and purpose which it was intended, and especially framed, to answer.

Whoever, Sir, pursues this course, with the patience and deliberation necessary, will, I must think, come with me to the infallible conclusion, that it is the work of that malignant wight, whom, were he mortal, our Milton and Byron have associated with their own contrasted, yet imperishable names. And, if it be asked, what could be his motive to bestow time and labour-for no small portion of both, it must be allowed, was requisite, even in his hands, for such a complicated performance-upon a subject so revolting? What more obvious than the answer? To bring Christianity into disrepute !

It is worthy of observation, too, that this Creed, which purports to be a summary of what Christians are to believe, omits the very essential orthodox article of the author's personal existence; wherein we may trace the art of its fabricator, who was too wily not to foresee that any direct mention of, or allusion to, himself, might have raised a suspicion of the truth, and caused the rejection of a document suspected of proceeding from such a quarter.

The singularity, the intrepid obscu rity, the dashing involutions of this Creed, invest it with such a character, and render it so perfect a unique, that, had it been the work of any saint, martyr or confessor, that of any denizen of earth, in any age, it is next to impossible that the author of it should not have been equally known and celebrated.

Adverting, therefore, again to the internal evidence pervading it, and coupling that with the total absence of any contrary proof or rational presumption, I consider my point established, and scruple not to anticipate a very general, if not an universal, suffrage of thanks to me, for having thus set an important and long-contested, as well as troublesome, ques

tion at rest.

BREVIS.

P. S. It might also be observed, collaterally, that the Athanasian Creed supplies no feeble argument for the Devil's personality; in as much as all must now be convinced that such a

composition could only proceed from such a being. I have not quite forgotten the notice conferred on Mr. Burgh, and, if either University should be disposed to grant me a diploma for this communication, I would not decline the honour; and though I have hitherto reserved my name even from you, Mr. Editor, it should be freely at your service for such a purpose.

IN

B.

Chesterfield, SIR, March 5, 1824. N my first paper on Isaiah ix. 7, (pp. 21-24,) I had occasion to allude to the reverence paid by the Jews to the four letters composing the name Jehovah. I called it superstitious; and, in allusion to its antiquity, stated that it was in use 66 at least as early as the time of Josephus ;" to prove which, I quoted a passage from the second book of his Jewish Antiquities. "This," says Mr. Frend, (p. 109,)" is certainly a proof that in the time of Josephus, the same regard was paid to the hallowed name as prevails in the present day among his countrymen. But I was rather surprised," he adds, "that the authority of Josephus was appealed to, when a much better was at hand. For the writers of the New Testament, in their quotations from the Old, never use the hallowed name, but substitute for it the terms, the Lord-God-or the Lord God." That the writers of the New Testament never use the original Hebrew word, I was well aware; but I certainly never thought of adducing this fact to prove that the custom of not writing or pronouncing the name of Jehovah prevailed in our Saviour's time, and least of all, that such a custom was directly sanctioned by his example. My object was to adduce the earliest positive testimony which I could find in proof of its antiquity; and that I did when I quoted the passage from Josephus. Nor am I singular in the idea, that this is the most ancient direct allusion to the practice, which has yet been produced, notwithstanding Mr. Frend's expression of "surprise that the authority of Josephus was appealed to, when," what he deems, a much better was at hand;" for Whiston, in his note upon this very section, gives it at his

opinion, that the practice in question is never heard of till this passage of Josephus." If Mr. Frend can produce a more ancient testimony to the existence of this practice, I shall hail the discovery as one of no small importance to the cause of sacred literature; and I do not despair that such a testimony may still be found, although it has not been my good fortune to meet with it. But, "Our Saviour himself," says Mr. Frend, "when he quotes the very words of the first commandment, uses the terms, the Lord thy God, and not the word by which the hallowed name is expressed." I merely notice, in passing, the inconsistency into which Mr. Frend is inadvertently betrayed, when he says that our Saviour "quotes the very words of the first commandment," and, at the same time, admits that he has substituted a very different word for that "by which the hallowed name is expressed." But, supposing the above remarks of Mr. Frend to contain a fair representation of the case as to the main circumstance, what do they tend to prove? Simply this: that our Lord followed the example of the Seventy, in rendering the word ', by the Greek word Kupos. The Septuagint was the only Greek version of the Old Testament in use at the time when the Gospels were written; and, as this version was originally intended for the Alexandrian Jews, and was generally used during the time of our Saviour, by those Jews who spoke the Greek language, it seems natural to suppose that, when he had occasion to quote passages from the Old Testament, if he did not in all cases adopt the exact words of this translation, he would adhere as closely as possible to its peculiar phraseology, which had the authority of long-established usage in its favour. But as the word Jehovah was of Hebrew origin, and had no corresponding term in the Greek language, why, it may be asked, was it not retained by the Seventy? And, as the Seventy have not retained it, why did they use Kupios as its representative, in preference to any other Greek word? To the former of these questions it may be replied, that, when a word presents itself to a translator to which no equivalent term can be found in the lan

