it is furely high time to have done with a logomachy which has occafioned fo much mifchief in the world.

One inference, however, arifes from this comparative view of the Athanafian and Socinian doctrine, of which our Author does not feem to have been aware, which is, that if the difpute between the parties be entirely a war of words, they are agreed in meaning. Confequently, when the Trinitarian worfhips God the Son, the Redeemer of the world, as far as he has any ideas, he worships the one true God as united to the man Chrift Jefus for the purposes of redemption. The charge, therefore, which has often been brought against the Trinitarians, and which we are forry to find repeated in this work, that in their prayers to three perfons in one God they are guilty of idolatry, is, upon our Author's own principles as quoted above, wholly without foundation. It muft, nevertheless, be acknowledged, that the metaphyfical terms, borrowed from the fchools, by which our public forms of religion are obfcured, whatever purpose they may formerly have ferved, are at prefent of little ufe. For this reafon, although we can by no means adopt our Author's inconclufive mode of arguing, from the defects of paft or prefent establishments, against the propriety of religious establishments in general, we heartily wifh, that the fpirit of reformation and improvement, which is at prefent fo laudably called forth in other respects, may be extended to the church, fo far as to difincumber its Liturgy and Creed from the perplexing fubtleties of fcholaftic theology, and to restore them, in all doubtful points, to the fimplicity of Scriptural language.

Concerning the remainder of this volume, it may fuffice briefly to inform our Readers, that it confifts of two difcourfes on The Security and Happiness of a virtuous Course, which contain more novelty of thought than was to be expected on fo trite a fubject-two, On the Goodness of God, in which the arguments. in fupport of the doctrine, drawn from the nature of the Divine Being and from his works, are clearly and ftrongly reprefented, and feveral objections, particularly that which has lately been advanced by Hume in a pofthumous work, are fatisfactorily refuted;-and one, On the Refurrection of Lazarus, in which the Author ably defends the credibility of the miracle.

On the whole, we are of opinion that these difcourfes cannot fail to be acceptable to all truly liberal and candid readers; and that, whatever may be their effect in propagating the Author's peculiar tenets, they will render an effential fervice to the cause of religion, by diffeminating a spirit of philofophical modera

tion.

In a note, p. 93, there is a very material error of the prefs, viz. fpeaking of an opinion into which, as our Author

fays,

fays, Dr. Watts fettled, after spending many years in perplexing inquiries, and taking much pains to keep within the limits of the doctrines commonly reckoned orthodox. This opinion, Dr. Price obferves, agrees with Arianifm in the frange doctrineas Dr. Watts calls it-of a THREEFOLD Deity, &c.' But the paffage, it feems, fhould have been printed thus: it agrees with Arianifm in REJECTING the ftrange doctrine, &c. See more of this, in our laft Review, p. 364.

ART. VII. Obfervations on certain Parts of the Animal Oeconomy. By John Hunter. 4to. 16s. Boards. Sold at No. 13, Caftle Street, Leicester Square. 1787.

MR

R. Hunter has here given us a collection of tracts on various fubjects, moft of which have already appeared, at different times, in the Philofophical Tranfactions of the Royal Society: thofe papers, therefore, which we have noticed in reviewing the works of that learned body, we shall now barely enumerate; but we shall examine, in a more particular manner, the pieces which are now firft made public.

The first is, A Defcription of the Situation of the Teftis in the Fatus, with its Defcent into the Scrotum. This is a fubject which moft anatomifts and phyfiologifts have fully treated. Mr. Hunter is accurate in his description; but he does not give any new thoughts concerning the manner how, or the reafons why, the change happens.

The fecond is, On the Glands fituated between the Re&um and Bladder, called Veficula Seminales. Here we meet with a new hypothefis, viz. that the veficulae feminales do not contain the fubftance which preceding writers on anatomy have allotted to them. Mr. Hunter's conjecture would, perhaps, have had more of the appearance of probability, could he have proved the real use of these organs. We must nevertheless acknowledge the great ingenuity of the anatomift, although we doubt his conclufions.

