pose is contemplated, there are differences which are found to be no drawbacks in the attainment of the purpose, but are rather held to have a wholesome influence. All those we have been considering, differences of descent, antagonisms of faith and no faith, varieties of individual temperament and character, exist in our present parliaments, and the people of Britain are rather pleased than otherwise with the sundry nature of the composition, and think there are attendant advantages, while a portion of them have so high an opinion of this model of amalgamated contrarieties, that they would not alter it-not they, though all the virtues should entreat on behalf of a single Jew. We trust that, in thus expressing ourselves, we are not actuated by the spirit of mere partisanship, or any unworthier motive than that which springs from conviction alone. We have considered the subject again and again, but cannot discover a distinction commensurate with the exception contended for. Why, we have all but made the Jew one of ourselves; there needs but a single clause to complete his charter of naturalization; and we hold that this much having been done, we have yielded the point of "peculiarity," and our "political difference" is peculiar in nothing but diminutiveness. If we err in making the last conces rationality and fairness; and if there really existed those differences, those oppositions of sentiment, interests, and sympathies between ourselves and the Jew to the extent which "Aristides" supposes, or, if good government, unity of purpose for the weal of a nation, were altogether dependent upon complete unity in sentiments, or interests, or sympa thies, or in all of them combined, then might we fear the Jew, and, with some show of reason, suspect his right to our councils. But are not these differences greatly misapprehended, over-rated? "Descent:" equally distinct, as races, are the Celt and Saxon. "Faith: equally adverse, if not more, must he who holds the christian faith, and the Atheist, who has no faith at all, be "Frequency of intercourse:" on 'Change, on the bench, on the rail, and in the mart is the Jew the daily companion of the Gentile; and if their social intercourse be not particularly familiar, equally unaccustomed are different grades of society to mingle their hearths and homes. Similarity of interests." Has the Gentile an "interest" in the preservation of the state? Equally so has the Jew, for its fall could avail him nothing. He is prepared with no monarch to fill the vacated throne; his polity is a ruin; besides, according to "Aristides," his anticipated kingdom is elsewhere. Has the Gentile an "interest" in a flourishing state of commerce, healthy funds, national confi-sion, we have greatly erred in our former dence, and contentment? So has the Jew, whose monetary "interests" are of equal magnitude, and equally at stake. Has the one an interest in the life of mutual obligations, and their due performance, in the activities of right precepts, and even in the common kindness and courtesies which go to make up the sum of happiness on earth; and has not he, the victim of the world's deridings and uncharitableness, an equal desire for the reciprocation of justice and mauly kindnesses? And what amazing difference is there between the feelings and habits of the two? Their interests identical, so, variously modified by constitutional differences and circumstances, must their impressions, motives, and habits, be also identical. The difference between us, then, is not so alarming, after all. It is insufficient to justify a total subversion of moral duty. Then, again, necessary as may be identities in certain respects where a pur liberality; but this view is not maintainable, because what we have done we have been compelled to do entirely by the force of rectitude, against the domination of our wary, hard prejudices, and Gentile haughtiness. And if we needed invitation to future duty, we have it clearly in the experience of the past, that, so far as we have shared with him the rights of citizenship, so far has the Jew been a worthy subject and servant of Queen Victoria. It will not do to shelve the remaining responsibility upon the plea of his slight patriotism with respect to his adopted country. This we take to be perfectly gratuitous. Based on such grounds duty would soon become indescribable confusion. Nay, "Aristides;" the Jew himself, by service already rendered, by interests co-extensive with your own, and by overtures of further devotion, protests against your assumption, and we dare not allow you the benefit of so convenient an excuse. In conclusion, we remark, that whether lightly the virtue you will not give him or not there be truth in the popular apho- credit for. If, then, the "wisdom" which rism to which "Aristides" defers, it is un-"Aristides" venerates has its warrant in doubtedly true that suspiciousness and uncharitable accusations on the one side have a tendency to induce laxity of morals on the ether. Only let a man know that you are inflexibly suspicious of his character and dealings, and he will be tempted to hold facts, we may well blush that they have been fostered by our direct encouragement. Let us be just, and deal the final meed of justice to the Jew. Albeit, finite appearances, a just course, will assuredly lead to a right end. B. W. P. NEGATIVE REPLY. THIS important question having been somewhat fully discussed on both sides, it becomes necessary to weigh the evidence adduced in order to arrive at a final and