pillage, from the account given by the fame author of the number of the flaves made captive, and of the immenfe quantities of precious ftones, pearls, rubies, diamonds, gold and filver veffels, money, and bullion, carried away by the army. Even the Indian women and girls are faid to have been adorned with a profufion of precious ftones, and had bracelets and rings of gold, and jewels, not only on their hands and feet, but also on their toes. Of these precious ornaments every individual had secured fo ample a ftore, that they refufed the incumbrance of more, and vaft heaps of various plunder of inestimable value were left behind. These are nearly the words of the Persian author, who bears the fricteft character in the East for veracity, and who was contemporary with the monarch whose history he relates." P. 54.

The following description of the wealth of the Rajah of Lahore is very curious:

Jeipal, the raja of Lahore, during the repeated incurfions of Subuctagi, and his fon Mahmud, exhibited the moft heroic proofs of bravery in the defence of his hereditary domain, which extended from Cafhmire to Multan; and great indeed muft have been the wealth he poffeffed, fince when, at length, after three defperate efforts, he was taken prifoner by the enemy, around his neck alone were found fufpended fixteen ftrings of jewels, each of which was valued at 180,000 rupees, and the whole at 320,000 pounds fterling. This fum, however, is trifling, compared with that which Mirkond fays the fultan of Gazna, in his expedition againft Jeipal, or Bal, as he calls him, and in a fecond againft his fon Andbal (Ferifhta's Annindpal), carried out of India. He ftates it at feven millions of coin in gold, feven hundred maunds of gold in ingots, together with an ineftimable quantity of pearls and precious ftones. Jeipal, when at length liberated, ftung with the anguifh arifing from his late defeat and captivity, and partly impelled by thofe feelings, and partly in obedience to a custom then prevalent among the Hindoos, which forbad a raja who had been twice vanquished by the Muffulmen longer to hold the reins of government, refigned the throne to his fon. He then ordered a funeral pile to be prepared and kindled, and leaping into the flames, died as heroically as he had lived." P. 63.

P. 68. Emirs and cans:-travellers feem now agreed in writing these words emeers and khans.

At Chapter III. Mr. Maurice compares the accounts of the divifions of Hindoftan, by the Perfian and Arabian geographers, with the accounts of the Europeans, and with the preceding accounts of the clallical writers. This part of his work will be found to be executed with particular fpirit, and the most attentive diligence. Hindoftan itself is compounded of Hindu and ftan, or iftan, a region. Why then does not Mr. Maurice follow the example of his friend Sir W. Jones, and write the

words

words Hinduftan and Hindus, instead of Hindoftan and Hindoos? The Perfian and Arabian geographers divide the empire of India into two parts, which they name Hind and Sind. Hind is divided into three parts; Guzurat, Malabar, and Maber: Sind includes Mocran and Multan, and extends its northern limits as far as Cashmire.

The account of Bengal, at p. 96, is extracted from the Ayeen Akberry, or the Mirror of Akbar, a book compiled at that monarch's command, defcribing all the provinces and cities of Hindoftan. From the fame fource alfo is drawn the principal divifion of what the author has thought effential to illuftrate this part of his fubject. Mr. Maurice, having difcuffed the geography, ancient and modern, of Hindoftan, enters, at p. 151, on the theology of the ancient Indians, examining in what points it resembled that of the Scythians, the ancient Perfians, and the ancient Egyptians.

Of the doctrines of Brahma, the ancients appear to have been totally ignorant; nor was the fubject at all more familiar to the European conquerors of India before the middle of the prefent century. Since that period, Mr. Holwell, Mr. Dow, Sir W. Jones, Mr. Halhed, and Mr. Wilkins, have successfully investigated the theology of Hindostan.

In his examination of this important, but complicated queftion, Mr. Maurice has difcovered great acuteness, the most unwearied diligence, and a confiderable portion of erudition. The epitome prefixed to his first chapter, comprehensively explains the fyftem which he propofes to purfue in accomplithment of the great work to which this is to be confidered as a preparatory introduction.