III. An Account of the Free Martin. See Review, vol. lxii. P. 221.

IV. An Account of an extraordinary Pheasant. See Review, vol. Ixiv. p. 276.

V. On the Organ of Hearing in Fishes. See Rev. vol. Ixix. P. 395.

VI. An Account of certain Receptacles of Air in Birds which communicate with the Lungs and Euftachian Tube. See Rev. vol. li. p. 376. Confiderable additions have been made to this paper fince its former publication.

VII. Obfervations on Animals, with respect to the Power of producing Heat. See Rev. vol. lv. p. 120.

Ee 3

VIII. Pro

VIII. Proposals for the Recovery of Persons apparently drowned. See Rev vol. Ivi. p. 2.

IX. On the Structure of the Placenta. This paper was read at the Royal Society; but as the facts it contains had, before that time, been given to the Public, it was not published in the Tranfactions.

X. Obfervations on the Gillaroo Trout. This fifh is remarkable for having its ftomach fimilar to the gizzard of fowls, and is commonly called the Gizzard trout. See Rev. vol. li. p. 376.

XI. On Digestion. In 1772, Mr. Hunter publifhed, in the 62d volume of the Philofophical Tranfactions, a paper, On the Digeftion of the Stomach after Death. It is here republished, with a very long critique on the principal experimenters who have had the prefumption to enter the fame field of enquiry. Mr. Hunter has, accordingly, beftowed fome fevere ftrictures on Reaumur, Spallanzani, Vallifneri, Sennebier, and others. The contemptuous manner in which Mr. Hunter fpeaks of his fellow-labourers in this phyfiological enquiry, is in our opinion fomewhat reprehenfible. Mentioning, for inftance, the opinion that digeftion was performed by mechanical or chemical powers, he fays, we have no very high idea of experiments made by gentlemen and priests †, who for want of anatomical knowledge, have not been able to purfue their reafoning even beyond the fimple experiment itfelf, p. 148. Mr. Hunter ought to recollect, that we are indebted to gentlemen and priefs, as he calls them, for the moft brilliant difcoveries of the prefent age; witnefs thofe of a Watson, a Cavendish, a Kirwan, a Priestley, a Lavoier, &c. And though Spallanzani and Sennebier are, unfortunately for them, in Mr. Hunter's opinion, priests, and not his equals in anatomical knowledge, yet they are not apparently more deficient in anatomy, than Mr. H. has proved himself to be in another fcience (chemistry), which is not a lefs neceffary quali fication for purfuing inquiries on digeftion, than anatomy. His ignorance of chemistry is frequently betrayed in this differtation. He maintains, for inftance, that the fæces of animals fed on vegetable food, will probably during fermentation afford fixed air; and of animals fed on animal food, inflammable air. Had Mr. Hunter been tolerably informed, he would have known that putrid matter, whether animal or vegetable, affords phlogisticated and hepatic, as well as fixed air.

In the following paragraph Mr. Hunter difcovers his utter ignorance of a well afcertained fact, namely, the compofition of

* Of this paper our Readers will find a long account in the 50th volume of our Review, p. 280, et feq.

From this paffage, we may infer, that Mr. H. does not chufe to rank with gentlemen, &c.—as an experimentalist at least,

bone;

bone. 'Although bones,' fays he, are in part composed, of animal fubftance, and are fo far digeftible, yet they require ftronger powers of digeftion than common meat, from the animal fubftance being guarded by the earth. Thus the animal part of a bone is lefs readily foluble in an alkali than flesh, or even the animal part when deprived of its earth by an acid: nor will a bone fubmit to putrefaction fo readily as meat, being guarded by the calcareous earth.' It is clear that Mr. H. does not know that bone is compofed, not of calcareous earth and animal matter, but of phosphorated lime (an earthy falt) and animal

matter.

It is not a little extraordinary, that in the space of 13 years, fubfequent obfervers have not been able to add their evidence to Mr. Hunter's teftimony, that the ftomach has been digefted after death by its own juice.

