tween whom and Mr. Smith there seems to be a strong sympathetic resemblance. I allude to Dr. Miller. Both are Calvinists; both champions of their cause; both smooth as oil; but containing under a sweet and fair exterior of style, a miserable bitterness, which seems to partake almost of the spirit of that malignant personification in whom they believe, and of whom they profess to be afraid. But Dr. Miller, I allow, quite beats his competitor in this last-mentioned quality. He is a great deal more liquid, but a great deal more acrid, and presents an unrivaled specimen of that smiling and hating, caressing and stabbing, praying and denouncing, blessing and cursing, weeping and vindictive compound, which is seldom seen on this earth, but in a few rare instances of exquisite and essential Calvinism. It is an amusing spectable to witness Orthodoxy reading lectures to Unitarianism against intolerance. Providence, I believe, has lately permitted one or two little "fantastic tricks" to be played in the insignificant canton of Geneva for three purposes; partly, to shew how the most remote and unexpected evil influences must necessarily spring from ecclesiastical establishments of an originally intolerant character; partly to suggest the great solemn doctrine of a moral retribution going on even in this world; but principally, by exciting the clamorous and sympathetic indignation of orthodox Christians throughout Europe, to push home into their very bosoms a living personal lesson of the wickedness of persecution, bigotry and uncharitableness, and mercifully to entrap them into improvement by a condemnation drawn out of their own mouths. Whoever reads Mr. Smith's letters to M. Chenevière, must perceive, that while a few rough blows descend upon the shoulders of his immediate victim, and many more of them take no effect upon him, the most vigorous and searching lashes of his scorpion fall far beyond, arousing all the echoes with the shrieks of guilty and startled orthodoxy. Was ever challenge so mad as that wherein this writer dares the Professor of Theology at Geneva to present citations that may justify his faithful representations of Calvinism? A si milar challenge was thrown down in this country at Professor Norton, of Cambridge. But, before long, that learned writer brought out a mass of extracts from the most authentic and received Calvinistic divines, which actually frightened and surprised his rash opponents, and either reduced them to utter silence, or compelled them to shift altogether their ground of attack. Mr. Smith, I think, must have for one moment forgotten into what an awful magazine he has presumed to cast his contemptuous spark. Bigotry of the Evangelical Magazine. The P. S. of this contributor suggests a very apt illustration of the subject I have last touched upon. Correspondence between Mr. Howe and Lord Erskine. A green spot, on which I have breathed, and feel refreshed. Review. Worsley on Nonconfor mity. Being myself a descendant from the Nonconformists of England, I need not very strongly assure the Reviewer with what gratification I have perused his interesting article. Mr. Worsley's production, I should think, was fortunately timed in appearing nearly at the same period with Mr. Southey's engaging and specious Book of the Church. (Woe worth the affected title!) Musa Solitaria. It is to be hoped your correspondent is not so entirely absorbed in the practice of music as to prevent his giving us more of his discriminating and tasteful speculations. A department occasionally devoted to sacred music and other fine arts would not be unappropriate to the general purposes of the Repository. Many useful remarks might be made on such subjects, and a true taste in consequence be extensively encouraged and preserved. Poetry Thoughts on the Influences of Religion. And it is poetry. Satiric Fragment on the Trinity. I once saw a proposition of Euclid (Book I. Theor. 5) rendered into verse. A theological argument in poetry on the Trinity seems to belong to an analogous class of literature. But there is both talent and wit in this fragment. Is it a compliment or otherwise to say, that many things about it render it worthy of being imagined a suppressed portion of Don Juan? tion out of favour with astonishing adroitness and success. But, generally speaking, our Unitarian places of public worship exhibit a generous moiety of attendants from among the daughters of Adam, and not infrequently the proportion is greater still. Protestant Society for the Protection of Religious Liberty. Mr. Wilks is a Niagara of eloquence. Let me ask, what I think I asked in connexion with the Unitarian Association before, how is the Protestant Society to main Sonnet. The author is quite justified in subscribing his name (Joseph Dare) to this inspired effusion. He will