guage into which he is translating, he naturally adopts some word in common use, which approaches most nearly in meaning to the original word; and to the latter inquiry, the only satisfactory answer which presents itself to my mind is, that Kupios was sometimes used by the Greeks instead of os. "Etiain apud Græcos

.

Kupios pro Deo dicitur." (Schleusner.) The Seventy might, indeed, have selected AoToTns, as the translator of the Book of Proverbs has done in one instance, (ch._xxix. 25,) or Eos, (see Gen. iv. 4; Exod. iv. 2, &c.,) or any other word expressive of great power or dignity; and why they did not, I confess myself quite at a loss to determine. Kupios, however, is, at least, as good a translation of ' as is of In the formation of the latter, there is a peculiarity which we should in vain attempt to transfer to the Greek or any other language, except by coining a new word; and, though we find o substituted for it in the Septuagint, this word is no less objęctionable as a translation of than Kupios is of '. The truth is, that, in the translation of both words, their etymology is totally disregarded by the Seventy; and the terms Kupios and Es are selected only because they were words already in general use, and because they appeared better adapted than any other Greek words for the purpose of the translators. That the Seventy gave a decided preference to Kupios is evi dent, from their frequent use of it in passages where the word ' occurs in the original; and that the Evangelists adopted the same word under the same circumstances, because they had the authority of the Septuagint in their favour, and because a deviation from established usage in this particular might have led to inconvenience, is a position which appears to me quite incontrovertible. But, at all events, I cannot allow that the use of this word by the Evangelists, Matthew, (xxii. 37,) Mark, (xii. 29, 30,) and Luke, (x. 27,) in their accounts of a conversation of our Lord with "one of the Scribes," is any proof that Jesus objected to the introduction of the name of Jehovah, when used with proper solemnity and

reverence. Indeed, I cannot conceive how a proper answer could have been given to the question proposed by the Scribe, without the introduction of this name: for, if Jesus, on this occasion, used the language commonly spoken by his countrymen, (which, if not pure Hebrew, was at least a dialect of the Hebrew,) the words of the Evangelists are as much a translation of those used by our Saviour, as the Greek of the Septuagint is a translation of the original Hebrew. But, supposing that the language of Palestine in the time of our Saviour was Greek, that the dialogue recorded by the Evangelists was held in Greek, and that the quotation was made in Greek; even this does not, in my opinion, prove the point which Mr. Frend appears anxious to establish. Let any person be at the trouble of comparing the quotation, as given by the Evangelists, with the Septuagint Version; and he cannot fail, I think, to be convinced that they are in substance one and the same translation. Whether Kupios was the identical word used by our Saviour or not, is quite immaterial. But if it was, it is perfectly clear to my mind that he must have used it as equivalent to Jehovah in the original; not because he felt any repugnance to the pronunciation of that sacred name, (which is a completely gratuitous assumption on the part of Mr. Frend,) but because, in making a quotation in Greek, he would, for obvious reasons, adopt the language of the Greek Version already in general use, rather than have recourse to a new translation. Besides, according to Luke's account of this conversation, Jesus introduces the passage by two very pointed questions: "What is written in the law? How readest thou?" (x. 26); and it can hardly be supposed that, in referring to what was already written, and what the Scribe must have been perfectly familiar with, that Jesus would do otherwise than quote the very words of scripture, either in the original, or in some public and wellknown version.

