and they that ate of it died. The tree of life also bare its Fruit, and they that eat thereof shall live for ever. As Eve brought death to Adam, it was fitting that the daughters of Eve should see the consequences upon the cross. Nay, it was fitting too, that they should go the same day to the sepulchre, and see where the Lord was laid. There they saw their mother's work complete. But how gracious, and how full of meaning, the distinction conferred on them upon the morning of the resurrection. By women the resurrection was first announced to the Apostles. Thus the daughters of Eve are commissioned to restore, to the sons of Adam, those blessings which were lost to Adam through Eve.

THE CROSS AND THE CRUCIFIX.-The crucifix properly conveys the idea of one fastened to the cross. The cross means merely the instrument. But, in use, the two words, cross and crucifix, have changed places. The crucifix now generally stands for any representation of the instrument of wood, on which our Lord suffered; such, for instance, as those which Roman Catholics carry about with them, or set up and worship; while the very wood of the original cross is held by them in high estimation; and it is supposed that as much wood is shewn in different Catholic countries, under the pretence that it actually formed part of our Lord's cross, as would serve to build a large ship. The cross, on the contrary, is often used to express the doctrine of Christ crucified: and thus the term directs our attention, not only to the instrument itself, but to Him who suffered upon it; and to all the benefits which we thence derive. There is a danger on both sides. The Roman Catholic's view leads him to place his confidence in his crucifix, as if it were his God: and he requires to be reminded that it is only a piece of wood, or of some other substance; just as, when the Israelites worshipped the brasen serpent that Moses had made, king Hezekiah reminded them that it was only Nehushtan, or a piece of brass. (2 Kings xviii. 4.) But there is a danger also to the Protestant. We may so look to our crucified Saviour, as to come, at length, to forget the cross on which he suffered; or, in other words, to forget the particular nature of his death, which was a death of agony and of shame.-The peculiar nature of his death upon the cross should ever be kept in view by Christians. Yet if some pastors, who have long gone on taking it for granted that the point is one which their flock well understand, will be at the trouble of ascertaining whether this is really the case, they will probably find, at least among the uneducated part—that is, the mass of their flock-far more ignorance upon the subject than could have been expected. If the inquiry be generally made,

What is meant by the crucifixion of Christ? many perhaps will be found, who know only this; that it signifies very cruel treatment, of some kind: a smaller number, who know that the cruelty amounted to some sort of death: and a smaller still, who know what kind of a death it really was.

I once asked a poor blind boy, in examining him on the Apostle's Creed, if he knew what was the meaning of being "crucified." He answered, "being stuck all over with nails.' I have since been led to think, that similar ignorance, upon this particular point, is very general.

As to the exact nature of the death upon the cross, many heart-affecting particulars may be found in Pearson on the Creed, Article IV.

PUBLIC DELINQUENCIES OF THE LAST QUARTER.

WE stated, in our last Number, the reasons which led us to determine that one subject of our Review should be Politics. Many, we feel persuaded, will now see the force of our arguments, who did not then. We should like to know how many persons the events of the last quarter have made politicians, who never meddled before with politics in their lives. Perhaps some of our clerical friends and readers are now beginning to change. Then, respected brethren, bear with us while we tell you this. If you had always attended to politics; if you had always made the code of public duties a subject of your pulpit exhortations; if you had always seen, as now you do see, the abominable falsehood and deception of that hypocritical plea by which the world has kept you silent-namely, that religion has nothing to do with affairs of state-you would not have seen your country, you would not have seen your church, you would not have seen your king, reduced to the situation in which they are now placed. We speak to the right-minded. The pulpit has long had its secular politicians; but we wish to see men who are living for eternity preaching to the times.

While, therefore, we ourselves treat of politics, be it ever remembered, that we wish to treat of them on Christian principles. It is in this way alone, indeed, that we can hope to do any good and it is with this view, that we have taken the title of the present article. With respect to the proposed but not yet perpetrated, measure of Catholic emancipation, the point to which we are now most desirous of calling attention, is the prodigious and appalling mass of PUBLIC DELINQUENCY;

4

which nobody seems to have cared for, or even thought of. The present question is not merely a matter of argument; it is a matter of common honesty. Here are men who have strenuously maintained, and who still continue to acknowledge, that to grant what the Catholics demand will be an immense evil, will be pernicious, will be wrong; and yet who propose to do it, on a plea of the necessity of the case. Now, what is this but the world's principle, and a principle of the most roguish part of the world, throughout? For example: It is wrong to tell a lie. But there is some strong necessity, some particular reason for it, and I must.-It is wrong to violate a solemn engagement. But here is something of a very urgent kind, and I must. It is wrong to depart from a pledge once given. But there are difficulties which make the further keeping of it extremely inconvenient, and I must.-Now, all that has yet been said in defence of Catholic emancipation, by its new advocates, lies within this circle. They are terrified, and want to terrify us, by the plea of necessity. It is false. There is no necessity. There never was, and never can be, a necessity for doing what is wrong, as you admit this to be. There is, in all such cases, the utmost necessity for continuing to persevere in the right path; as those who desert it are sure to be made very soon to feel. Here then, we say it again, as we have said before, is a case, where religion is both entitled, and bound, to speak. If a person says that he must swerve from the right path, because of necessity, he tells us a secret. He tells us, that" must" will make him yield to any thing. He tells us, that he is not to be trusted. He tells us, that there is no situation of confidence and trial, where he can be placed, in which he will not be found to fail, if a sufficiently strong inducement be employed to make him. If national honour, if national pledges, if his word, if his country, if his king, is to be sacrificed-no matter: Apply the requisite power, and his yielding is as certain as the laws of motion. The only thing necessary is, to place him in the requisite circumstances, and he yields of course; because he yields on principle-it is his PRINCIPLE that we must yield to circumstances. Thus it is in the present case. There are objections to this measure; there are circumstances which seem to require it. The latter, in the minds of those we have trusted, are the stronger of the two: all gives way: they yield! The necessity lies in such circumstances, as, in long speeches of petty details, they have endeavoured to make out. The objections lie in the loss of national character, of public character, of private character; in the folly, in the iniquity, in the sin; in the danger to the nation, in the peril to our public institutions, in

