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.