ing of the Jews after the expulfion of the great body of the nation from thence, he fays, "Nevertheless, it is true, that those who re mained in Spain and Portugal diffembled instead of being converted. The number of thefe diffemblers is very confiderable; and it ought not to be concluded, that there are no Jews in Spain or Portugal, because they are not known: they are fo much the more dangerous, for not only being very numerous, but confounded with the ecclefiafticks, and entering into all ecclefiaftical dignities. In another place, fpeaking of the Jewish nation, he fays, "The moft furprising thing is, that this religion fpreads from generation to generation, and ftill fubfifts in the perfons of diffemblers in a remote pofterity." "In vain," fays he," the great Lords of Spain make alliances, (Oforious. libra. 1. Mariana. libra. 26. chap. 13.) change their names, and take ancient fcutcheons; they are ftill known to be of a Jewish race, and Jews themfelves. The convents of Monks and Nuns, are full of them. Most of the Canons, Inquifitors, and Bifhops, proceed from this nation. This," fays he, is enough to make the people and clergy of this country tremble, fince fuch fort of churchmen can only profane the facraments, and want intention in confecrating the hoft they adore; in the mean time, OROBIO, who relates the fact, knew thefe diffemblers. He was one of them himself, and bent the knee before the facrament. Moreover, he brings proofs of this affertion, in maintaining, that there are in the Synagogue of Amfterdam, brothers and fifters and near relations to good families of Spain and Portugal; and even Francifcan Monks, Dominicans, and Jefuits, who come to do penance for the crime they have committed in diffembling."

Page 7. "His king fhall be higher than Agag." On this paffage Mr. Levi ftrangely obferves;

"The of does not properly form the comparative, but enotes the fame as the propofition, from; and is what the Hebrew Grammarians call. i. e. denoting time: fo that the meaning of the expreffion is, His king fhall begin to be exalted FROM THE TIME OF AGAG; that is, from the time of Saul the first king of Ifrael, who overcame Agag; and that his kingdom should ftill be more exalted, &c." Note, p. 7.

Surely this interpretation can never be defenfible. 8, which denotes exaltation, pre-eminence, and the like, was the general appellation of the Amalekite kings. Thus Egypt had its fucceffion of monarchs under the name of Pharaoh, and Ethiopia under that of Candau. There is not the most diftant probability that the prophet had in view the tyrant of Amalek, who fell, by a just retribution, for his own accumulated barbarities*.

Mr.

* Both Levi and Benjoin, by a forced interpretation of the word , endeavour, with an unmanly fubterfuge, to efcape from the malicious

Mr. Levi quits the panoply of grave argument in p. 129: and has recourfe to the lighter weapons of ridicule. With what fuccefs, let our readers judge!

"And, here, I muft once for all, obferve, that all the Prophecies which speak of the coming of the Meffiah, the restoration and redemption of the nation, are to be understood in the most plain, obvious, and literal fenfe, and not in a spiritual and myftical fenfe, as the generality of Chriftians attempt to explain them. For can any thing be more abfurd, than to explain the Prophecies which foretell the calamity which is to befall them, in a literal fenfe; and those which fpeak of their future felicity, in a fpiritual and myftical fenfe; furely not. And it is not a little pleasant, to obferve, the great kindness of Chriftians towards us in this refpect: for they are extremely ready and willing to grant us the entire, and undisturbed poffeffion of all the evils foretold us; which indeed, we have fully experienced for upwards of feventeen hundred years; whilft they, with equal generofity, apply to themselves, all the glorious promifes, which, with equal certainty, predict our future happinefs in the latter days. This, is kind indeed! and for which, I am forry to fay, our nation in general, and myfelf in particular, are not quite fo thankful, as perhaps might be expected of us for Truth, divine Truth! fteps in.'

P. 129.

Mr. Levi is highly offended at the plurality attributed by Christians to the noun. He alledges, that Mofes particularly varies his language to prevent the poffibility of fuch an interpretation.

