“I will not affirm that the rule was designed to be the instrument of
a _shabby and crooked_ policy; but I will affirm, that if it _had_
been so designed, it could not have been better _contrived_.”
The insinuation here conveyed is that amplified, as we have seen, in the
very next page, by which we may judge at what rate Dr. Molesworth
travels.—Page 20, he feels shy of saying that this rule _is_ the
instrument of “a _dangerous_ and _double-faced_ policy;” whilst he does
not hesitate to style (p. 23) those who have the working of the rule,
“_despotic_, and _irresponsible_” (!) managers.—The Secretary of our
Society (the Rev. E. B. Were) had wound up an unpleasant correspondence
(for it is always unpleasant to tell a man he will not do) with a layman
(Mr. Briarly Browne), whose friend, the Rev. Mr. Clark, had sought for
him a grant from the Society, upon which Mr. Briarly Browne was to be
ordained; brooding all the while, and hardly suppressing, considerable
ill-will to the Society in their hearts. The endeavour on the part of
our Secretary to expose this unhandsome proceeding is stigmatized as “a
poor shuffling attempt” (p. 24). _Previously_, Dr. Molesworth had
_admitted_ (p. 18) that this was done “_with some_, _but rather severe_,
_justice_.” I pass by another charge, in the same page, of more serious
and offensive character, which Dr. Molesworth greedily catches up from a
Letter of Mr. Clark; intending to return to it by and by. But after all,
nothing of this kind comes up to the appendix:—he has bade adieu to the
Bishop, and has got a little out of sight;—and now hear him:—what was but
_the lion passant guardant_ before, is become truly the lion _rampant_
now. “The Society” (he says, p. 36), “_in the plenitude of their
super-papal authority_, _have __thought fit to declare_!!!”—and at the
end of the next extract—“Is not this _monstrous_?” “Are these Church
principles?” “Is such a tribunal of _intolerance_ and _sectarianism_!!
to stand forth and collect money, and to be advocated in our pulpits as a
Church Society?”
And now, friends and supporters of the Church Pastoral-Aid Society, are
you willing to be tried by Dr. Molesworth, or are you convinced that he
has made up his mind before you come into Court? If the Society, or the
Committee it appoints as among its most responsible members, be deserving
of such _rank abuse_ as this, where is the need of inquiry? Bad indeed
must the Society be decided to be;—bad in its principles, bad in its
management, bad in its officers; in short, all bad together. Why, then,
does Dr. Molesworth dwell so tamely, at the outset, upon “_questionable
appearances which require vindication_”? Wherefore does he affect to
call for “_a clear and explicit understanding upon the character and
designs of the Society_.” (P. 7, and Letter to the Manchester Courier.)
If the matter needs no inquiry, why does Dr. Molesworth make a show of
demanding it? And if it does, why does he approach the question in such
a predetermined spirit of hostility as to make _the proposal_, in his
case, _a deception_; shewing that he at least has settled the question
_before_ (as he admits) he has heard it.
There is no disguising it—Dr. Molesworth’s objection lies far deeper:
this will be seen, as we enter further into the consideration of his
attack. _The ostensible grounds_ of objection shift about. The
employment of Lay agents is now _the minor matter_ (pp. 18 and 19). It
was the major, onewhile; but the Society having suffered as much loss as
the urging and mis-stating of that objection could inflict, and having
happily survived the injuries, _the major point sinks_, _and becomes the
minor_ (as you perceive), and _the minor is now the major_, and so on;
for reproach will never be wanting against a Society founded, supported,
and (under God) successfully worked by those whose religious sentiments
Dr. Molesworth treats with undisguised aversion. Else why that strange
loathing of the very word “_spiritually-minded_”; so that he has actually
clipped it of a full syllable? It is a curious fact, that the Rev.
Doctor has quoted this word (in allusion to the Letter of the Rev. Mr.
Were, Secretary to the Society), but always writing it thus,
“_spiritual-minded_,” no less than _eleven times in twenty pages_, and
evidently in a tone of derision. Now, when a Doctor of Divinity takes up
a Scriptural term only _to disparage it_, and others by it; and actually
mistakes the orthography of the word, as though it were quite new to him,
and foreign to his taste; it is high time we should quote him the passage
at length wherein it occurs, and then leave it with him:—Rom. viii. 6:
“To be carnally-minded is death, but to be spiritually-minded is life and
peace.”
