»80 
the emblem of life : but Mofes, in order 
to counteraét fuch idolatry, reprefented 
it as the introducer ar author of death. 
‘Thus the ferpent was confounded with > 
the dragon ; and hence we find the terms 
Tannim, Nachafp, and Leviathan, uled 
often for each other (compare Gen. iil. 
13. Ex. vil..g, 10, 15, &c.) and equal- 
ly tranflated in the Septuagint by that ef 
(See Pjalm \xxiv, 13, 14 3 
Lxek. xxxli, 2; Fob, xii. 13 [faiah, xxvil. 
5 fly XXVAy 13 3“ AznoS, IKyoR. CCC. 
I fear that I have already exceeded the 
limits youcan afford me from more im- 
portant matter, and muft therefore con- 
tent myfelf with barely adverting to the 
defcription given us of Bell and the Dra- 
‘gon: the reprefentation of the good and 
evil principles of the Oriental Mythology; 
and to the Eaftern account of Eclipfes, in 
which the dragon is uniformly confidered 
as the enemy of the Sun. Many cther 
circumfiances might indeed be adduced in 
iupport of my conjectures; but I mutt 
conclude, with recommending the fubjeét 
to the confideration of thofe of your 
‘correfpondents, whohave more leifure, 
and more learning in biblical lore, than 
London, O@.10, 1796. CLEANTHES. 
Apaxnaytwy 

To the Editer of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
“FR. Bevpoes in his “ Effay on the 
~~ Public Merits of Mr. Prrt,”’ repre- 
fents Mr. Dunpas’s reyard for our fick 
foldiers and failors, as flumbering, at a 
“feafon when it ought to have been moft 
vigilant. This writer fuppofes, that 
Mr. Dundas muff have known of Dr. 
J.C. Smy ru’s alledged fuccefs at Win 
chefter; probably, becaufe that fuccefs 
was the fubjeét of a vote of the Houfe of 
Commons, and becaufe Dr.Smyth’s dedi- 
cation implies intimacy with Mr. Dun- 
das. Few of your readers may be able 
to fay whether Mr. Dundas was. or 
was not ignorant of the fa&. But 
there may be fome who can give infor- 
mation whether any meafures were taken 
in the army or navy, for deftroying con- 
tagion by mineral acid vapours befo-e 
Dr. Morris’s application tome re. 
Smyth, which occafioned Dr. Smyth’s 
publication, as appears from his expref- 
fions, viz. “ This gentleman having wit- 
“ nefied the deftructive ravages of a con- 
s* tagious fever, that broke out on board 
“< the Heifian tranfports at the ifle of 
s* Wight, and which afterwards fpread 
&e 
among the troops ftationed in that 
® quarter, was defirous to be informed 
Defiruéion of | Contagion —Writings of Collins. g 
‘“* of the methods I purfted in the treat= 
“* ment of the Winchefter fever, and 7 7 
“<< defireying the pepilential contagion whith 
* occapjioned if. In compliance, then, with 
‘“< his withes, I began to make*feme abe 
“ ftra€'s from my notes joni this fubjeét.” 
I thould be glad, alfo, to learn from’ 
your medical readerswhether, in the. nu- 
merous defcriptions,of epidemic fevers 
- for the laft-fixteen years, any mention is. 
made of the ufe of the vapour of marine » 
or nitrous acid vapour 2 
Any intelligence on this fubjeét would 
be curious ; and it might render praéti- 
tioners of medicine attentive to the fub- 
ject. Tam fir, your's, 
Nov. 1, 1796. INDAGATOR, 
EEE 
To the Editor of the Monibly Magaxine. 
STR 
[ SHALL think myfelf obliged to any of 
y oO 
rour correfpondents who will favour 
me and the public with a lift of the writ- 
ings of the late Anthony Collins. H¢ 
fays, in his ** Scheme of Literal Pro- 
phecy Confidered,” that he has prepared 
(fee page 439) a Difcourfe on the Mira- 
cles recorded in the Old and New Tefta- 
ments. Did he ever publith that werk ? 
His ‘* Difcourfe of the Grounds and 
Reafons of the Chriftian Religion,’ when 
publithed, was oppofed by Thirty-five 
Anfwers, which in his turn he replied to 
by ‘his ‘* Scheme of Literal Prophecy 
Confidered.”’ It isfomewhat remarka- 
ole that Dr. Prieftley, in his preface to 
Collins’s Book on Neceility, holds up 
Collins as an excellent man and exem- 
plary magiftrate, and yet feems to infi- 
nuate, that he was rather induced to the 
publication of his books againft Revela- 
tion, from an oppofition to the priefts of 
his neighbourhood, whe had given him 
fome difturbance, than his dove of truth, 
or his conviction of the falfehood of the 
[Now 
pretenfions he took upon him to refute. 
Is there any evidence of this in the life 
and conduct of Collins? Dr. Prieftley at 
the fame time tells us that Collins’s writ- 
ings are diiicult to reply to, without a- 
bandoning the idea of the infpiration of 
the {criptures. 
Dr. Prieftley has abandoned that idea, 
and moft ably defended his conduét in fo 
doing; he has {pent the latter part of his 
life in writing againft the Deifts; and yet, 
with the advantage on his fide, of the 
dcnial of the infpiration of the feriptures ; 
with this preliminary in poffeffion, he has 
not, I think, exprefsly replied to Collins, 
nor to the arguments of Collins : indeed, 
it has been faid, which will render any 
reply 
