ing hospitals for the sick, in making and repairing, gratuitously, roads, fountains, and conduits. If, however, your correspondent thinks that such displays of patriotism are of too humble and insignificant a kind, I believe courage aud ferocity in the field of battle have never been denied to be characteristics of the Turkish soldier; and, with regard to the late war, my impression is, that the Russians met with a far more vigorous resistance than was expected; and if, in the contest, which I tremble to anticipate, with the Poles, the same arms shall be successful, in this case, as in that of Turkey, it will be allowed by impartial judges, that the victory is to be ascribed to the overwhelming numbers of the assailants, and not to their superior courage, any more than to the justice of their cause. JAMES YATES. P. S. Jan. 17th. Since writing the above remarks, I have read "the Life of Mahomet," published by the Society for Diffusing Useful Knowledge. It would, I apprehend, be difficult to shew, that the philosophers and chieftains of Islamism have put forth many books containing so much prejudice, ignorance, and bigotry, as this tract, which has within a few months appeared in London under the auspices of Lord Brougham, and a nu. merous host of those who are usually reckoned among the great promoters of all that is enlightened and liberal in our country. ly magazines; and as many of them have been industrious, single-minded men, they sought honour, the reward of republicans, and the bare smoothed head of a magazine engraving was bay enough for Methodist preachers. On this, and much more experience, I would suggest to the Unitarian Tract Societies to publish a series of Unitarian Biographies in shilling numbers, giving an engraving as a frontispiece to each. I have before now seen a Methodist's parlour and bed-room hung round with engravings from the Methodist Magazine, and certainly the print led to inquiry; I have uo doubt also but inquiry led to emulation. Seeing even the portraiture of the practiser of a theory, is giving more vividuess to his teaching; it is coming near the adage, that example is better than precept. I am sure the fine manly picture of Rammohun Roy has given additional interest to the inquiry as to the state of Hindoo Unitarianism. Who can look at the mild yet speaking portrait of the late Mr. Broadbent, and not feel that he had lived enough to leave many who honoured his memory, and could almost say on looking at it, "Though you departed early, yet would that my end should be like thine"? There are many amongst the Unitarian body whom it would be an advantage to point the young Unitarian's attention to. It should be chiefly the religious and moral history of those men which should be the subject of these memoirs; but some men have so largely coloured the times they have lived in, or have shewed up so On the Publication of Unitarian Li- strongly the characteristics of their times, SIR, terature. To the Editor. THE circulation of popular productions connected with any topic, invariably tends to bring its merits fairly before the public; and by engaging the general attention in associated circumstances, to win a candid and even favourable hear ing to every matter touched on in the relation. Never did any thing more promote Protestantism than the relations of Fox's Book of Martrys. The saints of the Catholic Church have doue more for her in their deaths than in their lives. Their legends have been believed against faith, because they interested the taste for the marvellous, pathetic, and even for a certain class of the sublime. The Methodists have made good use of their low class of saints, the pictures and biographies of their preachers having formed the leading article of their mouth that a certain proportion of collateral matter would inevitably and most justly steal upon their biography. I will in stance Priestley. Scarcely a Unitarian who would not give a shilling for an engraving of Priestley; but add to that a popular sketch of what he suffered for civil and religious liberty, his discoveries in science, his industry, his daring; and his life would be enough to make martyrs endure, writers and preachers become indefatigable, and to fire with religious zeal the most cold-hearted and insensible. Theophilus Lindsey-what conscientious integrity! Rammohun Roy, a convert under extraordinary difficulties! I think that if notice were given of an alphabetical series of such biographies, including both ancient and modern, a volume of great interest and value might be put forth, say in monthly numbers, and sold first to subscribers, and afterwards introduced into the Tract Societies' catalogues. Religious and moral notices of Newton, Locke, Whiston, Peun, Samuel Clarke, and several other bold sous of heteredoxy, should be given, and the proofs of their believing the gospel and not the creeds. Arius, Servetus, Socinus, Biddle, Firmin, Emlyn, and so on to Rees, and others our coutemporaries, would be invaluable specimeus of what men can do who deeply feel a duty. It would be most desirable that all the biographies should be of oue size and type, as at present it is not easy to bind Unitarian pamphlets, which are of every size, type, and paper, possible. Allow me respectfully to suggest to the several Book Societies, that it would be a very great advantage if they would all agree on the size of the paper employed in their publications, and also that they would print on two qualities of paper, marking in the catalogues the two prices. Medium octavo would be the most generally approved size, and would ensure bound volumes of pamphlets in every Unitarian family. A taste for order, neatness, and even beauty, in libraries and book-cases, is very fast pervading society; and