trathful conclusion on the subject. The negative articles respectively published in the last three numbers of this periodical have, to a very considerable extent, effectually answered the arguments adduced in the affirmative; there are, however, several points remaining which require some little comment before the subject is closed. To these points we will now address ourselves; having done so, we shall leave the matter in the hands of the public and our readers generally. It is stated by B. W. P., in his Article No. I., that "the christian oath which members take no more makes them Christians than do their christian names." It cannot for a moment be supposed that any such absurd idea was or is entertained by the legislature. The oath was never used or intended as a means of conversion to Christianity, but as the test of Christianity already in existence. It may not be out of place here to refer to the test given by the apostles of old for the detection of the real spirit possessed by certain professed members of the christian church. It will be found, a reference to holy writ,* that the church is exhorted by the apostle John "not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits;" and the means given for arriving at their real condition is, "Whether or not they would confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." It is submitted that the test in question goes to the same point; and in ender that the legislature may remain christian, it is necessary that such a test should be retained. It is argued that this test 1 John iv. 1,2,3. Infi is insufficient to keep out the infidel. dels should undoubtedly be rejected as much as Jews; but who, in the name of justice, has received authority to set himself up as a judge of the infidelity of certain members of parliament? Who dare presume to assert that, in a christian community, A. er B., because they may have done certain acts or used certain expressions which C. or D. could not conscientiously do or say as members of the same community, are therefore necessarily infidels? Their admission into the house is not obtained without passing through the required test and ordeal in some shape. It is therefore submitted that the oath having been subscribed and sworn to, or declaration made by such, the only legitimate presumption is, that they are Christians, and not infidels. It is not quite so easy for a member of the christian community to become an infidel, as some seem to imagine; though many, in the wickedness of their hearts, may desire to be and even boast that they are such, they themselves find a barrier which, in their consciences, they cannot overcome. We should therefore pause before we presumptuously and boldly assert that our senate-house is the receptacle of infidels. In the admission of the Jew, as a Jew, there might be some ground for such an assertion, for he not only openly and avowedly denies that Jesus is the Son of God, but also shrinks from the established test of the house. It is also stated by B. W. P., that "Judaism and Christianity are identical in all that concerns the purposes of a government, that the rules which regulate the actions of them are the same in the Old Testament as in the New, and that the purpose of government is not the propagation of religion, but the enforcement of relative duties." In remarking upon these several points, we will notice one started by W. G., in his and in what way they are to be enforced. Article No. III.," That all arguments gathered | alone decide what are our relative duties, from ecclesiastical connexions are worth nothing; that Cæsar and Cæsar's government have to do with man socially." The remarks made by W. G. of our ignorance or wilful unmindfulness of the true principles of civil polity and government, we will cheerfully forgive, but would simply refer to a few facts which appear to have altogether escaped his observation. It must be admitted by all reflecting men that the era of this and every other christian nation (so long as she remains christian) must necessarily be dated from the establishment and adoption of Christianity alone. To revert back to Cæsar and Cæsar's government would be at once to destroy the christian contract, and return, in a national point of view, to paganism and infidelity. It must also be borne in mind, that the nation, in accepting Christianity, freely, voluntarily, and of necessity, gave up all rights which they possessed simply as men, or as a heathen nation, which were antagonistic to and could not be confirmed by Christianity, and in return received the boon of the gospel and discipline of Christ; it therefore appears to us perfectly idle to talk of rights of manhood amongst Christians irrespective of Christianity. A short research of the scriptures will suffice to show the manifest difference between the rules for the regulation of man under the Old Testament and those under the New. We will only refer to one or two points, and leave the public to draw their own conclusion. For instance, under the Old Testament, the rule was and still is, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." A man who accidentally killed another might be slain by the deceased's relative (the avenger of blood), if overtaken by him before he reached a city of refuge. To say nothing of the restoration of beast for beast, the Jewish limitation of a sabbath day's journey, restrictions as to diet, and numerous others. How widely different are these from our rules, and how truly oppressive would such seem to us. It