died on the very day that those around him thought his health re-established: his death was by no means to be attributed to the climate, but to causes, common in all countries-cold and fever, producing, as it is supposed, an imposthume, which suddenly breaking, terminated his existence at the age of twenty-two. With this exception, my brother expresses himself well satisfied at having left a country in which he, with so many others, had his property reduced by "an ever-teazing, oppressive and degrading system of taxation, and where so many of the inhabitants are obliged to drag on a weary existence in support of the three devouring monsters, -Church, State and Poor!"

With respect to the new settlement in the Illinois, notwithstanding certain untoward events, in consequence of the disagreement of some of the leading persons, and in spite of the misrepresentations and falsehood of certain writers on this side the water, "it is improving with a rapidity beyond conception." Towns are erecting, agriculture is flourishing, labourers and artisans, of almost every description, meet with such encouragement, and "are so satisfied with their situation, that so far from wishing to return to England, they express their gratitude to God for directing them to so fair a portion of the globe." The climate is stated to be so healthy, that the new settlers in general enjoy better health than in their own country. But, Sir, it is not my intention to enlarge on these particulars, at least on the present occasion; but there is one subject in which your readers in general will probably feel peculiar interest-the state of religion, in that part of America where my brother has principally resided, Lexington. With respect to the Illinois, I have received no farther information on this point, than that a place of worship is erecting in the New Town of Albion: but I shall now leave my brother to express himself in his own language. Should I in future have any similar communications, I may probably send them for insertion in your Repository.

BENJAMIN FLOWER.

Extract of a Letter from Lexington, February 3, 1819.

"I HAVE in a former letter stated the politeness, civility and hospitality of the inhabitauts of this place; more kindness I have never experienced than from many of them. I have likewise touched upon the religion of the people of the United States; and to that subject I will now devote a few lines, which I hope will not prove uninteresting.

"Episcopacy has here lost its sting, and is harmless, when compared with the mitred front' it assumes when united to the state, and armed with penal laws for its protection against other sects: it is also entirely supported by voluntary contributions, instead of forcing its revenues from the produce and industry of the people at large, from the agricultural interest more particularly. Its ministers are chosen by amicable and mutual arrangements between the bishop and the people. Generally, when a minister is wanted, the bishop residing at New York is applied to for his recommendation; and if the preaching and the character of the candidate is approved, he (the bishop) confirms the choice of the people. How dif ferent from the corrupted Episcopal Church of England, where a minister is appointed over a people liked or not liked, gay or grave, able or una. ble to teach, with or without talents, gifts or graces, as the interest, prejudices or fancy of the patron may determine!

"The most domineering sect here is the Presbyterian, which holds synods, thunders against all those not deemed orthodox, [Calvinistical,] and whose ministers in general preach furiously against any thing like heresy. The Episcopalian Church often invites preachers to officiate who are not Episcopalians: how different such liberal conduct from that of the English Church, which excludes the ministers of every other Protestant Church, while it admits the priests of the Popish Church! The Episcopal preacher is of the American cast, mild in his manners, persuasive in his delivery, and charitable in his judgment of those who differ from him. The Athanasian Creed forms no part of the liturgy, and some other parts of

the service are altered.* A good collection of Psalms and Hymns, many from Dr. Watts, Doddridge, &c., are sung most delightfully to a fine-toned organ, softly and sweetly played; the whole audience uniting their wellregulated voices, charming the senses, and, I think, quickening devotion, while the irregular bawling at many other places of worship disturbs the auricular sense to a degree almost excruciating.

"But what has recently attracted public attention, is, the erection of a new college, capable of containing about one hundred students. The president is a gentleman of first-rate talents, Mr. Holley, from Boston, and who is considered a Unitarian; but this is not clearly ascertained; as there is, however, the largest and bestbuilt church in the Union at Baltimore, supported by the Unitarians of that city, to which he was invited, it may be presumed he is one. This appoititment has alarmed, in no small degree, the Presbyterians and the orthodox of all denominations. The former in full synod attacked the institution; and presented their address, in which they warned the public of the danger of the students becoming infidels in their principles, and inmoral in their conduct. This paper I took the liberty of animadverting upon, and the newspapers are now in full controversy on the right of private judgment, and in the discussion of the Unitarian doctrines.

