I to Dissenting body at large, and to all liberal-minded Churchmen, be so obliging as to give it a place in your valuable work. The 29th of August is the day, according to their charter, of electing the mayor of Tenterden, in Kent, and also public office-bearers of that corporation. Mr. Joseph Munn, in consequence of being articled to Mr. Witts, who had been for a considerable period the town-clerk, and afterwards having entered into partnership with him, had for some years virtually filled the office, and this to the entire satisfaction of the corporation; Mr. Witts, from a nervous affection, not being able to apply himself to busi ness. In these circumstances it was at length judged to be necessary to elect another person. Mr. Munn, of consequence, naturally offered himself to the corporation, and had a very fair prospect of success; although, as a Dissenter, he could not conscientiously comply with the provisions of the above Acts. An opposition took place, and the opposing candidate availing himself of the circumstance just stated, and objecting that Mr. Munn as not qualified, and determined not to qualify, was not eligible, this objection proved fatal, nullifying every vote which might be given him. Upon this Mr. Munn declined, and the opposing candidate was of course elected; Mr. Munn receiving the most flattering expressions of respect and approbation from the corporation and all present. Upon Mr. Munn's return home he received a most pleasing testimony of approval, from his venerable and respected pastor, in a letter, with the presentation of ten guineas for a gold medal, to have the following inscrip tions: Tenterden, August 29, A Tribute of Respect for a Civil Office. On the reverse: The Let it be understood that the sole ground of these circumstances being offered to public attention, is to awaken the minds of Dissenters, and all liberal members of the Established Church, to a just sense of the disqualifying nature of the above-mentioned Acts, so unworthy of a land of freedom. It is also to be observed, that the very circumstance which recommends a person to any public office or place of trust, even his conscientiousness, is here the cause of his disqualification. Whereas unprincipled persons, whe ther Dissenters or otherwise, and those who reject all religion, natural or revealed, will have no scruples of the kind, but will readily comply as matter of form, and may thus hold the highest and most important offices of the state. We may confidently assert also, and this without fear of contradiction, that the Dissenters, as a body, have ever proved themselves the true friends of the civil and political constitution of their country. SIR, AMICUS. YOUR Correspondent from Bristol (pp. 201, 202) has, undoubtedly, been a little too indiscriminate in his severe censures of Unitarians, upon the important subject of the education of the poor. Many great and honourable exceptions may certainly be adduced, and which perhaps are not much inferior to the solitary one which he has mentioned. But I am afraid it will be found that another of your correspondents, "Verus," who writes from Sheffield, (pp. 549, 550,) has been at least equally undistinguishing in his vindication of the Unitarians from these charges. The former has asserted, that it is a lamentable fact, that among Unitarian Christians, there are to be found those, and he fears many, who, if not averse, are manifestly indifferent to the teaching of the poor, in other words, to Sunday-Schools. In reply to this, Verus undertakes most positively to deny the correctness of the general statement as to the facts. This is uncandid; besides that the reasons which he gives for this positive denial are not such as completely to satisfy a reflecting mind. In the first place, he knows of no Unitarians, although he has a pretty general acquaintance with them, who are either averse or indifferent to the education of the youthful poor; and he never heard of any till he saw the letter from Bristol. I rejoice that this is the case, and I am not for a moment disposed to call in question the truth of his assertion. But his experience does not justify him in contradicting facts brought forward by a person in a remote part of the kingdom, any more than the King of Siam was justified in contradicting the person who informed him of the existence of ice. Each has a right to relate what he has seen and heard; but surely it argues a want of civility, as well as of candour and good sense, thus to attempt to make his own experience invalidate that of others in distant places. His second reason is equally curious, namely, he knows not of any large and populous town, where there are Unitarian places of worship, without Sunday-Schools. This likewise is a matter of his own experience; and I am sure every friend to the best interests of the community will rejoice that such is the case, in the neighbourhood of Sheffield. But had this gentleman seen more of the southern parts of the country, he might, perhaps, have seen cause to have spoken differently on the subject. My residence is something more than thirty miles from the metropolis; and although I cannot, like Verus, boast