I am, however, no enemy to strong improbabilities where a pleasant argument is concerned. The fifteen members of all denominations of British Christians _shall_ unite together; the six members of foreign churches shall do the same: and then, like the miraculous pieces of St. Peter’s chain {45} (of which _the church_ makes such notable mention), these two parties shall form a junction; _a majority_ shall thus be created _against_ the church. What then? Are not the presidents, vice-presidents, and treasurer, by virtue of their respective offices, members of the committee? Suppose then for a moment, that the committee should entertain so foul a proposition as that for “blowing up the establishment, clergy and all;” suppose, that the Quakers should consent to renounce, _pro hâc vice_, their objections to the employment of gunpowder; suppose further that the foreigners should concur, nobody knows why, in voting for such a measure; the terrified minority would not be without a remedy. It would still be in their power, by the accession of these honorary members, to outnumber their dissenting adversaries at the ensuing meeting; and, by objecting to the confirmation of the minutes, prevent the explosion of this nefarious plot. But indeed there is no end of remedies. Every clergyman subscribing a guinea a year, is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 12.) Every subscriber of five guineas a year, is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 5 and 7.) Every subscriber of 50_l._ at one time, is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 6.) And lastly, every executor paying a bequest of 100_l._ is a _member of the committee_. (Art. 8 and 7.) Now, Sir, supposing the members of the church of England to be (upon your own estimate) to those of other denominations as four to one, _whose_ fault do you think it will be, if the balance of influence in the committee of the Bible Society should be against her? Will _you_ be wholly innocent?—“Oh, Sir, how could you join in such a plot? What could induce you to lend your” professional “name to such a business as this? And why should you think so basely of the clergy as to tempt them by your example,” and the presumption of your fair reputation, to believe, that, in strengthening the hands of their ecclesiastical brethren, they would “sign the death-warrant of the established church, and the instrument of their own ruin?” {47a} Do, Sir, lose no time in writing your palinodia. I will not ask you to alter your opinion of the Society, or to part with one of your suspicions of its mischievous designs. You shall still be at liberty to talk, as freely as ever, of “preaching blacksmiths and fanatical ranters in holy orders;” and of such “doves,” as you and your friends, becoming “a luscious and inviting morsel to all the several hungry denominations of Christians;” provided you do but seek to multiply the number of our ecclesiastical subscribers, as much as you have hitherto laboured to diminish it.