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?
Here I cannot refrain from reporting an earlier specimen of the bad faith
the Society has experienced at the hands of those whose dislike it may
have merited by diligence in the Church Pastoral-Aid. The facts are
known to the subscribers generally; but are again introduced here, to
shew, that when the “_minor matter_,” as Lay-agency is _now_ called, was
urged as the _major_, (before it had fallen so many degrees by Dr.
Molesworth’s _disciplinometer_,) the Society was not a jot the less
liable to misrepresentation and unkindness than now.
The following statement appeared in a work of a popular character,
published in 1838 anonymously, and called “_A Voice from the Font_.”
“An Incumbent of a populous town in the West of England applied for
two Lay-teachers, who were granted; but who, after establishing an
acquaintance and intimacy with the parishioners, became Dissenting
Ministers of the town, drawing to them those whom they had visited as
the delegates of the Incumbent.”
This stood in the relation of a note, containing the proof, or
substantial part of an excellent argument against Lay-assistance and the
Church Pastoral-Aid Society. Alas! the whole was pure invention. But
all men are liable to err, and to derive information from incorrect
sources. The publisher was therefore apprised, and the Editor of the
Church-of-England Quarterly Review, _which had copied the objectionable
passage_, written to. The Author of the book, understood to be a
Clergyman, was appealed to: there could be no doubt of the mistake (to
call it by the mildest name); and the publishers, Messrs. Longman & Co.,
consequently received authority to paste over the note in all future and
unsold copies.
Now the Society thought that more was due to it: the libel had gone
through the length and breadth of the land. So void of truth was the
statement, that, in point of fact, no Incumbent in the West of England
ever had two Lay-assistants _paid_ by the Society:—(to nominate them, I
beg to acquaint the “_Poor Parson_” p. 5, is always left to the Incumbent
himself); and _not a single instance_ has occurred, since the formation
of the Society, of any Lay-agent, supported by its means, becoming a
Dissenting Teacher. Yet all attempt to obtain further redress was
hopeless: no sorrow was expressed by the party who had circulated _the
false report_; no proper feeling shewn for having wounded a
much-called-for Christian Charity;—no apology,—no reparation,—_no
answer_, in short, was given to the Society’s appeal! I know not what
effect the relation of such injustice may have on other minds: it made me
the zealous friend of the “Church Pastoral-Aid Society:” previously
content with being its well-wisher, I had taken no part in its
proceedings: since then, I am thankful to say, I have.
Hitherto, my object has been, to expose the _animus_ of these attacks:
though painful, it was necessary to do so, lest any one should conceive
that Dr. Molesworth, and those who think with him, are men who may be
easily satisfied; or that by giving up one point, however vital, we
should silence opposition. Does _the spirit_ displayed in their attacks
afford us any fair grounds for hoping this? Was not Lay-agency first
attacked, as _the veto_ is now? Does not the reproach of “_Lay Society_”
announce that the whole Society must be re-constituted, from the
top-stone to the bottom? In short, these gentlemen _will be satisfied_
when we have given up every thing, and have nothing more left to give up.
Bear in mind, that they have already established a Society (a Church
Society they call theirs), for the same objects, upon their own model;—I
do not say, in opposition to, but a year or more after the Pastoral-Aid
Society. One would think, if Dr. Molesworth could do justice to the
Society in any thing, it would be _as parent_ of _a child_ so hopeful, so
highly-prized, and so justly-commended by himself, as the Society for the
employment of Additional Curates &c. Standing in this relation to each
other, it is painful to learn from Dr. Molesworth the probability of
their becoming “_bitter rivals_” (p. 27). On the part of _the parent_, I
am sure, no such _unnatural_ sentiment prevails; and I trust it would
continue to be so, were the respective positions changed, and the
daughter _flourished_ as much, or more, than the mother.
Far more congenial to my feelings than the topics which have engaged us
hitherto, will be the discussion upon certain definite principles, as was
proposed, of the use of the _veto_. My first proposition was a question
of fact scarcely requiring proof; yet indeed the whole argument depends
upon it: for could it be proved that no evil men exist in the Church as
ministers, then the Society’s rule would doubtless be unnecessary,
offensive, and chargeable with party motives. But I assert,
I. That unworthy men do intrude themselves into the sacred ministry of
the Church.
