which affords a very good specimen of the author's general style and manner.

"We read also in the New Testament, of babes in Christ, who were fed with the pure milk of the word; who, by diligent application of the appointed means, grew in grace, and advanced from strength to strength, towards the state of perfect men, the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

"This description answers exactly to the case of every one who in these present days, having been born of the Spirit, continues therein. The new birth being the commencement of his spiritual life, does not conduct him at once to maturity; but simply removes from him the incapacity under which he lay before, of attaining to any measure of true Christian faith, and brings him within reach of those means of grace, by the due use of which he may go on from strength to strength, daily advancing in all virtue and godliness of living; and thus secure to himself a happy transition from the kingdom of God on earth, to his glorious and eternal kingdom in heaven. But if the spiritual child be not fed with the sincere milk of the word, and other spiritual nurture, the daily bread of the soul, which our Father in heaven freely gives to all who duly ask for it, he may sicken, pine and die. In short, the spiritual or inner man is subject to similar vicissitudes of sickness and health with body, according to the neglect or attention that is paid to its proper nourishment and support.

With respect to the time when the new birth takes place, we have shewn, that as our Church declares, it takes place in baptism. If any one ask, What connexion there can be between the outward washing of the body, and the purifying of the soul from the stain of sin? we answer, simply, that which our Lord has seen fit to make, by so joining them together, that the one, when duly administered, and received according to his institution, should always be accompanied by the other.

"That they have been so joined together by Christ, has been already shewn in this discourse. It is likewise apparent, from that passage in the Epistle to the Romans, where it is written, "We are buried with him by baptism unto death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Surely, my brethren, there must have been some connexion in the Apostle's mind between this newness of life and the new birth; and it is scarcely possible we can be mistaken in considering that connexion to be, that as the natural birth is the commencement of the natural life, so the new birth is the commencement of newness of life. But it is by baptism we are buried unto death, that we may thenceforth walk in newness of life. Baptism, therefore, is the means by which we are enabled to begin to walk in newness of life, that is, by which we obtain the new birth.

"The same inference may also be drawn from our Lord's conversation with the ruler of the Jews, from which, as we have before learnt the necessity and the nature of regeneration, so we may also learn the time when it takes place. Nicodemus having requested an explanation of what our Lord meant, when he so solemnly declared, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he

cannot see the kingdom of God;" "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." These latter words being an explanation of the former, it follows, that to be born again is to be born of water and of the Spirit; that is, the new birth takes place in baptism, wherein the water being used according to Christ's institution, is always accompanied by the benign, though unperceived, cleansing of the Spirit." P. 97.

In the notes we find much controversial matter, in reference to the Unitarians of the northern counties. Mr. Procter is particularly severe upon one of their teachers at Alnwick, whom, (somewhat too forgetful of the affability of modern controversy) he accuses of "atrocious falsehoods," declares his book "unpalatable, heavy, fetid, poisonous," &c. &c.

From this he proceeds to some remarks on the questions which have been raised respecting the religious opinions of Locke and Newton. Dr. Bruce (the Arian minister) has written a reply to the Editor of the Monthly Repository on this subject. We allude to this topic, because having lately devoted some of our pages to communications upon it, we are desirous to notice all further information which may present itself. In the present instance, with respect to Locke, nothing, we believe, is advanced in the very brief notice here given which our correspondent B. P. has not adverted to; (see Christian Remembrancer No. 83, vol. vii. p. 701, &c.) but in the case of Newton, one important testimony is adduced by Mr. Procter, which our correspondent has omitted to notice. (See Christian Remembrancer, No. 81, vol. vii. p. 566.) We give the passage with Mr. P.'s observations upon it:

"Dr. Bruce, be it observed, acknowledges himself an Arian, and therefore certainly would have been glad to discover that Newton was of the same opinion. But he is too honest to draw an unfair inference from a detached passage in the writings of that great man; and so he honestly avows, that the quotation referred to does not even convey an Arian, much less a Socinian sentiment.

