“The Right Rev. Prelate said, that though it might appear late in the
day, he had been anxious to make amends for apparent neglect in past
time, by taking part in the proceedings of the Society, and
ESPECIALLY TO EXPRESS HIS BELIEF, THAT THAT PREJUDICE, WHICH FOR SOME
TIME HAD KEPT MANY BACK FROM SUPPORTING THIS DESIGN, WAS ENTIRELY
UNFOUNDED. EXAMINATION AND EXPERIENCE HAD TAUGHT HIM, that general,
religious, and benevolent purposes HAD ANIMATED THE PROCEEDINGS OF
THE SOCIETY, and A CAUTIOUS AND SOBER-MINDED DESIRE NOT TO DEPART
FROM THE TRUE DOCTRINES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. HE COULD NOT
BUT ADMIRE THE CHRISTIAN TEMPER AND ABILITY WITH WHICH THE SOCIETY
HAD BEEN CONDUCTED, AND BY WHICH ITS MANAGERS HAD ENDEAVOURED TO LIVE
DOWN ALL PREJUDICE AND OPPOSITION. HE LOOKED TO THIS SOCIETY, THEN,
WHICH WAS NOT INFLUENCED BY A PARTY SPIRIT, AS A REMEDY FOR THE EVIL.
He was happy to have this opportunity of testifying his cordial
approval of the designs and operations of this Society.”
The late Bishop of CHICHESTER (as well as the present, a Vice Patron of
the Society), in supporting the Resolution, bore his testimony to the
excellent effects produced by this Society, not only upon the country at
large, but upon that sphere of Christian action over which he had the
superintendence.
There is but one Layman whose testimony I shall quote; for I know not
where I should find another worthy to be added to the above list, as an
equally devoted and energetic friend of the Church, and of this Society.
It is not so much Lord Ashley as President of the Society, I quote, as
Lord Ashley known and esteemed in every relation of life, public and
domestic, in office and out of office,—by the Court, the statesman, the
operative, and the Christian. At the last public meeting, Lord Ashley
speaks thus:—
“Perhaps in the history of all the Religious Societies, there was no
parallel to the sudden rise and rapid progress of that which they
were that day celebrating; no one on which the blessing of God had
more immediately and more manifestly been bestowed. It was the very
thing demanded by the exigency of the times: and had accomplished, in
proportion to its means, the entire object for which it was
instituted. Of its holy and beneficial effects on private life,
wherever its labours extended, he would say nothing; they were amply
and nobly recorded in the periodical Reports; but he would assert his
firm and conscientious belief, that the operations of the Society had
mainly contributed to abate the hostility that had raged against the
Church of England; by making her known among those by whom she was
little known, to render her honoured and beloved, and to enable her
friends in another place to fight, under God’s providence, the great
battle of our civil and ecclesiastical constitution.”
* * * * *
Here my labours might appropriately end, Dear friends and supporters of
the Church Pastoral-Aid Society! with giving you the voice of the highest
authorities of the Church in our favour. All, therefore, I shall permit
myself to add, is an appeal to Dr. Molesworth himself—as one to whom we
bear no ill-will; as one who has not injured us at all, but rather
himself, by his late attack—warning him not again to peril his
respectable name on such an unjust and injudicious _tirade_ (for I can
call it nothing else) against this Society;—a Society so shielded from
his attacks, that he can only injure it through the sides of the Church,
of which this Society is as a specimen of the young wood, and vigorous
growth, from that old yet glorious stem, planted by the hands of the
Apostles, and rooted in Christ. I exhort him to lay aside his prejudice
and his opposition, and join the Society—as many of our members, I hear,
have joined his; when we will work together, “the Lord being our helper,”
to make the Society as perfect as we can. Then, surely, he would learn
to look at things in a more cheerful aspect, and with less jaundiced eye,
than to be raising a cry of “_schism_” (p. 9) in the Church—a reproach
which could hardly be expected, and would certainly be untrue (according
to any definition that I have heard of the word), even in the mouth of a
bigoted Dissenter. I would appeal to the Most Reverend Prelate from whom
Dr. Molesworth’s preferment was derived (and whose known gentleness
should have taught the Clergyman whom he had preferred, “a more excellent
way”), not to suffer this unseemly _widening_ of _breaches_ in the
Church, if there be such; or, as I think, _opening them_, where they
would not exist without. Is this “the comprehensive, healing, uniting
spirit of the Articles” (p. 15) which Dr. Molesworth loves? If it is, I
hope he will pardon me for saying (for I wish we might part friends),
that his is the most _abstract_ love of the principle of which I can form
an idea. For my part, I have never either made or acknowledged party
distinctions in the Church; nor will I be provoked to do so now. The
Church I have ever wished to regard as one body, with that mixture of
unworthiness in members which is consequent upon the imperfect condition
of all things here below: and I trust I do honour the Church too much,
lightly to foment her distractions, or expose her troubles to her
numerous foes. Yet do not mistake, Dr. Molesworth;—I value the Church
for the sake of the Gospel, not the Gospel for the sake of the Church;—I
value both Church and Gospel for their own sakes, and, by God’s blessing,
will support and defend both, according to my poor ability: but it is a
truth I am not ashamed to confess, that if by ‘Church’ is to be
understood the outward frame-work of this or any other Church, I value
the everlasting Gospel _even more_, and _much more_ than I do the
Church.—The Vicar of Rochdale may have time for controversy: I have not.
I have given him once for all what appeared to me to be a full and
satisfactory explanation of the points at issue: let the Society—those to
whom I address myself—judge. I was quite unwilling that the Committee
should follow Dr. Molesworth to the field: I felt, therefore, the more
ready to give him the meeting myself.