Commencing with the fubject of facred groves and caverns, he mentions the caves of Zoroafter, Epictetus, Pythagoras, and Mohainmed. He ingenioufly exculpates the bloodless laws of Brahma from all fanguinary imputations, by supposing the poffibility of a mixture of the barbarous cuítoms of Scythia with thofe of India, in the earlier intercourfe betwixt the two nations. The fubject of human facrifices next present itself; upon this the author enters at large, comprising whatever occurs of importance, in the ancient and modern writers. The principles of Zoroafter and Brahma are then compared, their refemblance pointed out and explained, and their kindred adoration of the folar orb, and of fire, are made to introduce a general view of the mythology of the Hindoos.

At p. 239, et feq. Mr. Maurice difcuffes the fculptured imagery of the caverns of Elephanta, confidering the account given by Niebuhr as the most correct and satisfactory.

M 3

The

The reader will find some acute obfervations on the origin of Phallic worship in Egypt at p. 264. These the author confiders as evidently the fame with the rites of Baal-peor in fcripture.

An attempt is made to prove the origin of the Indians and Chinese to be the fame, p. 285, &c. but the arguments and affertions will appear to many readers to be of too general a kind.

The note at p. 301 might as well have been omitted. It tells, what every one at all acquainted with books, knows to bis coft.

At p. 316, we found ourselves rather difappointed. There feems to have been some mistake in the arrangement of the materials, which requires explanation; for, when we were preparing to plunge into the fathomlefs abyfs of the Eleufinian myfteries, we fuddenly found our curiofity checked by a dif fertation on the caverns of Salfette and Elephanta.

What Mr. Maurice fays on the fubject of GATES, at p. 319, deferves attention, We infert his own words:

I muft here obferve that the word GATE, which is a part of Afiatic palaces by far the most confpicuous and magnificent, and upon adorning of which immenfe fums are often expended, is an expreffion, that, throughout the Eaft, is figuratively used for the manfion itself. Indeed it seems to be thus denominated with fingular propriety, fince, as thefe of my readers who have refided in Afiatic regions well know, it is under thofe GATES that converfations are holden, that hofpitality to the paffing traveller is difpenfed, and the moft important tranfactions in commerce frequently carried on. Captain Hamilton, giving an account of Fort St. George, obferves, "that the GATE of that town, called the Sea-gate, being very spacious, was formerly the common exchange, where merchants of all nations reforted about eleven o'clock to treat of business or merchandife." Aftronomy, deriving its birth in Afia, and exploring nature and language for new fymbols, foon feized upon this allegorical expreffion as highly defcriptive of her romantic ideas, and the title was transferred from terreftrial houses to the spheres. Hence, in the Arabian aftronomy, thofe conftellations in the heavens, nearest which the moon, during her monthly revolution, remains every night, are called the MANSIONS OF THE MOON, which, according to the Arabian computation, amount in number to twenty-eight, according to the Indian, to only twenty-feven, manfions: and thefe gates muft, therefore, be confidered as houfes, or fpheres, through which the foul paffes in her courfe to the centre of light and felicity. It may here be remarked, that the expreffion occurs frequently in holy writ, often in the former fenfe, and fometimes even in the aftronomical allufion of the word. In the former acceptation we read, ir. Efther ii. 19, of the Jew Mordecai fitting in the king's GATE: in Lamenta

tions v. 14, that the elders have ceafed from the GATE: and, in Ruth iii. 11, it is ufed in a fenfe remarkably figurative; all the GATE (that is, houfe) of my people know thou art virtuous. In the fecond acceptation, the word as well as the attendant fymbol itself, to our aftonishment, occur in the account of Jacob's vifion of the LADDER WHOSE TOP REACHED TO HEAVEN, and in the exclamation, THIS IS THE GATE OF HEAVEN. This circumftance cannot fail of exciting in the reader the utmost surprise, fince it is hence manifefted to have been an original patriarchal fymbol, and will hereafter be brought by me in evidence that there was among the poftdiluvian ancestors of the human race an aftronomy older than has yet been proved to exist, and poffibly tinctured with ante-diluvian philofophy. A fimilar idea occurs in Ifaiah xxxviii. 10. I fhall go to the GATES of the grave; and in Matthew xvi. 18. The GATES of hell fhall not prevail againf it: nor is it impoffible but our bleffed Lord himself might fpeak in allufion to the popular notion of the two aftronomical GATES celeftial and terreftrial, when, in Matthew vii. 13, he faid, Enter ye in at the ftrait GATE; for, wide is the GATE and broad is the way that leadeth to deflruction, and many there be which go in thereat : becaufe ftrait is the GATE aud narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it,'

