"so to work in our hearts by the power of his Holy Spirit, that we, being regenerate, and newly born again*, in all goodness, righteous ness, sobriety and truth, may in the end be made partakers of everlasting life in his heavenly kingdom, through Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, Amen." (Hom. xxviii.)

"If asked who should be thank ed for their regeneration, for their justification, and for their salvation, they cannot choose but say, Not unto us, O Lord, not to us, but to thy Name give all the thanks, for thy loving mercy, and for thy truth's sake."—"To justify a sinner, to new-create" (regenerate) "him from a wicked person to a righteous man, is a greater act, saith St. Augustine, than to make such a new heaven and earth as is already made. We must needs agree, that whatsoever good thing is in us, of grace, of nature, or of fortune, is of God only, as the only author and worker." (Hom. xxix.)

In the sermon on Repentance; (Hom. xxxii) we are told, that "they that do truly repent, must be clean altered and changed: they must become new creatures; they must be no more the same that they were before." "Let us confess our unworthiness before him; but yet let us trust in God's free mercy for Christ's sake, for the pardon of the same. And, from henceforth, let us endeavour ourselves to walk in a new life, as new-born babes, whereby we may glorify our Father which is in heaven."

And in the same spirit, those who have been baptized, whether in fants, or adults, are exhorted to remember, that "baptism doth represent unto us our profession, which is to follow the example of our Saviour Christ, and to be made like unto him; that as he died and rose again for us, so should we, who are baptised, die from sin, and prayer

Can any sophistry make this exclusively applicable to the period of baptism?

rise again unto righteousness." So far is it from being a matter of course, that those who are baptized should be partakers of " the inward and spiritual grace" of baptism,-"a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness," that, after being baptised, they are to be reminded how incumbent it is upon them to obtain it.

Let the Bishop of Peterborough, if he can, reconcile with these clear and unambiguous views of the Church of England, the following question." If then we believe in the doctrine of our church, that the new birth takes place at baptism, can we believe that they who have been baptized according to the rites of our church will be regenerated at any other period?” We reply, that believing the doctrine of our church, we can and must answer in the affirmative.

But it is time that we should draw our remarks to a close. The ninth chapter we have already touched upon, and we have no wish to pursue the subject farther. We had intended to say something of the negative faults of these Questions, which are very numerous. On the subject of the atone ment, for example, there is nothing said (except perhaps in the references to the Articles, &c.) which most Socinians would not agree to acknowledge. No chapter is devoted to faith; none to sanctification, except the remarks on novation" are intended to cover this defect. But we forbear to enter on this subject of omissions; omissions so important and extensive, that the most zealous friend of the Bishop must of necessity acknowledge that his Eighty-seven Questions, however orthodox, are far from exhibiting a complete and "connected view of God's dealings with mankind under the new covenant."

re

We must not, however, be so uncivil as to pass over without a brief notice the pamphlets which we have

placed at the head of this article.

The first is the Bishop of Peter borough's Primary Charge. His lordship begins with a tribute of praise to his predecessor in the see of Peterborough, the late Dr. Par sons: he then urges the importance of a regular standing clergy, and the duty of their being provided with a decent maintenance; and proceeds to comment on some of the Acts of Parliament which at present affect them. His remarks respecting the non-residence clause in the Consolidation Act, (57 Geo. III. c. 99,) are very important, and we trust will be acted upon by our prelates in general.

His lordship proceeds very just ly to urge the importance of a se cond service wherever there has hitherto been but one; and adds, what may be news to many of our clerical readers, that " by the 51st section of the Consolidation Act, a bishop is empowered to enforce, even by monition and sequestration, the performance of both morning and evening service."

His lordship next remarks upon the great inconveniences which arise from clergymen undertaking more services or churches than they can properly attend to; and lays down a very wholesome regulation on the subject, namely, that " The universal limit in this diocese must become that of two churches in a day; and even from this limit we must gradually recede to one church with double duty, whenever the poverty of the living does not interfere to prevent it.'