"Sir Isaac Newton, the least discursive of writers, never deviated a single hair's breadth from the direct line of his argument; and, therefore, though he always mentioned Christ with the honour that is natural to an orthodox believer, he never had occasion to declare explicitly (except in the public congregations of the church) his belief in the divinity of our Saviour. The following sentence, in his Observations on the Apocalypse of St. John, chap. 3, comes nearer to such a declaration than any thing else I have met with in his writings. Referring to Rev. ii. 9, he says, 'By the blasphemy of them which say that they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan,' I understand the idolatry of the Nicolaitans, who falsely said that they were Christians.' Now the Nicolaitans, in common with the other Gnostic sects, denied the deity of Christ, which was probably the chief cause of Newton's opinion respecting them. At least

that error alone fully justifies his opinion; for nothing more is required to make their system deserve to be considered blasphemy, to be called idolatry, and to exclude them from the denomination of Christians. Were we therefore to infer, from this passage, that Newton considered the denying of the divinity of Christ to be blasphemy, to be idolatry, to be an error that renders its maintainers unworthy of the name of Christians, I am sure the inference would be far more fair and probable, than any that our opponents can draw from any part of his writings on the other side of the question." Notes, p. 183.

In subsequent parts of the notes, to which we must be content to refer the reader, will be found some able discussion on the various points in dispute with the Unitarians, pp. 140, 142, 147: on the use of metaphysical terms, "Person," &c. p. 163: on the intention of creeds to oppose heresies, p. 175: and on sacrifice, p. 185.

That enlightened work called "Not Paul but Jesus," is characterized by Mr. Procter as "one of the most daring of modern blasphemies;" and "Jeremy Bentham" described as "the cowardly assassin who sneaks under the name of Gamaliel Smith, Esq."

With a continuance of such doctrine and exhortation as that which these sermons convey, we trust the Berwick Lecture will long be supplied, and that thus the important ends for which it was instituted may be steadily and efficiently secured.

Substance of a Speech, delivered in the House of Lords, on Tuesday, May 17, 1825. By WILLIAM, LORD BISHOP OF LLANDAFF, on a Bill for the Removal of certain Disqualifications of the Roman Catholics. 8vo. pp. 32, Rivingtons, 1825.

THE storm is indeed gone over our heads---the thunders which were heard in the distance, have happily spent their force without approaching to hurt us. But we must not forget that we are only enjoying shelter, and a temporary sunshine, which may be as suddenly succeeded by the like tempestuous season to that from which we have not long escaped. It is well then to look back at the scene which has past; to observe the measures of precaution which were adopted against the impending evil, and to learn, from what was done on a former occasion, what it is expedient to do in the event of a recurrence of the same danger.---Let this consideration be our apology for bringing the subject of Roman Catholic disqualifications at this time before the notice of our readers, and for recommending them to fortify themselves, amidst their present security, with the armour of that wisdom which has won for them their present repose.---We may be allowed too to indulge ourselves with a glance back at some of the circumstances of our former trials. As the sailor, who has got his vessel safe into port after a hazardous voyage,

is pleased with remembering the risks through which he has passed; as the soldier, who has fought through the battles of a long campaign, loves to tell of his toils and enterprize, whilst he "shoulders his crutch and shews how fields were won;" so may we, as Christian Remembrancers, naturally mingle with our other thoughts the recollections of those exertions, by which the advocates of Protestantism successfully atchieved the triumph of the good old cause, against the insidious attacks of its enemies.

