thing towards their living, as to read and write," and "that all children of above seven years old may be presented to this kind of education, none being to be excluded by reason of the poverty and unability of their parents, for hereby it hath come to pass, that many are now holding the plough, which might have been made fit to steer the state." The author proceeds to recommend that "such poor children be employed in works, whereby they may earn their living, equal to their strength and understanding. And if they cannot get their whole living, and their parents can contribute nothing at all to make it up," that they stay somewhat the longer in the workhouse." He further recommends, "that they use such exercises, whether in work or for recreation, as tend to the health, agility and strength of their bodies;-that they be taught to read by much more compendious means than are in common use, which is a thing certainly very easy and feasible;" and "that the elements of arithmetic and geometry be by all studied, being not only of great and frequent use in all human affairs, but also sure guides and helps to reason, and especial remedies for a volatile and unsteady mind.”—Advice, pp. 3-5. Such, at the age of 25, without the benefit of an example, and with scarcely a coadjutor, was the anticipation of improvements, reserved for a distant generation, but now contemplated by this almost universal genius. In Ward's Gresham Professors, p. 223, the Advice is mentioned as the earliest of the author's publications. I cannot help remarking how highly honoured was Mr. Hartlib, by the confidence of such a triumvirate, as Boyle, Milton and Petty! P. 20. I thank Mr. H. Taylor for his information. Since I mentioned Dr. John Taylor's pamphlet, I have found "A Letter to the Society of Protestant Dissenters at the Octagon in Liverpool. London, 1766." This pamphlet contains an introductory letter inviting to an examination of the subject of baptism. This is followed by a letter from "A Pædobaptist," with a reply, both which had appeared, October, 1765, in the General Even ing Post, the first letter being occasioned, by an advertisement in that paper, from Dr. Gill, in which he asserts that "the Pædobaptists are ever restless and uneasy, endeavouring to maintain and support, if possible, their unscriptural practice of infantbaptism; though it is no other than a pillar of Popery." Then follows (p. 26) the "Copy of a Letter published in the Whitehall Evening Post, Sept. 17, 1747, with Notes by the Author." This is a severe charge of inconsistency against the Dissenting gentleman (Mr. Towgood) for his zealous defence of Infant-Baptiam, compared with his assertion of Christ's sole authority, in reply to Mr. White. The Dissenting gentleman is loudly called upon to explain himself. One of your correspondents can, perhaps, say who was the anonymous Letter-writer, and whether Mr. Towgood ever replied. P. 50, col. 1. "The confounding of Wollaston with Woolston" was once very common. Mr. Clarke, in his Preface to "The Religion of Nature," 1750, attributes the mistake not only to " the similitude of names," but to the circumstance of both those writers having been members of the same college in Cambridge. Ibid. col. 2. Voltaire's last moments were not so described nearer the time of his death in 1778. Condorcet, in his Life, annexed to Vol. C. of his Works, (1792, p. 164,) says, not indeed much to the credit of Voltaire's sincerity, "L'Abbé Gauthier confessa Voltaire, et reçut de lui une profession de foi par laquelle il déclarait qu'il mourait dans la religion Catholique où était né." An earlier account, probably the earliest in English, (An. Reg. 1778, XXI. 4,) makes Voltaire reply to the question on the divinity of Christ: "Ah! M. le Curé, if I pass that article to you, you will demand if I do not also believe in the Holy Ghost, and so go on, until you finish by the Bull Unigenitus." P. 52, col. 2. The late King's "bad education," In Lord Melcombe's Diary, (ed. 3, 1785, p. 171,) the Princess Dowager, in October 1752, says of her son Prince George, "that he was very honest, but she wished that he was a little more forward and less childish, at his age," (just past 14,) and “ that she hoped his preceptors would improve him," adding, in answer to 66 the courtier's further inquiries, that "she really did not well know what they taught him; but, to speak freely, she was afraid not much; that they were in the country, and followed their diversions, and not much else that she could discover." P. 52, col. 2. "The Bishop of Peterborough, Mr. Stone and Mr. Scott." The Princess (Diary, 172) says, "that Stone was a sensible man, and capable of instructing in things, as well as in books-that Scott, in her opinion, was a very proper preceptor; but that for the good Bishop, he might be, and she supposed he was, a mighty learned man, but he did not seem to her very proper to convey knowledge to children; he had not that clearness which she thought necessary; she did not well comprehend him herself, his thoughts seemed to be too many for his words." This Bishop of Peterborough was Dr. John Thomas, who had first sojourned at Lincoln, and was, in 1761, translated to Salisbury: "Another and another still succeeds, And the last See more welcome than the former." This Prelate has been exalted, apparently with great justice, to "a bad eminence," by Wakefield, in his Memoirs, I. 15, 16. He is there represented (from his treatment of my friend's father) as an episcopal tantalizer," who made a common practice of exercising the credulity and insulting the feelings of his inferior clergy." 