Whether the Society is right or wrong in the exercise of its _veto_ upon the nomination of parties to occupy its grants, is the main question at issue. A more satisfactory way of dealing with it, than by following Dr. Molesworth’s arrangement,—which (with the exception of what he has culled from the Newspapers in his Preface and Appendix) is the simple one, of first saying all that can be said in favour of the Additional Curates’ Fund, and next, all that can be _imagined_ against the Church Pastoral Aid Society,—will be, to place fully before you the simple and intelligible principles upon which, in the question at issue, the Church Pastoral-Aid Society acts. I speak as one well acquainted with the Society’s operations, but as having no other authority for what I say. Dr. Molesworth affirms (p. 13) that this rule of the Society will not abide “the sifting of _honesty_ and common sense.” Let us see. We contend, I. That unworthy men do intrude themselves into the sacred ministry of the Church. II. That it is a principle not unknown to the Church, that those who provide the temporalities shall have a voice accorded to them in the selection of parties to benefit by their appropriation. III. That to appoint such as unworthily intrude into the ministry of the Church to cure of souls, is to be “partaker of their evil deeds.” (2d Ep. John.) In these particulars, it is presumed, will be comprehended a full discussion of the question at issue. By the first proposition, I intend to shew the expediency of the _veto_; by the second, its lawfulness; and by the third, its bounden obligation. Previously, however, I would disclaim, for myself, and the cause with which I would identify myself, all pleading at Dr. Molesworth’s tribunal;—a conclusion to which I am forced by the perusal of his Letter.—I appeal not to him;—and why? I discover him to be an _incompetent_, because an _unfair_ and _presumptuous_ judge. These are strong charges; and only to be warranted if borne out by proofs derived from his own Letter. To his revered Diocesan appeal would have been superfluous, who well knows how to appreciate the becoming sneer at “_spiritually-minded_,” “_evangelical_,” and every thing of that sort. Indeed, a less-disguised antipathy to real Religion, in my judgment, _these later days_ have seldom witnessed,—at least in print, and from one of the Clergy. My appeal is to those whom Dr. Molesworth would seek to pervert (vide App. p. 39), the friends and supporters of the Society: and I ask them, whether Dr. Molesworth has not prejudged already, from the temper and style of his pamphlet, the cause which he affects to put on trial? A few extracts will shew. He commences temperately enough; calling for, in page 7,