far as I would be from establishing an aristocracy of theological books, which would be out of the reach of the humbler classes, yet I should think it well to have Unitarianism so put forward, that the man of taste could place it in his library with the proudest author in his collection. It would be an advantage also if catalogues of writers on the subjects of the Unitarian Controversy were grouped so as to make volumes. No one writer perhaps has given all the valuable views on any of these subjects, at least in pamphlet shape. If, then, lists of works on the Atonement, Vicarious Suffering, Universal Restoration, Trinity, Right of Individual Judgment, Innocency of Involuntary Error, Existence of a Devil, &c. &c., were furnished in the Repository, they would be important to subscribers, aud enable persons to supply themselves with matter for instructive reading, and lending to inquirers, at a much less cost of trouble than at present. The writer of this paper, in suggesting means for sending Unitarianism into the upper classes of society, feels that some may think it a superfluous work; but if elegance of publication, a certain degree of finish in engraving, good print, white paper, and a facility of being bound in a decent manner, be an introduction to the rich man's library, (and there is much wealth now among Unitarians,) I think it as necessary to attend to his wants, as it surely is to make cheap publications the introduction for the poor man's purchase. The subject of the biographies is important; the manner of their publication relates more to wealthy Englaud than to Ireland; but undoubtedly the style and price at which lay literature is sent into the world, makes it imperative on those interested in circulating ecclesiastical literature to give it every possible attraction of execution and economy which can be attained. Men really will not, if avoidable, take up a book on bad paper, with small crowded type, to read. We are all physiognomists, and the first impression does much: it is then a matter of some consequence to invite the eye, and see whether a subject will engage the understanding. The deaths of Unitarians are by the orthodox esteemed an experimentum crucis in biography. Whatever detail may be had would be desirable; for although with us we seek more how men live, yet we ought to be able even to satisfy the gainsayer as to how they die. Perhaps even while men still remain among us who have made themselves remarkable in the cause of true religion, it may be well to say to their contemporaries, Look at their lives, Go aud do likewise. I might instance Dr. Stokes, once a fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, and several of the Remonstrant ministers of the Presbyterian Synod of Ulster, as men who have suffered loss, and contumely, and reproach, for that reward which is above all rewards. To draw your attention once more to the influence of biography, may I make use of the Novelist? With how many of the descendants of the Puritans were the martyrdoms of their ancestors become as a tale which was told and forgotten! Sir Walter Scott has stirred their ashes, he has moved their boues; and the patriot fathers of Christian liberty have arisen amongst their posterity as those that but slept. Their cold and perished blood has flowed again in moderu veins, as if its early fire was restored; and I am sure that Sir Walter Scott, though he may be a Tory in politics, has made thousands in these realmis emulate the boldness and persisteucy of the ancient Dissenters, who, in the language of the time, "stood firm in the liberty with which Christ had made them free," even against kingcraft and priestcraft. Put, then, before the people the lives of the noble who have striven to adorn the faith they professed. A. M'CREADY. IN your number for January, you were favoured with a notice of a Selection of Hymns which I lately published, and intended for the use of such Societies as employ the Exeter Collection. That notice appears to me to require a few observations. The Reviewer enters his protest against the "common practice" of altering hymus, and yet this practice has been adopted by Unitarians for many years, and sanctioned by some " dear and venerated fellow-servants of Jesus." Without formally examining if the maxim of doing evil that good may come, be truly applicable to this practice, a task which I shall leave to those who "have taken far greater liberties" than myself, I may be permitted to offer a remark on one of the Reviewer's "strong reasons" against alterations. He says that "succeeding Editors restore the name, but often neglect to repair the damage," of what he calls the "corruptions of the text;" "and thus an author is made responsible for words and sentiments which he never put together." Taking all this for granted, (which common honesty, one would think, might prevent,) to whom should the blame be attached? Certainly not to those who have scrupulously avoided that "damage,' by entirely omitting the names of any authors. The Reviewer, to serve his "own purpose," has made an exception to his rule, where his strong reasons shall be powerless. It is "where the doctrine is so objectionable as to annihilate all sympathy between ourselves and the writer." "Suus cuique mos.' Who is to determine where this sympathy begins, and where it ends? May not others think they find in some antiquated phraseology, or ludicrous ideas, in grammatical inaccuracies or awkward collocations, in impertinent metaphors or disagreeable allusions, a sufficient cause to annihilate this much-cherished sympathy between them and the writer? May not these things furuish good ground for changing "words, lines and stauzas," without justly incurring the charge of "sin" and "shame"? "Why, above