But I have called the Jewish practice of avoiding to write or pronounce the word Jehovah, superstitious; and, if I have erred in using this epithet, I have the authority of great

names to plead in extenuation of my fault. "This superstitious fear of discovering the name with four letters," says Whiston,-"this superstition, in not pronouncing that name, has continued among the Rabbinical Jews to this day." Josephus," he adds, " I durst not set down the very words of the Ten Commandments; (Antiq. B. III. ch. v. § 4;) which superstitious silence, I think, has yet not been continued, even by the Rabbins. It is, however, no doubt, but both these cautious concealments were taught Josephus by the Pharisees, a body of men at once very wicked and very superstitious.” "The superstition," says Kennicott," which long ago prevented all the Jews from pronouncing that awful name, increasing more and more, has, in the later centuries, prevented some of the Jews even from writing it." And again, "The Jews, after having all of them for many ages (perhaps from the Babylonish Captivity) avoided pronouncing the incommunicable name JEHOVAH, became at last, some of them, so superstitious, as not to write it." If any further justification of the term superstitious, as applied to this practice, should be deemed necessary, the reader is referred to the following ingenious remarks upon the subject, by the last-mentioned writer.

"The original cause of this superstition (the not pronouncing the name Jehovah) probably was, that Jehovah was the name of the God of the Jews, in contradistinction to all the deities, or false gods, of other nations; as being the name of the necessarilyexistent Being. And the Jews, perhaps, had learnt at Babylon, amongst other heathenish superstitions, to conceal the true name of the god of their country, to prevent its destruction. For the Heathens had very early a superstitious notion, that a country or city could not be taken, till the tutelar god or presiding genius was invited out of it, by invoking him in his real name. The Jews, finding this a sacred custom observed by other nations, absurdly adopted the same precaution; and resolved, that the true name of their God should also be a secret, by declaring it unlawful to pronounce it. That such a custom did obtain in the world

very early, is evident from those celebrated lines in Virgil; Æneid. 2, 351, &c.

Excessere omnes, Adytis Arisque relictis,

Dii, quibus Imperium hoc steterat

"On which words Servius remarks: 'Romani celatum esse voluerunt, in cujus Dei tutelâ urbs Roma sit; et jure Pontificum cautum est, ne suis nominibus Dii Romani appellarentur, ne exaugurari possent: et in Capitolio fuit Clypeus consecratus-Genio Urbis Romæ, sive Mas sit sive Fœmina.' Macrobius gives a whole chapter upon the words of the poet just cited, and says, 'De vetustissimo Romanorum more, et de occultissimis sacris vox ista prolata est: constat enim omnes urbes in alicujus Dei esse tutelâ, moremque Romanorum fuisse, ut cum obsiderent urbem hostium, certo carmine evocarent tutelares Deos: propterea ipsi Romani et DEUM in cujus tutela urbs Roma est, ut (et) ipsius URBIS Latinum Nomen ignotum esse voluerunt; caventibus Romanis, ne quod sæpe adversus urbes hostium fecisse se noverant, idem ipsi quoque hostili evocacatione paterentur.' Lib. 3, Cap. 9. This, then, being the custom of the Romans at other sieges, and no such evocation having been practised at the siege of Jerusalem; 'tis probable, that their omission of that custom at a siege so remarkable, was occasioned by their ignorance of the true name of the God of Jerusalem."

If this be the real origin of the custom alluded to, we shall search in vain, I fear, for those "good reasons" in its favour, to which Mr. Frend alludes. A practice arising from such a motive, although it may have encouraged the Jews to defend their city to the last extremity, when it was besieged by the Romans, and may thus have excited them to deeds of the most persevering and heroic valour, could not produce any permanently good effect upon their moral and religious character; but would have a natural tendency to harden and deprave their minds, and render them proud and supercilious in their conduct towards other nations. These, however, form but a small part of the bad effects resulting from the practice in question. If we were

careful to trace its influence upon the state of the Hebrew text, the word superstitious, I apprehend, would be found to express but feebly and imperfectly the injury which the Sacred Writings have sustained in consequence of its extensive prevalence among the Jews.

