days warm digeftion, the falt had neither tainted nor foft. ened the flesh, whilft the chalk had rotted and confumed. that which was joined to it. Nor were the effects lefs of the teftaceous powders of the difpenfary. But egg-fhels in water refifted putrefaction, and preferved the meat longer firm than plain water*. II. To try whether the testacea would also dissolve vegetable substances, I infused them with barley and water, and compared this mixture with another of barley and water, without the teftacea. After a long maceration by a fire, the plain water fwelled the bailey, became mucilaginous and four; but that with the powder kept the grain to its natural fize, tho' it foftened it, made no mucilage, and remained sweet. 12. Nothing could be more unexpected than to find feafalt a haftener of putrefaction. But the fact is thus. One drachm of falt preferves two drachms of fresh beef, in two ounces of water, above 30 hours, uncorrupted, in a heat equal to that of the human body; or, what amounts to the fame, this quantity of falt keeps flesh about 20 hours longer fweet, than pure water; but half a drachm of falt does not preferve it above 2 hours longer. This experiment has been already mentioned. Now I have found, that 25 grains have little or no antifeptic virtue; and that 10, or 15, or even 20 grains manifeftly both haften and heighten the corruption †. It is morcover to be remarked, that in warm infufions with thefe fmaller quantities, the falt, instead of hardening the flesh, as it does in a dry form, in brine, or even in folutions, fuch as our standard, it here softens and relaxes the texture of the meat, more than plain water; tho' much lefs than water with chalk, or the teftaceous powders. Many inferences might be made from this experiment; but I fhall only mention one. Salt, the indifpenfable fea. foner of animal food, has been fuppofed to act by an antifeptic quality, correcting the too great tendency of meats to putrefaction. But, fince it is never taken in aliment beyond the proportion of the corrupting quantities in our experiment, it would appear that falt is fubfervient to digeftion, chiefly by a feptic virtue; that is, by foftening and refolving meats; an action very different from what is commonly believed. * The trial was made with a coarse powder of this fubftance, but not repeated. The most putrefying quantity of falt, with this proportion of flesh and ` water, is about 10 grains. ART. ART. XVI. Curfory Animadverfions upon a late Controverfy concerning the MIRACULOUS POWERS, &c. 4to. Is. 6d. Payne. In the to this pining, and moderation, makes a N the preface to this piece, our author, who appears to variety of judicious reflections on religious controversies in general, and the spirit wherewith those who are engaged in them are generally animated. He points out the mischiefs that arife to chriftianity from the vain wranglings of its profeffors, and fhews that the result of mighty battles, fought by dread heroes, and flaming champions of the christian faith, is often nothing elfe but the furnishing out spoils for an infidel bystander to triumph in. What he had cafually obferved in a late controverfy, fet on foot by the famous Dr. Middleton, concerning the miraculous powers, &c. he tells us, infenfibly led him into such a train of reflection: and as the free Enquiry has given great offence, as if it tended to weaken the main evidences on which the truth of chriftianity depends, his defign in this performance, is not to defend Dr. Middleton, or to determine pofitively upon the merits of the cause, but only to offer, in a curfory manner, a few plain reafons to prove, that the being of chriftianity is no ways concerned in the event of this Inquiry; and that the miracles of the gospel may, and must be true, though the miraculous powers afterwards may be, and, in all probability, are falfe. After He endeavours, in the first place, to make it appear, that no arguments can be drawn in favour of the miraculous powers, during the three first centuries, from the previous fuppofition of their neceffity; and then proceeds to examine what evidence there is for these miracles, deducible from the nature and circumftances of the facts themfelves. giving a fummary view of the evidence on which the miracles of the gofpel and those faid to be wrought afterwards are founded, he mentions feveral circumftances that excite the strongest suspicion of fraud in the miraculous powers, which cannot, with any propriety, be applied to the miracles of the gospel. After this he offers fome reasons why he cannot submit to the teftimony and authority of the Fathers, nor be diffuaded from believing the miraculous powers to be false, though it has been their fate to declare them true: he de clares clares that this difbelief and unwillingness to affent in the prefent cafe, is not grounded upon any bad opinion which he had previously conceived of the moral characters of the Fathers; being fenfible that it would be unreasonable to entertain any fufpicions against the goodness and integrity of perfons, who had nothing to gain, but a great deal to lose, and who expofed themselves to continual perfecution, and even to martyrdom, in confirmation of the truth of what they taught. I make no fcruple, fays he, to declare therefore, that they were perfectly good and honest, influenced by no unworthy motives, but entirely clear of any immoral principles whatever. This I freely own, and this, I truft, is as much as their warmeft advocates could wish to have allowed in their favour. How then shall we fecure this reputation to the Fathers, and ftill be confiftent with ourfelves in rejecting their teftimony? Why, either by fuppofing, that they gave their attestation to miracles without fufficient evidence of their being wrought, or that they thought there was no harm in afferting any point, which would advance the intereft of religion; and were induced, upon this account, to declare the miraculous powers real, though perhaps, they either knew or fufpected them to be only pretended. The former of these fhews indeed strong prejudices, and an ardent