The remainder of the Charge relates to his lordship's sentiments respecting the examination of curates; a subject on which, as our readers have abundantly seen, we are not so fortunate as to agree with him. There is also an Appendix to the Charge, on "the modern custom of singing unauthorised psalms and hymns in churches," on which our limits will not allow us at present to add a single word, except that our conclusions, ou a review of the

whole subject, by no means coincide with those of his lordship.

The Charge, as our readers will have perceived from this analysis, contains much useful matter, and promises some judicious regulations in the discipline of the diocese of Peterborough. We cannot, however, disguise our opinion that it wears throughout a harsh and dictatorial air, and gives to the Church of England an aspect too much akin to what her objectors allege of her being "a church built only upon Acts of Parliament." There is not a syllable in it of Him who is the great Head of the church, who died to purchase it, and lives to guide and comfort and superintend it. It has more the air of a charge to a grand jury, than to a company of Christian pastors, whose great office is to feed the flock, to watch for souls, and to build up' men in their most holy faith. Had his lordship been a Socinian, or even à Deist, there is not perhaps a sylla ble in this Charge which he might pot have written with a safe conscience. Not a prayer or benediction occurs to break its forensic course; not a Christian doctrine is touched upon even incidentally; not a word escapes to indicate that the writer had ever read the charge of Him who said, "Feed my sheep; feed my lambs ;" or of him, who, treading in the steps of his Divine Master, wrote those apostolic charges which have furnished an inimitable model for this species of composition. We do not deny that it is right for a bishop to acquaint his clergy with many particulars respecting their official conduct, which are merely secular in their details; but surely he ought not to begin and conclude his exhortations without some touch, some incidental allusion, which may shew "where his treasure is," and may lead his clergy from Acts of Parlia ment, and merely canonical duties, to the spiritual nature, and eternal bearings of their profession as servants of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Wilson's pamphlet (No. 2 on our list) is generally sensible and well written; and upon the whole, though not uniformly, temperate. We wish we could say as much of the two "Refutations" of it, (Nos. 3 and 4), both of which are couch ed in a supercilious and dogmatical style that ill becomes any writer, and much less an anonymous one. -The Layman (No. 3) accuses Mr. Wilson of being "impudent" and "ridiculous;" of writing "low invective," and exhibiting" the profundity of ignorance with the acme of assurance."-The Refutation (No. 4.) is below notice: it is apparently written by some schoolboy, and may therefore be forgiven. We certainly do not wish to make the Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge accountable for such trash as this.

No. 5, entitled, "The Legality of the Questions," is an excellent pamphlet on the legal bearing of the subject, and clearly proves that the Bishop's Eighty-seven Questions" usurp the place of an established test." The Layman's reply to it (No. 6.) is little more than a string of counter assertions followed by inferences drawn from those assertions; as, for example: (p. 8.) "After carefully comparing the propositions of Dr. Marsh with our Articles, I deny that in any one instance there exists the least difference from the said Articles," &c. "If, then, as I assert, no difference exists," &c. This may be very excellent as assertion, but it is not proof. The "Curates' Appeal" has a substantially good cause; but it has not been conducted in a right spirit, and we think its tone by no means calculated to effect its laudable object of procuring a revision of the present arbitrary system under which the unbeneficed clergy are governed. Of Mr. Bugg's pamphlet (No. 8.) we can say nothing, as we do not know the circumstances of the case, except as far as they are stated by the writer himself. We, however, certainly think that he ought, if only for the

sake of example and warning to others, to have been informed what was his offence before he was dismissed from his curacies. For want of this the judicial benefit of his dismissal is wholly lost to his brethren and the public. We certainly do not approve the tone of his pamphlet any more than of the pamphlet last mentioned, or of the remaining one under review, (by mistake not inserted in the list), entitled, "Episcopal Innovation." There is, however, much sound and unanswerable argument in this last pamphlet; and though it is frequently intemperate, those who can separate the wheat from the chaff will be paid for their perusal by many remarks of considerable importance upon the theological bearings of the Bishop's new code of clerical examination.

