prominent, and influential doctrines of holy writ? Would not the more obvious and just conclusion be, that these men, being confessedly accessible in general to the light of evidence and sound learning, at least may be open to the same light in respect of the interpretation of holy writ, that they may be capable of being governed, and willing to be governed, by the degree of light and evidence afforded; and that if, after all their researches, they err, (for they lay no claim to infallibility,) the error is "their misfortune, not their fault," is imputable to the judgment, and not to the heart? Where, on earth, shall we discover the infallible arbiter, empowered and qualified to determine on our springs of action? Far be it from Unitarian Christians-from any Christians, to think highly of themselves-more highly than they ought to think! But still we would humbly trust that we are not insensible of our utter need of the salvation provided in the Gospel, of Divine mercy, and Divine aid. Endeavouring to ascer tain fully what are the truths which Jesus and his apostles taught, and this by diligently comparing scripture with scripture, we regard it as "a very small thing that we should be judged of man's judgment. He that judgeth us is the Lord."+ Language, such as we have transcribed from Bishop Ryder's Charge, we read with concern, principally on account of its tendency to divert men's attention from legitimate evidence,-from the STANDARD to which all the controversies in the Christian world ought to be submitted.

The Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry having said so much for the purpose of explaining the modified and rather partial success of one class of the controversialists," writers of no mean power and acquirements," speaks thus of Unitarianism,

"This mistaken cause has of late years received little or no addition of strength."

Some addition it assuredly has received; as, indeed, the respectable Prelate's acknowledgment would seem to imply and admit. The addition has even been considerable, if viewed with reference to those comminations, by which numbers of mankind are deterred from all investigation; and it will be greater still, when there are fewer obstacles to an impartial, attentive study of the Scriptures, and to a courageous profession of the doctrines which, as the result of such a study, they are understood to teach.

Dr. Ryder subjoins,

"Its advocates have been proved liable to the charge of diminishing from, while the Papist adds to, the sacred volume of inspiration."

This is a very serious "charge" and declaration. We must suppose that his Lordship, as he expresses himself in such decided terms, and without the smallest reserve, has diligently read and weighed the evidence brought forward by the accused, as well as by the accusers: and we turned with eagerness to his Appendix, in the hope of there finding some illustrations and alleged vouchers of his assertions. In this hope we were disappointed: he calls no witnesses; he produces no documents. What he does, is to prefer against us, or rather to revive, a bill of indictment, and instantly to enter on record a verdict of "Guilty!"

They have been proved guilty," he tells his clergy, "of mutilating the oracles of God by erasures and alterations, which the most inexperienced

* John Hales' Letter to Archbishop Laud. See, too, p. 13, of his Charge.

+1 Cor. iv. 1—6.

Tyro in Criticism would be ashamed to apply to works of mere human literature and ephemeral moment."

We cordially wish that he had specified the erasures and alterations to which he adverts. To general accusations we offer a general replication. With all just deference, we affirm that we are innocent of such mutilations, such erasures and alterations: and Dr. Ryder, if, hereafter, he possess an opportunity of explaining and supporting what at present we must style indefinite and groundless allegations, may ultimately concede that, on this head, we are not altogether inaccessible to "the light of evidence and sound learning."

Criticism, in its application to the Scriptures, has two divisions. One of these regards the text; the other, the interpretation, of the Sacred Volume. That which is exercised on the text, bears the name of Biblical Criticism: that which investigates and employs the principles of just interpretation, is distinguished as Scriptural Criticism. Important ends are answered by the distinction. The rules of "Biblical Criticism" are comparatively few, and, in theory at least, almost universally recognized and respected; while those of the second branch of Criticism are observed to leave room for a much wider diversity of opinion. Our meaning will be unfolded by an example. Various and even mutually conflicting comments on such a portion of the New Testament as Philipp. ii. 5-9, have been proposed by a number of preachers and writers: and, hitherto, there is no approach to unanimity in the judgment of the theological world on the point, which of the comments gives the real sense of the apostle. Not so, on the question, whether two well-known clauses in the Received Translation of 1 John v. 7, be genuine Scripture, and came from the pen of him who leaned on Jesus' bosom. Here, with rare and singular exceptions, divines-inquirers-of all denominations, are agreed. It would now be reasonably considered as some impeachment of a man's scholarship and experience in criticism—and this, be he Trinitarian or be he Antitrinitarian-to deny that the clauses so rejected by Griesbach are spurious, are interpolated. We could not, indeed, with any show of truth insinuate or say of such an author as Bishop Burgess that, because he attempts to uphold the genuineness of them, he is a "Tyro in Criticism:" yet, beyond doubt, if we had been unacquainted with his critical labours in a different field, and with far happier success, our astonishment at him, in the character of a Biblical Critic, would have been less profound. The truth, we repeat, is, that the large majority of intelligent and well-educated theological scholars, of every church and society, concur with each other in acknowledging and respecting the principles of Biblical Criticism, their solidity and their practical use and bearing. When Bishop Ryder shall have shewn that Unitarian Christians transgress these principles, in erasing the clauses just instanced, or any similar clauses or words touched by the impartial wand of Criticism, as being unauthorized additions to the Sacred Text; and when he shall have further shewn that we violate the same principles in adopting those "alterations" of the text, which that wand has marked as genuine readings, we will then confess ourselves guilty of mutilating "the oracles of God:" we shall then sink under the conscious shame of the ignorance, the wantonness, and the levity, imputed to us by "his record of accusation and conviction."†

