Part 2

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.