66 Remarks on our Lord's Question to January 2, 1822. me more than thou lovest these things, -thy nets, thy boats and thy fishing employment? (2.) Lovest thou me more than thou lovest thy fellow-disciples? (3.) Lovest thou me more than these love me? Is thy affection for me stronger and more ardent than that of Thomas and Nathanael, John and James, and those two other disciples (ver. 2) who have accompanied thee in this fishing expedition? The first of these interpretations, "lovest thou me more than thou lovest thy nets, thy boats and thy fishing employment?"—has been adopted by Whitby and Pearce, and certainly has the claim of ingenuity to recommend it. Peter was by occupation a fisherman; and, judging from many little circumstances which are incidentally mentioned in the Gospels, was fond of his employment, and took a pleasure in it unconnected with any prospect of emolument. It was, therefore, reasonable, as well as natural, that Christ should endeavour to obtain from his own lips a confession that he was not less attached to the cause of the gospel than to his worldly occupation. Hence it has been thought, that, in the question, "Lovest thou me more than these?" our Lord had a reference to the instruments of Peter's trade; which are supposed to have been upon the spot where Jesus and his disciples were assembled at the time when this interesting dialogue commenced. But there is a delicacy and reserve in the Apostle's answer, which was altogether unnecessary on the supposition that the question related inerely to his worldly occupation: for, though he promptly, and unhesitatingly replies, Yea, Lord!" the answer is afterwards so qualified as to exclude all idea of comparison between his love to Christ and other objects. It is also worthy of remark, that, in his subsequent answers, he repeats, without any material variation, what he had said in his first reply; cautiously avoiding that comparison, whatever it might be, which it was the design of our Lord's question to draw from him: "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee:" As if he had said, "I am unwilling, after the severe trial which my fidelity and attachment have lately undergone, and the imperfect manner in displayed, to make any further professions; but, notwithstanding my three-fold denial of thee, at which thou hast manifestly hinted by thrice repeating this embarrassing question, I can affirm, with sincerity and confidence, that my love towards thee still remains unshaken." Now, had Peter attributed to our Lord's question the meaning assigned to it by the advocates of the above interpretation, it appears to me that he could have had no difficulty whatever in returning a positive and distinct answer, and in expressly declaring that he loved his Lord more than his employment as a fisherman, or any other worldly occupation. On this account I feel a considerable degree of reluctance in adopting this interpretation; and this reluctance is greatly increased by the circumstance of Peter and his companions having quitted their vessel some time before our Lord began the conversation, and likewise of their having probably left their fishing tackle behind them when they came on shore. The second interpretation-" Lovest thou me more than thou lovest thy fellow-disciples ?-is not liable to these difficulties. Jesus had just finished his repast with his disciples, and had begun a short but interesting conversation, by turning to Peter, and putting to him, in an abrupt and unexpected manner, the question which has given rise to these remarks. The Apostle instantly perceived the drift of this question, and was aware of the embarrassing situation in which it placed him. His reply, therefore, was more guarded and deliberate than usual. Jesus had said, on a former occasion, when he called his Apostles together and commissioned them to preach in his name, "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me." (Matt x. 37.) The time had now arrived, when the necessity of acting up to the spirit of this injunction was more imperative and binding than ever. But, instead of devoting himself exclusively to the support of his Master's cause, Peter was discovered among his old associates, pursuing his employment as a fisherman, and apparently forgetful of his duty as an apostle of Jesus Christ. With a view, therefore, as it would seem, to ascertain his comparative attachment to Jesus and his fishing companions, our Lord puts to him the question, "Lovest thou me more than these?" "Yea, Lord," replies Peter," thou knowest that I love thee." Then says Jesus," Feed my lambs." "Let not thy love for others exclude me from a place in thy affections; but love me through my disciples, and be assured, that when their interests are most effectually promoted, mine will be in least danger of being forgotten.” Such appears to be the true interpretation of this confessedly