The speech of the Lord Bishop of Llandaff, delivered at the memorable debate of the 17th of May, in the House of Lords, occupies no inconsiderable place amongst recollections of this nature. As a perspicuous argumentative statement of the point at issue between the supporters and the opponents of the Catholic question, it has never, we think, been surpassed. The case of the exclusion of the Roman Catholics has been commonly represented as a case of intolerance; as if speculative opinions in religion were the ground of their exclusion. The speech of the Bishop of Llandaff entirely dissipates this delusion. It shews that the question turns altogether on their acknowledgment of the Pope's supremacy; an acknowledgment, which necessarily implies a divided allegiance, and therefore incapacitates them for the enjoyment of all the civil privileges of the constitution. When the doctrine of papal supremacy has been objected to Roman Catholics, it has been confidently replied, that all temporal power is disclaimed as belonging in any degree to the Pope, and that the supremacy which they assert refers only to spiritual power. Here, then, the Bishop's line of argument admirably meets this evasive plea, by proving that however distinct spiritual and temporal power may be in theory, the two are practically coincident.---To this purport is the following passage:

"My Lords, of all fallacies, none appears to me more palpable, more egregious, than that which regards spiritual authority as altogether unconnected with temporal. Theoretically, indeed, they are distinct; but practically, in most cases, it is hardly possible to disunite them. Like the soul and body, (I am using Bellarmine's illustration, my Lords, not my own);-like the soul and body, though each have special qualities and special interests of its own, yet they act one upon the other by mutual co-operation, and affect each other by mutual influence. It may be easy to say, this is a spiritual right, and that a temporal right; this is an exercise of civil power, and that of ecclesiastical:-but when you come to apply these to individual cases, they will be found so blended together, as to render their separation always difficult, sometimes impracticable. And this is, in reality, the main foundation of that alliance between Church and State, which exists in almost every well-constituted government, and which sustains the fabric of the British Constitution." P. 6.

In prosecution of this statement, Bishop Van Mildert proceeds to explain the nature of spiritual power, which, following

Bp. Horsley, he divides into the "Power of Order," or that of exercising spiritual functions,---and the "Power of Jurisdiction," or that of government of the ecclesiastical body; and shews, that while the former belongs to spiritual persons alone, the latter cannot properly be exercised by the Church, without the concurrence of the authority of the State. This distinction, as his Lordship points out, is expressly set forth in the 37th Article of our Church, and in Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions; in both of which the right of supreme jurisdiction is reserved to the Sovereign over all persons, ecclesiastical as well as civil, to the entire exclusion of foreign jurisdiction of any kind. The subject therefore, his Lordship urges, who is placed in such a predicament as to acknowledge the spiritual jurisdiction of any other potentate, does not pay that full allegiance to the Sovereign which is required by the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and, consequently, is not entitled to the same advantages, which others enjoy who yield an unrestricted submission to the State. To shew that the Roman Catholic is so circumstanced, his Lordship cites some sentences of Bellarmine, (who professes to give a moderate estimate of the papal power), and appeals to the present times as affording no indication of any diminution of the papal prerogatives. The Bishop strengthens his own positions by the well-known sentiments of several distinguished prelates and other individuals of our Church, who have regarded the papal supremacy as among the most dangerous errors of the Church of Rome; dwelling in particular on the confirmation derived from the view taken of the subject by Locke and Hoadley, writers held up by the friends of the Roman Catholics as "models of liberality of sentiment;" whilst, on the other hand, as appears from the work of Dr. Milner, they are regarded with no good will by the Roman Catholics themselves. It being so often pressed upon the opponents of the Catholic claims, that the religion of Rome is now altered in its character, and that the alarms which might reasonably have been felt in former days, are now entirely groundless, his Lordship calls the attention of the House to the characteristic of "immutability" so tenaciously cherished by the papal Church; and adverting to the reception in that Church of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the creed of Pope Pius V. as its accredited authorities, he thus pursues his remarks:

"In what respect, then, is Popery changed? It is continually assumed by those who advocate the Roman Catholic claims, that their peculiar tenets are no longer maintained to the same extent, or in the same acceptation as heretofore; but have undergone certain modifications and interpretations, which render them comparatively harmless. Nay, great efforts have been recently made, both by Romish writers and their friends, to shew that their doctrines approximate much more towards those of the Church of England than is generally supposed to