clergyman—and, referring perhaps to the principle that “blessings brighten as they take their flight,” he adds, “my character is of some value to me”—and then, wishing to be thought as pure as Cæsar’s wife, he declares, “I cannot allow myself to be even suspected.” No, indeed. Were a patron to become suspicious, it might prevent the desired “patronage” from being bestowed. And should any “exclusive Churchman” ever offer this “senior wrangler” a better living than he now possesses, we shall all see the triumph of principle, and the “value” of “character,” displayed, by his declining it. He will say, “Nolo Episcopari” in the presence of a mitre—whenever it is offered to him. But to proceed with this “patronage paragraph.” I had said, in my Letter, “I know well, that such an exclusive system is not the desire of you all.” Now this “exclusive system” _is_ the desire of Mr. Perowne, and he has put himself forward as its great champion. He therefore concludes that, as I have described a class of persons whose views are directly opposed to his, I must have meant himself! His argument is—Mr. A. says that some persons do not approve of this “exclusive system.” I do approve of it. Therefore he refers to me! Q.E.D. Whether such syllogisms come from Oxford or from Cambridge, I am unable to determine, as I know not at which of the Universities Mr. Perowne was educated, and as Dissenters are “excluded” from them both. In the course of this immortal paragraph, two things yet remain to be briefly noticed. First, he charges me with uttering a direct falsehood, and says that he will not believe my statements unless they are “authenticated by at least two witnesses.” I have already intimated that I shall not trouble myself to gain his assent to any statements I have made. He had before him the speeches made at the public meeting; he had before him Mr. Geary’s pamphlet; in both of which the statements I have made are reiterated; and yet, though he had before him the testimony of these three or four witnesses, he says he will not believe, till he has “at least two witnesses.” Let him disbelieve it then. And, secondly, in his note to the paragraph, he charges some of the clergy with consenting to “unite with Dissenters in the Bible Society,” “_on condition_” that a Dissenter should pay their subscriptions. I hope it is distinctly understood that, in these pages, I make no attack upon the clergy, and that I have to do with Mr. Perowne _only_; yet, though the clergy do not need me as their defender, I am bound to declare that, having associated with several of them in the Bible Society for nearly twenty years, I believe that they joined it from true conviction, and not from such a base and paltry “_condition_” as that which Mr. Perowne alleges. He has, however, carefully abstained from mentioning names, and from advancing proofs, both of which ought to have accompanied such a disreputable accusation of his brethren.