forgive me for an odd speculation which bis signature suggested to my mind. "How dare you deliver me such a paper?" said Charles II. to a person who presented him with a petition in behalf of the abridged liberties of the people. "Sir," replied he, "my name is DARE." "For this reply, but under other pretences," says Hume," he had been tried, fined, and committed to prison. The Com-tain its ground, if the Catholic Assomons addressed the King for his liber- ciation of Ireland is to be put down? ty, and for remitting his fine." The Wherein do the two Institutions dif boldness of this promising young Son- fer, in point of principle? Does your netteer, in giving the puplic his name, Legislature proceed on supposed imand particularly, his connexion with mediate expediency, or on broad gethe Whiggish Monthly Repository, neral principles ? inspired ine with an idle imagination that he might be a direct descendant from the quick-witted patriot of olden time. Obituary. Here are noticed three venerable men, who had advanced beyond the septuagenarian limit, and died in the profession of our pure faith. Hallowed be their memories, and diligent their successors to follow in their worthy footsteps! Is it customary to meet in the Gentleman's Magazine with sentiments so liberal as those contained in the extracted notice of Baron Maseres? Intelligence. Manchester College. An Institution so admirably organized and administered as this appears to be, must sooner or later occupy a commanding space in the attention and patronage of an enlightened age. Kent and Sussex Association, &c. New Publications, &c. I desiderate a short, compressed, faithful account of every one of these publications. Has there ever existed a Review confined entirely to this simple plan? The catalogues of the old Critical and Monthly are far from satisfying me. Aikin's Annual Review approached in some particulars nearer to my conception. Some of the German Reviews almost hit it. Perhaps such a work would be too little discursive for the popular taste; perhaps one half of the books published are unworthy of a description; and the affair, to be faithfully and thoroughly done, would require too many contri butors for the common run of encouragement. SIR, Kenilworth, June 18, 1825. Y feelings of indignation were &c. What other sects in England, M not a little roused, on reading. beside the Unitarians, hold these social religious meetings, where both sexes unite in improving and decent conviviality? At Ipswich, I observe that only about twenty ladies graced the presence of sixty gentlemen or more. I trust this is not a symptom of the relative proportion of Unitarianism between the sexes in that neighbourhood. Is the softer part of creation there afraid to speculate in controversy? Or did the retiring habits of the majority keep them away from the festive board? In America, it is true that some of our most virulent Trinitarians are among the females, and often do they scratch a man's reputa in your last Number, (p. 305,) the following prelude to the " Hymn of Mary Magdalene :" These lines are founded on the supposition that, previously to her acquaintance with our Lord, Mary Magdalene had been an erring woman." My indignation was roused, I say, Sir, that in this 19th century, when the world has made such astonishing progress in theological, as well as in every other kind of knowledge, any writer should be found, who would allow himself to give credit to a supposition which has not, I will venture to say, even a shadow of evidence to support it. True it is, Sir, that Mary 66 Magdalene has been supposed to be * See Luke viii. 1-3; Matt. xxvii. 55, 56, 61; Mark xv. 49, 41, 47, xvi. 1; Lu xxiii. 49,55, 56, xxi.. 1; John xix. 25, ax. 1-18; Mark xvi. 9. man, who has every claim upon our esteem and veneration. As well might he have written "a hymn to the everblessed and most adorable Trinity," on the supposition that the Trinity is a doctrine of the Bible; for there is quite as little evidence that Mary Magdalene was what she has so often been represented to be, as there is, that the doctrine of the Trinity is contained in the New Testament. But what is the origin of this error, it will be asked? It arose, I conceive, in this way. It has been supposed, that "the woman who was a sinner," mentioned in the 7th chapter of Luke, as having anointed our Lord with ointment, was the same with Mary, the sister of Lazarus, who is recorded in John xii. 1-8, xi. 2; Matt. xxvi. 6-13; and Mark xiv. 3-9, to have done the same thing; and it has also been supposed that Mary Magdalene and Mary, the sister of Lazarus, were one and the same person. But both these suppositions are totally destitute of foundation. The woman mentioned by Luke was not Mary, the sister of Lazarus; for, 1st, the latter was a woman of good character, of unblemished reputation. 