difficult passage; and the grammatical construction of the clause, as it stands in the original, seems to me to require this interpretation: Ayanqs μɛ thei TeTY; The personal pronoun eu is only implied in the termination of the verb: the emphasis, therefore, rests correctly and properly upon the word ps. "Lovest thou me more than these?" On this account I feel strongly inclined to suspect that Doddridge and others are not justified in adopting the third interpretation,-" Lovest thou me more than these love me?" "The nominative of the personal pronoun," says Matthiæ, (§ 465,) "is usually omitted with the personal termination of verbs, except where there is an emphasis, e. g. in an opposition, that is expressed or understood." It follows, therefore, that, where such opposition exists, the insertion of the pronoun is essential; as in the following instance: "All these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God; but she (avrn) of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had." (Luke xxi. 4.) In this and other similar cases the opposition is marked by the insertion of the pronoun; and its absence in our Lord's question to Peter affords strong presumptive evidence against the correctness of Doddridge's interpretation. Others have objected to this interpretation on different grounds, alleging that it was impossible for Peter to say whether his own love to Christ or that of his fellow-disciples was the stronger. He could have had no difficulty, it may be said, in affirming, that he was more attached to the cause of Jesus than to his employment as a fisherman, if he had understood the question proposed to him, as Whitby and Pearce have understood it: and he could easily have ascertained the comparative extent of his affection for Christ and his fellow-disciples, though he might be unwilling, on many accounts, to declare it in express terms in their presence. But he could not possibly have determined by any test but that of experience, whether his love to Jesus was stronger than that of Thomas or Nathanael, James or John. There appears to me, however, I confess, no particular force in this objection. Peter, it should be recollected, had made a boast on a former occasion, that, whatever others might do, nothing should induce him to deny or betray his Master. "Although all should be offended," says he, (Mark xiv. 29,) "yet will not I:" thus placing his own attachment to Christ on higher grounds than that of his fellowdisciples. In this view our Lord's question to Peter might have had some allusion to his former professions of attachment, and might thus have been intended to convey an indirect rebuke grounded on his late fickleness and miscarriage. the Books of Daniel and Esther seem probable? In the Hebrew copies of those books we find, that under the Persian monarchy, the king could not revoke a decree which he had once signed. This seemed very strange to the inhabitants of Alexandria, living under a very different government, and very ignorant of the ancient Persian customs. Some of them, therefore, boldly wrote another account of the circumstances of Daniel's being thrown into the lion's den, in order to evade the difficulty. This appears to me to furnish a very strong internal proof, that the Books of Daniel and Esther were written during the continuance of the Persian monarchy, as otherwise this very remarkable custom would probably not have been mentioned in them. It strengthens this argument to observe, that Josephus in his history of Esther, and Racine in his play, have both committed the error of making the king revoke his decree, which shews the high probability that an historian who has given a correct history of these transactions, must have lived while the custom was still in existence, that is, before the destruction of the Persian empire. This is of importance, because, as the Book of Daniel certainly contains prophecies of events long after the destruction of the Persian empire; if it were written before that time, the divine authority of its prophecies, T the conclusion of the Book of from which the truth of the Jewish Of the above interpretations, the first and third have been most generally adopted. The second appears to me to be the only one which suits both the context and the granimatical construction of the passage. Different minds, however, will of course be differently affected by them; and it is possible that many arguments in favour of the first and third interpretations may have been overlooked by me in the course of the preceding remarks. If any of your learned readers, Sir, are in possession of such arguments, by stating them in some future Number of the Monthly Repository they will oblige your occasional correspondent, SIR, O. P. Q. A Psalms in the Septuagint is the and Christian revelations following: "This Psalm was written by David, when he fought with Goliath, and is out of the number: 'I was the least among my brethren, the youngest in the house of my father. I fed my father's sheep. My hand made the pipe, and my fingers formed the viol. And who told it to my Lord? He is the Lord, he heareth. He sent his messenger, and took me from my father's sheep, and anointed me with the oil of his anointing. My brethren were fair and great, yet