Bishop Marsh's Lectures, &c., No. II.

After the labours of Griesbach, Porsou, Michaelis (J. D.), aud Marsh, on 1 John v. 7, not to enumerate those of other men of greater eminence in the theolo

The interpolation of "the oracles of God," is an offence quite as heinous as the wilful mutilation of them: and in both cases we must be understood as alluding to an act of the will-to more than even blameable inadvertency. Now Biblical Criticism is eminently and strictly impartial. This criticism exists, and is instituted for us all. If it expose and condemn mutilations, erasures, and alterations, (we mean such as are made without and against evidence,) it equally condemns the additions, the interpolations, which man's poor wisdom has superinduced on the original narrative, argument, and declaration; and this, whether the tenets of Unitarian Christians or those of Trinitarian Christians be concerned.

It has afforded us pleasure to observe that the present Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry gives his parliamentary suffrage in favour of the relief of those of his fellow-subjects who think themselves aggrieved by the Marriage Act, as it now stands. The broad principle of religious freedom, is the firmest basis on which that relief can be solicited or afforded. This excellent person, therefore, whose good opinion all who know him must be desirous of conciliating, and who is conspicuously a stranger to the pomp as well as "pride of prelacy," will allow us to regret that, as the advocate of the prayer of the petitioners, he lays greater stress on a kind of odium theologicum than on the intrinsic and palpable justice of the case. His words are these:

"Their attempts to obtain Parliamentary exemption from the necessity of participating in our marriage ceremony have been supported, in my opinion, indeed justly, (so far as the simple object of the petition was concerned,) but supported upon arguments which, while they assert to its utmost extent the right of toleration, yet stamp the opinions, which in this instance call for the exercise of that right, with the strongest reprobation. Compliance with the petition was urged, in order to deliver our temples from such reluctant, such inconsistent worshipers; and the mysteries of the holy Trinity from the inward scorn and ill-concealed ridicule of those who are compelled to listen with seeming acquiescence to what they, in their hearts, with no small hazard of impiety, dare to stigmatize as idolatry."*

We take Dr. Ryder to mean that, as a member and a prelate of the Church of England, he is no less anxious to release Unitarians from the legal obligation to engage in any of its ceremonies and services than Unitarians are to be thus released. This measure would be historically and substantially equitable. When the book of Common Prayer was framed, and, unhappily, long afterwards, Nonconformity was a crime: it was assumed that all the subjects of the realm frequented the established worship; and the forms of ritual-whether they regarded baptism, or burial, or marriage-were really public forms, and almost daily celebrated, in the presence not merely of interested and official parties, but of a mixed congregation. The phraseology of the services and the directions of the rubric, place this statement beyond dispute; and here we are furnished with

gical and literary world, we may consider the famous question of the three heavenly witnesses' as being at rest. That Biblical Criticism deprives Unitarian Christians of a passage or two on which they fondly relied, may be seen in Griesbach on Matt. xix. 17. They cheerfully make the surrender, and this, even could they less afford to make it. As to the introductory chapters of Matthew and of Luke, many Unitarians (among whom was Lardner) have retained them. The question is altogether a question of Biblical Criticism, and has divided even some Trinitarian Christians. Introd. Michaelis, I. [1793], pp. 210, &c.

* Pp. 11-13.

a powerful and additional reason why all Nonconformists should be exempted from the necessity of participating in the marriage ceremony prescribed by the national establishment. Let the services of the church be restricted to the votaries of the church: let her be consistent with herself! We are not in the number of those who "inwardly scorn at the mysteries of the holy Trinity, or covertly, yet awkwardly, ridicule them;" nor, if we were compelled" or induced to be present at the celebration of the characteristic rites of the church of Rome, would we wantonly offend the feelings of the meanest worshiper; for we should respect his sincerity, whatever we might think of his opinions and his practice. It is not, therefore, possible that we should have any sympathy with those (if such there be) whose demeanour bespeaks "the inward scorn and the ill-concealed ridicule," of which the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry complains. Those feelings we would subdue, we would discourage. But we are not the less solicitous that, on this very account, "the stone of stumbling" be speedily removed. If" it must needs be that offences come," still, theirs is no enviable situation "by whom the offence" either "cometh," or is deliberately continued.

