The indictment sets forth, that the Society, in spite of professed attachment to the Church, is in reality doing it the greatest injury, and chiefly by the exercise of a _veto_ upon the appointment of parties to be maintained upon its grants. Dr. Molesworth therefore calls upon the Society to put itself upon its defence,—to appear at his bar, and answer to his indictment, upon pain of _sentence of outlawry_ to be pronounced against it by all the orthodox. He further presses upon the subscribers and friends of the Society, as yet more friends of the Church, the necessity of transferring their subscriptions from the “Church Pastoral-Aid Society,” to the “Society for promoting the employment of Additional Curates, &c.”{4} This direct attempt to injure the Society, as well in its funds as more vitally in its character, will make apology needless on my part for following Dr. Molesworth in his appeal to the Society at large; little as I may think his statements calculated to effect their design of weakening your attachment to _this tried instrument_ (under God) of _so great an amount of good_. And not suspecting that the Committee acting for the whole Society—a Society comprising in its members ten of the Episcopal order (including Dr. Molesworth’s own Diocesan), many Church Dignitaries, the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, &c. &c.—is likely so to forget what is due to itself, as to descend into the arena of controversy at the challenge of an individual; I thought it open to any of the 1400 Clergy attached to the Society, against whom _the sentence of outlawry_ is to be passed, to accept Dr. Molesworth’s challenge upon somewhat more equal terms. The Society will naturally enough remark, upon a _primâ-facie_ view of Dr. M.’s cry of alarm,—“We have all these learned and venerable Bishops amongst us, these esteemed and valued Dignitaries; they would have informed us, long ago, if we were justly chargeable with the evil Dr. Molesworth has imputed to us:”—but either these learned and venerable men must be far less careful for the interests of the Church than Dr. Molesworth, or else (_not having sufficient discernment_?) failed to discover, in the five years’ working of the Society, under all the advantages of their connection with it, those evils which a single observer at a distance, acting in the exercise of his private judgment, has found so clear. Happy for the Episcopal Bench, amidst all the mischief Dr. Molesworth has _conjured up_, not only in the Society, but in the Church, that there should be still left to them such a faithful adviser, such a controller, such a corrector of their inadvertencies and mistakes! We shall presently see what testimony is borne by these learned and venerable men to the character and services of the “Church Pastoral-Aid Society;” when it will be for Dr. Molesworth to decide, how far his statement can be made to tally with theirs; or otherwise, which of the two we shall prefer.