that the Jews made the Greeks whom they converted a part of themselves, inculcating the same thing with Paul, Gal. iii. 27, that a Jew and a Greek were become one in Christ.

If any one shall still doubt the justness of this reasoning, his scruple must be removed by the fact, that the conversion of the Greeks at Antioch, stated by Josephus, is recorded also in the book of the Acts xi. 19, in nearly the same words. Those whom Josephus calls ‘Eλλnveç, Luke styles 'Еλλquisa: and Tohus apibus of the evangelist is varied by the Jewish historian into TAU Anos, a great multitude: and the clause," they attracted to their worship," implying the allurements which the gospel presented, and the miraculous power accompanying its preaching, is thus more explicitly related by Luke: "And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number, having believed, turned unto the Lord."

Jesus had foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, or, more generally, that of Antichrist. The believers had no doubt of the truth of this prediction before they saw it accomplished. But it appears that some of them interpreted his language with an undue latitude, as implying destruction by fire not only of Jerusalem, but also of Rome and the other great cities of the empire. The mistaken hope of some among the believers seems to have led to the promulgation of this expectation at Antioch, and Josephus has recorded the following horrible transaction apparently as the effect of it: "Then a certain man, named Antiochus, a ruler of the Jews, greatly esteemed for the virtues of his father, having assembled the people of Antioch in the Theatre, accused his father and the other Jews with an intention to burn the city in one night: and he delivered up to them certain foreign Jews as confederates in this design." These foreign Jews are said by Luke to have been men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who had come to Antioch to preach the gospel. It is worthy of remark, that this cause was followed by a similar effect, a few years after this, in the city of Rome. The expectation that the Roman capital would be destroyed was universally known to be entertained by the Christians. Nero, to gratify his hatred towards them, set

fire to the city, and imputed the flagitious act to the followers of Christ. The imputation seemed very probable, because no persons appeared so likely to burn the city as the Christians, who wished and foretold its conflagration. From the incident recorded by Josephus, we learn that the Jews at Antioch were violently divided among themselves. A similar division and tumult prevailed in every city where Christ was preached. Antiochus, the Governor of the Jews, apostatized from his own religion, and, calling upon the Antiocheans to persecute his countrymen, he accuses them, and, what is more atrocious, accuses his own honourable and innocent father with a design of burning the city; thus illustrating the declaration of Jesus, that he came to divide the son against the father, and the father against the son.

I set out with saying, that Josephus speaks of the Christians as Jews, and of Christianity as the Jewish worship; and have I not proved this to be a fact? Is it not made out as clear and certain as that the sun is in the meridian at noon-day? But let us hear Dr. Smith: "It is a part of Dr. Jones's theory, that under the appellation of Jews and Judaism, which Philo and Josephus represent as embraced by an immense multitude of converts from Heathenism, those writers intended to siguify Christians and Christianity. If this were admitted, it would surely be a kind of conduct very different from that of the New-Testament disciples of Jesus: they were not ashamed or afraid to own that worthy name by which they were called." Pt. I. p. 450. I am far from thinking that Dr. Smith is capable of wilfully misleading his readers. This unfortunate argument, therefore, must be founded on a total inattention to the fact. From the New Testament, it appears beyond controversy, that all the Jewish converts considered Christianity and Judaism as the self-same religion; the former being Judaism spiritualized and perfected by Christ. It is equally certain, that the name "Christians" was given the disciples by their enemies as a term of reproach, and that for this reason the apostles and the converts made by them declined the use of it: nor does it occur in the Christian Scriptures except in two or three places as the subject of discourse.