of a very extensive acquaintance with Unitarians, yet I know of several large and flourishing congregations in very populous places, who have no Sunday-Schools; nor do I think that they have any thing of the kind in view. I say not this to reproach my Unitarian friends, but if possible to stimulate them to the good work. I have had considerable conversation with some of the members of these congregations, and endeavoured all in my power to convince them of the utility and importance of these institutions, and to persuade them in earnest to set about a work which I was convinced would be pro ductive of incalculable benefit, as wel to themselves, as to the objects of their benevolent exertions. The utility and importance of the work they readily admitted; admitted, alas! in words; but here they stopped. No arguments in my power could induce them to make the least effort towards so desirable an object. If this paragraph should meet their eye, they will know that it is dictated in the spirit of Christian friendship, and by an ardent desire to see Sunday-Schools established wherever the name of Unitarianism is mentioned. I heartily concur with your correspondent Verus, in disclaiming all foreign support for the trifling expenses incurred by Sunday-Schools, unless, indeed, in cases where the congregation consists entirely of very poor people. But I earnestly wish that my experience coincided with his in the ample assistance obtained from the young persons of the congregation. Here we do indeed differ widely; and perhaps he will scarcely give me credit when I assure him, that in the Sunday-School with which I am connected, the difficulty of obtaining assistance is so overwhelming to the very few individuals who are engaged in it, that we have several times been upon the point of giving it up in despair, and that nothing but a sense of imperative duty and the growing interest we feel in the improvement of the children of our charge, could induce us to proceed under such very discouraging circumstances. Most earnestly do I wish that it were possible to arouse the members of the congregation, and more particularly the young, to engage in this interesting and delightful duty. Those who have engaged in it, have declared that they felt an increased interest every time that they attended, and such would be the case of the rest, if it were possible to induce them to begin. But while they remain at a distance, and fancy themselves incapable of rendering us any assistance, the work languishes, and almost dies in our hands. Let us then pray the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. We have likewise, in common with several of your correspondents, who have written on this subject, been sometimes greatly perplexed for want of a sufficient variety of proper books. All other denominations of Christians are much better supplied than we are, and we have often wondered, as well as greatly lamented, that some zealous, intelligent Unitarian bookseller in London should not have turned his attention more to this subject. Is there no one who has the interests of real Christianity at heart sufficiently to do this? The supposition is in jurious. It is only for want of having sufficiently reflected on the subject. When they have reflected more, I am strongly persuaded that some among them will devote a part of his attention to wiping off this reproach and supplying this deficiency. A SOUTHERN UNITÁRIAN. one YOUR valuable Correspondent N. endeavours to reconcile the precept of Paul, "Be ye angry and sin not," (Ephes. iv. 26,) with the direction, which follows soon after, "Let all anger be put away from you," (ver. 31,) by supposing that in the former instance the Apostle has the act in his view, and in the latter instance the habit. There is, however, no grammatical reason on which this distinction can be founded; but, on the contrary, the verb 'Opylee, used in the former instance, and supposed by your correspondent to express the act only, may, according to the common mode of using the present tense in Greek, signify either "Be angry," or "Be habitually angry." But, in whichsoever of these two senses the word be taken, it appears strange that a Christan apostle should deliver an express precept to be angry, when all men are sufficiently prone to anger without such encouragement, and rather need every motive to guard against it. Upon the precept, "Be angry and sin not," Whitby remarks, "These words, though spoken imperatively, are not a command to be angry, but a caution to avoid sinful anger.' The observation appears to me correct; and it is only to be wished that the learned commentator had stated the principle on which his criticism may be justified. I have for some years been disposed to regard the expres sion of Paul, Οργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ αμαρTávere as a Hebraism, for which, if he had written classical Greek, he would have said 'Opyíodetes un aμapTávETE. Were I to dwell upon the fact of the occurrence of Hebraisms in the Greek of the New Testament, it would certainly be out of regard to others of your readers, and not with a view to your learned and able