Upon our Trinitarian neighbours and fellow-christians we charge not the practice of idolatry, nor stigmatize them as idolaters. We are silent as to what would be our own character and situation, if believing in none other than one God, even the Father, we associated with him two additional persons, or beings, as objects of our worship. It is a matter of judgment and conscience with us to abstain from revolting language, especially when it is, at the same time, vague, ambiguous, and incorrect. Let individuals among those who are denominated Unitarian Christians, answer for themselves. We think that we have expressed the sentiment, and described the habit, of the body.

Bishop Ryder fears that Unitarianism, [" this awful denial of the Lord who bought us,"*] "though little known to the poor, is not uncommon among those of the middle class, who are elevated above their fellows by some degree of superior learning and mental sagacity." Among these "this mistaken cause" has, perhaps, received some addition of strength. We will venture to state it as our conviction, that, in proportion as sound knowledge and sober inquiry gain ground, such an addition will be larger. It is exactly among the middle classes of society-those whom neither poverty benumbs nor wealth intoxicates-that we may with reason look for an augmentation of our numbers. Plain statements and plain evidence are especially suited to persons of this condition. "The light of sound learning," is chiefly essential and useful to those whom leisure enables, or whom duty requires, to explore the origin and progress and establishment of human corruptions of Divine Truth. But there are those, and not a few, of "the middle class," who, reading the Scriptures, and comparing one passage with another, and single texts with the tenor of the whole collection, will mark the contrast between the phraseology of our Lord Jesus, of his evangelists and his apostles, and that of later ages-will notice that what Bishop Ryder calls "the doctrine of the Holy Trinity," is matter of deduction by men,

2 Pet. ii. 1. It is painful to find Dr. Ryder making this application of the passage. The original word deσwotys, is restricted (in the singular number) throughout the New Testament, to the only Lord God, (Jude, ver. 4,) even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

+ On this account, the Bishop appears to entertain some little apprehension of the tendency and effect of Mechanics' Institutes, &c., p. 14.

not of clear authoritative declaration by the Founder and first preachers of the Christian faith; while, on the other hand, we have in the Sacred Volume literal and unequivocal ALLEGATIONS of the sole, exclusive deity* of him who is recognized there as "God, even the Father." Among "the middle class" there are many who will not fail to see that the word atonement is found in only a single passage of the New Testament,† and obviously means, and should have been translated, reconciliation-the reconciliation of men to God, not of God to men.

But Dr. Ryder grants that Unitarianism may be found "even" among others of higher rank, "who," in his opinion,"convinced that they must adopt some form of Christianity, satisfy themselves readily with that which least requires the submission of the intellect, the sacrifice of worldly indulgencies, and the exchange of the carnal for the spiritual mind."

These are his Lordship's sentiments and assertions in respect of Unitarianism, and one class of its professors. When he shall have exchanged bare statement for proof, we shall gladly accompany him in the survey of any evidence that he may be able to produce! Meanwhile, if Bishop Ryder denounces Unitarianism, because it "least requires the submission of the intellect," (an accusation which is true or false, according to our several explanations of it,) he should, consistently with this remark, but very inconsistently with his observations in pp. 9, &c., of his Charge, embrace that form of Christianity, which most "requires the same submission.”

(To be continued.)

N.

POTAMOLOGY.

POTAMOLOGY-what is that? Why the science of Rivers, to be sure; and a very good science it is; and a very good word it is, to designate that science, coined out of sterling Greek, its two etymons flowing harmoniously together into a continued stream of sound, and well deserving to become a current expression. We thank Mr. Smallfield for teaching us that word; but we thank him much more for this tablet of many waters, which he has just ushered into the world under so appropriate an appellation. It was a happy thought; and the execution is as judicious and laborious as the plan is simple, novel, and useful. Rarely, indeed, can so much information have been condensed into so small a compass; and yet more rarely can it have been purchased at so insignificant a price; a price which cannot possibly remunerate the Compiler for his pains, but by that general adoption of his work by schools and families, as well as in libraries and public institutions, which we trust it cannot fail to meet with.

We heartily recommend this production to the purchase and patronage of our readers on account of the quantity of fact which it contains, the subject to which it relates, and the method of teaching (either one's-self or others) to which it belongs.

In this sheet there has been found "ample room and verge enough" for

* Deity of nature and person, as discriminated from divinity of office. + Rom. v. 11.

POTAMOLOGY: a Tabular Description of the Principal Rivers throughout the World, their Rise, Course, Cities, &c., Tributary Streams, Length and Outfall into Occans, Seas, or Lakes. Compiled and printed by G. Smallfield. London: M.Sherwood, and G. and J. Cary, &c. Price 3s. coloured, or 8s. coloured, varnished, and mounted on Canvas and Roller.