Dr. Molesworth can do justice to the Society in nothing; he cannot even allow it its real title: yet one would think, that the good he is forced to admit, to a certain extent, that the Society has done _in_ the Church, and _not out of_ the Church, might, in a lesser sense at least, and putting aside all courtesy to his clerical brethren in the Society, entitle it to be called _a_ “Church Pastoral-Aid Society.” Not so, for (p. 25) the Society is a “_Lay Society_”! What Dr. Molesworth does with the _ten Bishops_, so high a Churchman as he would be thought, I marvel: when _they_ are treated thus, his 1400 brethren of the Clergy will, of course, go for nothing! The title given us of “_Lay Society_,” however, is adopted from the Letter of Mr. Briarly Browne; a layman himself, be it observed, but who (_proh pudor_!) will not bestow the name of Churchman upon Bishop or Archbishop, Dignitary or Parish Priest, so long as they remain connected with this Society! Might it not have served his turn to have denounced the Society as a mixed Society of Lay and Clergy, an unauthorised Society, or any thing more offensive that he pleased, which would at least have spared the Church Dignitaries attached to the Society _the insult_ of being reckoned as _laymen_, _or nothing_; and by which this layman would not have set his clerical champion the bad example he was not slow to follow, of _casting contempt_ (as I cannot but consider it) upon the highest authorities of the Church. Another, and the most unmeasured of all their charges against the Society, is likewise adopted by the Doctor from the Letter of Mr. Clark, that of “_raising money upon false pretences_!!!” This, in other terms, accuses the Society of _swindling_; and to this no defence will be conceded on my part. If the authors of the charge can believe it, I pity them: in my judgment, it refutes itself. Nevertheless, as an offence cognisable by our laws,—they will pardon me the suggestion,—it will afford them the very opportunity they appear to seek, of exposing, as well as annoying, the Committee of the Society in open court; _provided only the proofs are at hand_. Little as I am disposed to bandy words, I might ask, if a Society, having fully, fairly, and publicly declared its principles, (and I believe there never was a Society which carried the practice to a greater extent,) and had thereby published upon what terms its money was subscribed and its grants made, so that there could be no mistake; and if others, knowing and hating its principles equally, had, notwithstanding, proposed themselves as parties to benefit by its funds whilst they eluded its principles; who would be raising money upon false pretences, in that case?