correspondent. But, assuming the fact as granted, I shall suppose that St. Paul wished to convey the following piece of advice; "If at any time through the weakness of human nature you are excited to anger, beware of its betraying you into sin." The words Οργίσθεντες μὴ αμαρτάνετε would have expressed this sentiment in correct and Attic Greek. But suppose a Jew had wished to translate this precept into his own language: in consequence of the want of a participle rendered it thus, or according to some similar form, onn bei ; and this phrase, literally translated into Greek, would give the very expression which Paul employs, 'OpylεOJE nai un apapтávete. The sense here supposed is remarkably suitable to the clause immediately subjoined, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath;" in which the apostle gives a very useful practical rule for restraining and terminating the ebullitions of anger. Such were the reasonings which occurred to my mind on considering the phrase in question merely as the language of a Jew, who was liable even in writing Greek to adopt Hebrew idioms. But the sense of the passage, which I have supposed, is confirmed, as it appears to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, when it is considered that the precept is not originally Paul's but David's, and that it is quoted from the Septuagint Version. It occurs in the 4th Psalm, and was probably intended by David as an admonition to the irritable spirits by whom he was surrounded at the court of Saul. In illustration of David's meaning, I shall take the liberty of quoting a rule from the Syntax of Schroeder's Hebrew Grammar, (lii. 2,) in which he adduces this very precept by way of an example: Imperativus nonnunquam conditionem exprimit, alii Imperativo præmissam ; The ancient Greek Version translates David's expression literally, and St. Paul has quoted this translation. The Syriac translator has preserved the same construction, since indeed his language required it as much as the Hebrew, being alike destitute of a form analogous to the Greek participle of the Aorist; and the Syriac translator of Paul's Epistle has quoted the Syriac translator of the Psalm. Most of the other ancient versions have preserved the Hebrew idiom in both places. The Chaldee, however, seems to have taken the first word in a wrong sense, and has thus led the way in introducing the version of Ps. iv. 5, in our Bible, "Stand in awe and sin not." I submit these remarks to the candid consideration of your correspondent, and to the indulgence of your readers in general. A YORK STUDENT. step in the processes of Newton's demonstrations. This is not his ground. But he rejects what is demonstrated to be the fact, because it is beyond the limits of the human faculties to conceive how a particle of dust on the surface of the earth can gravitate towards a particle of dust on the surface of the moon. This is truly consistent. We do not wish for a better illustration of Unitarian principles. The doctrine of Monotheism and the rejection of revealed truth may be worthily professed by those who reject the doctrine of Gravitation, and deny that two and two make four." The drift of this passage is, that the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Newtonian doctrine of Gravitation arises from the same aberration in the faculties of the buman mind, by which it is rendered incapable of discovering truths supposed by the Critic to be equally wellfounded and demonstrable in each. But surely it has escaped the recollection of the Critic that I am not singular in the rejection of Newton's doctrine of Gravitation. Many cler Mr. Frend on a recent Notice of him gymen, whose attachment to the thir SIR, PB in the British Critic. DERMIT me to solicit a place in your Repository for some remarks on the notice which the British Critic has been pleased to take of me in a late number of his work. It may not be deemed an improper intrusion on your valuable pages, as through me an attack is made on all Christians who reject the doctrine of the Trinity. The passage, after some complimentary phrases to myself, for which I beg the writer to accept of my best acknowledgments, runs as follows: "The same individual (meaning myself) who denies the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, denies also the Newtonian doctrine of Gravitation. If we ask on what grounds, we shall find that both doctrines are denied on precisely the same grounds. The one doctrine, though confessedly asserted in the literal sense of scripture, is yet rejected because it is incomprehensible to the human faculties. To the other doctrine this author does not object, because Newton has not sufficiently demonstrated it: he does not find or pretend to find any fault or erroneous VOL. XIX. 41 ty-nine articles was never called in question, have, equally with myself, opposed this hypothesis of our philosopher, and I shall content myself with mentioning one whose work on the Trinity was, when I was a student at Cambridge, put into all our hands, and I believe remains at present a standard book for candidates for orders. The clergyman's name is Jones, a late very worthy divine, and an intimate