.

7

A THIRD STATEMENT

REAL DANGER

CHUECH OF ENGLAND.

THE REV- W. GRESLEY,
PREBENDARY OF LICHFIELD.

SETTING FORTH THE

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ROMANISTS AND ANGLICANS, AND
THE IDENTITY OF EVANGELICALS AND PURITANS.

LONDON:
JAMES BURNS, 17 PORTMAN STREET,

PORTMAN SQUARE.

1847.

Lately published,
THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
By the Rev. W. Gresley. Third Edition.
A SECOND STATEMENT OF THE REAL DANGER OF
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. By the same Author. Containing An
swers to certain Objections which have been made against his former Statement.
Second Edition. Also,
SOME REPLY to " Remarks on a Pamphlet entitled The
Real Danger of the Church of England," by a. Clergyman of the Church of
England. James Bukns, 17 Poiitman Street.

PRINTED BY ROBSON, LEVEY, AND FRANKLYN,
Great New Street (Fetter Lane.

A THIRD STATEMENT

REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH.

Perhaps the greatest evil that could befall the English
Church at the present time would be, if, from disgust
at recent controversies, good men should fall into
apathy and indifference, and allow the disease with
which she is now afflicted to make such stealthy
advances, and acquire such a tenacity of hold, that,
when they become alive to their danger, it might be
found impossible to arrest it.
In the hope of inducing the sound members of the
Church to exercise firmness and vigilance, I feel im
pelled to appear before the public with this my Third
Statement, in which it will be my aim to answer the
objections of those who have attempted to disprove
my former arguments, and to bring forward such ad
ditional matter as may place beyond a question the
reality and magnitude of the danger with which the
Church is at the present time threatened.
The recent movement in the English Church has
been of an eminently practical character. The de-

A THIRD STATEMENT OF

bate has been about the means of salvation. As to
the terms of salvation there is little or no difference
of opinion. The question is about the means. The
object of the movement has been to bring men to
recognise and act upon this important truth, — that,
speaking generally, salvation is to be obtained only by
the right use of ordained means ; that the reception of
the sacrament of Baptism, and the drawing out of the
grace then imparted, and the careful training up of a
child, from the very cradle, in the way in which he
should go — not a conversion from sin at some in
definite period of after-life — is the primary aspect of
religion in a Christian country; — that a lifelong course
of self-mastery and obedience, and other Christian
graces, is the only sure mark of saving faith ; — that
men must be worshippers of God, not merely hearers
of sermons ; — that repentance in those who have griev
ously fallen is not a sudden off-hand thing, but must
be "worked out" with pain and sorrow and self-disci
pline; — in short, that if we desire salvation, we must
make diligent use of the Sacraments and ordinances of
the Church, and all those other means which God has
prepared whereby to sustain the spiritual life of His
adopted sons.
Now all this is very repugnant to human nature ;
especially to a luxurious, self-indulgent, self-willed
generation. Nevertheless, to a certain extent, the
movement has been successful. Many earnest-minded
members of the English Church, both amongst the
clergy and laity, threw themselves into it heart and
soul, and endeavoured to conform their lives to the

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 5
high standard which it proposed ; and they did so
under the full impression that the spirit and practice
which they hoped to see revived, was not only in per
fect accordance with the system of their own Church,
but, rather, was identical with it. In aiming at the re
storation of this state of things, they felt and believed
that it was but the restoration of their own Church
to its true position, as the faithful exponent of what
God intended Christianity should be in its purest
form upon earth. They found all that seemed need
ful for a Christian life, according to their view of it,
in the system and formularies of the English Church,
and desired not to go one step beyond them.
And the success of their endeavours was for a
while even beyond their expectations. Church prin
ciples spread from place to place with astonishing
rapidity. The worship of God began to assume an
aspect of reality. Every where throughout the coun
try you might see men restoring the houses of God
to a decent comeliness. The dust and filth of cen
turies were removed. Men who had never prayed, now
knelt in prayer; men who had never praised God,
began to tune their voices to songs of thanksgiving ;
the altar of the Lord was thronged with communi
cants ; and, in their anxiety to serve God most ac
ceptably and harmoniously, they felt that they could
not, as English Churchmen, adopt a more consistent
rule than to recur to the formularies and ordinances
prescribed by the Church of which they were mem
bers. These formularies, restored from careless ne
glect and mutilation, they hoped to see the basis of

