trate the origin of those masses of native metal which have been analyzed by chemists. A tolerably authentick testimony has, however, been lately found to prove the fall of a similar body in the East-Indies. Mr. Greville has communicated to the Royal Society (Phil. Trans. 1803, pt. I.), a very interesting document, translated from the Emperour Jehangire's Memoirs of his own reign. The prince relates, that in the year 1620 (of our zra), a violent explosion was heard at a village in the Punjaub, and, during the noise, a luminous body fell from above on the earth. That the aumil (or fiscal officer) of the district immediately repaired to the spot where the body was said to have fallen, and finding the ground still hot and burnt up, caused it to be dug; when the heat increasing, he at last came to a lump of iron violently hot; that this was sent to the court, where the Emperour had it weighed in his presence, and ordered it to be forged into a sabre, a knife, and a dagger; that the workman reported it was not malleable, but shivered under the stroke; and that it required to be mixed up with one third part of common iron, when the mass was found to make excellent blades. The Royal historian adds, that upon the incident of this iron of lightning being manufactured, a poet presented him with a distich, purporting that, during his reign, the earth attained order and regularity; that raw iron fell from lightning, and was, by his worldsubduing authority, converted into a dagger, a knife, and two sabres.' The exact resemblance of the occurrence here related, in all its essential circumstances, to the accounts of fallen stones formerly detailed, and the particular observation upon the unmalleable nature of the iron, give, it must be confessed, a very great degree of credibility to the whole narrative, and bestow additional weight on the inference previously drawn from internal evidence, that the solitary masses of native iron, found in different quarters of the globe, have the same origin with the stones analyzed by Vauquelin and Howard. We have now gone through the whole evidence, both with respect to the circumstances in which these singular bodies are found, the ingredients of which they are compounded, and the outward appearance and structure which they exhibit: we are now to consider the inferences respecting their probable origin, which this mass of information may warrant us to draw. Independent of the distinct negative which the external evidence gives to any such conclusions, we are fully entitled to deny that these bodies are formed in the ground by lightning, or existed previously there, both from their exact resemblance to each other in whatever part of the earth they have been found, and from their containing substances no where else to be met with. It cannot surely be imagined, that exactly in those spots where fire, of some unknown kind, precipitated from an exploded meteor, happened to fall, there should exist certain proportions of iron, sulphur, nickel, magnesia and silica, ready to be united by the heat or electricity. Still, less conceivable is it, that, in every such fall of fire, those ingredients should first combine, by twos and threes, in the very same manner, and then that the binary and ternary compounds should unite in similar aggregates. But, least of all is it reasonable to suppose, that bodies formed in the earth should, upon being dug up, be found enveloped in a crust different from the rest of their substance, and bearing evident marks of having undergone the action of heat in contact with the air. The same unquestionable resemblance which prevails among all these bodies, and, still more, the peculiar nature of the pyrites which they contain, prove very clearly that they have not a volcanick origin. Even if such an hypothesis were liable to no other objection, it would be inadmissible on this ground, that we know of no volcano that throws up so small a portion of matter, and so uniformly of the same kind. But though we were to admit the existence of this volcano, where must we place it, that its eruptions may extend from Bengal to England, France, Italy, and Bohemia; nay, from Siberia to Senegal and South-America? And if we are forced to admit the existence of a series of such volcanoes, which are known to us only by these peculiar effects of their eruptions, do we not acknowledge that we are compelled to imagine a set of causes, without any other foundation for our belief in them, than our occasion for their assistance in explaining the phenomenon? In short do we not account for one difficulty, by fancying a greater? But if it is alleged that the stones come from volcanoes already known, we demand, what volcano exists in the peninsula of India, or in England, or in France, or in Bohemia ? And if it is said that these bodies are projected by Hecla, Etna, &c. to all manner of distances, we must ask, whether this is not explaining what is puzzling, by assuming what is impossible? It is surely much better to rest satisfied with recording the fact, and leaving it under all its difficulties,than to increase its wonders by the addition of a miracle. The same remark may be extended to those, who have fancied that the constituent parts of the stones exist in the atmosphere, and are united by the fire of a meteor, or by the electrick fluid. We have no right to make any such hypothesis. We have never seen iron, silica, &c. in the gaseous