zeal for the welfare of chriftianity, which difpofed them to embrace, without examination, whatever feemed to promote fo good a caufe; but amounts only to a charge of weakness and credulity, and is no impeachment of their piety and goodnefs. And the latter, fay the worft of it we can, is nothing more, than a mistaken rule of acting. It is not an evil principle, which grows from a depravity of heart, and, wherever it is found, determines the man bad; but it is only a wrong maxim, a maxim grounded on true notions of morality, which may indeed betray a weakness of judgment, as well as the other, yet furnishes no objection to their integrity; and is but one inftance, among a thoufand, of a very honeft heart, under the conduct of a weak head. If it be enquired, why I fuppofe the fathers to have been either credulous, or influenced by any mistaken maxims of this fort; I answer to the firft, that their own writings, and what we are able to collect from others concerning their characters, do plainly fhew most of them to have been extremely credulous. This, I prefume, is fo notorious a truth, that even their greatest admirers will not venture to deny it. And, to the fecond, it may be re 1 plied, that the remains alfo of these very fathers, the fpirit of the times they lived in, and indeed, the whole hiftory of the church, do all strongly suggest to us, that the most zealous among them, whatever purity or principles they have been remarkable for, have feldom fcrupled at any means, for the advancement of their religion; and that this fort of policy, which has ufually been distinguished by the name of pious frauds, has been practifed in all ages of the church, by perfons of undoubted character. • Thus then stands my argument, when drawn out into its full length. I am difpofed to reject the miraculous. powers as falfe, not only because there is no reason for their being true, but also, because they are attended with many circumftances which make them utterly incredible. And though I confider afterwards, that their credit ftands upon the teftimony of men whofe piety and integrity cannot be queftioned, and whofe moral characters are in every respect unexceptionable; yet I must perfift in rejecting them, becaufe, upon further examination, I learn, that these men were extreamly credulous, and apt to take things upon truft; and not only fo, but that it was an allowed rule of acting among them, to affert and maintain as true, any points, which would promote the cause of christianity, though they either knew or fufpected them to be false.' Whereas it is objected, that by allowing this account of the fathers to be true, the authority of the books of the new teftament, which were tranfmitted to us through their hands, will be rendered precarious and uncertain; our author fhews that it was impoffible for the primitive fathers to corrupt, fupprefs, or counterfeit any of the books of the new teftament, had they been disposed to do it, fince they were known to be the writings of thofe authors whofe names they bear, were widely dispersed over the chriftian world, and established by the authority of all 'churches, before the earliest of the fathers were perhaps born, or, at leaft, become converts to the christian religion. He concludes with fhewing that the particular cause of proteftantifm is no more concerned in the fate of the miraculous powers, than that of chriftianity in general, and that therefore they may be fafely difregarded, and even rejected by us. If any think otherwife, he recommends to their ferious confideration, what the ingenious Mr TOLL, in his defence against Dodwell, obferves in the following words: May we not reasonably prefume, that if God Almighty thought fit to continue a power of working mira cles cles in his church, he would himself alfo take care, to have some teftimony of the exercife of this power, fo au thentically recorded, as to put the matter beyond all doubt and difputation with the fincere chriftians of after-ages? This had been agreeable to that method which he had before obferved, with regard to the gofpel miracles; and indeed, his not doing it in the cafe before us, though it is ` not an abfolute and demonftrative proof that there were no fuch powers exifting, yet it undeniably proves, that 'tis of no confequence to us, whether they did or not.' ART. XVII. The Adventures of a VALET. Written by IT T would be fome injuftice to this author, not to distinguifh his performance, tho' faulty enough, from the common herd of Adventure-writers; for tho' neither the hiftory, nor the characters he exhibits, are capable of affording more improvement to readers who expect to draw morality from this fpecies of reading, than may be gather'd from the faid herd, who are seldom over nice in their morality, yet the vivacity of his ftile and the fuperiority of his language, muft give him the preference, to most of his brother biographers, who to their other faults, rarely fail to join that of an intolerable dullness. If we may venture to conclude from fimilitude of manner, the Adventures of a Valet come from the fame pen with thofe of Mr Loveil, and the Creole. See Review vol. 3d. p. 58. And vol. 5. p. 237. Our Valet leads his readers through a variety of adventures, fituations and fortunes. He fets out a player, next he is a beggar, then a beau, fupported by a woman of fafhion and intrigue; is difcarded, languifhes in jail, turns author for a fubfiftence; and regaining his freedom, commences valet to a foreign minifter. In this character he gives us memoirs of his mafter, and of others in whofe fervice he is afterwards engaged; the incidents of which confift chiefly of loose intrigue and debauchery; and in which himself is generally the principal actor --We shall give an abftract of three chapters in the 2d. vol. as a specimen of the author's talent at description, which is one of the chief criteria of a writer's abilities for works of this kind. Lsive Our Valet having by his mifbehaviour, procured his abrupt difmiffion from the fervice of a lady, with whom he had lived on very licentious terms; and having neither friends |