Learn, then, kind reader, to value like myself as the highest encomiums, the disapprobation of all those whose love of truth and improvement ends where their own interests begin-learn when subjected to their criticisms to do as I do, "to glory in my shame:" to beseech them not to spare their strength, as their best directed blows may perhaps fall upon you as they now do upon me, as the hammer upon steel, only to temper it more effectually for its future trials: learn with me to pity the cause whose best remaining support is THE ABUSE OF OPPONENTS, and strive with me to avoid all encroachment upon THAT PRIVILEGE which is now universally recognized as belonging exclusively to ANTI-CHURCH REFORMERS. "The man," says Bishop Taylor, most truly, "the man that cannot be even with his brother but by pulling him down is but a dwarf still:" and those men know little indeed OF THE REAL PRINCIPLES which actuate the advocates OF REFORM, who think it essential to our success to cease to " pay honour to whom honour is due."-or who cannot understand how by every word of conciliation and respect a reformer is actually rendering himself only MORE FREE "to wrestle with principalities, and powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places," whenever, as I fear must shortly be the case in England, an eventful struggle takes place, which is to decide THE ASCENDANCY OF PARTY OR OF PRINCIPLE in a nation.

If, however, to asperse our present Primate be an essential requisite in any one's opinion to constitute a Church Reformer's consistency, I most cheerfully resign all pretensions to the name, and shall incur with gratitude the severest chastisement of those "REMARKS" by which ingenuity may be able to convict me of seeking "that thrift which follows fawning:" for I think my most bitter enemy, (though my conscience tells me not what I have

done to make any man justly my enemy) if he does suspect me of seeking worldly aggrandizement cannot deny to me the badge of enterprize, as I have at least embarked on board a vessel which has hitherto been too much the sport of every tide, ever to reach the haven. Farewell then to "REMARKERS"-if any find it their interest to depreciate their brethren in the estimation of powerful patrons, or think it may bring fish to their own net to multiply the holes in that of their neighbour; they are perfectly welcome to look upon me as their rival: their abuse is as acceptable to me as "water from the rock" was to the wanderers in the wilderness, and seems to me so totally inconsistent with a Christian profession, that careless of all "Remarks" I now proceed to the immediate object of this addition to my Postscript, and can most truly aver that it is from a lowly ambition of becoming at this crisis, so pregnant with good or evil to the Established Church, an humble instrument of securing an additional tribute of public esteem for the Archbishop of Canterbury, that I implore his Grace to take into timely consideration the propriety of REFORM IN HIS SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT LAMBETH-that I would beg most respectfully, and, if possible, inoffensively to press upon his Grace an immediate and voluntary ABOLITION OF ALL THOSE FEES,› (not only those to which I am especially referring)—whose existence cannot but lead to inferences dangerous to his Grace's character, as being a bold presumption on public patience, and only the more dangerous in proportion to the elevated office of an Archbishop, and the exalted character of the present one of Canterbury:-and whose discontinuance at the suggestion of an insignificant unit like myself, would pourtray his Grace in that most attractive attitude, "as conceding to the claims of justice, even when urged upon him by one who possesses neither the

power to redress a wrong, nor the means of rewarding right."

I would beseech the attention of his Grace and other Archbishops and Bishops to this subject the more earnestly as I can speak from personal knowledge to the many baneful yet incontrovertible conclusions to which ecclesiastical, especially EPISCOPAL FEES lead, most lamentably PREJUDICIAL TO THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH, and in many cases unjust to those whose character their consideration involves and surely whatever may be the conclusions, to which my mention of the subject may lead, I may at least presume on episcopal forgiveness for not entering at present on a more detailed recapitulation of the fees to which I allude: I therefore prefer to say that I by no means wish to evade a statement of them, but think them better reserved for the private audience of those superiors, who may doubt the correctness of my information, or the soundness of my judgement against them.

I now confine my observations to the Archbishop of Canterbury's SECRETARY'S FEES, and as I wish to provoke no unnecessary discussion by their mention, I purposely avoid noticing THE OBLIGATIONS OF CHRISTIANITY on the subject, because we should otherwise be obliged to insist upon the reasons for THEIR ABOLITION, which are so obviously deducible from THE OFFICE OF A BISHOP, and so be led on inevitably to discuss the amount of the Archbishop of Canterbury's INCOME AS A MINISTER OF CHRIST, which with others, as York, London, Durham, Winchester, &c. it appears to me quite preposterous to attempt to justify or excuse, when we connect with the consideration, the selfdenial required in those who preach the Gospel, THE LAMENTABLE WANT OF ADDITIONAL BISHOPS IN ENGLAND,* the sad deficiency of accommodation for our poor

How long is it since the country has been buoyed up by promises and

F

and increased population, the various and crying necessities of the church in general, AND THE IRKSOME, OPPRESSIVE, UNJUST, AND DEGRADING POVERTY OF MANY OF THE CLERGY IN PARTICULAR.

