It is blindness to expect in Bishops more than can be found in man—more than was found in Apostles. It is ill service to their cause and ours, to load them with responsibility, to expect more of them than they can give, teaching others the same lesson, and making (to use an obvious figure) _the head_ the most active of all the members. If the Bishops are to depend upon the information of others, I may ask, Are ordinary testimonials never unsound? Does personal character always come out, in divinity examinations before their chaplains? Again, when corrupt men are in the Church, who does not know the difficulty (perhaps in some degree necessary, upon a balance of evils, and all things considered) in removing them? One case of that kind, in a diocese not far from the metropolis, cost more anxiety, pains, and expenditure in the Ecclesiastical Court to Bishop after Bishop (though the circumstances were flagrant) than it would be possible for them often to repeat. Here we have a vindication of the Bishops upon the point of allowing corrupt men to remain in the Church; and here we have the propriety of the Society’s _veto_ confirmed, and the inexpediency of Dr. Molesworth’s suggestion of laying all the _onus_ upon Bishops. While men in holy orders are to be found devotees of the ball-room, the card-table, and the race-course, in spite of the remonstrances of the refined Bishop Jebb,—whilst men are to be found as ministers of Christ, throwing the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel into the shade, in spite of the indignation of Bishop Horsley against “the apes of Epictetus,”—it is no time for those who are attached to the Church to lay aside precaution against the mal-appropriation of consecrated funds. At the (last?) Races in _Canterbury_, which the magistrates tried to put down, on account of the immorality and disorder attending them, a distinguished list of Clergy was announced as having been present on the “grand stand;”—a _grand stand_, indeed, for the Clergy!—I wish the statement were too improbable to need contradiction. It is found in a work written by a Clergyman of the Church of England, reviewed in a daily print of considerable circulation. Provided it be true, are these men whom Dr. Molesworth would have us receive “as faithful and devoted” without question, of whose habits this appearance on “the grand stand” at _Canterbury_ is a specimen? The Committee of the Church Pastoral-Aid Society consider, with Bishop Jebb, that they are _so far_ the reverse. Our idea of _faithfulness_ would comprise the not being present, as pleased spectators, in the resorts of immorality; and of _devotedness_, the being far better employed.