Part 3

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_.”

The Bishop of RIPON said—

“He would willingly have been spared the necessity of addressing them, but that he had one strong motive for doing so; namely, that of declaring _the singular benefits which this Society had been the means of conferring_ upon the diocese over which he had the honour to preside.”

The Bishop of CHESTER said—

“Over the space to which this Report refers, only seventy-one Clergymen were engaged for this population before the time when the aid of this Society came in; and this was _one great reason_, _among many others_, _why he should be grateful to a Society which had enabled him to look to the vast concerns under his care with so much less anxiety of mind_, _as to the means provided for their discharge_, _than he could otherwise have hoped to have done_. _But there was still a vast amount remaining of the benefits which this Society had conferred upon the Church and upon the people_, _and which could never be stated in the words of a Report_.”

The Bishop of NORWICH said—

“I willingly come forward in support of the Church Pastoral-Aid Society. There are two Church Pastoral-Aid Societies: _they are called rivals_, _but they are established entirely and solely for the purpose of doing good_. I welcome the introduction and success of the Society; and I heartily wish it God speed, and that it may prosper throughout the land.”

The Bishop of Winchester having been prevented by domestic affliction from attending the last public meeting, and the Bishop of Llandaff being absent in his diocese, their testimony is derived from public declarations of a year previous, 1839:—

The Bishop of WINCHESTER:—

“_He was bound_, _then_, _in the spirit of unfeigned thankfulness_, _to add his testimony and expression of gratitude to those already given_. He, too, could refer to that part of the country over which he presided in spiritual things, as furnishing, to his own knowledge, an amount of obligation to the Society for the timely aid it had afforded to his clergy; and in many respects he could testify both to its direct and indirect usefulness. He could point to the stimulus to good works which it had given in many quarters of his diocese, by the aid afforded through its instrumentality: he could point to subscriptions raised on behalf of additional churches; to school-rooms erected, and soon, as his Right Rev. Brother had expressed it, to be converted into places of worship, and endowed according to the use and form of the National Church.” . . . “_I rejoice in the existence of this Society_, _and am thankful to God for having put it into the hearts of many to aid this work of faith and labour of love_.”

The Bishop of LLANDAFF:—

“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.

I am, &c. CALEB WHITEFOORD.

_Hamilton Terrace_, _St. John’s Wood_, January 5, 1841.

NOTE.—“We feel some difficulty in adopting the nomination, not from _any doubt_ of Mr.—’s moral character, or of his _activity_ in his _ministerial duty_, but because we do not see that _evidence_ which _we_ desire to receive of the _orthodoxy_ of his preaching:—that _we_ are deeply convinced that activity in the ministry can only be useful so far as it is connected with the promulgation of those doctrines which are taught in Holy Scriptures, and exhibited by the Church as the _prominent_ truths of Divine Revelation. We do not mean to impute to Mr. — deficiency in this respect, but _we_ wish to be _satisfied_ that his _instructions_ are such as, under God’s blessing, will promote the _great end_ for which our Society has been established—the salvation of souls through the instrumentality of ‘faithful and devoted men.’”

_N.B._ A specimen of the “hide-and-seek phraseology,” from the Collection of the Church Pastoral-Aid Society, presented by the Rev. Dr. Molesworth.

* * * * *

Printed by Richard Watts, Crown Court, Temple Bar.

FOOTNOTES.

{3} What other inference can be drawn from p. 39 of the Appendix,—where he says, “I have adduced strong cases, collected _with ease_, against the Society. I now lay myself out for them; and _request_ those Clergy, who have been in similar circumstances with regard to the Pastoral-Aid Society, to send me in their cases (_postage pre-paid_), and the _documents supporting them_.”?

{4} “Every _Churchman_ belonging to it should withdraw his support, and transfer that support to the _liberal_ and _truly Church_ SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL CURATES.” (The Italics and Capitals are Dr. Molesworth’s.) P. 39, Appendix.

{18} See the Note at the end of this Letter.