The Project Gutenberg eBook, Letter to the Friends and Subscribers of the
Church Pastoral-Aid Society, by Rev. Caleb Whitefoord


This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions 
whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at 
www.gutenberg.org.  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.




Title: Letter to the Friends and Subscribers of the Church Pastoral-Aid Society
       occasioned by a letter from the Rev. Dr. Molesworth


Author: Rev. Caleb Whitefoord



Release Date: May 16, 2020  [eBook #62144]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII)


***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LETTER TO THE FRIENDS AND
SUBSCRIBERS OF THE CHURCH PASTORAL-AID SOCIETY***

Transcribed from the 1841 L. and G. Seeley edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org

LETTER
TO THE
FRIENDS AND SUBSCRIBERS
OF THE
CHURCH PASTORAL-AID SOCIETY.

OCCASIONED BY
A LETTER FROM THE REV. DR. MOLESWORTH
TO THE
LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER,
CONTAINING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE SOCIETY.

BY THE REV. CALEB WHITEFOORD A.M.

CHAPLAIN TO THE INFIRMARY OF ST. JAMES’S, WESTMINSTER,
DOMESTIC CHAPLAIN TO HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF ROXBURGHE AND TO THE
MOST HON. THE MARQUESS OF BUTE.

Then I sent unto him, saying, There are no such things done as thou sayest,
but thou feignest them out of thine own heart.  For they all made us afraid,
saying, Their hands shall be weakened from the work, that it be not done.  Now,
therefore, O God, strengthen my hands.

NEHEMIAH, VI. 8. 9.

LONDON:
L. AND G. SEELEY, 169 FLEET STREET;
AND NISBET, BERNERS STREET.

1841.

Price Sixpence.

p. 2SYNOPSIS OF THE SOCIETY.

Object.—The salvation of souls, with a single eye to the glory of God, and in humble dependence on His blessing, by granting aid toward maintaining faithful and devoted men to assist the Incumbents of Parishes in their pastoral charge.

Principles.—That, in a Christian land, a Church established should adequately provide for the spiritual instruction of all the people; and that it is part of the duty of a Christian Legislature to furnish the Church with means to this end: but that, if the Legislature should fail of this duty, then, rather than souls should perish, Christians must join together, to supply the deficiency, and make the Church as effective as it is in their power to do.

Plan.—The Church Pastoral-Aid Society strictly regards the wants of the Church on the one hand, and the order of the Church on the other.  It would make the Church efficient; it would carry the Gospel, by means of the Church, to every man’s door, but it never intrudes its aid: the Incumbent must apply for aid, or sanction the application; and until this is done, the Society cannot move.  When aid is sought and granted, the Parochial Minister must say how it is to be employed—he must nominate the persons to be employed—he must engage them, as well as superintend and entirely control them.  All that the Society does, is to provide for their remuneration; and, while so doing, to ask satisfactory proof of their qualifications.

p. 3LETTER &c. &c.

The Rev. Dr. Molesworth, a Clergyman favourably known for some time past by the publication of a periodical called the “Penny Sunday Reader,”—who is likewise (as I perceive by the Advertisement appended to his Pamphlet) Author of “Family Sermons for every Sunday in the Year,” and whose promotion from a small benefice in Canterbury to one of the largest in the North of England was not long ago announced to the public,—has lately signalized his zeal in another way, by coming forward in the character of public prosecutor [3] against the “Church Pastoral-Aid Society:”—this he does in a printed Letter addressed to his own Diocesan, and our respected Vice Patron, the Bishop of Chester, containing serious charges affecting the whole character and management of the Society.

