II. But it might be argued, that allowing unworthy men did so intrude, and establish themselves in the Church,—for the fact is indisputable, making the necessity for vigilance manifest,—we could not meddle as a Society, or Committee of Laymen, or Clergymen, either or both with a view of repairing the evil, by rejecting nominations to our grants on account of the character of Clergymen nominated to us, without violating the plain order of the Church. Is it so?—then where is it laid down? for we should like to have the _very words of authority produced_; being most unwilling to forfeit our protection of the _veto_, so strong a necessity for which is shewn, unless the Church has spoken very plainly and authoritatively against it. All I can gather upon this subject from Dr. Molesworth, is in the way of assertion, rather than of authority and proof. There is plenty of _surmise_ of evil to the Church, and everywhere an _assumed_ departure from order on our part; but what proof is given? I am sure I cannot see it in the prayer for the Clergy and people which Dr. Molesworth has alleged for that purpose. What decree, canon, or judgment of the Church, has he quoted? As most decisive in the controversy, I would by no means pass over that Scriptural argument from Acts vi. 2, 3; where the whole “multitude of the disciples” were solicited by the Apostles to select “men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,” to be afterwards ordained by themselves. To judge who were fit for the office of Deacon is here manifestly delegated to the body of believers; and those we call Laity were constituted judges as to who were “of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.” The multitude made choice because they had raised the common fund which the Deacons were to distribute.