the Lord did not take pleasure in them. I went out to meet the Philistine, and he cursed me by bis idols. But I, having seized his sword from him, cut off his head, and took away reproach from the sons of Israel."" How is it that this has not been put in the Apocrypha? Does the following account of the additions in the Apocrypha to easily be deduced, is an undeniable consequence in the opinion of SIR. T. C. H. January 12, 1822. As onverence of the Emperor S you have inserted an account Alexander with three Quakers, Vol. XVI. p. 701, I send you what I take to be an equally authentic narrative of a less formal conference between Peter the Great, the founder of the Russian Empire, and two respectable members of that Society, in the words of one of them. If you think fit to accept it, your readers will see that this ancestor of Alexander was so far from affecting to adopt the peaceable principles of the Friends, that he inquired of what use they could be in any kingdom, seeing they would not bear arms and fight? Yet this conference seems to have induced the Czar to attend the Friends' Meeting, at Gracechurch Street, with his suite and interpreter, the next Sunday morning. And while he was at Deptford, afterwards, ac quiring a practical knowledge of shipbuilding, he occasionally attended their meeting at that place, and behaved not only with great propriety, but with the condescension of a truly great man, by changing seats, or standing up to accommodate others. His conduct also towards the Quakers in so promptly ordering his soldiers out of their Meeting-house at Frederickstadt, going himself to their meeting, and acting as an interpreter to his attendants, who did not understand the language of the preacher, was to give an impressive, practical lesson of toleration, and almost of religious liberty, which many monarchs have yet to learn, or want the virtue or the wisdom to act upon. There seems, indeed, to have been in his intercourse with the Friends, an entire consonance between his actions and his professions, which is more than I can say of Alexander's. His I confess rather remind me of the saying of Napoleon, who was personally acquainted with him, and a shrewd discerner of the real character of others, (whatever might be the defects of his own,) when he described Alexander, as "delightful in conversation, but as false and treacherous as a Greek," alluding, I suppose, not to the modern Greeks, but to the well-known line in Virgil "timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." F. "At this time," (1697,) says Thomas Story, (Journal of his Life, fol. Vol. I. p. 123,) "Peter the Great, Czar of Muscovy, being in London incog., and Gilbert Mollyson (Robert Barclay's wife's brother) having heard that a kinsman of his was in the Czar's service, and being desirous to increase the knowledge of the truth, requested me to go with him in quest of his kinsman to the Czar's residence, a large house at the bottom of York Buildings, in order to present him with some of Robert Barclay's Apologies in Latin, hoping they might fall under the Czar's notice. When we came to the place, Gilbert inquired of the porter after his cousin. "Being invited up stairs, we observed two tall men walking in a large room, and being directed to the Czar's interpreter, he told us, that such a person had been in the Czar's service, but was dead. "In the mean time, the Czar and Prince Menzicoff, his general, came to us, and upon the Czar saying something to his interpreter which we did not understand; he asked us, as we had our hats on, Why do you not pay respect to great persons when you are in their presence?' I answered, (says Thomas Story,) 'So we do when we are fully sensible of it, especially to kings and princes; for, though we decline all vain and empty shows of respect and duty, and flattering titles, whereby they are generally deceived by insincere and designing men; yet we yield all due and sincere respect to such, and all in authority under them, by ready obedience to all their lawful commands. But when, at any time, any of them, either through tyranny or ignorance, or ill counsel, happen to command any thing contrary to our duty to the Almighty, or his Son, Christ our Lord, then we offer our prayers to God, and humble addresses unto such rulers, that their understandings may be opened, and their minds changed towards us.' "The Czar made no reply to this, but talked with his interpreter again, who then asked, 'Of what use can you be in any kingdom or government, seeing you will not bear arms and fight?' "To this I replied, "That many of us had borne arms in times past; but when it pleased God to reveal in our hearts the life and power of Jesus Christ, his Son, our Lord, whose commandment is love, we were then reconciled unto God, one unto another, unto our enemies, and unto all men. Yet we are of use in any kingdom or government. For the principle of our religion forbids idleness and incites to industry; as it is written, "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks.' And we being concerned in all manner of husbandry, as likewise in manufactories and merchandizing, with the blessing of heaven upon our labours, do not want, but rather abound. "And though we are prohibited |