A proposition so plain amounts, in fact, to a truism; yet it affords in
itself, to my mind, and upon Christian principles, a sufficient
vindication of the Society’s rule. Some escape the vigilance of the
Bishop at ordination; and some fall away, like the unhappy Dr. Dodd, and
others, from a state of considerable usefulness and credit. Thus it was
in the earliest ages of the Church, and in the presence of extraordinary
inspiration. A “_Demas_, _having loved this present world_,” forsook his
master: and Paul prophesied, that, after his departure from Ephesus,
“_grievous wolves_ should _enter in_, not sparing the flock.” “Also, _of
your ownselves_,” adds he, “_shall men arise_, _speaking perverse
things_, to draw away disciples after them:” Acts xx. 29, 30. Or,
without speaking of our own times, to come to times bordering upon our
own; who has not heard of an assembly of Divines of the Church of England
meeting for the purpose of obtaining relief to their consciences from
subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, which they had already
subscribed? These were men whom the Church Pastoral-Aid Society,
Low-Church, or No-Church as it may be called, would never have supported
from its funds, nor put itself in the way of doing so. Leave it in the
hands of the Bishops to refuse their licence, is Dr. Molesworth’s
_panacea_. Dr. Molesworth would throw all upon the Bishops.—And was it,
Dr. Molesworth, not left in the hands of the Bishops at that very time,
long before any Church Pastoral-Aid Society was heard of?
I know it will be thought invidious, in more ways than one, to take the
course I do, upon this proposition. I may content myself with Dr.
Molesworth’s Apology to his Diocesan (p. 26), by affirming only with more
reason, that “the importance of the subject requires that no courtesies
should suppress _plain speaking_ upon it.” Towards the Episcopal body I
would conduct myself with the utmost deference and respect. In what I
shall say, I would refer but to the past. Are not Bishops elected at
that time of life, in a majority of cases, which would preclude them from
acting very long with the promptitude and vigour which Dr. Molesworth’s
system would require? A remark to that effect fell from the lips of good
Bishop Horne, as he ascended the steps to his episcopal palace at Norwich
for the first time.
It is blindness to expect in Bishops more than can be found in man—more
than was found in Apostles. It is ill service to their cause and ours,
to load them with responsibility, to expect more of them than they can
give, teaching others the same lesson, and making (to use an obvious
figure) _the head_ the most active of all the members. If the Bishops
are to depend upon the information of others, I may ask, Are ordinary
testimonials never unsound? Does personal character always come out, in
divinity examinations before their chaplains? Again, when corrupt men
are in the Church, who does not know the difficulty (perhaps in some
degree necessary, upon a balance of evils, and all things considered) in
removing them? One case of that kind, in a diocese not far from the
metropolis, cost more anxiety, pains, and expenditure in the
Ecclesiastical Court to Bishop after Bishop (though the circumstances
were flagrant) than it would be possible for them often to repeat. Here
we have a vindication of the Bishops upon the point of allowing corrupt
men to remain in the Church; and here we have the propriety of the
Society’s _veto_ confirmed, and the inexpediency of Dr. Molesworth’s
suggestion of laying all the _onus_ upon Bishops.
While men in holy orders are to be found devotees of the ball-room, the
card-table, and the race-course, in spite of the remonstrances of the
refined Bishop Jebb,—whilst men are to be found as ministers of Christ,
throwing the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel into the shade, in spite of
the indignation of Bishop Horsley against “the apes of Epictetus,”—it is
no time for those who are attached to the Church to lay aside precaution
against the mal-appropriation of consecrated funds. At the (last?) Races
in _Canterbury_, which the magistrates tried to put down, on account of
the immorality and disorder attending them, a distinguished list of
Clergy was announced as having been present on the “grand stand;”—a
_grand stand_, indeed, for the Clergy!—I wish the statement were too
improbable to need contradiction. It is found in a work written by a
Clergyman of the Church of England, reviewed in a daily print of
considerable circulation. Provided it be true, are these men whom Dr.
Molesworth would have us receive “as faithful and devoted” without
question, of whose habits this appearance on “the grand stand” at
_Canterbury_ is a specimen? The Committee of the Church Pastoral-Aid
Society consider, with Bishop Jebb, that they are _so far_ the reverse.
