fifth partake largely of the general character of your code, in being direct provocatives to metaphysical disquisition, and tending to encourage a vigorous exercise of reason in matters connected with faith. To call the ratiocinative faculties into full play up to a certain point in religious belief, and then suddenly attempt to paralyse them by the exaltation of faith, "that believeth all things," and revelation which is beyond reason's comprehension, is not more unjust than it may prove unsuccessful.

"Do we exalt the Creator, by degrading the Creature?" is the precise question which the disciples of the goddess of reason are wont to reiterate. How would the French Cyclopedists have chuckled to have heard such an inquiry proceed from the lips of a Christian bishop!

The conclusion your Lordship seeks, in the 5th question of the 3d Chapter, viz. " that it is contrary to our tenth Article to declare that man has no share in the work of his own salvation," does not legitimately follow out of your premises. In the preceding assumptions (by query) but one fragment of that article is introduced, and that moreover in a patchwork subordinate kind of style, without any allusion to the source whence it is derived; such premises, as we insist, cannot yield such a conclusion.

Questions 9, 10, and 13 of the same Chapter, will again be answered diversely: some good men will feel assured that Scripture makes against your tenet, where you think to have it on its side; and the more self-loathing, humble, and contrite, are the more likely to "order their conduct aright," and to conceive indispensable "advantages are to be derived from the doctrine that God is the sole agent in the work of man's salvation." We wish that the use of the indicative for the potential mood were the sole fault of the very next question; but it involves an assumption as to the equality of the manifested power of God, in supposed cases, which has no Scripture to warrant it; and to repeat a former definition, it is a direct provocative to abstruse, intricate and bewildering researches. The 12th inferential query suggests to us but one remark, which is, that having begged the question, your Lordship finds it peculiarly easy to furnish the conclusion.

The three first questions of the 4th Chapter resolve them

66

selves into this, that BECAUSE of the Articles and first Homily, the latter distinguishes justification from salvation, and the former represents justification as preceding the performance of all our good works, ERGO; justification takes place in this present world. The ellipsis after ergo, of " according to the articles and first homily," is somewhat too violent for the precision of logic. In the question whether "our justification is not the mere commencement of THAT, of which, in the general scheme of redemption, everlasting salvation is the end?" while our ideas of justification, redemption, and everlasting salvation are distinct and unconfused, we can attach no definite idea to THAT.

For the title "of justification, in reference to the time, when it takes place," which heads the third Section of Chapter the 4th, your Lordship should substitute "of justification, in reference to WHAT takes place, at the time wHEN it takes place." NOT A HINT is dropped as to the TIME when it does take place; and the distinction between justification and regeneration is by no means so accurately drawn that " a wayfaring man tho' a fool" shall be able to comprehend their respective differences.

From the superscription" of everlasting salvation," which introduces us to Chapter the 5th, we were led to expect much more than an exclusive exposition of the indispensableness of good works to everlasting salvation. In passing, we must notice, that the 3d question of this Chapter, is worded towards the end, in as awkward and slovenly a manner, as your most inveterate antagonist could wish.

The logic of the three first questions of the 6th Chapter, is as exceptionable as that of the three first questions of the 4th; while its concluding arguments are further excitements to the uncontrolled exercise of reason; and proceed on the suppo-. sition, that reason can fathom the Almighty mind.

Your Lordship's questions in Chapter the 7th, give us cause to inquire, what are your ideas of conversion or that visible change from the wicked course of life to the contrary, which at times is so conspicuous an occurrence ;—at the same time they launch into subtleties beyond the general meaning of the article which they pretend to interpret.

We are unable to perceive the applicability of the "when" and the "then" in the 4th Question, since they dress the case as one liable to exceptions, though the whole tenour of the Chapter is levelled against such a possible misconception.

We shall now close our criticisms seriatim, by adding, that on the second Question of the 8th Chapter, as in many others we have pointed out, diversities of opinion ever have prevailed and ever will prevail; and that therefore, together with all of its species, it is little fitted for the Christian purpose of strengthening the bonds of peace, enlarging the pale of the church, and removing causes of offence out of the way of weak brethren.