And surely it cannot be an objection to my theory, that Philo and Josephus have done the very thing which is done by the writers of the New Testament. Indeed, nothing surprises me more than this argument of my able and learned opponent; and it convinces me that an attachment to his own system, and his ardour to refute me, have veiled from his view the merits of the question. He calls my interpretation of the writings of these learned Jews an hypothesis. If by hypothesis be understood to mean a cause assumed, or not known to exist, to account for a known effect, I disclaim the term as unfair and improper; for I suppose or assume nothing. The writings of Philo and Josephus, which are known to exist and allowed to be genuine, are the basis of my interpretation, and I also interpret them agreeably to a known fact, namely, the diffusion of the gospel over the world as attested in the New Testament and by ancient ecclesiastical authors. The exact correspondence of the testimony of Philo and Josephus to the diffusion of a religion which was deemed and called Judaism, constitutes the proof that I interpret them rightly: and the want of correspondence between the testimony of these writers and the diffusion of any other system of worship than that of spiritual Judaism, or, as we call it, Christianity, demonstrates that any other method of interpreting them must be false, must be founded on an hypothesis not only not true, but diametrically opposite to the truth.

April, 1821.

to General Education, I

to establish a system of general education, is evident. Our reasons the anti-educationists do not regard. They have no wish to hear or understand them. The Dissenters oppose the Bill. It is sufficient for them that an apparent opportunity is afforded for calling us enemies to education, except on our own sectarian system; and they are not a little thankful that circumstances enable them to attack us on this disadvantageous ground, and even to make us appear to their hoodwinked votaries to be auxiliaries in their darling cause of ignorance and vice. Surely our best defence to this mode of attack would be an open avowal of our principles in the shape of a bill. Some of our able legal friends would, I am sure, willingly lend their assistance to embody principle in technicality. It might be accompanied by any necessary explanations and observations, and widely circulated for discussion, and perhaps even laid before Parliament. No good effort is ever wholly useless, and, in this enlightened age, perseverance in such a cause may possibly obtain complete and unalloyed success sooner than some of its friends venture to anticipate. At all events, we could then spurn back with contempt the senseless accusation, and appear manifest in our natural character-zealous promoters of Education, Virtue and Religion. The main principles of such a bill would be, 1st, That a system dependent on public support should be open to public competition and governed by public controul; and, 2ndly, That the property of all should only be applicable to purposes approved by all. Keeping these principles in view, the details do not appear difficult.

The ultimate power would

should have endeavoured to found a system of national education upon principles which are not, and I hope never will again become, national. As a Dissenter, I am mortified that any measure professing to be friendly to the great cause of education, should be so framed as to drive Dissenters to the painful necessity of standing forward in opposition. It gives the enemies of education an unfair advantage over us. To the multitude, facts are more obvious than reasons. The fact that we are opposing a Bill professing

payers, constituting a visitatorial authority, beyond comparison the most efficient. The inanagement would be entrusted to committees, officers and masters, annually elected at a public meeting of the rate-payers. The committees would meet once a month to receive reports and transact business. Theory and experience both shew that such systems work well and are lasting. They contain within themselves a principle of self-renovation, an antiseptic which preserves from corruption, a sensitiveness to abuse which ensures

from the attempt or instantly removes the evil. No ex-officio visitor can possess these advantages. Is any one aggrieved, he does not wait the uncertain advent of some stranger, ignorant of every local circumstance, and who comes with ears ready to receive the justification of the official delinquent. Application is at once made to a ratepayer or member of the committee ever on the spot, and the remedy is applied before the wound has had time to fester. But, says some friend to the sweet repose of unresisting slavery, these public meetings generate democratic and turbulent dispositions. Good Sir, you are terrified by the unreal phantom of a disordered imagination. The spirit of the society is thus ever kept alive; but that very fact absolutely prevents any wild exertion of strength; for it annihilates all temptation to self-interest and all opportunity for oppression. Indeed, when reduced to practice, we know full well that the whole subsides into the quiet of ordinary life, and that success seems rather to be endangered by apathy than violence. Our committee-meetings are held with few attendants and little discussion; for abuse has been prevented. The visitatorial power is not, however, dead nor sleeping, as in the case of exofficio visitors. Let any circumstance require attention, you are sure to meet a full committee prepared to investigate calmly and decide impartially. Will the system of ex-officio visitors bear a comparison? It is by no means impossible that the ex-officio visitor may feel but little interest in the success of the school; he may even be an enemy to education. The committeeman is chosen because qualified to promote the interests entrusted to his care. The one, however baneful his influence, cannot be removed, but remains a perpetual source of irritation and ill-humour; the other loses his office, as a matter of course, at the end of the year, and, if found inefficient, is not re-chosen; and, since inactivity is his fault, and self-interest has no temptation, the affair passes without notice. Which system, then, is most likely to produce at first violent but unavailing contention, and, subsequently, despair and deadly acquiescence in every abuse? But, says some inember of the Establishment, this is not putting us upon our proper foot