2dly, The anointing, mentioned by Luke, was done at Nain, Capernaum, or some other place in Galilee; but Mary, the sister of Lazarus, dwelt at Bethany, and her anointing was done there. 3dly, The anointing, mentioned by Luke, was in the early part of Christ's ministry, for it is recorded in the 7th chapter of his Gospel; and it is said, chap. viii. 1, that afterward he went through every city and village preaching" but the anointing spoken of by the other Evangelists, is placed by one of them, sir, (John xii. 1,) and by the others, only two days (Matt. xxvi. 2; Mark xiv. 1) before the passover, at which our Lord was crucified. 4thly, The circumstances are very different, for, in Luke, it is Simon the Pharisee * who takes offence at our Lord's *It is little to the purpose to say, that the name of the host, on both occasions, was Simon; for, on the one, it was Simon, a Pharisee; on the other, Simon the leper; and the name was very common among the Jews, We have no fewer than nine Simons mentioned in the New Testament. Vide Schleusner sub roce Ziuav; vide etiam Cier. et Hammond in loco. suffering himself to be touched by a woman who had been a sinner; in John (xii. 4) it is Judas, one of the disciples, who murmurs at the expeuse; and our Lord's vindications of himself on the two occasions are quite different. Nor is the other supposition better founded, namely, that Mary Magdalene and Mary, the sister of Lazarus, were one and the same person. That they were different persons is clear from these considèrations: 1st, Mary Magdalene was so called from a town situated on the shores of the Sea of Galilee; Lazarus and his sisters were inhabitants of Bethany, near Jerusalein. 2dly, Mary Magdalene is several times named with other women, who attended our Lord in some of his journeys, and came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, at the last passover; but Lazarus and his sisters resided at Bethany, nor do we read of any attendance which either of those sisters gave our Lord, except at the place of their ordinary residence. 3dly, Mary Magdalene is particularly mentioned with others, whom our Lord had miraculously healed of their infirmities; and out of her, it is said, went seven demons; but nothing of this kind is either said or hinted, of Mary, the sister of Lazarus. Thus does it appear, that Mary Magdalene was not the same with Mary, the sister of Lazarus; and much less was she the same with the woman mentioned in Luke, the 7th chapter.† Such, * Matthew (xxvi. 8) says "When his disciples saw it, they had indignation," &c.; and Mark, (xiv. 4,) "There were some that had indignation within themselves," &c.; but the difference involves no contradiction. It is truly surprising, that both Dr. Whitby and Dr. Priestley, though both possessing right views on this subject, should still retain so much of the vulgar error, as to give the name of Mary to the woman mentioned in Luke. Dr. Whitby says, "This Mary was a woman of that city, i. e. either of Nain or Capernaum, the only cities mentioned here; whereas Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was of no city, but of the town or village of Bethany.' Dr. Priestley has this note on Luke vii. 37"This city was certainly in Galilee, for Jesus was not yet gone to Judea; and therefore this Mary could not, as some have supposed, be Mary, the sister of then, and so unfounded, is the suppo sition in question. A more unfounded one, your readers will, I think, agree with me, never entered into the head of the most fanciful theologian, in the darkest times of Gothic ignorance. When your poetical correspondent reads the above, he will, I am sure, regret that he has contributed to perpetuate an atrocious calumny; and I will venture to hope that, in future, he will seek subjects for his muse, in the rich fields of nature, and in the pages of authentic and well-ascertained history, instead of having recourse to suppositions, which are at once unfounded and injurious. I conclude with recommending him to read a beautiful little paper of Mrs. Cappe's in her "Reflections on the Public Ministry of Christ" (sect. xxiii.); and Dr. Lardner's "Letter to Jonas Hanway, Esq.," from which, indeed, part of the above has been abridged. JESUS is reported to have said to SU his disciples, previous to his ascension to heaven, that there were 'things written in the Psalms concerning him." (Luke xxiv. 44.) If some one of the learned and candid writers, whose contributions adorn your miscellany, will state which are those passages in the Psalms wherein the writers can, by any obvious and unstrained inode of interpretation, be considered to have had the future advent of the Messiah in view at the time of composing them, he will confer a favour on one who is SIR, ALMOST A CHRISTIAN. I