a decision. Dr. Hook does the same with regard to Mr. M'Mullen. Dr. Hook seeks to vindicate himself_by coming forward to avow his Reformation principles; yet who can doubt that Dr. H. is responsible for the introduction of all this mischief into Leeds, and who would wonder to see Dr. Hook coming to Mr. Paley's issue! We may possibly revert to Dr. Hook's vindication, than which nothing can be more unsatisfactory to a sound Protestant. Where, in his articles of belief, is there any clear and unequivocal avowal of the doctrine of justification by faith? and would not any one conclude that he regards the Sacraments as the only channel through which pardon and forgiveness are conveyed? There are other very questionable statements. But we have not space now to pursue the subject. We only hope that if it is indeed true, as stated by the writer of the letter, that Dr. Hook has published a pastoral letter (1846,) in which the belief is expressed that the saints pray for us in heaven, the Bishop of Ripon will see that he has something tangible on which to act, and that he will act promptly and decisively, by arresting this fearful heterodoxy at head quar

ters.

SIR,-When such an event occurs as the departure of several members of our Apostolical Church from the pale of her communion, for an union with a church which from their earliest infancy they were taught to believe heretical, it becomes us well, I conceive, carefully to examine into the reasons of their defection, and by finding out, if possible, the cause, to guard against the repetition of so sad a catastrophe. It is, Sir, I assure you, under a deep sense of this obligation, I address you on the present occasion; and if in the course of my remarks, any statement should be made, which reflects upon the conduct of any person, I entreat him and you to bear in mind that the necessity which the importance of the matter has laid upon me, compels me to suppress anything, but to tell the whole truth, however painful to those implicated.

It appears, that the Rev. Mr. M'Mullen, curate of St. Saviour's, at least one who has been doing duty there for some time; Mr. D. Haigh, Mr. Wilkinson, and Mr. Bruce have openly renounced the principles of the Church of England, and embraced those of the Church of Rome.

This event, however, calculated to create astonishment in those at a distance, did not at all surprise me, or any persons acquainted with the proceedings at St. Saviour's Church, in this town. It was a thing which I expected to take place for some time. Indeed from the time that St. Saviour's Church was consecrated, I was led to look upon it, and all those connected with its erection, with fear and distrust.

66

First of all, the choice of the original name Holy Cross Church," the laying of the foundation stone on the so-called Holy Cross Day, and the unauthorised service, which seemed to accredit the lying legend of that day, by its allusions to the mere material cross; in which all the clergy assembled took part, and which had a far nearer resemblance to the superstitious observances of the Church of Rome, than to the "reasonable service" of the Protestant Church of England; filled me and many others with painful misgivings as to the future. Our reverend diocesan, in some measure, reassured our minds, by insisting upon the name being changed, and by his forbidding the use of certain communion plate, with the inscription, in Latin, on one chalice, "Pray for the soul of Lucy Pusey," and on another, "Pray for Annabella who gave this," both of these persons being deceased; and also by his doing what no bishop, perhaps, ever did before, actually coming over to inspect the church before allowing it to be consecrated, and then commanding the removal of some of the stained windows, which depicted certain of the blasphemous fables of the Romish Church.

But when the day of consecration drew near, and it became generally known that Dr. Pusey was to take a prominent part in the consecration of the new church, and even to preach upon the day appointed for that cere

monial, many of the clergy of Leeds found themselves in a very difficult position. Dr. Pusey had not retracted the heresy for which he had been condemned by convocation in the University of Oxford, but, on the contrary, had just published an edition of a work by the Jesuit Avrillon, full of the most dangerous doctrine, and recommending the most superstitious observances; and they felt that, by attending the service in which such a teacher was to bear a conspicuous part, they would nullify much of their preaching.

I have heard that one of the clergy thought it his duty to make known to the Bishop (we may easily imagine at what a cost of feeling) his resolution not to attend the consecration, if Dr. Pusey were allowed to inaugurate the New Church.

Whatever the Bishop's reply was, of this we are certain, that the Rev. Mr. Sinclair, the incumbent of St. George's, did not attend the consecration, and that Dr. Pusey did preach in St. Saviour's at the time specified.

The secession of the above-named gentlemen, who have been connected with St. Saviour's since its consecration, attests that their misgivings were correct, and that, if they had gone to the service, they would have weakened the trust in their sound judgment, on which much of the efficacy of their ministrations must depend.

It caused them, no doubt, extreme regret to act, as it seemed, in opposition to the opinions of their Diocesan, but they determined to incur even the hazard of seeming disrespect towards him, rather than by their presence at St. Saviour's do violence to their principles, or stifle their conscientious convictions.