ing. We are the most numerous, wealthy and powerful, and ought not to be bearded by every little sect. True, you are the most numerous and wealthy; you will, therefore, form a decided majority of the rate-payers, and, without any unpleasant contentions, controul the whole. This is the natural and legitimate influence of numbers and wealth. You will possess almost absolute power without exciting any of the rancorous feeling which is invariably produced by a system of exclusion. That party feeling cannot grow in such a soil, is a fact of every day's experience. In most country towns, Dissenters of all sorts, differing not only in forms of ecclesiastical government, but in the most interesting articles of faith, unite like brethren in the promotion of education. In the town in which I live, a Lancasterian school has flourished for several years, supported by the members of five chapels, of which two are Independent, one Methodist, one Calvinistic Baptist, and one Unitarian. The subscribers choose a committee, treasurer, &c. at the annual meeting, in perfect good humour, all being anxious that there should be a fair distribution of power. The treasurer is an Independent Minister, and the schoolmaster a member of the Methodist connexion. We find our monthly meetings to be the continual source of increasing liberality and harmony; and I have no hesitation in affirming, that the Lancasterian system has proved as useful and improving to its supporters as to the scholars; and I should hail the establishment of a national system upon this catholic principle, as the certain harbinger of universal charity in the Christian world.

2. The only restriction that should form a component part of such a system is, that the school shall not be appropriated at any time to the teaching of any thing on which there exists a difference of opinion among the ratepayers. "THE BIBLE, THE BIBLE ONLY," should be written over its doors. No sect can consent to pay its contribution but upon this express condition. All beyond general education must be taught elsewhere. The present Sunday-schools are admirably adapted for this purpose, and will be rendered much more efficient than at present, since the whole time may

then be employed in religious instruction, which is now taken up with teaching the first rudiments; and should any sect think these insufficient, they should be at liberty to keep their children from the general school once or twice a-week, for the purpose of tineturing them with their own peculiarities in their vestries, or where they please. Members of the Establishment will be the last to object to such an arrangement, since they possess far ampler means than any of the Dis

senters.

Before I lay down my pen, I must enter my earnest protest against the opinion, that, since we cannot reasonably expect perfection in any human institution, we should, therefore, assent to the proposed measure with all its imperfections. I look for no perfection. Every system of education must be liable to defect. There are even some establishments, altogether founded on false principle, so hallowed by age, and so knit into the very frame and constitution of the public mind, that I would not permit the sacrilegious hand of hasty reform to attempt any amendment; but never can I assent to the propriety of founding a new system upon false principle, and never will I put on the wedding-garment when education is to be sacrificed by an unholy alliance with priestcraft. We are told that Mr. Brougham's Bill, by assisting the good cause at present, will enable it eventually to outgrow every defect, and that the ultimate prevalence of knowledge and liberality is certain. I know that the good cause will eventually triumph, but that expectation, so far from affording a reason in favour of the Bill, forms an unanswerable objection to any such mischievous enactment. The continued efforts of individuals, if not now shackled, will in time infallibly produce an universal conviction, that one of the most useful objects of public expenditure would be the promotion of public education on the most liberal principle of universal comprehension. Then let us not retard the happy period by half measures, founded on a sacri fice of principle. The permitted evil may spread corruption through the whole system. Every page of history warns us to beware of small beginnings, and not to do evil that good may come. Age sanctifies the most preposterous establishments. It may cost a struggle