"In verfe 39th, He, by a most beautiful figure fhews, that, when the nations fhall thus have profaned the name of the LORD of hofts, that God will be jealous for his name's fake; and when he comes to "See now that I, even I punish them for their blafphemy, will fay, am he, and there is no God with me." I am he unto whom the chil dren of Ifrael offered their facrifices, and I am the fame now; for I am the Lord, I change not; neither is there any god with me: no plurality of perfons, as ye faid: no Elohim*: no trinity in Unity: but a perfect, pure UNITY." P. 53.

From the very fame premifes we deduce a directly oppofite conclufion. If language has any determinate meaning, what

malicious but weak attack of the unbelievers, on the fubject of the excifion of the Canaanites, an attack which can only be repelled by open, direct controverfy.

"It is really worthy of remark, that Mofes does not make use of the noun, as in verfe 12th; but on, which the Chriftians fay, denotes a plurality of perfons in the Godhead, or a trinity in unity: he therefore, in order to explode that corrupt and pernicious doctrine, makes ufe of the noun , as if he had faid, that plurality which ye attributed to the noun Elohim, hath no exiftence with me, for I am a pure UNITY."

can

f ? אני אלהים but אין ציד אלהים מבלצדי can be the fignification of

am the Elohim-in unity of etlence, but plurality of perfons, Jehovah ?

It is needless to carry our remarks further on Mr. Levi's performance. The judgment we have paffed on it is open to the public revifion. We are grofsly mistaken indeed, if the general verdict fhall differ from our own.

To extend the feverity of criticifm to this author's grammatical or orthographical errors, would perhaps in the prefent inftance be scarcely juftifiable; but fome of thefe many qual are, as we think, not entirely imputable to the inaccuracy of the printer, or the negligence of the revifing eye. If to negligence only we are to look for the fatisfaction of our doubts, the inattention is such as (to ufe Mr. Levi's own words) "no human forefight could have forefeen." Apalled, fceptifm, propable, fbrewed conjectures, fiez d, Ofrious, and many other frightful errata of this nature, are to be found within a few Pages of each other.

To the praife of fincerity, fuch as it is, Mr. Levi is doubtlefs entitled. But we do not feel ourselves difpofed to confider this obftinate adherence to error, as worthy of so much commendation as the cant of affected liberality would attribute to it. We think the position nearer to the truth, that "his life cannot be in the right, whofe faith is in the wrong," than the contrary affertion, which has been too generally pre valent, and the confequences of which at the prefent hour are too fenfibly felt.

"A principle like these must then be abandoned, and the advocates for fincerity must be compelled to restore this abused term to its genuine fignification, and to acknowledge that it must imply honesty of mind, and the faithful ufe of the means of knowledge and of improvement, the defire of being inftructed, humble enquiry, impartial confideration, and unprejudiced judgement."

Under the prefent circumstances, however, we are led to confider Mr. Levi's attack on Chriftianity, hoftile and acrimonious as it is, with more indulgence than the fcoffs, and cavils, and petulant oppofition of those who were brought up and nourished in the principles of the faith which they op pugn; and who even prefumne to call themselves Chrif tians, while they are fapping infidioufly, or by open ftorm affailing, the facred bulwarks of Chriftianity. With a refeTence to these various antagonists, we will leave on the minds of our readers the words of oppreffed and fuffering virtue, in a fimilar inftance, as affording a juft criterion of their respective criminality.

criminality. "Behold, my fon, which came forth of my bowels, feeketh my life; how much more now may this Benjamite do it? Let him alone, and let him curfe !" 2 Samuel xvi. ii.