Well, sir, the day of consecration arrived, and the clergy who thought fit to attend were requested to assemble in a school-room adjacent to St. Saviour's Church.

And why, think you? Because it was thought politic to lull the public mind, naturally startled at the whole character of the proceedings, and by the announcement that one of the originators of the Oxford Heresy was to take part in the services of the day, by getting up a formal protest against

Romanism, and deploring the secession of so many members of our Church to Rome. But, unluckily, the scheme failed. Such a protest had been prepared by the Vicar of Leeds, and most of those present signed it; but Dr. Pusey, who, it appears, did not look upon the secessions to Rome with the same degree of regret as the others, refused. As unanimity, however, was conceived to be essentially necessary, to give any effect to such a move, another protest, different from the first, and far more mild in its expressions, and one which it was thought could not be objected to, even by Dr. Pusey, was drawn up and submitted to the gentlemen present.

Many signed it, among whom, if I am rightly informed, was Dr. Pusey; but some of those who had put their names to the former, not relishing the giving place to Dr. Pusey's respectful feelings for the Church of Rome, and for those who had apostatized to its communion, refused to sign this second protest: and the whole scheme ended in opening an opportunity to the Bishop of Ripon for giving a dignified rebuke to the Romanizing tendencies which were so fast developing themselves in some members of the Church.

From that time, sir, to the present, St. Saviour's has been open for public worship.

Though it was boasted that there were three or four hundred persons to attend that church, I am credibly informed that the number of worshippers there has been exceedingly limited; nay, that frequently the congregation was confined to the clergymen and students in the parsonage house, together with a few of the elder scholars of the adjacent school.

I myself, sir, was one day informed by an official of the church, when I went with a friend to view it, that the number of communicants was six, the Sunday before, and for the three preceding Sundays.

This shows that the people in the neighbourhood were not satisfied either with the teaching of the clergy of St. Saviour's, or with their mode of conducting the services of the church. And no wonder, sir, when

one of the clergymen from the pulpit could think it no heterodoxy to give utterance to such an expression as this, "How thankful should we be, brethren, that we have in heaven such a blessed intercessor as the Virgin Mary!" No wonder, sir, when hymns were used, which for their adoration of the Virgin Mary, were not to be surpassed in the Church of Rome itself, hymns not to be used occasionally, but placed on every bench of the church, and certainly sung on last All Saints' Day-no wonder, when, if any person wished to enter the chancel, they were told that it was too holy a place for any but the clergy. This, sir, is no idle report.

An incumbent of a church in this town told me, that when he visited St. Saviour's, to shew it to some friends, the clergyman who went round the church with him, on his expressing a wish to see the chancel, first entered it himself, knelt down, and remained in the posture of prayer for some time. On rising from his knees he opened the screen door and admitted my friend, carefully shutting it after hiin. When they approached the commmunion table, my friend wished to see the cloth, but was not permitted to touch it, till his conductor had knelt down, and while on his knees reverently raised the cloth to the gaze of my friend, and continued kneeling as long as he touched that holy thing!!!

I will not weary you by multiplying instances, wherein the doings of the clergy of St. Saviour's were not only not according to the spirit of the Church of England, but in direct opposition to its declared doctrine and discipline; these will suffice to shew you how good grounds the Protestants in its neighbourhood had for not attending to worship there.

It is impossible, Sir, not to be struck with the extraordinary conduct of the Vicar of Leeds in the further progress of this affair. He had sanctioned the building of this church, in that part of Leeds, over which he had the exclusive cure of souls: he had identified himself with the principles there inculcated by his celebrated letter to the Bishop of Ripon ; he had published in a pastoral letter

of advice to young persons about to be confirmed, the following sentence, which is identical with the doctrine for which Mr. M'Mullen was suspended:-"I believe, O most Holy Jesus, that thy saints here below have communion with thy saints above, they praying for us in Heaven." (See page 28. Published in 1846.) Ànd he has continued silent about the proceedings in St. Saviour's, from the time of its consecration. But when it became manifest that Protestant feeling was becoming more and more alarmed, and that a crisis was impending, he becomes on a sudden more alarmed and more vehement in his abuse of the clergy of St. Saviour's, than any of those who had all along disapproved of their principles. On a sudden he proclaims them, even from the pulpit of his own church, "a nest of hornets at his garden gate."

