conscience the supreme interpreter, whom it may be a duty to enlighten, but whom it can never be a duty to disobey." (_Ibid._)--Even those who look upon the observance of Sunday "as enjoined by an absolutely binding decree," are reproached as "thus at once putting themselves under a law." (p. 44.) ... Dr. Temple has written an Essay which he calls "an argument," and for which he claims "a drift." (p. 31.) _That_ argument is neither more nor less than a direct assault on the Faith of Christian men; and carried out to its lawful results, _can_ lead to nothing but open Infidelity;--which makes it a very solemn consideration that the author, (whose private worth is known to all,) should be a teacher of the youth of Christian England. _That_ drift I deplore and condemn; and no considerations of private friendship, no sincere regard for the writer's private worth, shall deter me from recording my deliberate conviction that it is wholly incompatible with his Ordination vows. I forbear to dive into the depth of irreligion and unbelief implied in what is contained from p. 37 to p. 40, and other parts of the present Essay: but I cannot abstain from asking why does this author,--who, in all the intercourse of private life, is so manly a character,--fall into the _un_manly trick of his brother-Essayists, of insinuating what they dare not openly avow? The great master of this cloudy shuffling art is Mr. Jowett. Even where he and his associates in "free handling," are express and definite in their statements, yet, as their rule is prudently to abstain from adducing a single example of their meaning, it is only by their disingenuous reticence that they escape punishment or exposure. Thus, Dr. Temple speaks of "many of the doctrinal statements of the early Church" being "plainly unfitted for permanent use;" (p. 41;) but he prudently abstains from explaining _which_ of those "doctrinal statements" he means. He goes on to remark:--"In fact, the Church of the Fathers claimed to do what not even the Apostles had claimed,--namely, not only to teach the Truth, but to clothe it in logical statements ... for all succeeding time." He is evidently alluding to "the forms in which the first ages of the Church defined the Truth;" [i.e. to the Creeds;] of which he says, we "_yet refuse to be bound by them_." (p. 44.) He goes on,--"It belongs to a later epoch to see 'the law within the law' which absorbs such statements _into something higher than themselves_." (p. 41.) But the writer of that sentence ought to have had the manliness to explain _what_ that "higher something" _is_.