With regard to the familiar use of the name of the Deity, by which, as Mr. Frend observes," our nation is disgraced above all the other countries of Europe," there can be but one opinion among the friends of genuine, practical religion. That this name is frequently introduced in a very wanton and thoughtless manner into common conversation, by persons styling themselves Christians, and often coupled with the most dreadful oaths and imprecations by the profane and irreligious, are facts of the greatest notoriety, which we should in vain attempt to palliate or justify: but, I cannot see that this general abuse of the sacred name of God, bears at all upon the main point at issue between Mr. Frend and myself. To use any name appropriated to the Deity in a light and trivial manner, is, no doubt, highly censurable and deeply criminal; but,

as we find the term Jehovah in the original Scriptures, without any caution to pronounce it but seldom, surely we ought to pronounce it whenever we find it: why else was it put there?" See a paper in the last number of the Monthly Repository by Mr. Jevans, (p. 82,) in which that gentleman has treated the subject in a very sensible and judicious manner, and brought together a number of pertinent and interesting remarks on the improper translation of the word Jehovah in our common English Bibles. "What a moral lustre and dignity," says he, "would it give to the word of God, to have this most expressive of all terms scattered about four thousand times over its sacred pages! Such a translation would be far superior to any one now existing in the English language; and its value would, I persuade myself, soon be felt and acknowledged by a discerning public." In the spirit of this remark I cordially agree with the above-mentioned writer; and, in the hope that the Version of the Bible now in common use in this country, may sooner or later be

superseded by such a translation, I take my leave of the subject, convinced that a strict adherence to the phraseology of Scripture, in this as well as every other particular, can be attended with none but the most beneficial and happy effects.

R. WALLACE.

A Friendly Correspondence between an Unitarian and a Calvinist. (Continued from

sion.

I to N.

p. 109.)

2d October.

DO not exactly admit that I have changed the ground of the discusIt commenced on your part with an allusion to certain opinions of mine on doctrinal points, which opi nions you appeared to think led to laxity of conduct, by their supposed tendency to lower the importance of personal religion. I denied that they had any such tendency, and would have been very willing to enter patiently into a thorough examination of all that can be adduced from Scripture, both for and against the doctrine in question, in order that we might, if possible, have come to a right understanding upon the subject. I was not, indeed, sanguine in hoping that you would accede to such a proposi tion; because I have long observed in you a disposition to shun inquiry, and to resolve the matter by a reference to your own feelings. The only way in which, as a Protestant, I could meet such an attempt was to say, "If you are determined to supersede all reasoning, by putting in a claim to the possession of the Spirit, I must even do the same; and it then stands thus between us-that the Spirit has wrought contrary convictions in our respective minds." When this is urged upon you, you shrink very naturally from abiding by the consequences of such a mode of communicating truth, because you see that it is a manyedged weapon which will cut all ways, and prove every thing of which any individual says he is convinced by the Spirit. You, therefore, find it expedient to refer to texts of Scripture, and to reason upon them. I do the same. This goes on a little while; but presently you come down again with your experience, which, as a sledge hammer, is to pound my opi

nions to powder. The blow misses its aim, and I am led to take up the hammer, which strikes the anvil and makes a noise, but does not alter the shape of the iron, which we wished to fashion according to our respective fancies. I saw clearly that we might go on in this way, and make a great noise to the end of our lives, without, in any degree, deciding the matter at issue. I suspected from the first how it would be, and was therefore by no means surprised at the turn which the discussion had taken. You had, however, dropped an expression which indicated that, notwithstanding my heresy, there was some ground to hope that I might be in earnest in seeking for the salvation of my soul. I never had a doubt of your sincerity, although I, of course, considered you as holding erroneous opinions, and, therefore, finding that you were beginning to think with me that those who differ in opinion upon doctrinal points, may, nevertheless, both get to heaven, I thought that, seeing there was little probability of modifying our opinions by discussion, the best thing remaining to be done was to exhort each other to prosecute the great object which each of us admitted to be of paramount importance; namely, to reduce our knowledge, whatever might be its amount, to practice, in the persuasion that, in so doing, we shall eventually get rid of error, and acquire a clearer insight into the sacred mysteries of the gospel.

You now tell me that believers actually do enter into rest. I admit most gladly that they do, in so far as they are sincere believers; but as there are degrees of faith, so are there also degrees of rest. Although I estimate my own attainments as very low indeed, so low as not entitling me to speak of them, I nevertheless can say that even I have experienced a measure of peace. You probably can say more than this, and sure I am, that as we advance in the knowledge and love of God, our peace will increase. "The

* "Oh! woman, great is thy faith." "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed."-" Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief." Him that is weak in the faith receive you."-" The poor of this world rich in faith."-"O ye of little faith."