Our idea of _faithfulness_ would comprise the not being present, as
pleased spectators, in the resorts of immorality; and of _devotedness_,
the being far better employed.
Dr. Molesworth inquires (p. 24) what TESTS of character and
qualifications the Society uses. Is the doctrine and discipline of the
Church of England none? The question is raised, I suppose, because Dr.
Molesworth cannot disabuse his mind of the petty suspicion, that High and
Low Church (p. 28) are the points upon which the examination turns. Does
Dr. Molesworth really suspect this? If so, let me undeceive him at once:
the Clerical Committee of that Society are, I trust, as distinguished for
conformity and attachment to the Church as himself; and in this sense no
one could be nominated who was _too High-Church_ for them. When,
however, we do all that is required of us, and give our TESTS more _in
detail_, what do we gain by it? Dr. Molesworth finds nothing but
_vagueness_ in our requirements—_vagueness_ in what we find most
explicit. “_Faithful_, _devoted_,” &c. (p. 15), “_is vague_;”
“_spiritual-mindedness_” “_is vague_” (p. 16), which is repeated (p. 22);
and an _admirable_ note in the next page (23), explaining the rejection
of a candidate, is spoken of as written in “_hide-and-seek phraseology_;”
where, as Dr. Molesworth formerly _clipped_, so now he _coins_ a word to
shew his little respect for the Society. I do beg the attention of the
friends and subscribers of the Church Pastoral-Aid Society to the Letter
referred to {18}, not as an illustration of the Doctor’s _discovery_ of
what he is pleased to name “_hide and-seek phraseology_,” but as a very
luminous and compendious refutation of the Doctor’s _hard words_, and
aspersion of the _veto_. The Poet speaks of things
“Dark with excess of light:”—
upon some such phenomenon, methinks, Dr. Molesworth must have stumbled,
as respects the Letter in question. He professes to be quite in the dark
likewise—to which Mr. B. Browne led the way—as to the possibility of
discerning, _without looking into the heart_, _who are
spiritually-minded_ (p. 17). Scripture holds out to him a candle: “By
their fruits ye shall know them!” “The fruits of the flesh are
_manifest_:” Gal. v. 19. The fruits of the Spirit, or
spiritual-mindedness, which are the reverse of the former, are likewise
enumerated in the same portion of Scripture. But where individuals are
not known to us, how shall we judge? (for this I suspect is their last
shift.) Simply by taking the judgment of those _who are
spiritually-minded_, _devoted_, _faithful_, and the like, and know the
candidate;—in short, the best testimony that can be obtained: there is no
mystery in the matter, the course taken in every inquiry as to character
is the course taken by the Clerical Committee and Secretaries, and one by
which the truth can seldom fail to come to light. That I may not be said
to shrink from any part of this discussion, I come to the case of Mr.
Briarly Browne himself.—First of all, as to his testimonials. Any one
knowing how unreflectingly testimonials of every kind are given, will see
the necessity of looking narrowly into them, when so great a matter is at
stake, as appointments, or the approval of them, in the Church. It
cannot but be perceived by our friends and supporters, as well as by the
public at large, that the gist of the accusations against the Committee
is the care and strictness with which they discharge their trust. In the
next place, the Bishop of Chester’s countersign to the testimonials of
the three beneficed Clergymen presented by Mr. Browne amounted to this,
that _they were Clergymen_ officiating in his diocese, and “_worthy of
credit_.” Lastly, the testimonials themselves are, _to my mind_, both
guarded and limited in their expression, and not of a decided character.
The two first set forth briefly what _they believe_ Mr. Browne to be,
&c.: the third, more strongly I allow, states, that the writer has _every
reason to believe_, but (what?) the matter deposed to would appear both
meagre and insufficient to me, if it was all I had as recommendation for
a Curate or substitute for my own duties.