*

pledges of CHURCH-REFORM? Is any one old enough to speak to the time. All I know is, that to all appearances we are as far off the goal as we were three years ago, and unless things turn out more favourably than seems probable, all will shortly have to be begun over again. Why are not SINECURES IN THE CHURCH abolished: it is said, that "they are in the State."-Why do PLURALITIES continue? it is universally ACKNOWLEDGED that they ARE EVILS.-Counties are divided!! Why then is not the Archbishopric of York divided and subdivided? Why may not the Deanery of York be converted into a bishopric for the division for the East-Riding, without any lordly pri vileges, but with all the ecclesiastical patronage in that division? Why may not the North-Riding have its own Bishop? Why may not a new Bishop be located at Southwell for the Archdeaconry of Nottingham? Why may not the West-Riding alone be left to the episcopy of the Archbishop of York? it would leave plenty of scope for the greatest abilities!!-Why may not the the Deanery of Durham be converted into a new bishopric for one of the divisions for that county, and the remaining part of the diocese of Durham and the whole of Chester be conveniently divided into three, and the revenues of Durham and Chester equally shared among the three ?-Why may not such changes as these be thought of or discussed in good temper, and without stirring up a thousand enemies, like a nest of hornets ?-Shall I tell you, kind reader, why, I think, this cannot be? I will, if you will promise not to spite me by keeping it a secret. It is because principle is run down by party because all the rounds of the episcopal ladder are not the same :—because it is unnatural to man to condescend to look downwards, till he has no temptation to look upwards: it is because every party thinks that their own turn may come next, and all want to have their fill of the fruit of the present system, before they spoil it for another.-If any Bishop, Nobleman, or Commoner with influence, will take up the question of CHURCH-REFORM in "an HONEST and GOOD heart," he will find it as easy as putting a child's map together: and the country will carry him triumphantly over the heads of his enemies, till even they shall turn to cheer him in the sunshine of success, or be left to sing their dirges to the RATS and BATS, with whose migration reformers will be most happy to dispense, as they are by no means solicitous to introduce into their new edifices pests, which have so long haunted the old castles of their > ancestry.

*"Degrading." In connection with this part of the subject, I would beg per

mission just to ask the Bishops, "Why not at once wash your hands in inno、 cency, as regards all pecuniary arrangements between incumbents and curates?", The present power entrusted to you is, I suppose, found too weak to prevent frauds, even when you are made acquainted with them.-Would it not then be much more creditable, I may almost say natural in a Bishop to say, "The legis lature does not think a Bishop, trustworthy enough to extend to him any power to punish an incumbent for cheating: I therefore as a Bishop will not be a party to his fraud: I have my duty to discharge to God, to the church, and myself, and what cannot be cured must be endured: therefore all I insist upon is, that no incumbent have a curate without a title and license from me, nor remove any without my permission; but as to pecuniary ar rangements, I shall ask no questions least they be evaded, and impose no oaths, least any one swear falsely. Let parties settle money matters as they please, I will not connive at arrangements notoriously illegal, yet so evasively managed as not to be punishable by law." Now as I have already been considerably taunted by being publicly called upon by the honourable A. Trevor to substantiate accusations by FACTS, and I would not withdraw any one I yet have made "to save my heart's strings from consuming," his Grace the Archbishop of York will perhaps be more disposed to believe that I am cognizant of several instances of curates receiving less than their legal dues, and to withhold his countenance from those, who would provoke me to their own shame, when I ask his Grace to refer to the list of licenses and titles granted by him, to see whether any curate has been within two years appointed to a Living, which was possibly at my option to accept at the death of the last incumbent. Let me assure his Grace and all others, that no man can possibly desire more than myself to prevent a collision with his brethren, and I think that I have made the above allusion unintelligible to all but our Diocesan and those who have access to his Grace's papers. His Grace may depend upon it that though my armoury is pretty strong, my worst wish is to turn the sword into the pruning hook: but if self-preservation ever do render it necessary to unsheath a dagger, I am not one who will refuse to hand it to the public to decide THE MAKER'S NAME.

If men of any party (I care not by what name they pass in the world) think to bully or browbeat reformers by personal abuse, or taunting them with the “ onus probandi :" the consequences may fall where they are least expected. The CONNECTIONS of some men proclaim the AUTHORS OF THEIR OPINIONS. Let "men of connection" then beware: opinions dealt out second hand, only give us the opportunity of conversing with the real author more freely : it is dangerous to play too rashly with edged tools; for it is not always the most polished that cut the deepest, and the tear of the roughest may leave à scar. Facts, whether past or present, give even a rustic, something to cut at: I desire to live peaceably with all men, no one more so: but some of the