We shall only say, upon a review of the whole question between the Bishop of Peterborough, his friends, and his opponents, that whatever might be our convictions in sitting down to the perusal of these pamphlets as to the illegality, the inexpediency, and the incorrect the ology of his lordship's Eighty-seven Questions, we rise from the discussion with those convictions greatly increased. The danger to the church, if the precedent be not timely checked, is incalculable. We are happy, however, to know that the Bishop of Peterborough's test has not been approved by his brethren on the episcopal bench; nor does there seem the least probability that any member of that body will think fit to follow his example, and much less to adopt his Questions. We sincerely believe that those who most nearly coincide in opinion with his lordship, cannot candidly weigh the various arguments which have appeared upon the subject, without perceiving that his lordship's measure is unadvised, and that some, at least, of his questions are hostile to the spirit of the Articles and the Homilies which he is bound to reverence and

maintain. The sooner, therefore, they are withdrawn the better: we are convinced that they cannot long drag on their feeble existence; and even if they could, it were far better that an individual should make a sacrifice than that the peace and safety of the church should be endangered by an ill-advised pertinacity. The public mind is not yet inured to arbitrary power in any of its forms, and is least of all inclined to submit to it in ecclesiastical affairs. It behoves, therefore, the episcopal guardians of the church to look well to the conduct

of those individuals of their body who, by rendering her ministrations and her government unwelcome to the people, are among her worst, though doubtless they are her unintentional, enemies. Her policy must be large, liberal, and unsuspected; her laws known and approved; her administration conducted openly and upon intelligible principles; or she will sooner or later meet the fate which has attended almost all institutions in which law and reason were suffered to become subordinate to the irresponsible will of individuals.

GREAT BRITAIN. PREPARING for publication:-A Grammar of the Sanscrit Language; by the Rev. W. Yates;-History of Birds; by John Latham;-A History of Parga; by Ugo Foscolo;-A Residence in the Burman Empire; by Captain Cox ;-The History of the Plague; by J. M. Tully; -The Personal History of George III.; by E. H. Locker.

In the press:-Memoirs of the last Nine Years of the Reign of George II.; by the Earl of Orford, from Manuscripts left him to be opened by the first Earl of Waldegrave who shonid come of Age after the Year 1820;-The Principles of Assurances; by W. Morgan;-Memoirs of James II.; British Conchology; by Dr. Turton ;-Woman in India; by J. Lawson, Missionary at Calcutta ;The Case of the President of Queen's College, Cambridge; containing copies of the petitions, affidavits, and original records produced in evidence, with the Judgment of the Visitor;-Practical Reflections on the Psalms; or Short Daily Meditations, intended to promote the Study of the Psalter; by Mrs. Sheriffe; 2 vols. 12mo. ;-Sermons by the late Rev. F. Thruston; 1 vol. 8vo.;—Sixteen Sermons of Bishop Andrews, modernized for general Readers; by the Rev. Archdeacon Daubeny.

The Rev. Mr. Nolan is printing his German and Spanish Grammars. The Hebrew, Syriack, Chaldee, Greek, La

tin, Italian, and French, are uniformly printed, and the whole forms a Polyglott Grammar, in which the genius of the principal ancient and modern languages is explained upon a uniform plan.

Cambridge. The following is a summary of the Queen's College cause, lately decided by the Lord Chancellor.

