The competency of Wakefield, as a scholar, to decide on the meaning of an idiom used by Jewish writers who wrote in Greek, was by me taken for granted, and I did not conceive it incumbent on me to furnish the proofs of the accuracy of his opinion. Wakefield renders Acts ix. 14, "to bind all that call themselves by thy name" which is equivalent in sense, though a little varied in phrase, with his rendering of 1 Cor. i. 2, " that take upon themselves the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." For this usage of εikaλoμai, in the middle or reciprocal sense, he has Schleusner's authority. Hammond, with whom Locke agrees, says, “ επικαλείσθαι ονομα is to be called by the name' of Jesus Christ as by a surname; marking the peculiar union which subsists between us and Christ, as of a spouse with her husband, or as of a slave with his master, who is also called by his master's name." Whether we adopt the passive or middle sense, the words still convey the same meaning; for, as Schleusner remarks, "the formulary ETIKAλεiodaι ovoμa Tivos, signifies universally, to profess some certain person's religion.' I cannot, therefore, agree with Mr. Yates, that the difference in the middle or passive use of the verb is at all material. Among the various senses enumerated by Dr. Clarke, (Scrip. Doct. No. 691,) in which this phrase is used, only one implies direct invocation: Acts vii. 59, when Stephen, who sees Jesus present with him in a vision, calls upon him "to receive his spirit:" but Hammond, speaking of the use of the word generally in the New Testament, says expressly, "Tikaλoba signifies to be named (or surnamed); Matt. x. 3; Luke xxii. 3; Acts i. 23, iv. 36, and in other places, in which it has a passive, not an active, signi fication." Thus, Sir, if I see no difficulty in the formula before us, and feel no doubt as to its bearing and import, I have at least the countenance of better scholars than myself. Mr. Yates, in support of his hypothesis, that this is one of the difficulties left in revelation for the purpose of inculcating humility and candour," quotes a passage from the Trinitarian translators of the Bible, importing that "it has pleased God, in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of difficulty and doubtfulness:" that "fearfulness would therefore better beseem us than confidence, and that, if we will resolve, we should resolve upon modesty." Now, Sir, I, for my part, cannot understand the modesty which hesitates when all is at stake. Paul speaks of "great boldness in the faith;" and he who, through modesty, doubts whether Christ may not have been invocated in prayer, in opposition to his own express contrary command, John xvi. 23, may, through the same modesty, hesitate whether he ought not to acknowledge that the sacramental bread is Christ's body. There is an end of all critical discussion or inquiry, and there remains only an orthodox prostration of the understanding." The extract from the preface to the Bible assumes what I am by no means disposed to grant, the plenary inspiration of the Sacred Records. If God scattered, through the written Gospels, words and sentences of difficulty and doubtfulness," God by his immediate spirit superintended and dictated the writing and when Paul desired that "the cloak and parchments which he left behind him at Troas might be sent to him," it may be contended, as, in fact, it has been contended, that the sentence was designed to include some meaning of mysterious instruction. But, Sir, as the evangelical and apostolical writers lay no claim to any such supernatural aid, as they specially note it when afforded, and cautiously disclaim it where it might mistakenly be conceived that they wrote under its direction, the notion of literal inspiration falls to the ground, and with it that of dark phrases and dubious meanings, purposely inserted to try our faith or exercise our charity. The phrase in question, from its frequent occurrence, appears to have been a common, and therefore well understood form of expression: it occurs usually in the course of historical narrative, where the writer is simply stating a fact, or designating a class or profession of persons, and where those who "profess the name of Christ," or the simple term "Christians," would have equally well comported with the drift of the passage. That such was really its import, and that it was a Hebraism in common use, has been shewn from the instances already adduced, and is further proved froin Deuteron. xxviii. 10: "And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord :” οψονται σε παντα τα εθνη της γης, ότι το ονομα Κυριο επικεκληται σοι that the name of the Lord has been called upon thee. The sense of cognominor to επικαλειμαι is common both in Xenophon and Lucian: but it is, I think, more to the purpose to appeal to the collateral authorities in the writers of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures than to those in profane authors, whose use of the term would not be conclusive as to the use of it by a Jewish writer of Greek. The conjunction of ETIKahεoμaι with ovoμa, in a sense of religious subjection or allegiance, is an idiom, which seems to have been imported into the Greek language from that of the Hebrews; and to have been adopted by the apostles from the Greek Septuagint. The several passages, which I consider as proofs of the sense which the apostles intended to