This fubject might, however, have been yet more amply ilJuftrated from Xenophon, and the other authors cited by Briffonius, de regno Perfarum, p. 26:. where it is fully fhown, that the King's Gate was the place of honourable attendance in the Eaftern courts.

The following animated addrefs to the Deity is inferted at p. 335, from the Geeta, tranflated by Mr. Wilkins:

"Thou, O mighty Being, greater than Brahma, art the prime Creator! eternal God of gods! the world's MANSION! Thou art the incorruptible Being, diftinct from all things tranfient! Thou art before all gods, the ancient POOR USH, and the fupreme supporter of the univerfe! Thou knoweft all things, and art worthy to be known! Thou art the SUPREME MANSION; and by thee, O infinite Form! the universe was spread abroad."

The mythological details of the Hindoos Mr. Maurice confeffes to be extravagant; and we are inclined to think that fome of his readers will complain, that he has introduced too many extracts, from the works of others, on the fubject of thefe myfteries. He offers, however, no contemptible apology, by obferving, that however wild and romantic the language may be in which they are clothed, they probably involve fome phyfical meaning, and fome deep theological truth. In the progrefs of the work, fome important remarks are found on the affinity which many of the leading principles of the pure unadulterated doctrines of Brahma bear to thofe of the Chriftian fyftem. This fuggeftion was firft made by Mr. Haftings, in a

M 4

recommen

recommendatory letter to N. Smith, Efq. and prefixed to the Geeta.

At p. 329 [bis], the Eleufinian myfteries emerge, with many judicious obfervations from the learned author. He thinks, that thefe were borrowed from India, and that originally they were the inftitutions of Brahma. It is of more importance to the Chriftian to be informed, that these rites were introduced to perpetuate the creation of the world, and the general deluge.. "The Brahmins," fays Mr. Halhed, in his preface to the Code of Hindoo Laws, " deny that the deluge ever took place " in Hindoftan." This Mr. Maurice controverts; and he tells us, that a confiderable part of his future work will be devoted to the elucidation of thefe points. The grand fabric "of the Mofaic theology is fo far," he obferves, from being fhaken by thofe Indian chimeras, which have been propagated with much indecent zeal, that it will obtain from "the investigation a new column of adamant to uphold and " adorn it."

We now take our leave of Mr. Maurice, moft cordially wishing him the successful accomplishment of his object, and being fincerely of opinion, that his abilities and induftry deferve encouragement and reward. We hope he will neither difpute our candour or our kindnefs, when we intimate our hopes, that he will guard against the deluding fondness for fyftem, which, we confefs, feems too vifible. We think alfo, that he has introduced fome extraneous matter, which by no means contributes to the embellishment of his work; and that he will do well, in his future progrefs, to avoid a fault which has not been forgiven, even in a writer of Mr. Gibbon's fame, that of frequent, unneceffary, and unimportant digreffion. Having faid thus much, we are forward to difcern, and happy to commend, in Mr. Maurice, thofe talents, and that learning, which are indifpenfable to the hiftorian of a mighty empire.

ART. X.

Sermons, by John Difney, D. D. F. S. A. 8vo. 2 vols. 12s. Johnfon, &c. London.

THE author of thefe Sermons is well known to the world by various publications, as the friend of Mr. T. Lindley, the champion of unitarianifm, and the right of private judgment, to a most unbounded extent. This right, he contends, arifes out of the principles of the reformation.

In his Addrefs to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Lincoln, he fays "every clergyman must acknowledge, that not "only the free enjoyment of his liberty, but the full exercise of