The indictment sets forth, that the Society, in spite of professed attachment to the Church, is in reality p. 4doing it the greatest injury, and chiefly by the exercise of a veto upon the appointment of parties to be maintained upon its grants.  Dr. Molesworth therefore calls upon the Society to put itself upon its defence,—to appear at his bar, and answer to his indictment, upon pain of sentence of outlawry to be pronounced against it by all the orthodox.  He further presses upon the subscribers and friends of the Society, as yet more friends of the Church, the necessity of transferring their subscriptions from the “Church Pastoral-Aid Society,” to the “Society for promoting the employment of Additional Curates, &c.”[4]

This direct attempt to injure the Society, as well in its funds as more vitally in its character, will make apology needless on my part for following Dr. Molesworth in his appeal to the Society at large; little as I may think his statements calculated to effect their design of weakening your attachment to this tried instrument (under God) of so great an amount of good.  And not suspecting that the Committee acting for the whole Society—a Society comprising in its members ten of the Episcopal order (including Dr. Molesworth’s own Diocesan), many Church Dignitaries, the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, &c. &c.—is likely so to forget what is due to itself, as to descend into the arena of controversy at the challenge of an individual; I thought it open to any of the 1400 Clergy attached to the Society, against whom the sentence of outlawry is p. 5to be passed, to accept Dr. Molesworth’s challenge upon somewhat more equal terms.

The Society will naturally enough remark, upon a primâ-facie view of Dr. M.’s cry of alarm,—“We have all these learned and venerable Bishops amongst us, these esteemed and valued Dignitaries; they would have informed us, long ago, if we were justly chargeable with the evil Dr. Molesworth has imputed to us:”—but either these learned and venerable men must be far less careful for the interests of the Church than Dr. Molesworth, or else (not having sufficient discernment?) failed to discover, in the five years’ working of the Society, under all the advantages of their connection with it, those evils which a single observer at a distance, acting in the exercise of his private judgment, has found so clear.  Happy for the Episcopal Bench, amidst all the mischief Dr. Molesworth has conjured up, not only in the Society, but in the Church, that there should be still left to them such a faithful adviser, such a controller, such a corrector of their inadvertencies and mistakes!  We shall presently see what testimony is borne by these learned and venerable men to the character and services of the “Church Pastoral-Aid Society;” when it will be for Dr. Molesworth to decide, how far his statement can be made to tally with theirs; or otherwise, which of the two we shall prefer.

Whether the Society is right or wrong in the exercise of its veto upon the nomination of parties to occupy its grants, is the main question at issue.  A more satisfactory way of dealing with it, than by following Dr. Molesworth’s arrangement,—which (with the exception of what he has culled from the Newspapers p. 6in his Preface and Appendix) is the simple one, of first saying all that can be said in favour of the Additional Curates’ Fund, and next, all that can be imagined against the Church Pastoral Aid Society,—will be, to place fully before you the simple and intelligible principles upon which, in the question at issue, the Church Pastoral-Aid Society acts.  I speak as one well acquainted with the Society’s operations, but as having no other authority for what I say.

Dr. Molesworth affirms (p. 13) that this rule of the Society will not abide “the sifting of honesty and common sense.”  Let us see.  We contend,

I.  That unworthy men do intrude themselves into the sacred ministry of the Church.

II.  That it is a principle not unknown to the Church, that those who provide the temporalities shall have a voice accorded to them in the selection of parties to benefit by their appropriation.

III.  That to appoint such as unworthily intrude into the ministry of the Church to cure of souls, is to be “partaker of their evil deeds.”  (2d Ep. John.)

In these particulars, it is presumed, will be comprehended a full discussion of the question at issue.  By the first proposition, I intend to shew the expediency of the veto; by the second, its lawfulness; and by the third, its bounden obligation.

Previously, however, I would disclaim, for myself, and the cause with which I would identify myself, all pleading at Dr. Molesworth’s tribunal;—a conclusion to which I am forced by the perusal of his Letter.—p. 7I appeal not to him;—and why?  I discover him to be an incompetent, because an unfair and presumptuous judge.  These are strong charges; and only to be warranted if borne out by proofs derived from his own Letter.

To his revered Diocesan appeal would have been superfluous, who well knows how to appreciate the becoming sneer at “spiritually-minded,” “evangelical,” and every thing of that sort.  Indeed, a less-disguised antipathy to real Religion, in my judgment, these later days have seldom witnessed,—at least in print, and from one of the Clergy.  My appeal is to those whom Dr. Molesworth would seek to pervert (vide App. p. 39), the friends and supporters of the Society: and I ask them, whether Dr. Molesworth has not prejudged already, from the temper and style of his pamphlet, the cause which he affects to put on trial?  A few extracts will shew.  He commences temperately enough; calling for, in page 7,

“An abandonment of the objectionable test, or at least a clear and explicit understanding upon the character and designs of the Society.”  And adding, “The Society owes to itself as well as to the Church, an official vindication from the questionable (to say the least) appearances against it.”

