THE Rev. Dr. Molesworth, a Clergyman favourably known for some time past
by the publication of a periodical called the “Penny Sunday Reader,”—who
is likewise (as I perceive by the Advertisement appended to his Pamphlet)
Author of “Family Sermons for every Sunday in the Year,” and whose
promotion from a small benefice in _Canterbury_ to one of the largest in
the North of England was not long ago announced to the public,—has lately
signalized his zeal in another way, by coming forward in the character of
public prosecutor {3} against the “Church Pastoral-Aid Society:”—this he
does in a printed Letter addressed to his own Diocesan, and our respected
Vice Patron, the Bishop of Chester, containing serious charges affecting
the whole character and management of the Society.
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.
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,
“An abandonment of the objectionable test, or at least a clear and
explicit understanding upon the character and designs of the
Society.” And adding, “The Society owes to itself as well as to the
Church, an official vindication from the questionable (to say the
least) _appearances_ against it.”
Such likewise was the tenor of his original Letter to the Manchester
Courier (p. 4). But, as he warms upon his theme, he forgets this prudent
part of his plan. Page 15, we find the _veto_ thus described:—
“It is an _insidious_ plan;—it is a plan _fit for a society_ with
_shabby_, _party_, _and sectarian_ designs, but not for a society
_with simply and singly Church views_. It places the Society above
the Bishops and Archbishops,” &c.