convey, being equivalent to Christian profession, are not new to Mr. Yates, for he has himself quoted and arranged them with great perspicuity and effect in his "Vindication, p. 225," I cannot disguise my astonishment that, having brought them to bear with such complete success against the display of texts adduced by Mr. Wardlaw in defence of the idolatrous worship of Jesus of Nazareth, he should still profess that he is in a state of uncertainty: and that he should have weakened the force of this part of his Vindication, by such previous admissions. I do not apprehend that Mr. Yates means to allow, that if the sense of " taking Christ's name" be found inadmissible, it will follow that Christ was invocated 66 Rebuke of Intolerance in America. A MUCH respected correspondent from an American paper, edited by has sent us the following extract Mr. Walsh, the American traveller and political writer. Being himself a zealous Catholic," (says our correspondent,) his testimony in favour of the Unitarians in America is particuthe bigotry of Dr. Mason the more larly valuable, and his exposure of striking. Dr. Mason when here, I Communion: but it seems his Cathothink, published a Plea for Catholic licism is particular, as I think Tillotson observes of Roman Catholics." INTOLERANCE. 66 ve Dr. MASON, President of Carlisle College, delivered an animated address to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, on the occupation of the new State Capitol at Harrisburg. Some phrases, such as nerable hearers," "friends and fathers," applied to the legislature, give rather a grotesque air to the composition, but, the occurrence, and is marked by excelon the whole, it was well adapted to lent doctrine. The following passage deserved all the attention and reflection of his auditors. "The first great question with all earthly legislators should be, not what is popular, but what is right, making the point of popularity to be at all times subordinate to the point of integrity, having always a distinct reference to the presence and the commandment of our inwhere all is authority on one side, and finite Judge. We are here upon ground all ought to be obedience on the other. The divine law admits of no compromise: and the legislation which does not proceed upon this principle, I must take leave to say, is rotten: and, as it disre gards the authority of God, can never subserve the happiness of man." We have just seen another production of this eminent scholar and orator, which, though in some parts eloquent and edifying, is, in general, far from doing him equal credit by its spirit and purpose. We allude to his sermon, preached at New York, the 2d ult., on the occasion of resigning his charge of his congregation. Were not the sermon printed and published, we should not, perhaps, feel ourselves entitled to notice it thus; it might pass unmolested as one of the effusions of a paroxysm of zeal, escaped in the heat of pulpit exercise, and wil lingly left only in the memory of a devoted congregation. The references to the Unitarians, which are made in this vehement discourse, furnish some of the most revolting samples which we have seen, of theological rancour in the preseut day. They are expressed in the strongest language of execration, and betray the utmost intensity of a hate like that described in the following phrase of Cicero -odium immane et crudele barbarorum in hostem. If we could suppose the lauguage of the preacher the true criterion of his disposition towards the religious denomination whom he assails-that his anathemas are those of the heart as well as of the tongue, we should deem this an opportunity to express comfort and joy, that the age of auto da fes is passed away, and that the clergy have it no longer in their power to wreak their resentment of what they deem heresy, by torturing the body and destroying the life, as well as blasting the reputation of the obnoxious. We belong, ourselves, to a church whose tenets are very different from those of the class of Christiaus whom Dr. Mason reviles and curses; and in signifying our horror of his furious denunciations, we must not, therefore, be supposed to be acting in our own defence. It is our good fortune, however, to be acquainted with several of that class, persons of the most estimable character, for whom we ought to feel as much nearly as we would for ourselves, when we see hurled against them a sentence of proscription and perdition, such as the following: "Above all things it is devoutly to be hoped, that you will never invite to the care of your souls,' a man who cares nothing about them. I mean, more particularly, for I would not he misunderstood, a man who belongs to that rank of traitors who miscall themselves 'rational Christians.' Against these men I have ever warned you, as the enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ, and all that is valuable in his religion and peculiar in his salvation, I know well that this congregation is considered by them as the very focus of what they term bigotry; and I do rejoice that thus far I and you have been counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. Long may it continue so! Long may it be thought a hopeless case to attempt to bring you over to the fellowship of devils. Though I would not slander the devil: he promotes his work, as the destroyer, not by tempting men to his belief, but by persuading them to embrace what