Such likewise was the tenor of his original Letter to the Manchester Courier (p. 4).  But, as he warms upon his theme, he forgets this prudent part of his plan.  Page 15, we find the veto thus described:—

“It is an insidious plan;—it is a plan fit for a society with shabby, party, and sectarian designs, but not for a society with simply and singly Church views.  It places the Society above the Bishops and Archbishops,” &c.

Page 14, he had remarked—

“I will not affirm that the rule was designed to be the p. 8instrument of a shabby and crooked policy; but I will affirm, that if it had been so designed, it could not have been better contrived.”

The insinuation here conveyed is that amplified, as we have seen, in the very next page, by which we may judge at what rate Dr. Molesworth travels.—Page 20, he feels shy of saying that this rule is the instrument of “a dangerous and double-faced policy;” whilst he does not hesitate to style (p. 23) those who have the working of the rule, “despotic, and irresponsible” (!) managers.—The Secretary of our Society (the Rev. E. B. Were) had wound up an unpleasant correspondence (for it is always unpleasant to tell a man he will not do) with a layman (Mr. Briarly Browne), whose friend, the Rev. Mr. Clark, had sought for him a grant from the Society, upon which Mr. Briarly Browne was to be ordained; brooding all the while, and hardly suppressing, considerable ill-will to the Society in their hearts.  The endeavour on the part of our Secretary to expose this unhandsome proceeding is stigmatized as “a poor shuffling attempt” (p. 24).  Previously, Dr. Molesworth had admitted (p. 18) that this was done “with some, but rather severe, justice.”  I pass by another charge, in the same page, of more serious and offensive character, which Dr. Molesworth greedily catches up from a Letter of Mr. Clark; intending to return to it by and by.  But after all, nothing of this kind comes up to the appendix:—he has bade adieu to the Bishop, and has got a little out of sight;—and now hear him:—what was but the lion passant guardant before, is become truly the lion rampant now.  “The Society” (he says, p. 36), “in the plenitude of their super-papal authority, have p. 9thought fit to declare!!!”—and at the end of the next extract—“Is not this monstrous?”  “Are these Church principles?”  “Is such a tribunal of intolerance and sectarianism!! to stand forth and collect money, and to be advocated in our pulpits as a Church Society?”

And now, friends and supporters of the Church Pastoral-Aid Society, are you willing to be tried by Dr. Molesworth, or are you convinced that he has made up his mind before you come into Court?  If the Society, or the Committee it appoints as among its most responsible members, be deserving of such rank abuse as this, where is the need of inquiry?  Bad indeed must the Society be decided to be;—bad in its principles, bad in its management, bad in its officers; in short, all bad together.  Why, then, does Dr. Molesworth dwell so tamely, at the outset, upon “questionable appearances which require vindication”?  Wherefore does he affect to call for “a clear and explicit understanding upon the character and designs of the Society.”  (P. 7, and Letter to the Manchester Courier.)

If the matter needs no inquiry, why does Dr. Molesworth make a show of demanding it?  And if it does, why does he approach the question in such a predetermined spirit of hostility as to make the proposal, in his case, a deception; shewing that he at least has settled the question before (as he admits) he has heard it.

There is no disguising it—Dr. Molesworth’s objection lies far deeper: this will be seen, as we enter further into the consideration of his attack.  The ostensible grounds of objection shift about.  The employment of Lay p. 10agents is now the minor matter (pp. 18 and 19).  It was the major, onewhile; but the Society having suffered as much loss as the urging and mis-stating of that objection could inflict, and having happily survived the injuries, the major point sinks, and becomes the minor (as you perceive), and the minor is now the major, and so on; for reproach will never be wanting against a Society founded, supported, and (under God) successfully worked by those whose religious sentiments Dr. Molesworth treats with undisguised aversion.  Else why that strange loathing of the very word “spiritually-minded”; so that he has actually clipped it of a full syllable?  It is a curious fact, that the Rev. Doctor has quoted this word (in allusion to the Letter of the Rev. Mr. Were, Secretary to the Society), but always writing it thus, “spiritual-minded,” no less than eleven times in twenty pages, and evidently in a tone of derision.  Now, when a Doctor of Divinity takes up a Scriptural term only to disparage it, and others by it; and actually mistakes the orthography of the word, as though it were quite new to him, and foreign to his taste; it is high time we should quote him the passage at length wherein it occurs, and then leave it with him:—Rom. viii. 6: “To be carnally-minded is death, but to be spiritually-minded is life and peace.”