It can answer no good purpose to quote at length a correspondence which
the parties who think themselves aggrieved lost no time in sending to the
Newspapers. I can only express my coincidence with the Secretary of the
Society, in thinking that the testimonials, (if) good as far as they
went, yet fell short of giving _full satisfaction_ as to “Christian
character and qualifications:” and since I would not flinch from the most
open discussion of the subject at issue, I will tell my Reverend
Brethren, Dr. Molesworth and Mr. Clark, the sort of testimonial which I
think called for by the occasion: for instance,—not only that I
“believed,” but that I was fully convinced, upon sufficient evidence, or
knowledge of the party, that he was both a sincere Churchman, and still
more a sincere Christian; preaching, or desiring to preach, the doctrines
contained in the Articles, and those in their proper order: first, “the
Name which is above every name,” (“for there is none other whereby we
must be saved,”) and afterwards every thing else in due subordination,
with no mixing up essentials and non-essentials as of equal worth: and
further, that his life exhibited tokens of his having been “born of the
Spirit,” by humility, meekness, temperance, devotedness, holiness, &c.,
as the case might be. Such a testimonial surely could not be chargeable
with the spirit of party; nor is there any thing overstrained, I
conceive, in its language or requirements: and yet three such
testimonials, I feel certain, from persons of credit, would never be
rejected by the Committee.
I would fain be spared the entering upon any of the doctrinal
peculiarities of the day; but am bound, in conscience, to add, that if I
knew of any one holding the doctrine, condemned by the Bishop of Exeter
in his last Charge, of _reserve in communicating the doctrine of the
Atonement_, nothing more would be required, in my judgment, to call for
the exercise of the _veto_.—We can but do as we would be done by. Let
Dr. Molesworth put himself in the position of the Clerical Committee:
would he recommend to others a Curate that he could not conscientiously
appoint himself? or would he _assent to_ the appointment of a Curate (for
that is more correctly our case), if he were trustee for another,
provided his own mind were not satisfied as to the fitness of the
individual proposed? Is any one so simple as to believe that Dr.
Molesworth would take _the first person that offered_, or choose
_blindfold_ as it were, for his own Curate. Many of our brethren, I
believe, delegate the choice of their Curates to friends in the ministry,
upon whose judgment they have more reliance than on their own. What does
the Church Pastoral-Aid Society more than these (it does not half so
much)? except, that where its judgment is asked, it bountifully pays the
Curate that is appointed.
II. But it might be argued, that allowing unworthy men did so intrude,
and establish themselves in the Church,—for the fact is indisputable,
making the necessity for vigilance manifest,—we could not meddle as a
Society, or Committee of Laymen, or Clergymen, either or both with a view
of repairing the evil, by rejecting nominations to our grants on account
of the character of Clergymen nominated to us, without violating the
plain order of the Church. Is it so?—then where is it laid down? for we
should like to have the _very words of authority produced_; being most
unwilling to forfeit our protection of the _veto_, so strong a necessity
for which is shewn, unless the Church has spoken very plainly and
authoritatively against it. All I can gather upon this subject from Dr.
Molesworth, is in the way of assertion, rather than of authority and
proof. There is plenty of _surmise_ of evil to the Church, and
everywhere an _assumed_ departure from order on our part; but what proof
is given? I am sure I cannot see it in the prayer for the Clergy and
people which Dr. Molesworth has alleged for that purpose. What decree,
canon, or judgment of the Church, has he quoted? As most decisive in the
controversy, I would by no means pass over that Scriptural argument from
Acts vi. 2, 3; where the whole “multitude of the disciples” were
solicited by the Apostles to select “men of honest report, full of the
Holy Ghost and wisdom,” to be afterwards ordained by themselves. To
judge who were fit for the office of Deacon is here manifestly delegated
to the body of believers; and those we call Laity were constituted judges
as to who were “of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.”
The multitude made choice because they had raised the common fund which
the Deacons were to distribute.
Let us come to the actual law and system of the Church. Laymen,
consistently with the order of the Church, purchase or inherit, and
appoint to benefices; and afterwards the Bishop inducts. This is in no
small degree analogous to granting the means for, and consenting to, the
nomination of Curates to the Bishops for licence. Corporate bodies, as
the Haberdashers’ or Goldsmiths’ Company, without a Clergyman among them,
exercise the right of patronage over livings in their gift. The Trustees
of new Churches or Chapels, commonly laymen, upon providing a certain
endowment, obtain Episcopal consecration for their edifices, and exercise
the whole right of selecting and appointing Ministers, to be afterwards
licensed by the Bishop; the consecration of their wealth to the Church
entitling them, I suppose, in the Church’s view, to this privilege of
nomination in return. The parties I have specified make election
according to their views of Clergymen or applicants, their doctrine and
manner of life. Nobody has ever objected to it, as far as I know at
least, as inconsistent with the present order of our Church. Late Acts
of Parliament are enlarging the facilities by which the Laity erect and
endow Churches upon consideration of the selection and nomination of
Ministers being in their own hands.