he does not believe-what is too coarse and abominable for hell itself; and what the philosophical Christians shall find to be so, when they get to their own place. The pretences of these men to kindness and candour and love, are all hollow. They mean to make proselytes of you, aud two-fold more the children of hell than themselves. O keep at a distance from them! Furthest from them, and their charity, is best. Come not near their ice, never to be melted but in that fire which shall not be quenched. This pulpit, this church, were destined to the glory of the Lord Jesus. Let them never be polluted by a foot, nor profaned by a tongue, which are not moved by his honour." This is the strain of fierce and odious passion. We can no more admire the Reverend President uttering it from the pulpit, than we could have admired Sir Edward Coke, when he called Sir Walter Raleigh, "viper, monster, spider of hell, vile and execrable traitor, odious fellow, and damnable Atheist." It appears to us as repugnant to the true ends of Christianity, as it is to the genius of our political and social systems. Among the "rational Christians," whom the President had in view, we know one that, in universal rectitude of conduct, în practi❤ cal virtue, in benevolence of heart, in the earnestness, variety and success of his efforts for the relief of the unfortunate, and the promotion of every liberal and laudable purpose, has at least no superior in the United States. The country at large knows another in the present Chaplain of the House of Representatives at Washington, as a man of great learning and talents, admired and esteemed for his domestic merits, as well as for his public qualities. We cite these instances from among the many that may be adduced, to illustrate the extravagance and injustice of the language which we have quoted. We do not meddle with polemical divinity; we have no idea of interfering in religious controversies on points of faithbut we feel that when one denomination of Christians, or any association of persons styling themselves such, lead, in general, lives as useful and moral as the best of the community, they ought to be deemed sincere in their interpretation of the Bible, and that no member of any other denomination has a right to hold them up to the world as the worst of reprobates. Such intolerance and uncharitableness cannot fail to be condemned by public opinion, and richly deserve to be signalized for rebuke and repudiation. The example of a spirit like that which is breathed in this Sermon, is bad. It may be more common than we suppose; it may have been further provoked than we imagine; but when it is vented in this manner, it can only exasperate blind animosities and serve to bring the religious character into disrepute. SIR, IT Torquay, 1822. [T appears to me that the more we consider the essence of the Unitarian doctrine, and the origin of its several particulars, the more we shall be convinced that it amounts to this: that the word and spirit of God, as spoken of in the Scriptures, are not distinct persons, or conscious minds, from the Father, but merely certain powers inherent in his divine, self-existent nature. Wherever this is fairly admitted, there is no real doctrine of a Trinity left, and though some clouds may still lower round the mind, yet in effect the person is become a Unitarian. From a sense of the importance of this point, I am induced to send you some extracts from Watts, a name truly illustrious; which for learning, piety and candour, has scarcely been outshone since the Reformation. The passages which I quote are from the work entitled, "The Arian invited to the Orthodox Faith: Part II. ;" and it may afford satisfaction to some of your readers, who have not Watts's Works in their hands, to see how clearly he main tains the great Unitarian principle above-mentioned. In the Preface the author observes, "Such as know little of these disputes, and have never ventured to read any thing but the writers of their own side, generally imagine that all things in their own particular scheme are as clear as the light; and they are too ready to impute all the doubts or difficulties that are raised on these subjects to the want of a due regard for truth."-" Perhaps it may be charged upon me, that I have not in these Dissertations exactly confined myself, in every punctilio, to the same sentiments which I had published some years ago, with relation to the doctrine of the Trinity; and particularly, that though I continue to maintain the supreme Deity of the Son and Spirit, yet that I have expressed the doctrine of their personality in stronger and more unlimited terms heretofore than I have done in these papers. Here let me first give one general answer. When I apply myself with diligence to make further inquiries into the great doctrines of the Gospel, I would never make my own former opinions the standard of truth, and the rule by which to deter mine my future judgment. My work is always to lay the Bible before me, to consult that sacred and infallible guide, and to square and adjust all my sentiments to that certain and unerring rule. It is to this supreme judge of controversies that I pay an unreserved submission, and would derive all further light from this fountain. I thank God, that I have learned to retract my former sentiments, and change them when, upon stricter search and review, they appear less agreeable to the divine standard of faith."