Dr. Molesworth can do justice to the Society in nothing; he cannot even allow it its real title: yet one would think, that the good he is forced to admit, to a certain extent, that the Society has done in the Church, and not out of the Church, might, in a lesser sense at least, and putting aside all courtesy to his clerical brethren in the Society, entitle it to be called a “Church Pastoral-Aid Society.”  Not so, for (p. 25) p. 11the Society is a “Lay Society”!  What Dr. Molesworth does with the ten Bishops, so high a Churchman as he would be thought, I marvel: when they are treated thus, his 1400 brethren of the Clergy will, of course, go for nothing!  The title given us of “Lay Society,” however, is adopted from the Letter of Mr. Briarly Browne; a layman himself, be it observed, but who (proh pudor!) will not bestow the name of Churchman upon Bishop or Archbishop, Dignitary or Parish Priest, so long as they remain connected with this Society!  Might it not have served his turn to have denounced the Society as a mixed Society of Lay and Clergy, an unauthorised Society, or any thing more offensive that he pleased, which would at least have spared the Church Dignitaries attached to the Society the insult of being reckoned as laymen, or nothing; and by which this layman would not have set his clerical champion the bad example he was not slow to follow, of casting contempt (as I cannot but consider it) upon the highest authorities of the Church.

Another, and the most unmeasured of all their charges against the Society, is likewise adopted by the Doctor from the Letter of Mr. Clark, that of “raising money upon false pretences!!!”  This, in other terms, accuses the Society of swindling; and to this no defence will be conceded on my part.  If the authors of the charge can believe it, I pity them: in my judgment, it refutes itself.  Nevertheless, as an offence cognisable by our laws,—they will pardon me the suggestion,—it will afford them the very opportunity they appear to seek, of exposing, as well as annoying, the Committee of the Society in open court; provided only the proofs are at hand.

p. 12Little as I am disposed to bandy words, I might ask, if a Society, having fully, fairly, and publicly declared its principles, (and I believe there never was a Society which carried the practice to a greater extent,) and had thereby published upon what terms its money was subscribed and its grants made, so that there could be no mistake; and if others, knowing and hating its principles equally, had, notwithstanding, proposed themselves as parties to benefit by its funds whilst they eluded its principles; who would be raising money upon false pretences, in that case?

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 p. 13proof, 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.

p. 14Hitherto, 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 p. 15of 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 p. 16would 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 p. 17evils, 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 p. 18Jebb, 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 p. 19a 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 p. 20at 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, p. 21“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.  p. 22What 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 p. 23office 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 p. 24Society, 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 p. 25detail 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 p. 26of 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.

p. 27Follow 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” p. 28“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, p. 29sanctioned, 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 p. 30husband 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.

p. 31The 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 p. 32selfish 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 p. 33things, 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 p. 34this 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 p. 35Church, 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 p. 36her 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.

***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LETTER TO THE FRIENDS AND SUBSCRIBERS OF THE CHURCH PASTORAL-AID SOCIETY***

***** This file should be named 62144-h.htm or 62144-h.zip******


This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/2/1/4/62144


Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook
for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,
performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given
away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks
not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the
trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
1.E.8.

1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country outside the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
  are located before using this ebook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
provided that

* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
  Literary Archive Foundation."

* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
  works.

* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
  receipt of the work.

* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The
Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org 

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary 
Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its
volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

For additional contact information:

    Dr. Gregory B. Newby
    Chief Executive and Director
    gbnewby@pglaf.org

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.