ART. IX. Efays on the Microfcope, containing a practical Defcription of the most improved Microfcopes; a general Hiftory of Infects; their Transformations, peculiar Habits, and Oeconomy; with an Account of the various Species of Hydra, Vorticella, &c. a Defcription of Three Hundred Animalcula, &c. &c. illuftrated with Thirty-Two Folie Plates. By the late George Adams, Mathematical InftrumentMaker to his Majefty. The Second Edition, with confiderable Additions and Improvements, by Frederick Kanmacher, F. L. S. 4to. 724 pp. with a Volume of Plates. 11, 8s. Dillon and Keating, London. 1798.

THE microfcope, one of the most interefting inventions of

the last century, opens to our view an otherwise invifible world, with which the ancients were entirely unacquainted. So truly great and rational is the entertainment and inftruction it affords, that it is no wonder opticians fhould have exerted all their ingenuity in varying the conftruction of the inftrument, and giving it every advantage which human art could devife, in order to produce its full effect, and convey the greateft fatisfaction to the obferver.

The first invented microfcopes were all fingle ones, confifting merely of a small convex lens, differently mounted according to the fancy of the preparer; and to this ftructure, improved by the affiduity of the Lyncean Leewenhoek, we owe by far the greater part of the curious microfcopical obfervations of the preceding century. Leewenhoek ground his glaffes with uncommon dexterity; they were all double convex lenses; which it is the more neceffary to mention here, fince we recollect, that the Abbe la Pluche, in his excellent work, the Spectacle de la Nature, has erroneoufly ftated them to have been small glo bules of blown glafs inftead of lenfes. Their magnifying powers fell short of many which are prepared by our modern artifts, but were fully fufficient to inveftigare many minutiæ of nature with clearness and precifion. Leewenhoek, at his death, bequeathed his cabinet of microfcopes, confitting of twentyfx, mounted in filver, and prepared by his own hand, to the

E

BRIT. CRIT. VOL, XII, JULY, 1798.

Royal

Royal Society of London, as a tribute of respect to that illuf trious body, who had fo long been the receivers and publithers of his communications. Thefe microfcopes have been defcribed in the Philofophical Franfactions, by Martin Folkes, Prefident of the Royal Society; and alfo by Mr. Henry Baker, in his work, entitled Employment for the Microscope; in which book may be found a figure reprefenting their general

ftructure.

The fingle microfcope has undergone various fucceffive improvements, according to the adroitnefs of optical artists, in different parts of Europe; the English however have always claimed a decided pre-eminence.

Among compound microfcopes, the comparatively aukward' and cumbrous contrivances of the laft century, are now known only from fpecimens depofited in mufcums; and have long fince been fuperfeded by the more elegant and infinitely more convenient inftruments, conftructed by modern artifts. The threepillared microscope, as it is commonly called, was about the year 1745 improved in its ftructure by Mr. Cuff, an eminent optician of that time, and was the kind ufed by Mr. Baker, in preference to the former: this alfo feems to have been the microscope made ufe of by the celebrated Count de Buffon, whofe obfervations terminated in his well-known extravagant and abfurd theory of organized moleculæ, &c. Since the time of Cuff, different artists have endeavoured, and not without fuccefs, ftill further to improve the compound microscope. Among those who ought to be mentioned with praife on this eccafion, was the late Mr. Benjamin Martin, of Fleet-street, whofe improvements, as well as thofe of our prefent author's father, were of confiderable utility. Mr. G. Adams him felf conftructed, with fingular fuccefs, the inftrument termed the lucernal microscope, which has been fince rendered more complete by Mr. Jones, who has likewife added to the convenience of the compound microscope, which may now be considered as having attained its ultimatum of perfection.

About the year 1738, that wonderful improvement in optics, the folar microfcope, was first invented by Liberkun, whofe inftrument however was but aukward in comparison of those which were afterwards conftructed by the English opticians, To Liberkun alfo is owing the invention of the fingle opake microscope; or a lens placed in the centre of a small concave fpeculum, which reflects a vivid light on an opake objec placed before it.

After thus flightly enumerating the feveral gradations by which the prefent perfection in thefe important inftruments was obtained, we shall proceed to a furvey of the prefent edi