obferves, a part of the oxygen of the vital air joins with the venous blood, changing it to a brighter red. Part unites to the coaly fubftance contained in the inflammable coaly air, which exhales from venous blood forming fixed air: another part unites to this fuia in the mucus of the lungs from fourth part, united with the inflammable air of the blood, water is formed. The caloric contained in the vital air, is in part united to the blood, and in part to the other fluids. M. Girtanner then fubjoins a feries of experiments to flow, that the blood in the lungs receives vital air, and returns furcharged with the coaly inflammable air. He next endeavours to prove, that whatever augments the quantity of oxygen in organized bodies, augments alfo the irritability, and the contrary. Thefe pofitions are not fupported by strong evidence. The changes are chemical only. Subftances, which affect the irritable fibre, are thofe which have a lefs atraction for oxygen, or those which have a greater attraction for this fluid than the fibre; and confequently leave the oxygen in excefs, or deprive the fibre of it. The most active poifons are ranged among the most powerful ftimuli. Another obfervation, which is not lefs fingular than those which we have hitherto noticed. is, that the organized fibre, either animal or vegetable, has the power of decompofing water; and that, in the circulation, water is decompofed and recompofed. This very uncommon fact, he promises to prove in another work. The ufe he makes of it is to explain the effects of different foods and drinks. Food, we have faid, deprives the ftomach of its fuperfluous accumulated oxygen, and is nourishing in proportion as its own oxygen is feparated, or as it has an affinity for this fluid. Drink has an oppofite effect; and acts more immediately and powe fully, fince it is immediately decompofed, and foeplies deficient oxygen. This is the reafon alfo, he obferves, why we find the air more cool and refreshing after rain, for the vapour in contact with our kin is decompofed, and fupplies the principle of irritability. Our author wil probably extend this fyitem; bur, though ingenious and fpecious, it has very little folidity. We fhall be well pleased to fee the continuation of thefe reveries, but they svill not affect the prefent eftablished doctrines. MONTHLY CATALOGUE. An Apology for the Liturgy and Clergy of the Church of England: in Aufwer to a Pamphlet, entitled Hints, c. fubmitted to the fer us Attention of the Clergy, Nobility, and Gentry, newly affociated By a Layman. 8vo. 15. 6. Rivingtons. T HIS Apology, in answer to the Hints of a Lay man, noticed in our LXVIIIth volume, p. 192, has been attributed to a learned prelate, who, fome time since, engaged with fuccefs Hb 4 cefs, against the great champion of the Unitarians. The fap pofition does not, however, appear to be fupported by trong internal evidence: the author is, ar time, petulant; and, in one or two inttances, we think illiberal. He admits of improprieties and trifling mittakes in the liturgy, while the layman faw dangerous errors; and we might leave them to settle the magnitude of the improprieties it it were not evident that they did not, by these terms, mean the fame pallages. The most able part of our author's Apology is where he nows that the early alterations related to the ceremonies rather than the doctrines of the liturgy. But he fails in tupport of the doctrines, for be adduces authoriti s inftead of arguments, and affertions where he led us to expect proofs. We can coincide with our apologist only in thinking a change at prefent inexpedient. An Addrefs to the Right Reverend Dr. Samuel Horfley, Bistep of St David's, on the Subject of an Apology for the Liturgy and Clergy of the Church of England. By Gilbert Wakefield, B. A. 8vo. is. Deighton. Our polemical beadle' (p. 6.) lays on with little mercy, inhumanly inattentive to the efforts to wriggle from beneath the weight, and enjoying the luxury of reflecting, that the critical whip had reached Dr. Horley's fenfations through the thick and callous hide.' (p. 33.) In fhort, we never faw a poor author fo inhumanly 1fied, even by the most merciless of ail beadles, an angry reviewer, Mr. Wakefield is not contented with his own language. He abuses in Latin and Greek, and changes his weapons to multiply the wounds, and to render the fmart more painful. We thought the author of the Apology lliberal, but he is foiled at his own weapons. In point of argument there is no great fuperiority on either fide: thofe who are foonest and most violently angry are generally fuppofed to be nearest to a defear, and when, independent of perfonal attacks, we find the Iturgy of the church of England fligmatized, as deformed from the fole of the foot even to the head, with babbling repetitions, unfcriptural formularies, unchrißian anathemas, and idolatrous invocations,' we must conclude the author to be far gone. Confiderations on the Expediency of refing the Liturgy and Articles of the Church of England: in which Notice is taken of the Objections to that Meafure, urged in two late Pamphlets, by a Confifient Protefiant. 