all," asks the Reviewer, "is Mrs. Barbauld's excellent poem," "Sweet is the scene," &c., to begin, "How blessed the righteous"? &c. Simply because the latter is thought better adapted for general congregational singing. Then he adds, with something of the ardour belonging to the "genus irritabile vatum," "if the two succeeding stanzas must be omitted, what hand has had the temerity to substitute for them the following?" "A holy quiet reigns around, A calm which life nor death destroys; Nothing disturbs that peace profound, Which his unfetter'd soul enjoys." Must he be told that this temerity is to be laid to the charge of Mrs B. herself, alterations; the original stanza, as it with the exception of some slight verbal stands, at least in all the copies I have seen, being as follows: "A holy quiet reigns around, A calm which nothing can destroy; The Reviewer is very tender of disjoining the hymns used by Christian worshipers from the names of their authors. Is it always desirable to connect the name of the writer with the "divine song"? Have we not known or heard of hymn-makers whose names would not well serve to excite any very pleasant sensations or devout recollections? Besides, how few among the generality of our congregations have much acquaintance with the character of "the writers of Hymns!" and this number would be still less if the questionable practice of attaching names to Hymns, as well as to Prayers, designed for public worship, were altogether discontinued. What is it to the heart, engaged in its holy musiugs in the sanctuary, whether its sacred stirrings be excited by a Watts or a Doddridge, a Moore or a Montgomery, a Steele or a Barbauld, or by any others who think it best to make some alterations, taking the sufficient precaution by omitting all names, of not "lowering" the literary" reputatiou" or poetic taste of the original authors? As to the view which the critic has taken of the alterations, designating them indiscriminately and “ per saltum" as "no improvements," I will only observe, "valeat quantum valere potest." The selection is before the public; and may I be allowed to say, that in the course of six months from its publication, five hundred copies of it were bought up. I never entertained the vain hope that it would suit the taste and feelings of all; but it has met with a far more general reception and approba I BEG to forward a few remarks on a paper lately printed in the Congregational Magazine, entitled "Present State of Presbyterianism in Ireland;" chiefly confining myself to those parts of it which relate to the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster. As the paper in question contains statements which appear to me to affect very seriously the characters of some estimable men, I have appended my name to this communication, simply with a view to prevent it from meeting with that neglect with which both writers and readers are apt to treat anonymous contradictions of assertions made as from authority. The writer begins with a statement of the number of congregatious belonging to the Synod of Ulster, the Presbytery of Antrim, the Remoustrant Synod, and the Synod of Munster. His estimates appear to be accurate; but when the author passes from enumeration to description, he overleaps the barrier which separates the imaginative from the actual, and falls into as many mistakes, if such they can be called, as there are assertions in his first paragraph. He says, "The discipline of these three bodies of Presbyterian Unitarians," (the Presbytery of Antrim, the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster, and the Synod of Munster,)" is as loose as the doctrines of their creed. They loudly boast of their Christian freedom and their abundant liberality; but the one, as they practise it, is mere connivance at sin, while the other is a bigoted intolerance of the orthodox and opposition to the gospel. All who deny our Lord's deity, and the sacrificial character of his atonement, are cheerfully embraced in their fellowship. Their communion includes Unitariaus of every class, from the High Arian down to the Humanitarian. Immorality passes uncensured; and every thing is sanctioned as sound doctrine, provided it be accompanied with a rejection of the Trinitarian creed." Now, I repeat, the above paragraplı conveys almost as many incorrect impressions as it contains sentences. The very first sentence ushers in no less than three of them: for when we read that "the discipline of these three bodies of Presbyterian Unitarians is as loose as the doctrines of their creed," we cannot suppose the author to mean any thing else than that the three bodies alluded to are professedly and exclusively Unitarian; that their discipline is loose, and that the doctrines of their creed are loose likewise. If this be the meaning which he intended to convey, aud, as I have said before, I am unable to conjecture what his meaning is if this be not, he is wrong in every one of his assertions. The Presbytery of Antrim, the Synod of Munster, and the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster, are not bodies of Presbyterian Unitarians, in the sense which is here, I think, evidently intended. By their published and frequently reiterated declarations, they have over and over again disclaimed any such basis of church fellowship. They profess themselves willing to receive into ministerial as well as into lay communion, persons of sentiments commouly called orthodox, who may be desirous of joining their body, and who may be duly qualified in other respects. They declare that no such person, while in their counexion, shall ever be molested by them, or in any way impeded from the open avowal and advocacy of his opinious, at any time and in any mauuer