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.
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 12,000l. 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—