state. These bodies may, for ought we know, be compounds of oxygen and azote or hydrogen, &c.; but as yet we have no reason to think So. Besides, he who amuses us with this clumsy and gratuitous explication, will probably account for every other phenomenon by a similar process of creation: He may, with equal plausibility, conceive the earth to be formed by a union of burnt gases, and then cover it with vegetables, and people it with living creatures, by a few more conflagrations and explosions. Such, however, is the theory most heavily expounded by M. Izarn-spun, with tiresome and unprofitable industry, into cobwebs, which touch every fact, without catching itand enveloping in the mist of general logical positions, which faintly conceal the fundamental postulate an entire act of creation. From the whole, we may safely infer, that the bodies in question have fallen on the surface of the earth, but that they were not projected by any volcanoes, and that we have no right, from the known laws of nature, to suppose that they were formed in the upper re- ̧ gions of the atmosphere. Such a negative conclusion seems all that we are, in the present state of our knowledge, entitled to draw. But an hypothesis may perhaps suggest itself, unincumbered by any of the foregoing difficulties, if we attend to the following undoubted truths. As the attraction of gravitation extends over the whole planetary system, a heavy body, placed at the surface of the Moon, is affect ed chiefly by two forces; one drawing it towards the centre of the Earth, and another drawing it towards that of the Moon. The latter of these forces, however, is beyond all comparison greatest at or near the Moon's surface. But as we recede from the Moon, and approach to the Earth,this force decreases, while the other augments; and at one point between the two planets, these forces are exactly equal so that a heavy body, placed there, must remain at rest. If, therefore, a body is projected from the Moon towards the Earth, with a force sufficient to carry it beyond this point of equal attraction, it must necessarily fall on the Earth. Nor would it require a very great impulse to throw the body within the sphere of the Earth's superiour attraction. Supposing the line of projection to be that which joins the centres of the two planets, and supposing them to remain at rest; it has been demonstrated, on the Newtonian estimation of the Moon's mass, that a force of projection moving the body 12,000 feet in a second, would entirely detach it from the Moon and throw it upon the Earth. This estimate of the Moon's mass is, however, now admitted to be much greater than the truth; and upon M. De la Place's calculation, it has been shewn that a force of little more than one half the above power would be sufficient to produce the effect. A projectile, then, moving from the Moon with a velocity about three times greater than that of a cannon ball, would infallibly reach the earth; and there can be little doubt that such forces are exerted by volcanoes during eruptions, as well as by the production of steam, from subterranean heat. We may easi ly imagine such cause of motion to exist in the Moon, as well as in the Earth. Indeed, several observations have rendered the existence of volcanoes there extremely probable. In the calculation just now referred to, we may remark, that no allowance is made for the resistance of any medium in the place where the motion is generated. In fact, we have every reason to believe, from optical considerations, that the moon has no atmosphere. A body falling from the Moon upon the Earth, after being impelled by such a force as we have been describing, would not reach us in less than two days and a half. It would enter our atmosphere with a velocity of nearly 25,000 feet in a second; but the resistance of the air increasing with the velocity, would soon greatly reduce it, and render it uniform. We may remark, however, that all the accounts of fallen stones agree in attributing to the luminous bodies a rapid motion in the air, and the effects of a very considerable momentum to the fragments which reach the ground. The oblique direction in which they always fall, must tend greatly to diminish their penetrating power. While we are investigating the circumstances that render this account of the matter highly probable, we ought not to admit one consideration, which lies wholly in the opposite scale. The greater part of these singular bodies have first appeared in a high state of ignition; and it does not seem ea sy to conceive how their passage through so rare a fluid as the atmosphere could have generated any great degree of heat, with whatever rapidity they may have moved. Viewing as we do, the hypothesis of their lunar origin as by far the most probable in every other respect, we will acknowledge that this circumstance prevents us from adopting it with entire satisfaction. And while we see so many invincible objections to all the other theories which have been offered for the solution of the difficulty, we must admit that the supposition least liable to contradiction from the facts, is nevertheless sufficiently exceptionable, on a single ground, to warrant us in concluding with the philosophical remark of Vauquelin, Le parti le plus sage qui nous reste á prendre dans cet etat des choses, c'est d'avouer franchement, que nous ignorons entierement l'origine de ces pierres, et les causes qui