We see a certain Association evincing a most scandalous partiality, by SELECTING the objects of their prosecution from those most unable to defend themselves! we participate in the general feeling of censure against them, and believe that they have done more injury to the cause they profess to support, than the united efforts of the persecuted parties could possibly have effected. This will ever be the case when exertions are influenced only by feelings of _policy_ instead of _principle_, for if as much pains were taken to keep improper characters _without_ the pale of the church, as there is art exerted to defend them through thick and thin, when they have _entered_ it, the CLOTH would probably never have been disgraced by the “Rev. Father in God,” whose notoriety promises to eclipse that of all former brothers in divinity. The name of the Prelate may have appeared in the subscription columns of a newspaper, the only place where the charity of many is heard of. Nay, we have little doubt but it might be found in the list of subscribers to the _highly respectable association_ the “_Bridge street gang_” or the “_Society for the suppression of vice_.” We would not rob _him_ of any action of _merit_ on this score, or them of any claim to _respectability_ in the eye of the public; for ourselves we would say, “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye—also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” Any comment on the case itself must be superfluous, we therefore give it to the reader as extracted verbatim from the Statesman. From the Statesman. _July_ 22, 1822.