The error of Dr. Ingenhoufz and of Count de Milly, who have faid that there is, during bathing in water, an aerial tranfpiration, is corrected in this paper. It is here fhewn by Mr. Hunter (agreeably to Dr. Pearfon's reafoning and experiments) that the air, obferved on the skin of perfons in a cold bath, comes from the water, and not from the body of the bather.

XII. On a Secretion in the Crop of breeding Pigeons, for the Nourishment of their Young. The young pigeon, like the young quadruped, till capable of digefting ordinary food, is fed with a fubftance prepared for that purpose by the parent animal, not by the female alone, as in quadrupeds, but by the male also, who perhaps furnishes this nutriment in greater abundance. It is a milky fubftance, fecreted from the coats of the crop both of the male and female pigeon; in confiftence and appearance it resembles white granulated curd. By examining feveral pigeons, Mr. Hunter finds that, during incubation, the coats of the crop continually increase in thickness and confiftence, like the udderof female quadrupeds during geftation. In the natural ftate, the crop is thin and membranous, but, at the time the young ones are about to be hatched, the whole becomes thickened, except that part which lies on the trachea, and takes a glandular appearance, having its internal furface irregularly wrinkled. From this furface the liquor is fecreted, and moft probably foon coagulates to a curd, which alone is the food of the young pigeon for two or three days; after that time it is mixed with other ordinary food previously macerated in the crop of the old ones: the fecretion ftops at the end of the eighth or ninth day, when the young pigeon, becoming ftronger, and having been gradually accuftomed to common food, as peas, barley, horfe-beans, &c. has no farther occafion for the fecreted nutriment, fince its own digeftive faculties have acquired fuch perfection as to bear raw ordinary food. This differtation is accompanied with two plates, representing

Ee 4

reprefenting the pigeon's crop in its natural and in its enlarged ftate. It is a curious fact that the parent pigeon has a power of difcharging the curd alone, and afterwards a mixture of the curd and common food in fuch proportion as is requifite for the young ones.

XIII. On the Colour of the Pigment in the Eye in different Animals. In the eyes of all animals, the choroid coat is lined with a fubftance, called the pigmentum. This, it is well known, is of different colours in different animals: why it fhould be so is unknown. Mr. Hunter here delivers a great number of obfervations, or rather relations of cafes, in which he has examined the colour of the pigment, and adds feveral curious remarks fhewing how the colour varies in different animals, and alfo in different fpecies of the fame animal. He has found that the pigment is generally of the colour of the eye-lathes, and that animals whofe eye lashes are white can fee more diftinctly with a small degree of light than those whofe eye-lafhes are black. Of this a curious cafe is related; but for particulars we refer to the book.

The 14th, and laft, tract in this collection is a Defcription of the Nerves which fupply the Organ of fmelling. This being merely a recital of anatomical facts, any abridgment of it would be unentertaining, and indeed unintelligible, without the plates.

As an anatomist, much merit is due to Mr. Hunter; and the prefent volume clearly evinces his great knowledge of that science. But we are forry to fee an author fo eminent in one branch of fcience betray his deficiency in thofe other branches, which are neceffary for explaining many parts of phyfiology. Befide the chemical errors we have already noticed, we muft observe, that our Author's method of determining the fpecific gravity of different animal fubftances, as given in p. 83, is a fufficient proof how little he is acquainted with the modern improvements in natural philofophy.

We cannot conclude this article without remarking, that the plates, which illuftrate the prefent performance, deferve confiderable praife, both with respect to the defign and execution.

*

8vo.

ART. VIII. Poems and Effays. By a Lady lately deceased. 2 Vols. 7s. 6d. fewed. Bath, printed; and fold by Dilly in London. 1786.

T

N the Preface to this collection, we are told that the pieces of which it is compofed were written to relieve the tedious hours of many years pain and fickness. The ingenious and amiable Authorefs feems to have poffeffed no fmall thare of patience and pious refignation, and to have reforted for fupport

Mifs Bowdler, of Bath,

and