8vo. 15. 6d. Cadell. Thefe Confiderations are equally able and candid. We can allow, with our author, that in many refpects a revifion is wanting; and the mott ftr nuous Trinitarian of the prefent æra will not agree with every claufe in the creed called after Athanafius; yet, as the wolf is now held by the cars, it is almon equally dangerous to retain or to loofe him. Our author cor rects fome little mistakes in the Apology,' and deferves attention for his candour, his liberality, and his judgment. But he will will allow us to add, that we are not yet convinced of the expediency of the meafure propofed, and we are convinced of its inutility, if it be expected that the revifion will render the liturgy more generally acceptable. Primitive Chriftianity; or, Teftimonies from the Writers of the firft four Centuries, to prove that Jefus Chrift was worshipped, as God, from the Beginning of the Chriftian Church. By Thomas Knowles, D. D. 8vo. 25. 6d. Lockyer Davis.. This is a very valuable collection of Teftimonies in favour of the opinion, that Christ was worthipped as God from the beginning of the Chriftian church.' In a few inftances, Dr. Knowles has not adverted to the replies of modern Unitarians against some of the Teftimonies; and, in others, he feems to have pushed the evidence farther than it will properly admit to be carried: we particularly allude to the confequences which he draws from the forms of baptifm,, and from the doxologies. But his principal pofition he feems to have established with great clearnefs, and we have little doubt of the divinity of Chrift being confidered as an indifpenfible doctrine in the earliest ages of the church. Perhaps it would have been more clearly infifted on in the writings of the apostles, if the first herefy had not rendered it particularly neceffary to inculcate the corporeal nature of Chrit during his refidence in this world, while he took our na ture upon him. We cannot fo fully agree with Dr. Knowles in his defence of the Athanafian creed: it is too minute and particular in its explanations to be understood by the ignorant, or to be fupported by the learned; and, while we confider the temper of the times, as well as of Athanafius, from whofe works it was probably taken by fome meaner hand, we cannot coincide with the explanation which our author gives of its concluding claufe. In general, however, this little tract is entitled to our commendation: we fhould have given a more particular account of it, if it had not been chiefly a compilation, which it was impoffible to abridge, and of which it was not eafy to felect any parts proper for quotations. Cbfervations on the firft Part of Dr. Knowles's Teftimonies from the Writers of the first four Centuries. In a Letter to a Friend. By Capel Lofft. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Johnfon, Mr. Lofft's Letter, like a well-dreffed lady, is fui pars mi nima; in other words, it is followed by notes, and an appendix of fuch difproportioned length, that we lofe fight of the fubject in the elucidations. Mr. Lofft appears to great advantage as a controverfial critic, and has given fome proper and pertinent replies to Dr. Knowles' Teftimonies. If it had been in our power, as it was once our intention, to have engaged in this controverfy at length, we should have given our author an honourable place in the difcuffion. But we cannot com pliment pliment him fo highly, as to fay that he has invalidated the teftimonies adduced by Dr. Knowles. Their tencur is fo uniform and confiftent, that we think a rational enquirer, with no prejudices in his mind, could not easily refill their force, The Appendix relates to the difputed, and we think we may fay, the interpolated verse in the Epistle of St. John, which we must foon confider more at length with Mr. Porfon, but which, with the anonymous author of the Reply to the Apologist for the Liturgy, we think of little importance to the difpute; to the paffage in Tertullian, which is fuppofed to allude to this in terpolated paffage, but which probably regards another; the term Trinity; the argument derived from the baptifmal form, &c. On each fubject Mr. Lofit displays much acuteness and ability, Defences of Unitarianifm for the Years 1788 and 1789. Containing Letters to Dr. Horficy, Lord Bishop of St. David's, to the Rev. Mr. Barnard, the Rev. Dr. Knowles, and the Rev. Mr. Hawkins. By Jofeph Prifiley, LL. D. F. R. S. 8vo. 35. 