"The history of Unitarianism in the west is rather curious, and illústrates the parable of our Saviour, of the grain of mustard seed, the least of all seeds, becoming a tree, so that the birds of the air lodge in the branches thereof.

"Mr. Toulmin, who came to this country not more than twenty years since, first propagated Unitarianism. A Governor G. became an inquirer, and afterwarts a convert; he sent to England for vvritings on the subject. Amongst others sent him were Emlyn's Works, with which he was so pleased, that he published, at his own

The parts not being specified will, perhaps, prov é some disappointment to the generality of the readers of the Monthly. Repository.

B. F.

expense, a large edition. The perusal of them gave rise to a congregation of Arians of about five hundred in number, who assemble about six miles from this place; and there are many of the same persuasion here, who it is expected this controversy will draw out to public notice, and who, it is not unlikely, will ere long congregate. If Mr. Holley would preach constantly, he would collect the largest congregation in Kentucky. And here I cannot but relate another circumstance to the credit of our Episcopalian brethren. Whilst Mr. Holley was assailed with volleys from the pulpit batteries as an Unitarian, the Episcopal Church was lent for his installation as president of the new college, and for the delivery of his oration on that occasion: it was crowded, and was followed by the almost universal approbation of the audience: the only exceptions were a few heresy hunters, who denounced him as falling short of the orthodox standard. Whilst this scene was taking place, another closely connected with it, somewhat ludicrous, was exhibited. A zealous Presbyterian mimister who had taken leave of his audience, and preached his farewell sermon, was so alarmed for fear his pulpit should be lent to Mr. Holley, that he continues to preach till his place can be filled up by one of his own sentiments and denomination.

"While these matters have been in agitation, the trustees of the college before-mentioned, determined to select persons of learning, talents, and moral worth, deeming their peculiar sentiments of inferior consideration. The president is a Unitarian: the profes3ors are Presbyterian, Catholic and Protestant, of different denominations!

“Unitarianism, it appears, has spread from Boston to Philadelphia and Baltimore, from thence to Pittsburgh and Kentucky on to the Illinois; so that truth, or as some would term it, heresy, is taking root throughout the United States.

"This brief sketch of the state of religion in this country, will, I trust, prove not uninteresting to the friends of religious liberty in general, and to the Unitarians in particular, in my native country. "R. F."

REFERRING to the Note in the Improved Version upon Matthew iii. 1, which is of the following tenor, "The gospel of the Ebionites or Hebrews, which did not contain the account of the miraculous conception of Jesus, began in this manner, It caine to pass in the days of Herod, the King of Judea, that John came baptizing in Jordan;'" and adverting also to what is said on the same subject by Luke iii. 1, “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, &c., the word of God came to John," &c.; there appears to me a very great inconsistency between these two accounts of the same event, the one placing the date of the occurrence at least twenty-eight years, if not thirty, prior to the period assigned to it by the other.

It would be beneficial if, through the medium of the Repository, an explanation of this difficulty could be obtained, in order to remove doubts concerning the validity of the testimony derived from the Ebionite gospel, which naturally arise on the perusal of the above Note.

SIR,

I

A. B.

Hammersmith, Feb. 14, 1819. WAS very glad to find, on taking up the last number of the Monthly Repository, that Mr. J. T: Clarke had taken notice [p. 39] of an objection made by a Chichester Correspondent of yours [XIII. 749], against a school patronized by him in some part of the country, Suffolk, I believe. But as I perceive Mr. Clarke has merely stated the difference of opinion between himself and the writer in question, without adding any thing to what he had previously written in explanation of his plan; and thinking the point at issue of consequence, I wish to offer some remarks respecting it. My desire to do so arises from the belief which I have long entertained, that to impart elementary knowledge to those poor children who are destitute of the means of attaining it, universally, that is, without any sort of party restriction, would do more good to the community at large, and to the indigent in particular, than any single measure

VOL. XIV.