HAVE been struck war to each of circumstances similar to each other in one respect, but exceedingly unlike in others, which have taken place within a few years, and which will Lazarus, who was of Bethany, near Jerusalem. Nor is it at all probable that it was Mary Magdalene." But where, it may be asked, is there a particle of evidence to prove that her name was Mary at all? As well may we suppose it to have been Martha, or Anna, or any thing else. * Inserted in his Works, Vol. XI. 8vo. probably excite the admiration and regret of your readers, as they have mine. A due consideration of them may operate as a caution against the reprehensible conduct which they evince, and be of essential service to society in the way of instruction and advice. A preacher of unpopular doctrines having been appointed to harangue a congregation from the rostrum on such subjects as his and their sentiments of religion warranted him to do, took occasion in his primary address, or in one very soon after his inauguration, to assure them that he would never be deterred from speak ing out what he deemed true, without restraint or reserve, let who would be offended at his freedom, or accuse him of his carrying speculation to excess and extravagance. Having given an ample outline of the topics on which he meant to insist, he declared his intention, in the most solemn manner, of never declining to discuss them as occasion might offer, and to confirm them by arguments the most convincing that should suggest themselves to him, and in language the most explicit and forcible he could adopt. But not content with the most positive and unrestricted asseveration of his purpose, he concluded with affirming in the exact form of words used by those who bind themselves by the awful sanction of an oath, that he would uniformly preach in the manner he had described, "So help him, God!" It is unnecessary to say precisely where or when this was done; suffice it to observe that it was in a large manufacturing town, before a considerable and not unenlightened audience, and by a young man who had enjoyed the advantages of a learned education of the second class, and who was himself no mean proficient in biblical lore and general knowledge. A second instance of a voluntary and uncalled-for use of the same form is still so fresh in the recollection of the public, that it will not be requisite to allude to it in more than a few words. It was at the close of a defence set up by a person of respectable family, who stood at the bar of Justice charged with the perpetration of a deliberate and barbarous murder. He had accumulated a variety of instances professing to be taken from the records of criminal law, from which it appeared that mere circumstantial evidence against a prisoner was not to be relied on so as to justify a condemnatory verdict, even when it assumed the most specious and plausible aspect. Distrusting, however, the operation of this address on the minds of the jury, he appealed in the most confident manner to the Searcher of hearts in support of his innocence, and declared in the firmest and most determined tone, that he was guiltless of the crime laid to his charge, "So help him, God!" The third instance is still more recent than the one just mentioned, and the impression it made upon many minds was more deep, and probably will be more lasting, than that made by the preceding cases. A prince of royal blood, pleading the eventual scruples of his conscience, should he ever succeed to the throne, and lamenting the suffering which the agitation of a certain question had excited in the bosom of his venerable sire, assured the august assembly to which he had presented a petition from a clerical body against the claims of Catholic Christians, that for his part he never would concede those claims, that he would oppose them upon every occasion of their assertion, and that he would invariably refuse his concurrence with every proposition of this sort, "So help him, God!" It is very singular that three such very dissimilar characters should, upon three very dissimilar occasions, agree in this one point of having recourse to the language of an oath in confirmation of their purposes and intentions, thus overlooking the prohibition of the divine law, which requires men to "let their yea be yea, and their nay, nay," and solemnly pronounces in regard to antijudicial proceedings at least, "that whatever is more than this cometh of evil." The preacher's act reminds one of the offence which Henry the Seventh alleged against a nobleman by whom he had been entertained, namely, that "of violating his laws in his very presence." Whatever may be pleaded in extenuation of the conduct of the criminal grounded on the strong and deepseated love of life, in the second case, no words can express the horrid enor |