The question at issue related to the mastership of the college, vacant by the death of the late Dean Milner. The college was founded by Elizabeth the wife of Edward IV. The foundress bestowed on the college a book of sta tutes, by which it was provided that the fellows should proceed to elect a new master within eight days after the office should become vacant; and if they omitted to do so, it was further provided that the right of appointment to the office of master should devolve to the Crown. It was also required by the statutes that the senior-fellow should admit the person elected to the office of master, under pain of expulsion from the college if he omitted to do so. The subject came before the court upon two petitions. One petition was from Mr. King, a fellow of the college, who' prayed that the court, as visitor, would inquire whether the office of master of Queen's College was vacant; and if it should be found to be so, whether the. fellows ought to proceed to a new election, or whether the right of appointment had devolved to the Crown. The

grounds on which this application rested were, that on the twelfth day after the death of the late master Dr. Milner, the fellows, in compliance with the statutes, proceeded to elect a new master, when Mr. Godfrey was chosen by a majority of votes. Immediately after the election Mr. Godfrey required the senior fellow to admit him to his office, when he was informed that it was first necessary for him to sign the declaration of faith required by the Act of Uniformity. Mr. Godfrey, however, disregarded this intimation, and, as Mr. King contended, went through the usual form of admission, by receiving the keys and a copy of the statutes.-The other petition was from Mr. Mandell, who was the opposing candidate to Mr. Godfrey at the time of the election. Mr. Mandell stated that Mr. Godfrey obtained a majority of votes by voting for himself as fellow for Middlesex, although there was at that time another fellow for that -county, and it was provided by the statutes that there should never be more than one fellow for Middlesex at the college at one and the same time. Upon this ground, therefore, Mr. Mandell claimed to be the master of the college. The question for the Court to decide -was, whether, by the Act of Uniformity, passed under Charles II., Mr. Godfrey had not forfeited his office. By that Act it is declared, that if any master or head of a college shall omit to sign the declaration of faith therein contained, before or at the time of his admission to office, such office shall, ipso fucto, be considered void, as if its possessor were naturally dead. The Court was also to decide, whether, supposing Mr. Godfrey to have forfeited his office, the feldows ought not to have proceeded to a new election within twelve days; and whether, as they had not done so, the tright of appointment to the office of master had not devolved to the Crown. Mr. Godfrey, in answer to the affidavits filed against him, contended that the form of admission was not completed by the delivery of the keys, &c. until some subsequent ceremony was performed in the chapel of the college. This ceremony he had gone through several days after he had signed the declaration of faith before the Vice-Chancellor of the college. He therefore maintained that he had not violated the provisions of the Act of Uniformity. With respect to the allegation that he was not entitled to CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 233....

vote as fellow for Middlesex, Mr. Godfrey asserted that it had been the im memorial usage of the college to maintain two fellows for that county.

The Lord Chancellor decided that Mr. Godfrey ought to be considered, at the time of the election, as de jure fellow for Middlesex; and that, according to the intention of the statutes and the constant usage of the college, the admission of the master was not completed by the delivery of the keys, &c. In this view of the case it was evident that Mr. Godfrey had signed the declaration of faith required by the Act of Uniformity previously to his admission,

The two gold medals given annually by the Chancellor of this University to the best proficients in classical learning among the commencing Bachelors of Arts were this year adjudged to Messrs. Ollivant and Talbot, both of Trinity College.

HUMANE SOCIETY.

At a late meeting of the Humane Society, Dr. Martin, the registrar, reported, that the cases which have come under the notice of the Society during the past year amount to 150; of which number 131 were successful, and 19 unsuccessful. The number of successful cases, added to that of former years, amounts to 5020, and the number of claimants rewarded, added to the total of former years, amounts to 20,320. The gentlemen who have received, honorary medals this year for saving lives are, Captain Marryat, R. N., Captain Earl, Mr. J. Mann, Mr. J. Gray, Mr. J. Stirling, Mr. C. J. Leisne, Mr. W. W, Cox, and Mr. W. A. Parker,.

VACCINATION.

A Report was made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, from the National Vaccine Establishment, dated 12th April, 1821, containing some important facts which ought to be extensively known. The following is a copy:-"My lord, it is with great regret that we announce to your lordship, that the small-pox has occasioned the loss of many lives in various parts of the United Kingdom since our last Report; and that not less than 792 persons have died of that distemper within the bills of mortality, in the course of the last year, This is about one-third of the average number of those who perished annually in the metropolis before the introduction of vaccination : but so many deaths afford a strong pre2. U