the curse belonging to every land that publicly tolerates idolatry. The objections are thought insufficient, the necessity is thought paramount, and all is surrendered!

We are not now talking with those, who deny that there is any wrong or any danger in the case: but with those who once alleged the wrong and danger, and who still admit it; and yet, so abruptly, so treacherously, and with so little of the ordinary decencies of tergiversation, have given way. We speak of them as yielding. But, no. We fear, of some amongst them, it may with great truth be said, that they have lent themselves to the designs of their late opponents. Nay, more, that expression does not convey our full meaning. We fear they have not merely lent themselves to the designs of others, but have themselves been in a plot to carry the object. We say a plot. For, should the present attempt succeed (which, be it remembered throughout, we have not yet brought ourselves even to suppose, except for argument's sake), it will be evident that the question has been thus carried, at a time when it could not have been carried by any other means, than those most extraordinary ones which have actually been employed. And the more we look at all the circumstances, the more we shall see deliberate design, carried on, by the aid of concealment and deception, to the attainment of a nefarious end; and this we can call neither more nor less, than a plot. Why, the country feels itself cheated. We ourselves, as individuals, feel ourselves cheated. Those whom we trusted have unfairly availed themselves of our confidence, and we have been taken in. So the matter really stands: and when this is done deliberately, as in the present case it clearly has been, what can we call it but a plot? We feel our share in the general wrong of the nation, as much as if we were the only sufferers. We feel ourselves personally swindled. "Ah, but," says some one, who perhaps after all has more or less made himself an accomplice," is this Christian? You should shew a little more charity. You should forgive your enemies.' And pray, good sir, who by your signature, or by your vote, or by your countenance, or in some way or other, have helped this wrong against which we remonstrate, how do you know that we have not forgiven them? We have forgiven them, and you too. We do forgive them, and you too. Yes, from the heart. But that is not the point. Here is a mass of public delinquency, and it must be protested against. We say that we have been taken in.

For, in the first place, it was in the confidence that they would maintain the Protestant cause, and resist the aspiring claims of the Papists, that the present administration got into power. On this ground it was, that they received the cordial support of the

country. They, after the conflicts, the revolutions, and the general shipwreck of character, which attended the preceding changes, made a shew of something like principle and stability: and all who had yet a character to lose, seemed willing to rally round them. Oh, on what high ground might they now have been standing, with a little consistency! Their position, the confidence of the nation, the blessing of God resting upon a Protestant church and people, would have given them dignity! But alas, how fallen!

At what time the purpose of tergiversation was first formed, does not appear. The designs which actuated some hearts, there is reason to think, were always the same. This, however, is evident that the plan was laid, long before it was suffered to transpire. Now, even if, under such circumstances, there had been nothing more than concealment, the nation, then, would have had just cause to complain. But there was more than concealment. There was deceit. There were acts designed and calculated to deceive, and attended with that effect. To deny or question this, is not charity; but, provided a person is acquainted with the facts, wilful blindness. Where there is public delinquency, that is a mongrel charity, which would forbid our publicly letting in upon it the light of truth. If a man perceives that his conduct is producing a certain impression, and that a false one, and perseveres in such conduct, what is this, but wilful deception? What can we say in such cases, but that a false impression is wilfully conveyed? If a person appeals, in such cases, to certain acts, of which he now says that they left him free, what is this, but to tell us of conduct which was meant to deceive at the time? And what is the use of pleading this, as a proof of sincerity? We complain that a false impression was wilfully conveyed. What is the use of denying it? There were acts of a deceptious character, and people were deceived by them. Look, for instance, at the abrupt dismission of the Lord-Lieutenant. What impression was this measure calculated to convey? What impression did it convey? Look at the journals of the day, and it will be seen. He has forgotten himself. He has been tampering with the Roman Catholics. This is not to be suffered. He shall go.'-What did men infer from this? Assuredly, that the Protestant cause was still to be steadily and decisively maintained. The Catholics raised a howl of rage and despair. The Protestants felt satisfied and encouraged. Who, asserting at the time that the ministers who adopted this measure were, at the very moment of adopting it, harbouring secret designs favourable to Popery, would have been listened to for one moment?