ont pu les produire.' If, however, a more extensive collection of accurate observations, and a greater variety of specimens, shall enable us to reconcile the discrepancy, and to push still farther our inquiries into the nature of the new substance, a knowledge of the internal structure of the Moon may be the splendid reward of our investigations. And while the labours of the Astronomer and Optician are introducing new worlds to our notice, Chemistry may, during the nineteenth century, as wonderfully augment our acquaintance with their productions and arrangement, as she has already, within a much shorter period, enlarged our ideas of the planet which we inhabit. For the Anthology. NOTICE OF GRIESBACH'S EDITION OF THE NEW-TESTAMENT, NOW PRINTING AT CAMBRIDGE. We are extremely glad to find that proposals are issued for printing at the University press, Griesbach's edition of the Greek Testament, with a selection of the most important various readings. The edition from which the American is to be exactly copied, was published at Leipsick in the year 1805, under the inspection, we understand, of Dr. Griesbach himself, and by its size is intended for common use. His large critical edition in two thick vols. royal octavo (commonly called the duke of Grafton's edition) is not so convenient for academies and schools, or for the daily reading of theological students, as it is for reference on the shelves of the library. This large edition is also extremely scarce, and cannot now be procured even in England, except at a price which few of our clergy can easily afford. After the theological world had waited impatiently for the second volume of this standard edition, as soon as it appears, it is found that first volumes cannot be obtained; so that a complete set of this valuable Testament is hardly within the reach even of the few, who know how to prize so laborious a work. We consider the publishers of this small edition as rendering a great service to the studious and pious portion of the community, by placing within the reach of every student and especially of ministers, a pure text and select reading, of the Greek Testa- Symbola Critica and other works of Dr. Griesbach. ment. Dr. Griesbach's accuracy, fidelity, and industry are well known to the learned in every part of Europe. He is a Lutheran by profession, and orthodox it is said in his religious opinions; but he has no where discovered in his few alterations of the received text the slightest bias, or want of impartiality. Marsh, the learned commentator on Michaelis, and now Margaret professor of divinity at Cambridge, loses no opportunity of praising his unwearied labours of more than thirty years in this kind of criticism, his scrupulous exactness, and above all the fairness with which he has quoted authorities, and the unbiassed judgment he has discovered in his decisions on the relative value of readings. His principles of criticism are to be found stated and justified in the Prolegomena to his critical edition, which we have mentioned above, & are very nearly the same with those adopted by Wetstein his great predecessor. But Dr. Griesbach's edition derives a value superiour to every other, from the more accurate collation which has been made in late years of some of the most important manuscripts, from the discovery and examination of many others unknown to Mill and Wetstein, from the aids which biblical criticism has received from the various labours of the learned in the last half century, and more especially from the great discovery, which Dr. Griesbach has sufficiently substantiated, of the division of MSS. in families, or as he terms it recensiones. Those who wish for full satisfaction on all these subjects, may consult Michaelis's introduction, as it is enriched with the notes of Marsh, and the It is also proposed, if this commodious edition should meet with the expected encouragement, to publish a supplementary volume, which shall contain an English translation of Griesbach's Prolegomena to his large critical edition, and the authorities, extracted from this, for every departure which he has made from the received text, and for every reading, which, tho' he has not ventured to insert it in the text, he considers of equal authority to the received. haps also some other treatise or extracts may be added, calculated to awaken a curiosity, diffuse a taste, or promote a knowledge in biblical criticism. Per There can be no doubt, that every man who feels a due respect for the sacred oracles, and especially every clergyman who must take them for the ground of his publick instructions, will be solicitous to have them in the purest form, in which they can be obtained by the aid of sober and accurate criticism. Enthusiasts in classical literature spare no labour or expense to obtain correct texts of the immortal authors of Greece and Rome; and shall the most valuable of all an tient writings, the books of the New Testament, be more incorrectly edited than the works of Homer and Virgil ? No man would read his Homer or his Virgil in a common sixpenny edition picked up at a stall, if he could use the standard edition of Heyne; and is it of less importance that the word of God should be studied in its most correct state ?* The following extract from Griesbach's Prolegomena, contains this senrum quidquid ad sacri codicis integrita. timent eloquently expressed. "Cætetem tuendam, puritatemque textui sacro |