6 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
united worship in their own Church, and a model to
the rest of Christendom of pure and holy services.
To shew the practical character of the recent
movement, I would mention, as one out of many
instances, the revival of the neglected order of our
Church, that those who are unable otherwise to quiet
their conscience should resort to their minister, and
" open their griefs," with a view of obtaining those
spiritual aids and consolations which God's ministers
are commissioned to afford. The judgment of the
last day alone can declare the number of souls saved
from death eternal by the restoration of this one
most valuable ordinance of the Christian Church.
But how, let us inquire, have these earnest en
deavours after a better state of things been met ?
They were from the first but coldly regarded by too
many, from whom a few kind words of encourage
ment would have been valued beyond gold. But it
soon appeared that the sympathies of the young and
hopeful were beginning to be warmly engaged ;
deeper and more serious views of ministerial duty were
adopted ; a higher standard was aimed at ; and a
great zeal was kindled. But with this zeal came also
want of discretion. And the want of discretion ap
peared to the ruling powers more dangerous than the
zeal was commendable. The men of the world, too
began to denounce a system which put to shame their
lax and self-indulgent habits : and the spirit of the
world soon shewed how wide and all-engrossino- was
its influence, even in quarters from which one might
have hoped that it would have been excluded. A

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 7
statute, which had slept for more than a century, was
revived, in order to pass public censure in one of the
Universities on one of the most distinguished teachers
and accomplished divines of the age. Many other
ardent spirits, which, by kindness and wise counsel,
might have been the most distinguished ornaments
of the English Church, were disheartened by these
proceedings. Some, who took the decision of a body
of doctors to be equivalent in authority to the passing
of a new canon by the Church, have, in rash impa
tience, cast off their allegiance to the Church of their
Baptism. Others, debarred from active duties, have
fed their wounded feelings by those devotional works,
and lives of saints, which the Church of Borne so
well knows how to minister to minds diseased ; and
thus their affections have been beguiled from their
true Mother.
It is impossible to say what might have been the
effect if a different course had been adopted by the
ruling powers. As it is, the result has been most
disastrous ; the Church has been deprived of the ser
vices of many able and conscientious men, who have
either joined the Church of Rome, or brood in silence
over the disappointment of those hopes which they
once, perhaps too fondly, cherished, of a general
revival of practical religion.
Nor has the result been less mischievous as re
gards the Church generally. Ignorant persons, un
able to discern between truth and error, have sup
posed that, because some of its advocates had run into
extremes, the movement itself was wrong. The old

8 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
anti-christian irreligious spirit revived ; Puritanism
and the world renewed their alliance ; devotion be
gan to be again scoffed at ; sacraments were decried ;
ordinances contemned ; the rules of the Church set
at naught ; her very doctrines disputed and denied
by her own ministers.
Such is the state in which we now find ourselves.
While in the breasts of many the revived spirit of
the English Church still holds its ground, the pro
gress of improvement is, for the time at least, for
midably impeded, and the antagonist principle of
Latitudinarianism, Puritanism, and worldliness, op
poses its stubborn front ; and the Church is menaced
with the dominance of the old spirit of mingled irre
verence and fanaticism, which once before enslaved
her. What, now, is to be done ? Are we to fold our
hands in despair ? are we to suffer, without a struggle,
the old sectarian leaven to spread itself over the
Church? are we to await the coming on of heresy
like doomed men? God forbid we should act so
unworthily of the sacred cause of truth. Nay, rather
let us struggle manfully to maintain our position,
which is still far in advance of that which the
Church occupied before the recent movement.
Our best hope of success is to persevere in "laying
the case in all its bearings before the tribunal of
the Church at large. Humanly speaking, the in
fluence on which depends both the immediate and
future destiny of the Church, is the course which
shall be taken by our Bishops and leading men, who

