known: at the most, it is but half, and the worst half, of an appointment; for vigilance may be lulled, and resolution wearied out. _Let not the Society_, _for the Church’s sake_, _be provoked to justify itself in __detail for the use of it_. In the blindness of his anger against the _veto_, the Rev. Doctor declares that it makes the promised appointment by the Incumbent “a _mere bubble_;” entirely overlooking, that in the great majority of cases where the Incumbent’s nomination is accepted, _the Curate is left thenceforward entirely under his controul_; the Society losing sight of the individual altogether—for years it may be—unless the Incumbent himself bring the appointment once more under its review. I thought it not beside my purpose to follow Dr. Molesworth at this point upon the _effect_ of the _veto_; but my proposition is the _lawfulness of the use of it_, which I have endeavoured to shew by the analogy of appointments to spiritual offices, such as the Church allows to the Laity, either individuals or Societies, in return for the endowments they furnish. Precedents are besides afforded us in the existence of other Societies of much earlier date, exercising similar or greater powers, and recognised by the Church. The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and (by _special licence of certain gentlemen who have invented a standard for the purpose of determining the fact_) _a_ CHURCH Society, patronized by the whole Episcopal Bench, is likewise a Society very liberally constituted; all members, Lay or Clerical, having a vote in the proceedings. Members are Clergymen or Laymen being Annual Subscribers of a Guinea. Now this Society, besides its dissemination of the Scriptures, &c., has the credit of having instituted the first Missions in our colonies abroad. The great, the benign, the venerable Swartz—or, _may_ I say, “the faithful and devoted” Swartz—was one of those employed in them. Till of late, the Charges of the Society to its Missionaries appeared, as a Tract for sale, on its Catalogue.