Here my labours might appropriately end, Dear friends and supporters of the Church Pastoral-Aid Society! with giving you the voice of the highest authorities of the Church in our favour. All, therefore, I shall permit myself to add, is an appeal to Dr. Molesworth himself—as one to whom we bear no ill-will; as one who has not injured us at all, but rather himself, by his late attack—warning him not again to peril his respectable name on such an unjust and injudicious _tirade_ (for I can call it nothing else) against this Society;—a Society so shielded from his attacks, that he can only injure it through the sides of the Church, of which this Society is as a specimen of the young wood, and vigorous growth, from that old yet glorious stem, planted by the hands of the Apostles, and rooted in Christ. I exhort him to lay aside his prejudice and his opposition, and join the Society—as many of our members, I hear, have joined his; when we will work together, “the Lord being our helper,” to make the Society as perfect as we can. Then, surely, he would learn to look at things in a more cheerful aspect, and with less jaundiced eye, than to be raising a cry of “_schism_” (p. 9) in the Church—a reproach which could hardly be expected, and would certainly be untrue (according to any definition that I have heard of the word), even in the mouth of a bigoted Dissenter. I would appeal to the Most Reverend Prelate from whom Dr. Molesworth’s preferment was derived (and whose known gentleness should have taught the Clergyman whom he had preferred, “a more excellent way”), not to suffer this unseemly _widening_ of _breaches_ in the Church, if there be such; or, as I think, _opening them_, where they would not exist without. Is this “the comprehensive, healing, uniting spirit of the Articles” (p. 15) which Dr. Molesworth loves? If it is, I hope he will pardon me for saying (for I wish we might part friends), that his is the most _abstract_ love of the principle of which I can form an idea. For my part, I have never either made or acknowledged party distinctions in the Church; nor will I be provoked to do so now. The Church I have ever wished to regard as one body, with that mixture of unworthiness in members which is consequent upon the imperfect condition of all things here below: and I trust I do honour the Church too much, lightly to foment her distractions, or expose her troubles to her numerous foes. Yet do not mistake, Dr. Molesworth;—I value the Church for the sake of the Gospel, not the Gospel for the sake of the Church;—I value both Church and Gospel for their own sakes, and, by God’s blessing, will support and defend both, according to my poor ability: but it is a truth I am not ashamed to confess, that if by ‘Church’ is to be understood the outward frame-work of this or any other Church, I value the everlasting Gospel _even more_, and _much more_ than I do the Church.—The Vicar of Rochdale may have time for controversy: I have not.