These criticisms, My Lord, have not been dictated by a love of entering into the "curious points" of theological dispute :—and far less have they been dictated by a particular enmity to the theological tenets of your Lordship. We differ widely from the men-conscientious as we believe them to be in their opinions-whom at Cambridge and elsewhere you have ably, steadily, and zealously opposed. Whether, and how far, reason can be the true test of faith: what is the positive or comparative efficacy of faith and good works in procuring our salvation-and what effects the fall of Adam has produced on his posterity-are questions, which, now at least, we have neither space nor inclination to discuss. Our wish is, that Christianity may not be "divided against itself;" that the "odium theologicum" may decrease, and ultimately die away: that the temple of our national religion may be built upon the widest and most liberal foundations, which are consistent with its safety, its honour, and its strength: and that you therefore, my Lord, would withdraw questions, which are proposed in the very teeth of the royal declaration; against the design and tendency of which we can adduce, if it becomes necessary, the written and printed opinions of many bishops and other dignitaries of the church-and which have created a painful feeling of dissatisfaction and disquietude in the breasts of thousands, who are staunch, and honest, and devoted friends to the ecclesiastical establishment.

And now, my Lord, may we not almost hope, that we have yourself among the number of converts to our conviction of the necessity for abandoning your Examination Questions?— We do honestly avow, that we hold it impossible for you, after perusing our arguments, to remain unconvinced of, and uninfluenced by, their weight and truth. We observe that you have persevered, DOUBTING; we believe you will DOUBT no longer we speak boldly of our own opinion, but we do so from feeling, that when truth and error come into juxtaposition, they form a contrast as striking as it is intelligible. We believe that the faculty of seeing the truth, when it is fairly placed before it, is inherent in the mind; that blindness to the truth under such circumstances is next to impossible; and that though it may be sometimes inoperative, oftener, we should say, apparently than really, truth generally acts on the mind with a power of attraction.

My Lord, we regret that our quarrel with a dignitary of the church, should be carried on contemporaneously with the most insane and flagitious attack upon the church itself, that we ever remember to have witnessed. What temptation a journal that professes to be the oracle of any portion of respectable society, can have to publish libels daily on the conduct and character of the clergy, we are at a loss to imagine; we are at no loss however to assert, and that too from actual information, that "its sins are finding it out," and that it is already reaping the reward of its insidiousness, insults, ignorance, and untruths.

My Lord, though hoping to effect little without the cooperation of others, we are too jealous of our character, and respect ourselves too much, not to keep aloof from all assistance that is unworthy of a noble cause-we will check the very applause that may be given us, whenever it be born of any other feeling, than the love of plain-dealing. If, my Lord, you find in our practice a warrant for our professions, you will attach some importance to our opposition, as being the very reverse of that of which you have had cause to complain, and of which you affirm, that "when viewed in its true light, it may be regarded as an argument in your favour." In conclusion, my Lord, let us not be misunderstood. We know you to be not only an acute and learned man, who have sought

to devote your learning and acuteness to the service of the established church; but a man, generally, of good intentions and exemplary character. We know you to be a pious Christian, as well as an excellent divine. But, my Lord, the greater may be your weight, the more established may be your reputation, so much the more pernicious are your errors. Unfortunately, we have found it impossible to conceal from ourselves, that you are mistaken; and we have felt it necessary to dissuade you from a longer continuance in your mistake. We must even once more repeat, with regard to the course which you are pursuing, that we have a thorough conviction of its impolicy, and very serious apprehensions of its illegality. We take our leave of your Lordship, by recording our belief, that if we have convinced you of the necessity of the sacrifice which is required at your hands, magnanimity to perform it will not be wanting in one whose zeal is so great in the service of his God.

We remain, my Lord,

with sincere respect,

Your Lordship's most obedient servants,

The Council of Ten.

SECOND LETTER TO LORD BYRON ON THE

MY LORD,*

LIBERAL.

WE write upon this subject with reluctance and disgust. Why then should we write at all? Is it, that we are alarmed at the progress of "the Liberal?" Is it, that we view with apprehension and horror its fatal and demoralizing effects upon the public mind?—that we feel irresistibly impelled by the urgent necessity of the case to lift up our voices against the progress of irreligious and revolutionary opinions? -that we behold the coupled monsters of atheism and

* We are aware of the blunder "My Lord, We write." We leave it on purpose as we wish to know, when we write in the plural number, how we are to get rid of the solecism.