duty of observing the Lord's-day; or so express myself as to leave my hearers to suppose (as a great proportion of them will, if the contrary be not stated) that I meant to refer to that law as binding, I should be guilty of directly fostering error.'

I request his Grace to show, that the first extract is not his own opinion of,—and the second extract his own condemnation of,—his own conduct at the holy communion.

As one of those who have read his pamphlet-as a minister of that church of which he is a head, I solemnly call upon him to reconcile his own judgment with his own conduct at our most solemn ceremony. In the name of his own clergy, whom he is bound to guide; in the name of their flocks, whom he is bound to instruct; in the name of both, to whom he is bound to be an example,-I call upon him to reconcile his own conduct with truth, and to defend himself from the charge which he seems to have affixed upon himself, of directly fostering,-what he conceives to be,-error, from views, which he avows to be, those of expediency.

His Grace seems to think that the whole amount of evil, which can arise from his public avowal of the opinion he has adopted, is the fear of unsettling the minds of the common people.' Hence he would lead us to suppose that he is merely exposing popular errors. But the charge we have to make against him is much more serious than this. He is endeavouring to destroy the foundation of all religion. He proclaims as a law of God, what he does not believe to be a law of God. He sets himself up in opposition to the church, whose doctrine and form of worship he has promised to support and defend, and to whose liturgy he has solemnly pledged himself to conform.

6

But his Grace may ask, Is a member of a church, or a head of a church, to be prohibited from exposing the errors

of the church to which he belongs?" Certainly not,-provided he shall have first duly considered and examined the grounds of his opinions, and with humble and fervent prayer for divine assistance, shall have carefully and patiently compared the points in doubt with the whole tenor of scripture. If his doubts be not thus removed, he ought to lay them before those who have the power of correcting those errors, if errors they be. And if he fail in having them corrected, he must choose between the alternative of directly fostering error, by being obliged to teach as truth what he does not believe,-or of seceding from a church in whose services he cannot conscientiously join.

But his Grace has not given this subject that deep investigation, or formed that mature judgment, which the case required. He has hastily quoted a few arguments from other authors. He has quoted texts from their books, or from memory, without examining either the texts, or the context, in the Bible. This charge is proved by his telling us that we shall find everywhere in Ezekiel, a text which occurs only twice in one chapter, and only four times in the whole Bible. It is proved that he did not attentively read the miracles and discourses of our Lord to which he refers, by his pronouncing actions as unlawful which our Saviour maintained to be lawful; and by his condemning the disciples as guilty of violating the sabbath, whom our Lord affirmed to be guiltless; and by his having misunderstood and misrepresented our Lord's plain interpretations of the nature of the sabbath, and of the true spirit of the Jewish law. But even if his Grace had submitted the passages and arguments which he borrowed from others to the strictest and most rigid scrutiny, still this would have been a small part of the examination he should have given to the question of the validity of a law confessedly divine, adopted and enforced by the church, and generally received

and cherished by all Christians. He ought to have tried and examined it by the whole tenor of scripture. This he has not done.

But why do I make such charges against an elder of our church? Is it to depreciate his character, or that of his. high office? God forbid. No one more ardently desires to see that high office suitably maintained and generally venerated. But I wish to protect both his character and office from the injurious effects which must follow, and have already followed, from his own publication against the sabbath. And if I have used strong language condemning his opinions and arguments on that subject, I have done so to induce, to urge, nay, to constrain and compel, his Grace to a review of the question. The most eminent judges constantly re-consider their own decisions, and not unfrequently reverse them. Such revisions exalt and ennoble men of high and lofty characters, who amidst the splendour of their honours, which is only the reflection of the superior splendour of their talents and their virtues, remember that they are but men, and that human nature, however exalted by genius, or refined by virtue, is still liable to err. Little minds having little to be admired, and conscious of having nothing to spare, shrink from a confession of error.

His Grace has some peculiarities of an author, which are dangerous to one in his high situation in the church; over these he should exercise a holy jealousy, and over these I throw a veil. But I believe him to have one peculiarity of rather uncommon growth among authors,-an amiable candour, which will induce him to give as patient attention to strictures upon his opinions by any person however humble, as he would to the most splendid advocacy in their defence. To this amiable quality I appeal, and descend from the language of opposition and reprehension to the softened tone of supplication, beseeching his

Grace to re-consider his verdict and his sentence, and, rejecting all human authority, to take the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, as his unerring guide.

The reversal of his opinion founded on conscientious conviction, would raise his character higher than it was before the publication of his Thoughts on the Sabbath; would confer benefits on the cause of religion, greatly counterbalancing the evils he has unintentionally caused; would heal the wounds he has unwittingly inflicted on tender consciences, and be one great step towards his recovering the confidence of the clergy of our church in general, and of his own diocese in particular, and of the protestant community at large.

THE END.

LONDON:

IBOTSON AND PALMER, PRINTERS, SAVOY-STREET, STRAND.