is true that the purpose of government is not the propagation of religion, but the enforcement of relative duties. The law of Christianity may not, however, be lost sight of; indeed, our relative duties can be ascertained only by reference to it. The religion and constitution of the country must With reference to B. W. P.'s closing remark, that the question is finally settled, simply because London and Greenwich have returned Jews, we think he might with equal justice argue that the crucifixion of our Lord was a righteous act simply because the whole Jewish nation consented thereto. We cannot help feeling that the remarks made by "Adelphos," in Affirmative Article No. II., and the motives ascribed by him to the lords spiritual and temporal, in throwing out the Jew Bill, from time to time, go too far. In the absence of the strongest possible evidence to the contrary, we are bound to believe they are actuated alone by principles and motives purely conscientious, from a desire to do their duty, and act consistently with the constitution of the country. However justified men may feel in these days in speaking and writing against this portion of our constitution, it cannot be denied that we are materially indebted to their superior wisdom; that their wisdom and discretion alone have saved this country, from time to time, from much misery and injury which would have resulted from the demands of an excited populace, had they not received the wholesome check which such a house can alone supply. Adelphos," like the rest of the Jews' advocates, appears to overlook the wide difference between a judicial and ministerial office; enough, however, has already been said on this head in the former articles. Although, as stated by W. G. in Affirmative Article No. III., many Episcopalians may, and doubtless do, desire the separation of the church from the state, still it is submitted no conscientious Christian can wish, or can indeed contemplate, such a change, in order that the state should be (as it would seem the Jews' friends wish and others desire) sacrificed to the government of Cæsar, or, in other words, driven back to paganism and infidelity. Since, however, such a desire has so manifested itself amongst the Jews' advocates, and the anti-church-and-state portion of the community generally, it is submitted it would indeed be a direful event to remove from us at the present critical moment almost the only prop left to support the constitution upon its true foundation, and the government of the nation upon the princi ples of Christianity. Such a reversion would indeed place the Jew in a position above us, and possibly give to Rothschild and Salonens a power at present unknown to this nation, and make them like Josephs or Mordecais, for we should by that act dissolve our christian contract in a national point of view. In such a position of things it is easy to conceive how the democratic interests of our eeantry would be interfered with. The grant to the Maynooth College has interfered with the rights and privileges of this Protestant nation. If the Romanists have sufficient power to obtain such a grant, why may not the Jew obtain infringements upon our rights and liberties in this and many other ways? It was not necessary that the Jews should be a large and powerful nation in order that the necks of the Egyptians should be bent to the rule of the Jew Joseph, nor is it necessary now in order that the like event should take place here. If the Jew acts consistently with his faith (and his friends call him a consistent character), he has no hope in this or any other country but his own, and is looking forward to the coming of the Messiah to set up his kingdom, and re-establish him at Jerusalem; he is therefore, for this reason, also an unfit person to take part in the legislation of this or any other christian country, for want of the necessary sympathy with, and attachment to, the country, as wisely argued by Aristides," in Negative Article No. III. We cannot see how the rights of the people are interfered with (as W. G. would have us believe) by the refusal to admit the Jew iato parliament, notwithstanding his election. We trust enough has been said to prove that we have no rights antagonistic to, or inconsistent with, Christianity; besides, as we have before stated in our Articles Nos. I and II, the call of the people, as laid down by Blackstone, is to elect one from amongst themselves, which, in a christian community, cannot mean a Jew. No answer whatever to this proposition has been offered throughout the discussion. With reference to W. G.'s concluding remarks, we would subunit that no length of residence can in the least strengthen the right of the Jew to interfere with, or take part in, the legislation of this or any other christian country amongst whom he may be cast, so long as he remains in unbelief. Nor do we think this country has anything to fear from his rejection, so long as she remains christian and he a Jew. If, however, the sacred bond be snapped asunder, and we, in a civil point of view, be driven back to Cæsar's government, there might perhaps be some ground for W. G.'s fears and apprehensions. Having gone through, with some little care, the whole of the points raised upon this important subject, we are constrained to conclude that, for the reasons stated on the negative side throughout this discussion, it is not only both morally and politically wrong to admit the Jew, as a Jer, into our senatehouse, but that such a step would be both