"Oh, what honour is accumulating in the world above! We inform them of a morning which is not to be succeeded by night; of a subjection which is more illustrious than all the victories that the universe will have ever before beheld; of a finite nature which is clothed with eternal and uncreated light; of the very last of all the complicated actions belonging to the redemption of the world; when Jesus Christ shall bring before his Father the millions that He has saved from every species and degree of crime and degradation, for the purpose of introducing them to everlasting fellowship with Jehovah; and when _He_ shall become subject, to whom perpetual supremacy belongs, in order that He may show to saints and angels what has been the greatness of His humiliation, and how unutterable is the grandeur of God; since when He has risen from infancy in Bethlehem on earth, to a degree of strength, of lustre, of possession, and of renown, which all created capacity is inadequate to comprehend, the next degree of glory above this, is an act of voluntary subjection to his heavenly Father; which the honours of the supreme throne, and the laws of infinite existence, require." p. 365. _Dissent not Schism. A Discourse delivered in the Poultry Chapel, December 12th, 1834, at the Monthly Meeting, &c._ By T. BINNEY--Robinson, 25, Ludgate Hill. Very elaborate, acute, argumentative, instructive, and convincing. The term _schism_, Mr. B. tells us, is literal, figurative, or ecclesiastical; but query, is not the ecclesiastical figurative? If so, the division is only twofold. Dr. Campbell's Dissertations (art, heresy and schism) deserve to be consulted. Mr. B., when referring to the three great forms of church government--episcopacy, presbyterianism, and congregationalism, has surprised us a little, by saying:-- "There is something in the record in favour of all; but the book is not the exclusive property of any. There is more, perhaps, in support of each than the thorough-going advocates of the others will admit. There is more of episcopacy than is quite palatable to the presbyterian and the independent; there is more of presbyterianism than the independent and the episcopalian can easily digest; and there is more of congregationalism than either the priest or the presbyter can manage to get rid of." p. 69. Is this to be understood _cum grano salis_, or are we left to infer that the worthy author himself is not quite settled in his own mind as to the interpretation of the record? It might have been as well if Mr. B. had confined himself to Dissenters, _as such_; however, his animadversions on the Methodists and the strict-communion Baptists, pp. 81-83, will do them no harm. His castigation of the present bishop of London, in the "notes," is not more severe than just. The bishop will remember it as long as he lives. We must make room for the concluding paragraph:--