If it were possible that the Church Pastoral-Aid Society, by the exercise
of a simple _veto_ upon the nomination of Curates to fill its grants,
should endanger the Church,—what if its object were changed, its funds
invested in Church property, and it had in its hands _the whole
appointment_ to as many livings as could be purchased with its annual
income; that is, of Incumbents, and Curates too, virtually;—a proceeding
against which no one would have a right to complain, or power to act, as
contrary to the principles of the Church?—If a Society may consistently
with the laws of the Church appoint to livings, why may it not exercise a
negative voice in Curacies? If it may do the greater, why may it not do
the less?—The Church Pastoral-Aid Society asks for no right to nominate
or appoint, but only, that, in any appointment made by others to the
benefit of its grants, the Society should be satisfied that what it gives
is not, as we have seen it might be, unworthily bestowed. Is this more
than the Church is in the habit of allowing, in return for the
consecration of wealth to God; or is it less? Dr. Molesworth is very
sore on the subject of the _veto_. P. 15, he asserts that the retention
of it makes the nomination, engagement, &c., promised to the Incumbent,
“a _mere bubble_.” Suppose, then, that the _veto_ has been exercised as
one in ten, or one in twenty, (I speak in entire ignorance of the real
proportion,) would Dr. Molesworth affirm, that in the cases where the
Incumbent’s domination has been accepted at once, the _veto_ nevertheless
proves those nominations to be a bubble? The nature of a _veto_ is well
known: at the most, it is but half, and the worst half, of an
appointment; for vigilance may be lulled, and resolution wearied out.
_Let not the Society_, _for the Church’s sake_, _be provoked to justify
itself in __detail for the use of it_. In the blindness of his anger
against the _veto_, the Rev. Doctor declares that it makes the promised
appointment by the Incumbent “a _mere bubble_;” entirely overlooking,
that in the great majority of cases where the Incumbent’s nomination is
accepted, _the Curate is left thenceforward entirely under his controul_;
the Society losing sight of the individual altogether—for years it may
be—unless the Incumbent himself bring the appointment once more under its
review. I thought it not beside my purpose to follow Dr. Molesworth at
this point upon the _effect_ of the _veto_; but my proposition is the
_lawfulness of the use of it_, which I have endeavoured to shew by the
analogy of appointments to spiritual offices, such as the Church allows
to the Laity, either individuals or Societies, in return for the
endowments they furnish.
Precedents are besides afforded us in the existence of other Societies of
much earlier date, exercising similar or greater powers, and recognised
by the Church. The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and (by
_special licence of certain gentlemen who have invented a standard for
the purpose of determining the fact_) _a_ CHURCH Society, patronized by
the whole Episcopal Bench, is likewise a Society very liberally
constituted; all members, Lay or Clerical, having a vote in the
proceedings. Members are Clergymen or Laymen being Annual Subscribers of
a Guinea. Now this Society, besides its dissemination of the Scriptures,
&c., has the credit of having instituted the first Missions in our
colonies abroad. The great, the benign, the venerable Swartz—or, _may_ I
say, “the faithful and devoted” Swartz—was one of those employed in them.
Till of late, the Charges of the Society to its Missionaries appeared, as
a Tract for sale, on its Catalogue.