6d. Johnfon. Dr. Priestley, as ufual, treats his antagonifs with a contempt that they have not deserved, and congratulates himself with the fulleft confidence on his own fuccefs and the spread of his doctrines; on a fuccels which he has not obtained, and on a progreflive influence which we have not been able to afcertain. His prefent letters are addreffed to Dr. Horley, Mr. Barnard, Dr. Knowles, and Mr. Hawkins. Dr. Knowles, as we have already hinted, has leit himself open to a reply; but to Mr. Barnard and Mr. Hawkins our author's anwes are very inadequate and unfatisfactory. Thele gentlemen' are not interior to Dr. Priefley in extent of knowledge, in labour, or attention. 3 hey are fuperior to him in close reasoning and in accurate difcrimnation. Till he can reply more pointedly, we hall think that he finds a reply difficult. The Divinity of our Lord Jefus Chrift demonftrated from the Holy Scriptures, and from the Doctrine of the Primitive Church. In a Series of Letters addreffed to the Rev. Dr. Jofeph Priefiles, in Answer to his Letters to the Rev. Dr.Geddes. By the Rev. James Barnard. 12mo. 45. Robinsons. We particularly regretted not being able to confider this controverfy at length, becaufe in this fummary manner it was impoffible to pay fufficient refpect to the labour, the learning, and the candour of Mr. Barnard. Our author engages in it with great zeal and ability; and if a tenet fo intricate and myflerious can be faid to be demonftrated, the title is a proper one. The first part is a comprehenfive view of the whole question as it ftands in the Scriptures, endeavouring to prove a plurality of perfons in the Old Testament, continued in the New, and particularly flown in the diftinct appearance of Christ, Chrift. Mr. Barnard, who we understand is a Catholic, demonftrates, if we may be allowed an expreffion fo ftrong, that the divinity of Christ was believed by the fathers, and even the Antinicene ones, and that the Trinity was the doctrine of the primitive church. The next part is on the council of Nice, and we think our author carries its authority too far. He has not fully proved that his object was only to declare what was the opinion of the primitive church, or that the opinion of Conftantine had not share in its decifions. In the third part, he has, in our opinion, very clearly shown that the Ebionites were confidered as heretics, and has pointed out, with great force of argument, many inaccuracies in Dr. Prieft ley's reasoning. In the fourth part he has flown that the primitive church was not Unitarian, but Trinitarian On the whole, though we might object to a few arguments, and to fome of Mr. Barnard's authorities, we think him a very able ally of Dr. Geddes, and one of the most powerful antagonists which Dr. Priestley has yet feen opposed to him. A Letter to the Right Rev. Samuel, Lord Bishop of St. David's, on the Charge be lately delivered to the Clergy of his Diocefe. By a Welsh Freebalder. 8vo. 6d. Johnfon. The bishop's correfpondent wields the weapons of irony with great dexterity, and has had the addrefs to difcover fome vulnerable parts in his ad erfary, to which he directs his atracks with fuccefs. We cannot, however, commend the Chriftian fpirit of this Letter, or agree with the author's extravagant praifes of the Unitarian combatants. Unitari nifm has been rapidly fpreading, it is faid, many years; but we have known very few converts, and thofe not highly creditable to any fe&t. Sermons for Prifons. To which are added, Prayers for the Ufe of Prifoners in folitary Confinement. By John Brewfter, M. A. 2s. 6d. No Publisher's Name. 12mo. These Sermons are ferious, plain, pious, and practical. The author holds cut to the prifoner that pardon which we are told fhall follow a fincere repentance, and leads the prifoner to the moft falutary reflections during the hour of folitude and con finement. Religion is dreffed in the fmiles of hope and comfort, and has not on the fable gloomy habit of defpair. The prayers are equally well adapted for the purpofe, and we would strongly recommend them to the ordinary of every prifon. Some of thefe we have known employ the leaft applicable parts of the morning prayer conftantly, without any variation, An Efay on the Truth and Infpiration of the Holy Scriptures. By D. Taylor. 8va. 2s. 6d. Knott, The fubftance of the Effay before us, was in the fpring of laft year |