-“I think it proper to acknowledge, that I was at that time inclined to suppose these personal representations in Scripture, especially so far as relates to the blessed Spirit, were really to be understood in a more proper and literal sense than I now find necessary; and on that account I did then express the doctrine of three persons or three distinct intelligent agents, in terms a little stronger and more unlimited than my judgment now approves. For since that time I have more carefully considered the Jewish idioms of speech, wherein powers, virtues and properties are frequently personalized, or represented in a personal manner." So much from the Preface: we afterwards read as follows: "The great and blessed God, considered in his own nature, is far superior to all our thoughts, and exalted high above our most raised apprehensions. And because we are not capable of taking in heavenly ideas in their own sublimest nature, God has been pleased to teach us the heavenly things that relate to himself, in earthly lan guage; and by way of analogy to creatures he has let us know something what God is. Among all the creatures that come within the reach of our common and obvious cognizance, human nature is the most perfect; and, therefore, it has pleased the great and glorious God, by resemblances drawn from ourselves, to accommodate the descriptions of himself to our capacities. When he speaks of his own nature in the language of men, he often uses the names of human parts, and members, and faculties, to represent his own properties and actions thereby, that he may bring them within the notice of the lowest capacity and the meanest understanding among the children of men. Therefore he speaks of his face, to signify the discovery of himself; his eyes to describe his knowledge; his heart to describe his thoughts; his hand and arm to signify his power and activity; and his mouth to denote his resolutions or revelations. "But since in the composition of human nature there are two distinct parts, a soul and a body, and the soul is much the nobler and more exalted principle, it has also pleased God to rise above corporeal images, and to describe himself, his attributes, properties, power and operations by way of analogy to a human soul. We know by our own consciousness, or by an inward inspection into ourselves, that our soul or spirit is a being which has understanding, and will, thoughts, inclinations, knowledge, desires and various powers to move the body. Therefore our Saviour has told us, God is a spirit, and the brightest and sublimest representations of God in Scripture, are such as bear an analogy and resemblance to the soul of man, or a spiritual, thinking nature. "As the chief faculties of our souls are the mind and will, or rather a power of knowing, and a power of acting, so God seems to have revealed himself to us as endued with two divine faculties, his word or wisdom, and his spirit or efficient power. It is by this word and this spirit, that he is represented in Scripture as managing the great concerns of the creation, providence, redemption and salvation: and these three, viz., God the Father, his Word and his Spirit, are held forth to us in Scripture as one God, even as the soul of man, his mind and his will, are one spiritual being. Since reason and Scripture agree to teach us the nature of God, and inform us who and what God is by this analogy, I think in our inquiries on this sacred subject, we ought to follow this analogy so far as reason and Scripture allow us. Now it is evident that a human soul, in its nature, is one conscious mind; and it is utterly inconsistent with the nature of it to have two or three distinct conscious principles, or natures, in it, that is, to include two or three different conscious beings; and since we are told that God is one, and God is a spirit, it would be something strange if we must believe that God is two or three spirits."-"If there be some distinctions or differences in the Divine nature, greater than that of relations, modes or attributes, and less than that of substances, I know not what name to give it better than that of divine powers. Let us therefore suppose the great and blessed God to be one infinite spirit, one conscious being, who possesses real, distinct or different powers, which in sacred language are called the Word and the Spirit. And though this difference or distinction be not so great as to allow of different consciousnesses, or to make distinct spirits, yet these two powers may be represented in Scripture in a figurative manner, under distinct personal characters." May not the human mind and the will be represented in a personal manner, or as distinct personal agents, at least by a figurative way of speaking, though they are but two powers of the same soul? May I not use such language as this: My mind has laboured hard to find out such a difficulty; my will is resolutely bent to pursue such a course'? And many other common expressions there are of the same nature, wherein the mind and will are still more evidently and plainly represented as persons. 66 And since human powers are thus represented as persons, why may not the word and the spirit, which are divine powers, be thus represented also? And why may not God be represented as a person transacting his own divine affairs with his Word and his Spirit under personal characters, |