or whatever false and heretical doctrine he may choose to inculcate; it is enjoined upon us, by God himself, diligently to attend upon his ministry; and though a preacher like Horsley or Porteus were publishing the glad tidings of salvation in a contiguous church, just without the limits of our parish, yet, if we venture to desert our own parish church, and repair to his, we incur the penalty of damnation. "It makes my hair stand on end," says Mr. Sikes, "sometimes, when I consider the terrible punishments for those deluded creatures, who (say what you can to them) will not hear or receive those men whom God hath appointed over them*:" that is, if they act in the manner which I have here represented. I dislike contempt of authority as much as he can do; but it is a most dangerous doctrine, that the mere compliance with certain rules, however proper and excellent, is of equal value with purity of heart and holiness of conduct. Except the "Country Clergyman," I could not have supposed that any man in the kingdom would have advanced many of the assertions contained in these Dialogues: still less could I have imagined that any person would be willing to send them in company with our Bibles, as "of almost equal importance and dignity." How it happens that effusions like these are forced into circulation, while some old and very excellent tracts are suffered to remain out of print, and thus to become obsolete, I cannot venture to explain: this, however, is the case, and the fact is important. * Second Dialogue, p. 14.-See a Letter in Appendix K, signed Peter O'Leary. On the whole, I conclude, that the variety of objects embraced by the Society in Bartlett's Buildings, is no proof that the members of the Bible Society take a less good, where they might have a greater *. Let us see how such reasoning applies in similar cases. We have in London many valuable. hospitals, which embrace several great and desirable objects. It has lately been thought expedient, on account of its peculiar importance, to have an establishment expressly confined to vaccination. Yet an advocate for the old hospitals might use your language, with as much force and propriety, against the new institution, as you have directed it against the Bible Society. He might say, “I cannot consent to join you: one main foundation of my refusal is, that I am already the patron of another institution, which is at once an excellent Vaccination Society, and a great deal more†. Our hospital is an admirable hospital, and it is very much more: it will afford you, therefore, all the same exercise for your beneficence that the new one does; and it will further appeal to your heart, and to your purse, by many additional calls. I have also scruples about the new; but I have no dread nor apprehension in regard to the old. Even for the multiplication of such societies their patrons are bound to shew a new, peculiar, and urgent necessity. Their first inquiry ought to have been, cannot the good which we aim at be obtained by an extension and enlargement of the means and powers of the old hospital? You cannot but allow, that an unavoidable comparison is thus introduced between the new and the old*. It cannot be denied, I think, that there is not in Scripture any precept for such a society. It is a very material' advantage, that in our hospital we are not tied up nor limited in our design: we reduce swellings, set collar-bones, and have an infinity of objects, all of them admitting of, and calling for, continual advancement, enlargement, and improvement. With you, the ulterior good, the final cause of your institution, is but of one kind; with us, we rejoice that it is of that same, and of a great many more kinds besides. This evil, it is plain, will be widely increased in extent and magnitude, the further your influence and ascendancy are elevated above ours?"§. I might, with very slight alterations, quote 15 or pages to the same effect; but this specimen will, I trust, suffice. 20 Objection 8. The next objection is, that the new Society has done us harm by injuring our funds. If there be any part of your reply to Lord Teignmouth, upon which I could be supposed to feel personal interest, this is the point. You have met the argument, and have proved, even to my own satisfaction, that my statement required some qualification. The three criteria, which I have taken in proof * Dr. Wordsworth, p. 46. + Ibid. p. 98. § Ibid. p. 128. of the flourishing state of the Society in Bartlett's Buildings, are, its receipts, donations, and subscriptions. I took not one separately, but all combined: therefore the argument, which you derive against me from the receipts alone, as if I had rested my cause chiefly upon them, is in truth little to the purpose. "In a religious sense," you observe, this increase of receipts "is our riches: but in a financial sense, it is our poverty." But it is in a great degree the measure of our usefulness; it is a testimony of the additional interest which we have recently excited, and of the greater benefits which we have recently conferred. Had I omitted the receipts, it might have been reasonably charged upon me, that I looked merely at the " sordid, inert, and lifeless exponent, money," whilst I wilfully omitted the "heart-springs," "the pride and glory of our Society +." My next head is Donations. No charge has been brought against this part of "the well-seeming and serious minuteness and pomp of the detail †:" therefore I presume it is correct. The The points on which this question particularly turns are, the donations and the subscribers. subscriptions are justly exhibited in my pomp of detail:" it seems, however, now, that subscriptions may increase, while subscribers decrease. Of this paradox I was not apprized: you explain it, by the collection of arrears. The distinction of subscribers and subscriptions does not, I verily believe, occur to one person in five hundred. * Dr. Wordsworth, p. 25. + lbid. p. 66. Ibid. p. 68. The decrease in the number of subscribers in the year 1804-1805, was seventy-two from that moment commenced an increase; and in two years the society had nearly reached its former number: in three years that number was considerably exceeded. In p. 67, you say jocosely that my calculations would have been much more triumphant, if I could have seen the account of receipts for 1810. Unless I am very much misinformed, my cause would be most triumphant indeed, if I possessed the Reports to the present moment: the subscribers, I am told, have increased with a rapidity beyond all precedent. It is not, I think, alleged, with any colour of probability, that the loss of these seventy-two subscribers is to be attributed to the Bible Society. The establishment of the Society at that time renders it probable that some loss was incurred on that account; but I observe, that in the year 1801-1802 our numbers were diminished by thirty, without the operation of any such cause: from this, it is evident, if any proof were wanted, that the list of subscribers is subject to fluctuations. I will, however, concede, what I think is extremely probable, that some defalcation took place in the first year, and solely on account of the new institution: still the subscriptions continue to increase, and in a higher proportion. "But this was owing to our activity." And to whom do we owe this activity ? Was no part of it derived from the Bible Society? Did the zeal of this "novel combination," which at that time excited such alarm in our camp, inflame none of us with a kindred spirit? If I admit that |