It can answer no good purpose to quote at length a correspondence which the parties who think themselves aggrieved lost no time in sending to the Newspapers. I can only express my coincidence with the Secretary of the Society, in thinking that the testimonials, (if) good as far as they went, yet fell short of giving _full satisfaction_ as to “Christian character and qualifications:” and since I would not flinch from the most open discussion of the subject at issue, I will tell my Reverend Brethren, Dr. Molesworth and Mr. Clark, the sort of testimonial which I think called for by the occasion: for instance,—not only that I “believed,” but that I was fully convinced, upon sufficient evidence, or knowledge of the party, that he was both a sincere Churchman, and still more a sincere Christian; preaching, or desiring to preach, the doctrines contained in the Articles, and those in their proper order: first, “the Name which is above every name,” (“for there is none other whereby we must be saved,”) and afterwards every thing else in due subordination, with no mixing up essentials and non-essentials as of equal worth: and further, that his life exhibited tokens of his having been “born of the Spirit,” by humility, meekness, temperance, devotedness, holiness, &c., as the case might be. Such a testimonial surely could not be chargeable with the spirit of party; nor is there any thing overstrained, I conceive, in its language or requirements: and yet three such testimonials, I feel certain, from persons of credit, would never be rejected by the Committee. I would fain be spared the entering upon any of the doctrinal peculiarities of the day; but am bound, in conscience, to add, that if I knew of any one holding the doctrine, condemned by the Bishop of Exeter in his last Charge, of _reserve in communicating the doctrine of the Atonement_, nothing more would be required, in my judgment, to call for the exercise of the _veto_.—We can but do as we would be done by. Let Dr. Molesworth put himself in the position of the Clerical Committee: would he recommend to others a Curate that he could not conscientiously appoint himself? or would he _assent to_ the appointment of a Curate (for that is more correctly our case), if he were trustee for another, provided his own mind were not satisfied as to the fitness of the individual proposed? Is any one so simple as to believe that Dr. Molesworth would take _the first person that offered_, or choose _blindfold_ as it were, for his own Curate. Many of our brethren, I believe, delegate the choice of their Curates to friends in the ministry, upon whose judgment they have more reliance than on their own. What does the Church Pastoral-Aid Society more than these (it does not half so much)? except, that where its judgment is asked, it bountifully pays the Curate that is appointed.