friend of Bishop Horne, who, I have reason to believe, entertained the same opinion with himself on the Newtonian philosophy. His works have been, I believe, collected, and occupy several volumes, and the small tract to which I allude is entitled, I think, The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, in which he attempts to demonstrate its truth by a collection of a great number of texts of scripture. It is many years since I saw the work, but as far as I can recollect, it seemed to me (born and bred in the sect established by law) in my youthful days to carry perfect conviction with it. I need not say that a fuller investigation of its contents led me afterwards to a very different opinion of the merits of this work. I have given an instance of a firm believer in the thirty-nine articles, who yet rejected the Newtonian doctrine of Gravitation: I shall be content with a single instance of a believer in Monotheism and yet an advocate for the doctrine of Gravitation, and this is Newton himself; he was an Unitarian. Thus we see that a man may believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, and disbelieve the doctrine of Gravitation; another may disbelieve the doctrine of a threefold God, and be the inventor of the doctrine of Gravitation; and I am an instance of a person who believes neither the one nor the other. How the Critic has drawn from my rejection of these two doctrines an illustration of Unitarian principles I cannot conjecture. For, if this had any thing to do with the argument, we should naturally be led to imagine that the Unitarians would be distinguished by this rejection of the Newtonian doctrine of Gravitation. But this I do not find to be the case; for among the many persons I have conversed with on the subject, I can scarcely bring to my recollection a single Unitarian Christian who agreed with me in exploding the doctrine of Gravitation, though I remember a celebrated writer of that body treating my notions with a degree of levity and contempt, such as the Critic himself would not, I am sure, have indulged in my presence. The last person who expressed his doubts to me of the Newtonian theory is a clergyman, and was a distinguished tutor in one of our universities. The Critic asserts that I reject both the doctrines in question precisely on the same grounds, namely, because it is beyond the limits of the human faculties to conceive them. In this he labours under a mistake. I did not reject the religious hypothesis on any such ground. I rejected it because I could not find any basis for it in scripture. The question with me was simply this, Is the doctrine' contained in scripture or not? To this test and to this test alone did I apply myself, availing myself of what knowledge I might have of the Scriptures in their original language; and my other sources of information in interpreting them, were chiefly drawn from the favourers of the es tablished doctrines. With respect to the term itself by which the majority of Christians worship the Supreme, and which is derived from a barbarous Latin word, I could not of course find that in the Scriptures, nor were the two expressions God the Son and God the Holy Ghost to be found there. This of itself is now a sufficient reason for me to reject, without farther inquiry, the use of these terms; for had the Supreme deemed it fit they should be used, I can have no doubt that the holy persons through whom his communications have been made to us, would have employed them in those writings on which and on which alone my faith and the faith of every Christian ought to be established. The propriety of using these terms is justified only on the ground of inference, and by whom was this inference first made? I leave that to the ecclesiastical historian to settle. By whomsoever made, my argument remains the same. These terms are not used by Christ or his apostles, and therefore rest on an authority to which we owe no deference. On this subject I beg leave to call the attention of our Unitarian brethren, who, like myself, may have frequently been taunted with the assertion, that it is to the pride of reason we owe the rejection of the mysterious union of three persons in the Godhead, and that it little becomes us who know so little of ourselves that we cannot explain the union of the soul and body, to pretend to deny a union in the Godhead, which is a greater mystery. For my own part, I entirely disclaim this pride of reason. I do not reject the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead because it is above my comprehension, but because I believe that no such union is taught in the Holy Scriptures. I waive therefore all reasoning upon the credibility or incredibility of this doctrine, and I keep to this single point: We have the Scriptures before us; shew me one single passage in which we are commanded to offer up prayers to God the Son or God the Holy Ghost or the Trinity. Upon this plain statement the whole of the controversy which now agitates the Christian world rests. It is intelligible to the meanest capacity. All the authority of Fathers of the Church, of Councils, of Acts of Parliament, on which there |