highly inconsistent with, and dangerous to, the constitution and religious position of the nation; that the Jew himself (so long as he remains in unbelief) is unfit for such an office, and could not do justice therein, either towards us or himself. It therefore appears to us that he ought not to be admitted into Parliament until, at least, he has followed the example of "his friend at court," Disraeli, viz., embraced our faith, and tendered himself to the bar of the house as a Christian. We also conclude, in order that the nation should maintain her exalted position in the social scale, and the free exercise of all her precious (but, of course, circumscribed) rights and liberties, it is essential that she should adhere closely to her religion and constitution, and most strenuously resist all attempts at innovation and infringements thereon, from whatever source they may come. With these few remarks we close our subject. VERITAS. A good reader is nearly as rare as a good writer. People bring their prejudices, whether friendly or adverse. They are lamp and spectacles lighting and magnifying the page. It is not enough for a reader to be unprejudiced. He must remember that a book is to be studied as a picture is hung. Not only must a bad light be avoided, but a good one btained. This taste supplies. It puts a history, a tale or a poem, in a just point of view, and there examines the execution.-Wilmott. Surial Economy. WOULD COMMUNISM PROMOTE THE HAPPINESS OF MAN? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-IV. implies. The gist of the Communist system consists in the following particulars. The government is invested with all property; it is the recognised holder and administrator of all wealth; the members labour in common, and in return the produce of all labour is given to each according to his wants. Fourierism, Owenism, all the various forms of the idea, recognise this community of interest, labour, and enjoyment. The differences which entitle these systems to be considered as distinct are of minor importance in the present debate. L. I., the writer on the affirmative of this of sympathy with that greatest of principles question in the February number, proposes-universal brotherhood-which their theory the query, "If the theory of Communism be so defective, how was it that the apostles were Communists, and exemplified their sentiments by forming the first christian church into a community?" We reply, that the primitive Christians adopted that manner of life, not from choice, but from prudential considerations, enforced by the times; they adopted it for the purpose of strengthening the bond of union, for readiness of conference on spiritual subjects, and for their mutual support under the persecutions to which they were subjected-persecutions which eventuated in the dispersion throughout Judea of that godly little brotherhood. Let it be distinctly recollected that that mode of life was not adopted till they were endangered by hostilities, and that, if we except two very small sections of the christian church-the Moravians and the Shakersit has not since been revived. Society is a reflex of the inner man; insensibly, but invariably, men modify society into exact correspondence with their own nature; gradually, as their faculties become developed, institutions of an obstructive nature yield to others of a more liberal character. The changes in our institutions since chivalric times have been commensurate in extent to the period which has intervened: then the individual will of the baron was law to his vassals, but now feudality is obsolete. Society in its present organization is the result of this principle; yet, amid all changes, the institution of private property remains inviolate, and hence we conclude that it is agreeable to man's nature. Property represents the exertion of the individual, in furtherance of his material interests, in the same way as talent represents the labour undergone in the culture of the intellect. We look upon it as the outward manifestation of the individuality in man. Its acquisition not only stimulates to labour, but, when The same writer founds his defence of Communism on the superior success of missionary enterprise under the conduct of the Moravians. That success is indisputable, but it is clearly owing to the influence of numbers, not to the espousal of Communism. We look on Communism as a protest against the abuses of our social state, but not as a remedy for them-a protest which, in the ardency of youth, is subscribed to by every lover of his species: experience, however, brings with it a perception of the expediency, if not of the absolute rightness, of every institution, and usually checks the disposition to innovate on established in favour of ideal forms. Some men, neverthe-realized, is an amelioration of that labour. less, retain the predilections of youth long beyond the period of juvenility, and, from a superabundance of philanthropy, urge the acceptance of Communism as the least complex and the readiest cure. Though we dissent from the opinions entertained by such persons relative to the practicability of Communism, we esteem them for the expression We object to the proposed equality in the distribution of the produce; that equality is repulsive to our intuitive sense of justice, inasmuch as it supposes no discrimination of the ingenuity evinced in the different orders of labour, and supposes no recognition of individual merit. This, unless the tyranny of declarations of capacity be acted upon, |