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.