plan, in relation to the price of proprietors' shares, has ever taken place, nor is there the slightest reason to resort to any compulsory means to occasion such a deviation. By these two capital mistakes, you have rendered your whole account of the subject grossly erroneous; and, as one of the proprietors of the establishment, whose veracity is unimpeachable, expressed himself in my presence, have "made as many incorrect assertions as nearly equal the number of lines in your page."

I hope, Sir, the next time you make Reading, which you have here treated with so much ironical contempt,* the theme of your animadversions, that you will procure information in regard to the necessary facts, and not write on subjects on which you appear to be totally ignorant. If, Sir, you are a "stranger," as you profess yourself, you are altogether an unfit person to discuss many things which you have presumptuously attempted to illustrate. If you are no stranger, as many persons shrewdly suspect, your fellowtownsmen will not easily be persuaded that some of your representations are the effects of mere mistake.

What you call the "elegant little poem" written by one of the founders of the Institution, was, probably, not published for the purpose of ob

* See the Stranger, page 113,

taining literary distinction. If the author, who is too well known in Reading, as a gentleman and a scholar, to need any encomiums from your pen or mine, was prompted to write and publish this little piece, from his desire to recommend the infant establishment, and afterwards, from his benevolence, to devote the profits of it to a charity which must necessarily meet the approbation of every friend to the rising generation; who, beside the Stranger in Reading, would have thought of censuring him for his conduct? I have, however, only one remark to make on this subject. If this little poem had been published to usher into notice the Permanent Library instead of the Literary Institution, little doubt can be entertained, from the manner in which the Stranger confers his censures and his praises, but that the term elegant would have been printed in Roman, instead of Italic characters.

In relation to the reading of the inhabitants of Reading, you remark that the "Bible is most read, as it doubtless ought to be;" and as you have not marked the last words in Italics, I shall take them in their plain and literal meaning, though many of your readers will undoubtedly discover, or fancy they discover, your favourite irony in the passage, particularly as you connect it with the study of Moore's Almanac. Whether or not you are sincere in the comment on your observation, I leave with yourself: the fact alone will come under

my notice. Next to the Bible, you say, is the well-known almanac just mentioned. "But as to

works of science, history, or general information, few trouble themselves about them: and as to religious books, they consult none but what are written by their own sect, or in support of their own religious opinions." Let us examine your positions.

"The book most read is the Bible."-This assertion, Sir, is the highest compliment you possibly can pay to the inhabitants of Reading. If this be a fact, as I am inclined to hope it may, the people of this town, whose literature you hold in the most sovereign contempt, in this respect at least, afford a most honourable and decisive criterion of the excellence of their taste, as well as of the sincerity of their piety.

་

The Bible, Sir, is not only the most ancient, but infinitely the most excellent book that ever was penned as much superior to every composition merely human, as the works of the Author of nature are to those of human art. The matter, the manner, the harmony, the effect, of the Bible, unite in illustrating the important declaration"All scripture is given by inspiration of God." Infidels may reject the sacred writings, sceptics may doubt their truth, and strangers to their important and glorious contents may speak evil of what they know not; but what other book can they mention, which will bear any comparison

with this, whether we consider the infinite importance of its doctrines, the sublimity of its language, the accomplishment of its prophecies, the excellence of its morality, or the character of its penmen? "It is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. It is the sure word, whereunto we do well to take heed, as unto a light shining in a dark place."-But probably the Stranger in Reading holds the understanding of an inhabitant, in such low estimation, that his testimony on this subject will have no weight with him. Be it so, Sir; but I will produce testimony, which even you must admit to be unexceptionable. You have, in some part of your book, expressed astonishment that the same country should produce a Locke and a Newton, a Methodist and a Moravian. This circumstance evinces that you entertain a high opinion of the intellectual powers of the individuals whose names you have mentioned. But let us hear their sentiments of the Bible.

Sir Isaac Newton, the prince of philosophers, was thoroughly persuaded of the truth of revelation. He was a believer on conviction. Amidst the many books which he constantly had before him, that which he studied with the greatest application, was, the Bible. Sir Isaac was as well acquainted with the nature of moral certainty as of positive proof; and therefore he was equally satisfied of the truth of scripture as of any of those

physical discoveries which he proved by mathe matical demonstration. On a certain occasion, a cotemporary philosopher, in his conversation with Sir Isaac, introduced the subject of revelation, and began to manifest some degree of scepticism; on which, the latter immediately interrupted him, in language to this purport:-" Sir, when you discourse on philosophy, I hear you with much pleasure, because you understand it; but you have now entered on a subject with which you are totally unacquainted." Mr. Locke, whom likewise you mention, was justly considered one of the greatest masters of reason. But this great logician and philosopher believed the Bible, and wrote a comment on part of it. On being asked a little before his death, "what was the shortest and surest way for a young gentleman to attain a true knowledge of the Christian religion, in the full and just extent of it," he made this memorable reply; "Let him study the holy scripture, especially the New Testament. It has God for its Author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter."

Let me now introduce to you that Colossus in literature and intellect, Dr. Samuel Johnson. He too was a believer in the Bible. He read it, and received from it the only hope he ventured to entertain of eternal salvation. Johnson always had a high respect for religion, and for those who were consistent professors of it. He used very