2 L

besides which I can think of. The remarks of your Sussex Corre

be

spondent appear to me detrimental to this grand cause. If this groundless, I shall be glad to be shewn my error. Not that I imagine him to be intentionally unfriendly to the general education of the poor; I merely allude to the tendency I ascribe to the plan he advocates.

The writer in the paper i allude to, (which to my regret is out of my present reach,) after making mention of the school that attracted his attention from the inscription in front of it, states, I think, that Mr. Clarke, who he supposes is an Anti-trinitarian, gives up the children on sundays to be instructed very probably by zealous Calvinists in their religious tenets, and by so doing, manifests lukewarmness in the cause of Unita

rianism.

Having had the advantage of Mr. Clarke's kind and hearty co-operation in an attempt to realize a plan for the establishment of schools, the funda mental principle of which was, to provide elementary and moral instruction for all who needed it within our reach, and to guard against any restrictions having a tendency to lessen or impede their most extended usefulness, I do not hesitate to say, that, in my estimation, such a scheme is very preferable to the exclusive system of your Sussex writer.

I assume that it is a disgrace to this country that all its inhabitants, without exception, are not taught to read; that to impart the means of knowledge as extensively as possible to those who are at present destitute of it, is the bounden duty of every person who feels the importance of reason, and who knows that it is the introduction to greater happiness and enjoyment, than any that can be attained in a state of brutal ignorance. But, Sir, I restrain my pen from pursuing this idea. Your readers are, I am confident, generally agreed in the expediency of rooting out moral ignorance from the land as much as possible, and in the wish that all their fellow-creatures might enjoy not only the kindly fruits of the earth, but that cultivation of mind which may be fit and proper for rational beings.

The only question I would propose

at present is this: in furtherance of this good work, is it more efficacious that the various religious parties should educate their own poor, and teach their respective catechisms and peculiar tenets of religion to as many as are willing to embrace them, or that persons who differ in their religious views should unite in forming establishments for children to be simply taught to read and write, leaving them to the exclusive care of their parents and friends with respect to religion, in order to embrace all parties, and be obnoxious to none? The first is the plan of the Church of England in the schools for the poor, miscalled National; it is also adopted by various dissidents from the Church, all of whom, I doubt not, make it an essential part of their system to teach their peculiar points of faith. I have no objection to this being done, provided due and adequate pains be first of all taken to prevent any children from remaining ignorant of reading and writing. In the present state of this country, the elementary knowledge I contend for cau best be attained, I apprehend, by establishing large schools, each to contain from two to five hundred children, but

not more. This being accomplished, let all religious parties superadd their establishments to teach their various doctrines and points of faith` and practice. I have no objection to the exertion of any zeal and persuasive efforts on their part to make proselytes; being confident that religious freedom, combined with the ability to read and write, is highly conducive to the cultivation of truth, and the consequent advancement of human happiness. But I object to the establishment of sectarian schools, whether supported by Catholics, members of the Church of England, Unitarians or any others, until provision be made for the instruction of all the juvenile members of the community. The possession of the means of cultivating truth ought to be the birth-right of every one; and in a country so far civilized as our own, it is surely very possible to impart so great a benefit.

As this paper is already, I fear, too long, I shall merely add a word or two on an objection frequently urged to the plan I propose, that it is antireligious. If ignorance be the best

companion and friend of religion, I admit the force of the remark. But if the contrary be true, (and what religionist, whose opinions may be worth a moment's consideration, will openly deny it?) I cannot imagine how those who exert themselves to cause poor children to be taught to read and write, can, with any show of truth, be said to act prejudicially to religion. Happily, I trust, the duty of educating the poor is already warmly felt by a considerable portion of the most enlightened part of the public. That this feeling may continue to operate till the beams of knowledge irradiate and warm the hearts of the rising generation, as far and extensively as the warmth of the sun is felt, is my hearty wish.

But wishes, Mr. Editor, for the improvement and increased welfare of those around us, are vain and contemptible, if, having it in our power, we do not second them with our personal efforts, and exert ourselves in the cause to which we profess to wish well.

SIR,

JAMES SILVER.