Here, then, we have a Society of the most liberal character, acting with
the _full_ concurrence of the Episcopal Bench, _selecting_, and
_appointing_, as well as paying Missionaries. It is true, as the
Christian-Knowledge Society enlarged its operations, it transferred this
part of its business to a separate Society, the Society for Propagating
the Gospel in Foreign Parts, but the precedent still remains. Before
that time, any member of that Society might have sat in judgment upon,
and a majority of Lay-members might have put the _veto_ practically upon
Missionaries nominated by the Clergy; or, _vice-versâ_, nominated the
Missionaries disapproved by the Clergy. So I read the constitution of
this Church Society:—if I am wrong, there are many who will be glad to
set me right. Members had, and must have had, the same power over
Missionaries that they originally had over Tracts; the same power that
they had over the appointment of all their officers. Such, I say, was
the constitution, whatever may have been the practice of the Society: any
Member might have _stood upon his right_ to exercise a vote in the
appointment of Missionaries; and, furthermore, if the practice of the
Society in this respect had been to delegate its right to the clerical
members of its body, as best qualified to judge of the fitness of persons
for spiritual offices, this would only make the case more analogous to
that of the Church Pastoral-Aid Society, which confides the trust of
examining into the character of candidates for its grants solely to the
clerical members of its Subcommittee.
Follow the case to the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign
Parts, which is likewise, according to the _exact discrimination_ of some
gentlemen, a Church Society. Whatever difference may exist between it
and the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, their constitutions in
one respect are similar; viz. that the governing body are a mixed
Committee of Laymen and Clergy, in whom must necessarily vest all
appointments and distribution of funds: if they should delegate the
nomination of Missionaries to their clerical members, they do exactly
what the Church Pastoral-Aid Society is doing; only with this difference,
that the Church Pastoral-Aid Society exercises a _negative_ and
_partial_, the others a _positive_ and _absolute_ voice in their
appointments. It is time I should quote the actual Rules of one of these
two Church Societies, with whom the whole business of the Missions is now
lodged. Rule XVII. of the Society for Propagating the Gospel is,
17. _That no Missionary be employed until the fullest inquiry has
been made into his fitness and sufficiency_; _and that all persons
applying for Missions shall produce testimonials_, _signed by three
beneficed Clergymen_, _and countersigned by the Bishop of the Diocese
in which those Clergymen are beneficed_.
What, Dr. Molesworth! a Society, a mixed Society, _examine_ and APPOINT
to sacred _offices_, _judging_ of _fitness_ and _sufficiency_: and not
only so, but AFTER testimonials by three Clergymen, countersigned by the
Bishop of the Diocese, &c. Even so! and this is a Church Society!! I
will not inquire, with the Rev. Dr. Molesworth (p. 16), “Upon what Church
principle are the testimonials of these men to be set aside, for the
vague affirmation that the candidate is” “not fit nor sufficient;”—but I
might do so with as much justice as Dr. Molesworth has shewn to the
Church Pastoral-Aid Society.
To guard against the intrusion of unfit persons to the sacred office,
every precaution is desirable: and I am by no means a less well-affected
member of the Society for Propagating the Gospel on account of this rule.
Dr. Molesworth may be affected in a directly opposite manner, and not
allow their practice to be any vindication of ours. At all events, I
have made good my position: here are _Church Societies_ acting upon a
principle of appointment to sacred offices by Laymen and Clergy in union;
only carrying the principle much further than we have, and doing what our
Society has been all along particularly scrupulous not to do—has, in
fact, avoided upon declared principle—viz. hazarding an opinion upon any
question, when it has been previously before the Bishop. If Dr.
Molesworth finds all these Societies equally to blame, pray let him do
_equal_ justice; and not reserve all his indignation for us, _the last_
and _the least_ offenders. If he is looking back to the pure theory of a
Church, and losing sight altogether of its present position, let him
confess the fact: but it is evident, in that case, he must sue for a
fresh trial against us, and enlarge the terms of indictment; when we may
chance to find ourselves pleading in such good company as to cause us to
rejoice in the prosecution. At all events, the Society stands guiltless,
at the present moment, of having more influence in the appointment of
spiritual persons than the Church grants to those who provide its
temporalities; and, furthermore, is not without precedent in established,
sanctioned, _Church_ Societies, for every step it has taken, and much
more.
