render it very interesting, and it is surprising how so many can be furnished at the price at which the volume is sold. Mr. Bardwell begins his work with a most There is a strenuous advocacy of a national established church.

very proper and just plea entered also in defence of the cathedrals of this land, and some good remarks illustrative of the advantages resulting from such establishments. It will be seen, therefore, that Mr. Bardwell is one whose mind is rightly disposed towards the church, and it is to be hoped that he may have the means of erecting some lasting monument of the successful application of his talents and of his attachment. His work embraces a great variety of subjects, as its title indicates, the Egyptian temples, the Grecian, the Gothic, and the nondescript, as too many of our own churches are to be classed. It is impossible to enter into any further analysis of its contents, and it will be sufficient merely to recommend it generally to the lovers of the fine arts.

Faith and Hope: Two Sermons preached for the Degrees of B.D. and D.D., in the Chapel of Trinity College, and delivered also in the Parish Church of St. Peter's, Dublin, April 2nd and 9th. By Mortimer O'Sullivan, DD. Dublin: Curry & Co. 8vo. 1837. pp. 38.

AFTER encountering some of the disagreeables attendant on the task of reviewing, it is a pleasure and refreshment to meet with two such masterly performances as these. Mr. O'Sullivan has also visited us in England so often, like the storm petrel, in seasons of trouble and anxiety, (not trouble caused by him, but such as brought him from his home,) that it is agreeable to see him, when at leisure to discuss a subject of Christian comfort and consolation. It is almost needless to say, that these sermons are Christian in their conception, and, though calm and philosophical in their tone, eloquent in their thoughts and expressions. Every one who loves such high qualities ought to read these pages.

The Ministerial Witness to the Gospel. A Sermon preached at Holy-Rhood Church, Southampton, at the Visitation of the Ven. Č. J. Hoare, M.A., Archdeacon of Winchester, on Tuesday, April 25, 1837. By the Rev. W. Orger, M.A., Incumbent of St. James', Shirley.

THIS Sermon is one among the melancholy proofs, too common in our days, that zeal is not always either tempered with discretion, or according to knowledge. Mr. Örger appears to consider that by telling his brethren that they must preach the one word-the one Gospel-that they must bear other witness also-that Christ must be witnessed in the pulpit-Christ among our people-Christ in the lecture-roomChrist in our schools;' that 'Christ must also be in our life'-and by other expressions of this kind, he has taken the most effectual method of inducing them to promote the glory of God, and of instructing them how they are to do so. No one can deplore more strongly than the writer of this notice the evils that may be caused by clergy who do not endeavour, at least, to live up to their profession,-the evils of a worldly-minded race of men, who are either too much occupied in secular affairs, or devoted to vain and frivolous amusements and pursuits. But he is far from thinking that the best mode of introducing a higher tone of feeling and practice among such is by