here have I been collecting illumination for years, in the sunny South, and it is high time to place me in some situa tion, where I may give it out for the benefit of that land of darkness and reprobation-Scotland. I must warn the Doctor at the same time, however, that I shall still continue the hazardous habit of thinking for myself,-that I shall support his opinions only when I think them right, and moreover, that should he ever find it necessary to give me a "drubbing” for opposing his views, it is perfectly possible that I may do my best to give him a Rowland for his Oliver, though, I doubt not, that I shall find him rather heavier metal than ANGLICANUS, in about the proportion of a Turkish mortar to a pop-gun. And perhaps I may not then feel the same necessity to reply to his drubbing, that I now feel to repel the charges of a "skulking nameless accuser, who, without the courage to be an antagonist, lacks not the malice to be an enemy."

sor

I confess that I have not forgotten my Presbyterian education, or my early predilections, as my betters for the most part do. And I will not dispute the propriety or the wisdom of the conduct of those who, in Scotland are Presbyterians, and Episcopalians in England,-who, on either side of the Tweed,-unhappy stream!-like simple sheep, attach their Orthodoxy to, and permit themselves to be led by the Bell, for they are my betters. But could a Presbyterian minister have written this? I think not; and therefore I think that the Rev. HENRY GREY is not ANGLICANUS. As to the " did sentiments, vulgar manners, and money-loving habits," I shall offer a defence when any man, who has a respectable name, shall choose to put that name to the charge. But it cannot be expected that I should waste my time on compliments like this, from a "skulking, nameless accuser, who without the courage to be an antagonist, lacks not the malice to be an enemy." "I thank thee, Jew, for that phrase." That I have not changed "my sentiments with the scene of my existence," is true, though the fact may militate against the phrenological improvement mentioned above. The consideration of this circumstance I remit to Mr Combe, and observe that while no Englishman, or Episcopalian, can think the less

of me, every Presbyterian must think the more of me, that my sentiments have not changed with change of place. And in opposition to the low abuse of our sentiments, manners, and habits, by this charitable writer, I shall refer to the testimony of two men, whose evidence will decide the question with all who know how to estimate it, as it is the evidence of men, in whose character the Gentleman, the Scholar, and the Christian meet, and will be decisive with ANGLICANUS himself, because they are rich and Episcopalians. I refer to Dr Van Mildert, Bishop of Durham, and Archdeacon Singleton, each of whom, in the Charge at his primary visitation, spoke of the Scottish Ministers settled in the North of England, in a style, of which I shall only say, that in every thing, it was directly the reverse of that used by ANGLICANUS. Had they somewhat undervalued us, circumstances might have accounted for it, and candour would have overlooked it. But so far were they from doing so, that they exhorted their Clergy to cultivate our acquaintance, and to treat us as brethren; an exhortation which I can testify that I have, in few instances, found the Clergy indisposed to follow. Sickness prevented me enjoying the pleasure of hearing the Charges myself, but I have heard of their contents both from Ministers of the Established Church and Dissenters. And how poor a creature does the narrow-minded ANGLICANUS appear, in comparison of such men, to whom it is almost an insult to quote them in refutation of him! Yet the newspapers would persuade me that he is a minister of the Church of Scotland!

I am next charged with showing my detestation of the men whom I do not know, and of the affairs that I do not understand. In connexion with this charge, though I hate to transcribe, or to write down any body's nonsense but my own,-I must present two other passages from these Letters. The first occurs in page 8.

"Not to know the men, the patriots, and philanthropists, called on every occasion, by the suffrages of their countrymen, to the post of exertion, to the succour of the poor, the oppressed, the defenceless, argues something worse of us, in these times, than that we are ourselves unknown. Are the names of Gambier, Teignmouth, Roden,

new to us, except as connected with what is called "the Earl Street delinquency ?" Are Buxton, Macaulay, Grant, &c. signalized by no distinguishable characteristic, except that of adulterators of God's Word?"

Turn we now to page 60, where it is written

"Where is the Royal Duke, or popular Parliament-man, or placeholding Nobleman, that has ever meddled with a movement, or influenced a decision of the Bible Society? or the individual among the Society's efficient labourers, who has ever asked a favour, or found an avenue open to him for the prosecution of his private interest, through ties held in that Association? The humble, and on earth humbly requited services of the spiritual temple are left to those whose hearts affect these labours-the men of the world covet no share in them."