III. Having shewn that the _veto_ is expedient, and lawful, I next
proceed to shew that the exercise of it is a matter of Christian
obligation. Who knows not that we are responsible for all our talents,
our time, influence, actions; those which we do by ourselves, and those
which we do by others, or enable others to do? If by any remissness in
the management of funds set apart for sending _labourers into the Lord’s
vineyard_, grievous wolves, profane or worldly men, were introduced
instead,—a contingency which is not so remote, as we have seen,—how sad
the perversion! how painful the self-reproach! To be not only not
attaining the good result, but in league with, and carrying on the very
opposite evil, would convict the Society of raising funds to be directed
against itself, and to its own condemnation. We are parties to the
errors and to the sins of those men who work only at our bidding, upon
our wages. With what consistency would a Society subscribing funds
devoted to the glory of God and the salvation of souls be afterwards
heedless of inquiring into whose hands they fell; knowing, at the same
time, that they might probably fall into such as would exhaust their
bounty indeed, but never advance their object? Where is principle, if
men who do apprehend the definition of “faithful and devoted,” and
believe that such men alone can supply the spiritual destitution of our
land, could willingly hand over their funds to those of opposite
principles, upon no better plea than the cry of one man—in whom we cannot
have any particular confidence—that “the Church is in danger?” We are
bound, with a wise economy, to husband our resources for God, especially
in the present disinclination or delay on the part of the State, to
provide for the moral destitution of its evergrowing population: and how
can we do this, unless we ascertain how those resources are applied? To
give, is but a small part of our duty; but it is enough to involve us in
responsibility, as to the manner and measure, the application and effect,
of our gifts. In short, of all matters over which conscience must
preside, and pronounce a verdict, there is none of more serious magnitude
and consequence than this, How shall I apply the funds contributed for
preaching the Gospel? The Society must follow the law of conscience too:
and what men would not do as individuals—contribute to the circulation of
error, and the support of unworthy men as ministers of the Gospel—they
will not do as members of this Society;—they will earnestly, I trust
prayerfully, guard against it. Would the friends and supporters of the
Society, whilst they remained _in doubt_ whether they were doing _good or
evil_ in the Church, and what character was borne by the Curates they
maintained, whether “faithful and devoted” or the reverse, (seeing that
both are to be found in the sacred office, the tares and the wheat
together,) make the exertion they now do—many of them, I believe, out of
their deep poverty—in support of the Society’s funds? Enough has been
said, I think, to shew that it is no light thing, when it is required of
us to give up our power of influencing others for their good; no light
thing, when we are asked to provide funds for a minister, without
inquiring whether he is good or bad; no light thing, when we are asked to
lose sight of our responsibility in the application of gifts we have
devoted to the glory of God.
The last thing I proposed to lay before you was the testimony of the
highest authorities of the Church to the character and services of the
Church Pastoral-Aid Society;—I may safely challenge any Society in the
Church to produce a more favourable one. The following was the tribute
of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of Lords, July
27th of the present year, in the debate on the Ecclesiastical Revenues’
Bill. After stating that “nearly 3,000,000 of our Fellow-Christians in
this land are utterly cut off from the advantages of Religion and
pastoral superintendence,” the Archbishop adds, “The funds of Queen
Anne’s Bounty, for the augmentation of small livings, were only
12,000_l._ a-year; but considerable assistance in aid of that sum was
derived from _the Pastoral-Aid Society_, and the Supplementary Curates’
Fund.” I notice, first, that if the Archbishop had thought the Society
was doing more evil than good with its fund, he never could have
mentioned it thus: secondly, that it is quoted as a Church Society, that
is to say, as belonging to the Church, and doing good service in it:
thirdly, that it is placed above the Supplementary Curates’ Fund,
according to its proper place, both on account of priority of date and
greater extent of usefulness. Other tributes of our spiritual Heads
under Christ were given at the last General Meeting of the friends and
supporters of the Society in May 1840, a period not greatly preceding Dr.
Molesworth’s attack:
The Bishop of LICHFIELD “_felt_, _on behalf of his diocese at least_,
A GREAT DEBT OF GRATITUDE TO THIS SOCIETY; there being at that moment
thousands, he might say tens of thousands, in that populous district,
to whom _the word of God was faithfully preached_ every Sabbath-day,
_who_, _but for the assistance of this Society_, _would have been
without the means of grace_, _almost_, _if not altogether_. But his
satisfaction did not arise merely from these selfish considerations,
but because _he approved of the general principles on which the
Society was founded_, _and the plans on which it was carried on_.
_Those principles and plans had been_, _in some instances_,
_misrepresented_, _or perhaps_, _he would rather say_,
_misunderstood_. _There was an impression on the minds of many_,
_that this Society preserved to itself a kind of jurisdiction
independent of the ecclesiastical authorities_. _Nothing could be
more erroneous than that_.”