February 12, 1819. and two articles on the introyour first Number for this year duction to John's Gospel," and yet no light, but rather darkness visible." The one signed J. T. [p. 41] proposes a reference to the Old Testament for the solution of the phrase, “was with God." Now it seems plausible to illustrate one part of a book from another part of the same; but to those who do not admit the grammatical inspiration of the Scriptures, the Gospel of John and the book of Genesis are very different books. I shall not quote Greek or Hebrew; I know but little of the one, and less of the other; but I know enough of both of them to be well aware of the extreme difficulty of translating any thing of an abstract complexion from them into the Gothic tongues, or even into Latin, and the two languages differ not less from one another than from ours. The Timaus of Plato might probably be done into English, but a translation of it into Hebrew, even in its best days, I can hardly conceive to be possible. J. T. speaks of Hebraisms in the New Tes tament; there are so; there are also

Hebraisms, and Grecisms, and Anglicisms, and Scotticisms, and all manner of isms, in all manner of languages: but grant that in the New Testament Hebraisms are most prominent, did not John understand, and had he not read, the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and would it not be naturally supposed that when he attempted a figure of speech from the Old Testament, he would use as nearly as possible the language of that version? But unfortunately for J. T.'s argument, the word which the Septuagint uses in the passages to which he refers, is not the same which John uses in this passage in the introduction to his Gospel; and still more unfortunately, in that very Srd verse of Chap. i. of John's first epistle, the term used is the same as in the Septuagint, and differs from his own in the 1st verse of the Gospel. This is enough to let us presume that when John says, "the word was with God," he does not mean it precisely in the same sense as when he says, "and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Sou Jesus Christ;" nor the same as when Asaph says, "I am continually with thee." It seems also a very singular mode of informing us of the fact that Jesus was a pious and religious person, and had a revelation from God. The other evangelists have informed us of the virtues and excellences of the Christ in a far more explicit and intelligible manner.

Your other Correspondent, who signs himself Brevis, [p. 42,] thinks that to translate the other part of the verse, "the word was as God," would be the best mode of conveying the evangelist's meaning to the English reader. He "assumes (without conceding) that the word God in this verse is used in the primary sense, as denoting the Almighty." He might concede it without detriment to Unitarian principles, and let orthodoxy make what use it would of the concession. Arianism alone is a gainer by the secondary sense. Brevis quotes 2 Sam. xxiv. 23, in favour of the insertion of as: "All these things did Araunah as a king give unto the king." This is not correctly translated a king, or as a king. The legitimate translation is, "All these gave Araunah the king to the king." So Luther's translation renders it. The best way

of translating it interpretatively is, "All these did Araunah royally (or as we say, nobly) give to the king;" though the Septuagint only translates, "All these did Araunah, give to the king." The passage then does not seem to answer the purpose for which Brevis quotes it.

It may be asked then, if I reject these translations, what will I substitute? I would fairly leave it as our common version has it; and if I reject these explanations, what will I give? In reply to this, I will say that it is far more easy to ascertain what the evangelist does not teach in this introduc tion, than what he does. Concerning what he does not teach, there are two inferences: 1. He does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, because he says nothing of the Third Person: 2. He does not teach the incarnation of a God, or Spirit, because he does not introduce or refer to the miraculous conception, which seems so naturally to belong to this place, upon the Arian or Trinitarian explanation of it.

:

Now as to what the introduction to John's Gospel was designed to teach, the inferences are not so obvious. It seems plausible to speak of the Bible as being its own interpreter, but this is very often a mere sophism: several books upon the same subject, written at different times, and by different persons, may explain each other so far as facts or arguments are concerned several books, upon different subjects, written by different persons, but in the same language and the same country, and about the same time, may tend to mutual explanation, so far as phraseology and idiom are concerned. Allusions, therefore, in the gospels or epistles, to the Jewish rites or religion, may be explained by reference to the Old Testament; but for peculiarities of language we must rather rely on contemporary writers; and for peculiarities of philosophical speculation, or metaphysical distinction, explanation is to be sought in writers of that cast, contemporary, antecedent or subsequent. It seems to be generally admitted that John wrote his Gospel and Epistles with a view to the opposition of certain errors of a metaphysical nature, and that these metaphysical corruptions owed their existence to the real or pretended followers of Plato, Zoroaster and