Now, supposing that I should know nothing of these men, this may argue that I am myself unknown,-a truth which I fancy no argument is necessary to prove, yet what worse it can argue I do not very clearly see. I did, however, know something of them, even before the Letters of ANGLICANUS appeared, and I now know something more. I know that they take an active, influential part in the Earl Street proceedings, and I know farther, that they take no part whatever in these proceedings. And if it be true that no "Royal Duke, or popular Parliament-man, or place-holding Nobleman, ever meddled with a movement, or influenced a decision of the Bible Society," why, then, in the name of common sense, are we pestered with the names, and borne down by the authority of Gambier, Teignmouth, Roden,-and, Ah! my Bexley, why wert thou forgot !-of Buxton, Macaulay, Grant, &c.? Is the mere repetition of a bead-roll of high-sounding names to terrify us from looking into the errors of an administration, in which, it appears from ANGLICANUS, they have not the slightest share? My knowledge of these men is certainly very limited, nor do I understand much of those affairs which I ought to approve on the authority of men, who, it seems, have no concern in them; but I do know, and understand that ANGLICANUS has here opened a mine of absurdity so rich, that he may be thankful that I have no time to work

D

it. As he considers the officers and agents of Earl Street as humbly requited by an income, two or three times as large as that which he represents me as spending my days in sighing to obtain, this castigator of "bad feeling" might have left a person so very poorly provided with this world's comforts as myself, to enjoy at least my own opinions without reproach, -opinions which I can support without stooping to the use, of such absurdities and contradictions, as he condescends to use in support of his,-and opinions, the soundness, of which I am not led to suspect by the fact, that even the high-toned and well-informed ANGLICANUS instead of refuting, only reproaches me for holding.

The picture next presents a fine simile, and it really is an excellent one, about picturesque scenery on other mens estates. This is just a recurrence to the old theme of my poverty. A man's opinion is worth just as much as he can afford to give in support of it. And as I can afford to give little, why should any institution seek for my support? I am poor, and

Why should the poor be flattered?

No; let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp,

And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee,
Where thrift may follow fawning."

His Pamphlet is worth eighteen-pence, and therefore is infinitely superior to the "Second Statement," which, as an official document, was distributed gratuitously. Yet, this man who, on the ground of his own superior richness, presumes to insult my poverty,-who urges as one argument in defence of the Continental alliances of the London Committee, the poor and uninfluential situation of the Continental Christians,-and who considers my support as a matter of very little importance to any institution, because I have little to give-even this devoted worshipper of the golden god, dares to talk of my money-loving habits as if he knew me, and takes it for granted that I must necessarily be possessed by a spirit of “ cynical discontent," because I am placed in a situation, in which he feels, that even the appointment of the Almighty could not enable him to say with the Apostle, "I have learned in whatsoever state I am, to be content."

He talks of my "more pious and Christianly-affectioned neighbours." I have too much respect for my Episcopalian neighbours, and have been too long accustomed to the interchange of offices of kindness with them, to be at all offended with any compliments that he can pay them, even though paid at my expense, and with an insidious view to create jealousy. I have never had, and trust I shall never have, any other contention with them, than that which consists in " provoking to love and to good works." I notice the expression only to ask, if it be possible that a minister of the Church of Scotland could proclaim it as a thing undisputed, that the members of that Church, in England, must be inferior to their neighbours in piety and Christian affection ? I think not, and, therefore, again I say, I do not think that ANGLICANUS is the Rev. H. GREY.

"

Finally, I may have credit for the cordial antipathy and ill-will I make a brag of against men who have been provokingly long signalized with the title of the Just." On this I would remark, in the first place, that it is only in narrow minds, like that of ANGLICANUS, that difference of opinion produces antipathy and ill-will, and he may wonder, as I dare say nobody else does, that the members of the Edinburgh Presbytery, though of opposite views on some points, yet do not feel towards one another any antipathy or ill-will. In the next place, he may possibly have condescended to make himself more familiar with our sentiments and feelings than I can pretend to be. For myself, I know not that any ill-will has been even expressed, much less bragged of, by any of those whom ANGLICANUS humbles himself to honour with his abuse. And in the third place, I never heard the London Committee signalized by the title of the Just, till I read ANGLICANUS; nor, had they merited that title, am I aware that my hating them on that ground can be accounted for on any principle excepting one-that I am actuated by a feeling of the most diabolical description. I know not what reason I have ever given ANGLICANUS to suspect me of such a feeling,—a feeling which I should hope he was not led to impute to me, merely because he found it rankling in his own bosom, though where