There are two conflicting statements made by Dr. Hook, on the subject of his lecture at the Assembly Rooms, on the Three Reformations, which I profess myself unable to reconcile. At the conclusion of the lecture, Mr. Ward, the incumbent of St. Saviour's, who had been attentively listening to Dr. Hook, got up and requested to be informed whether the lecturer alluded to him, when he spoke of those who were Romanizing Churchmen. Dr. Hook, in the most candid manner, distinctly disavowed any allusion whatever to Mr. Ward or his church. This, sir, was what a person would be led to expect from Dr. Hook's conduct all through, with respect to St. Saviour's. But, sir, judge of my surprise on being informed by a gentleman well known to you, who heard Dr. Hook's sermon on Sunday morning last, two days after these young men had gone over to Rome, that the Vicar of Leeds, from his pulpit declared, that he had written that lecture, and intended it expressly for the gentlemen of St. Saviour's.

While I am adverting to Dr. Hook's sermon on Sunday last, I must call your attention to another statement made to me by the same intelligent gentleman who attended St. Peter's church on that morning.

Dr. (Hook, I won't say how decently in the house of God,) asserted that those gentlemen who had left our church were "weak-minded young

men."

But, sir, is this a proper way to excuse our own indiscretions? When we see our own friends going astray to the edge of a precipice, and do nothing to prevent them from tumbling over, is it a sufficient excuse to say, "they are weak-minded young men?"

But, sir, can it be forgotten that at least one of those "weak-minded young men" was the very person whose praises were sounded a few weeks ago, for giving £10,000 to build a church at York Road? Can

it be forgotten, sir, that Dr. Hook walked in procession with this "weakminded young man," on a late occasion, to lay the foundation-stone of this new church in York Road, robed in white, and chaunting hymns through the public streets? If, sir, Dr. Hook believed Mr. Haigh to be a "weak-minded young man," I presume the proper course for him to have pursued, when Mr. Haigh offered him so large a sum as £10,000, would have been to have consulted with Mr. Haigh's friends, in order to see how far he was master of his own

actions. But, sir, I am sure you will think with me, that it is a poor excuse to screen ourselves from the consequences of our own imprudences, by charging others with weakness of intellect.

I fear, sir, I am wearying you, but I will now conclude with a statement which I think will interest you.

The ground at York Road, as I am informed, on which was laid the first stone of the new church to be built by Mr. Haigh, has not been conveyed, neither has the money been lodged. Will it not, therefore, be interesting to determine whether Dr. Hook may not have laid the foundation-stone of a new Roman Catholic chapel in Leeds, it being very probable that Mr. Haigh will not, now that he has joined the Church of Rome, propagate what he conceives to be error, by building a Protestant church, as he contemplated doing, before his conversion?

I shall look forward with no little curiosity to the conclusion of this matter, and now thanking you for your patience,

I remain, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
OBSERVER.

Leeds, January 6, 1847.

To know God is the highest aim of man. He once knew God-for "God created man in his own image." (Gen. i. 27.) He lost that knowledge, for "the god of this world hath blinded the mind," (2 Cor. iv. 4.) and "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." (1 Cor. ii. 14.) But, reader, shall you and I, calling ourselves Christians, shall we remain ignorant of God? No, rather let us in the prayerful, watchful, diligent use of every means of instruction He has given us, wait for the sure answer of the prayer of the Lord Jesus, "that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John xvii. 3.) I call upon you then, with me to consider the unfolding of a part of the character of Jehovah, as set before us in the experience—not of an angel, not of some being in the celestial regions having access to mysteries hidden from us—but of a poor, fallen, erring, backsliding servant, who found "a law in his members warring against the law of his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the law of sin." (Rom. vii. 23.) Come, then, my weak and trembling, my erring and backsliding fellow-Christian, come and learn the goodness and longsuffering of our God in the story of poor Jonah. Matthew Henry has

MARCH-1847.

well observed, that God either finds his servant fit to do the work he sets him to, or he makes him fit. He found Jonah and bade him "go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it." Was Jonah fit for the work? Had he that holy boldness, and that deep humiliation of soul, which, while on the one hand it makes a man ready to face the sorest conflict, does on the other hand so prostrate him in the very dust, as that no evil speaking, no revilings, or abuse, no threatenings or ill-usage, can move him in his work? The God of truth, who narrates this story for our instruction, has given us the answer, "But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish, from the presence of the Lord." Perhaps he thought not to reach a hiding-place, or to find a spot where God was not-but only he would flee from the place where the Lord spoke to him. He would be let alone. He would not, he could not be quiet. His conscience drove him-for "the wicked flee when no man (but the man's own conscience) pursueth." " They are like the troubled sea whose waters cast up mire and dirt." Thank God he had a witness in poor Jonah's breast. God put it there, God saw it there, and God had purposes of mercy to His rebellious servant, and will yet awaken this slumbering conscience, and shed the

G