at first to obtain the best, but we shall find it ten thousand times more difficult to eradicate the evil when we have permitted it to take root. What argument is ever used in favour of the Test Laws, but that they have formed part of our statute-books for nearly two centuries? These laws alone stand a sufficient beacon to Dissenters. Let us not again make shipwreck on the delusive coast which deceived our fore-fathers. Had they acted with firmness and principle when these odious laws were enacted, we should never have been doomed to the mortification of being born with a brand on our foreheads, nor held out to the world as unworthy even of the privilege of eligibility to the office of exciseman, because we are too honest to join in converting the ordinance of the Lord's Supper into the farce of a sacramental

test.

SIR,

К. К. К.

Clapton, June 4, 1821. HAVE great pleasure in offering to your correspondent N. (p. 293) some information respecting the author of Le Platonisme Dévoilé; for which I am indebted to a short article in the Nouv. Dict. Hist. Paris, 1772.

N. Souverain, a native of Lower Languedoc, became the Minister of a Calvinistic Church in Poitou. Being ejected from his ministry, (no doubt on a charge of heresy,) he took refuge in Holland, till expelled from thence for refusing subscription to the Synod of Dort. He then withdrew into England, where he was reputed a Socinian. He died in this country about the close of the 17th century. Le Platonisme Dévoilé, which was a posthumous publication, his Catholic biographer describes as un ouvrage recherché par les incrédules." It was answered by Father Baltus, a Jesuit, in his "Défense des Saints Pères accusés de Platonisme," 4to., 1711. Baltus, who died at Rheims in 1743, had written, in 1709, "La Réponse à 'Histoire des Oracles de Fontenelle," in favour of the common notions respecting the reality and cessation of pagan oracles.

Your correspondent will find some further information in "Joanni Locke Philippus à Limborch," May 11, 1700, among the "Familiar Letters." Limborch charges Le Platonisme Dévoilé with exhibiting a style too sarcastic,

Now I have mentioned Locke's correspondence, give me leave to add,

REFLECTIONS MADE IN A COURSE OF GENERAL READING.

No. CCCLXXIX.

your readers for information respecting any letters to or from Locke which are not to be found in his works, the magazines, or public libraries. They would thus very much assist me to execute a favourite project, of which I may, perhaps, soon offer you some farther account.

SIR,

FOR

66

J. T. RUTT.

Lewes, June 2, 1821. NOR the insertion of my letter on the difficulties of Unitarianism, I am much obliged to you, and request the following emendations to be made as to three words, two of which I wish erased and one inserted. The New Version has no paraphrase" on the text in Hebrews to which I referred: I therefore wish the words or paraphrase" to be omitted. Nor have the Editors actually introduced "a gratuitous sentence," but their note requires one: I therefore wish the word requiring to be supplied. Although these inaccuracies have passed uncorrected, my argument respecting the above-mentioned note remains the same, it being the principle of interpretation which that note includes that I have objected to. R. MARTIN.

SIR,

WE have heard little or nothing of E have heard little or nothing of of the Geneva Unitarians.

I conclude from the silence of the Calvinists here, that the attempt to raise a sect of Swiss Methodists has failed, or at least not succeeded in any great degree. The Bishop of Peterborough, in the debate in the House of Lords, on his 87 Questions, which I hope you will register for us, referred to the example of Geneva as of a Church with a Calvinistic Creed and a "Socinian" Clergy. A correspondent in the newspapers has corrected his Lordship, and asserted that the clergy are Arian, and that no creed but the Scriptures is subscribed. Let us hear more on the subject. CANTAR

Is this nickname Marsh?

Clergyman.