that he may think proper. Nor do I know that there is the least reason for suspecting the sincerity of these declaratious: for I am aware that, at least, two ministers out of these three bodies of "Presbyterian Unitariaus," are avowedly and notoriously orthodox, using this term in its conventional acceptatiou. I have heard that at least one of them, and probably both, frequently insist upon the doctrines usually designated by that term: and I have never understood that the minister to whom I particularly allude, met with any obstruction in the conscientious performance of this his bounden duty, on the part of the Synod to which he belongs, or any person acting under its authority or influence; but I know from conversation with some leading members of that Synod, that they highly esteem his character and approve of his ministerial faithfulness. The per son to whom I refer is the Rev. Robert Ferris, of Fethard, in the Synod of Munster. So much for the "three bodies of Presbyterian Unitarians." The next assertion of the writer in the Congregational, is, that the "discipline" of these three bodies whom he incorrectly denominates Unitarian, is “loose." Does he mean to apply this term to the discipline exercised by the Presbyterial courts over the ministers; or to that which is more properly termed congregational discipline? If he uses the phrase in the first sense, it is absolutely untrue. Any minister who might be convicted of irregularities, would be promptly dealt with according to the usual practice of the Presbyterian churches; and either censured, suspended, or degraded, from the sacred office according to the degree of his offence, the injury done to religion, aud the evidence of his repentance. It is quite true, that they have never, to my knowledge, certainly not of late years, had occasion to adopt such measures towards any of the brethren; but this arises from the absence of offences, not from an unwillingness to exercise an unsparing discipline in cases that might call for it. Perhaps it may be admitted as a proof of the little occasion that can be found for inflicting such censures upon ministers in this connexion, that although the Remonstrants were for many years united to the Synod of Ulster, subject to its courts, and ameuable to its discipline, no instance has occurred in which any one of them was ever subjected to ecclesiastical censure; while several have filled the highest and most honourable office which it is in the power of the body to bestow, that of Moderator or President at the annual convention of the members; and this at a time when discipline was by no means so relaxed as the correspondent of the Congregational would lead us to imagine. The records of the General Synod during the period to which I now refer, present us with numerous instances of ministers rebuked, suspended from the exercise of pastoral functions, and degraded from the Christian ministry for such crimes as falsehood, drunkenness, fraud, adultery, &c. But none of the persons who were thus visited belonged to the Remonstrants or to the party commonly called heterodox. Surely it can no more be imputed as a crime to the Presbytery of Antrim, the Synod of Munster, and the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster, that under such circumstances they have never inflicted ecclesiastical censure on their members, than it could to a judge that he had omitted to pass sentence on a man who was accused of no crime; nay, who could produce the testimony of his most determined oppʊnents, that they find no fault in him. But if the epithet " loose" he applied to the discipline maintained in congrega. tions, it is scarcely less wide of the truth. That discipline cannot justly be called loose, which attains the end for which discipline is exercised. That the discipline of the three bodies does in general attain this end, is manifest from the exemplary conduct of most of those who belong to their congregations. I am far from asserting that every member of every congregation is in all respects what his Christian profession would require; but where is the religious connexion of which this assertion could be made with truth? I can safely say, however, that I do not know a single member in any of their churches who walketh disorderly; and I am perfectly willing to rest the character of their discipline on a comparison between the moral conduct of their people and those of other communions. This is a criterion of their practice in ecclesiastical matters which they have no reason to dread. There does not exist within the compass of my acquaintance a single religious connexion with which they need fear to enter into such a competition; nor consequently a mode of church discipline in comparison with which that of these three bodies deserves to be called loose. Thus much of the general question.-The Remoustrant Synod of Ulster have a special ground of exemption from this complaint. In the other two bodies, the discipline, though efficacious, is various; depeuding, in fact, as among English Dissenters, on the practice and the opinions of particular congregations; but the Remonstrant Synod has a document to produce which must entirely acquit its members of any tendency to laxity in point of discipline. It is well known that they have subjected themselves to the Code of Discipline approved by the General Synod of Ulster in 1825: and any person who has seen that work will, I am quite sure, agree with me, that regulations more strict and searching could scarcely be devised. The third mis-statement is one of more importance; namely, that the three bo dies whom the writer undertakes to describe, either have no creed, or a very loose one their discipline, he says, "is as loose as the doctrines of their creed :" |