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 9
by their weight and authority, are able to direct the
current of events. If, from imperfect information, or
from undue deference to public prejudice, or from
fear or favour, influential men should give their
weight to the Puritan side, and allow false principles
gradually to obtain a preponderating power, the
Church of England is lost, her character compro
mised, and ere long her spirit will have departed
from her. All depends on the discretion and firm
ness of those in influence and authority. If such
men vacillate and truckle, great will be the loss ; if
they are resolute to maintain the Church in her integ
rity and genuineness, we may yet be safe. Our best
chance of safety, so far as human 'means are con.
cerned, appears to me to be in the persevering use
of the press; — the bringing forward fact after fact,
and argument after argument, to shew the utterly
unsound character of the so-called Evangelical system
— its identity with the Puritanism which once de
stroyed the Church — the absolute necessity that
its systematic and organised proceedings should
be speedily checked, unless we wish to see the
Church of England undergo the same fate as when
before it fell under Puritan domination. We must
reason calmly, quietly meet injurious imputations,
bring forward undoubted but forgotten facts. So
we may hope gradually to open the eyes of those
who yet have the power to save the Church, to a
sense of the course of conduct demanded of them in
the present critical juncture.

10 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
One thing persons of all parties admit, namely,
that the Church of England is, by reason of her
intestine divisions, in a perilous and unsatisfactory
state. There may be, and no doubt are, dangers
from various quarters. What is so important at the
present time is, to judge calmly and dispassionately
on what side and from what quarter the danger is
most imminent : for it is very possible that prejudice
or treachery may direct the attention of the Church's
defenders to one side, when the real danger is on
the very opposite. That which strikes the eye of the
common observer is the unusual phenomenon of the
secession of not a few persons from the communion
of our own Church to that of the schismatical sect
of Pome. It is a phenomenon which has not oc
curred lately in our Church, at least not to the
same extent. People have been falling off wholesale
to dissent, and little was thought of it ; but seces
sions to Borne are something extraordinary. Two
or three go, then there is an interval, and we hope
the secession is at an end ; then, again, rumour is
rife, and we hear of the departure of two or three
more, and reports are spread that others will follow.
The excitement is magnified, and kept up by false
reports as well as true. One while we are astonished
by a confident assertion that as many as thirty
clergymen of the Church of England are traitors
in the camp, — that they have secretly conformed to
Bomanism, but have a dispensation from the Pope to
retain their position and emoluments for the present.
All good Churchmen are, for a few days, filled with

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 11
alarm not unmixed with shame and suspicion. They
look on each other with distrust, not knowing in
what quarter treachery may not be found. Then
it is discovered that the whole story is entirely with
out foundation. But still it has served its purpose.
It is enough, as Napoleon used to say, that a lie
be believed for four-and-twenty hours. It has oc
cupied the public mind, and done its work. Soon
another report is spread, that one of the most able
and respected members of the English Church, whose
sacred poems are in every hand, whose character
every one reveres, is faithless or wavering. This
serves only to call forth an earnest denial. Still se
cessions go on from time to time. Between one and
two hundred clergy and educated persons have gone.
Mr. Close computes them at one hundred and thirty
or forty ; and rumour says that there are still persons
here and there in an unsettled state. So that the
dropping off of members of the Church of England
to Bome cannot, perhaps, be considered even yet ab
solutely at an end.
Such, I suppose, will be admitted to be a just
description of the Bomanizing movement. There
neither has been, nor is likely to be, any numerous
secession ; men have gone off by twos and by threes,
and possibly may yet do so. We cannot tell pre
cisely when the movement will cease. They go, and
the Church is rid of them ; and we hear little more
of them, except occasionally of their doings in distant
lands, or of the little satisfaction which they find in
the Church of their adoption.

12 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
Look now to the opposite, the Evangelical or
Puritan extreme. We see a large body of men,
identical, as I have shewn in former pamphlets, and
propose to shew more fully in this — identical with
the Puritans, who have infested the Church from the
time of the Reformation, and have once destroyed it
— leaguing with Dissenters ; claiming to hold all dis
senting doctrines, and yet to continue members and
ministers of the Church of England ; flatly denying
the doctrine on which some of the most important
ordinances of the Church, indeed our whole Church-
system is based ; asserting their right to interpret
the language of our formularies in a non-natural
sense ; exhibiting a strange mixture of assumed bold
ness and evidently uncomfortable consciousness of the
untenableness of their position ; manifestly deter
mined, as soon as they are strong enough, to remodel
the Church and her formularies, and no longer submit
to the disgrace of continually using language which
in their hearts they disavow.
I have seen no less than three printed Prayer-
books, which it is proposed should be substituted
for our own. Some, who are more prudent, declare
that they desire no alteration to be made "just
now."1 Others propose the middle course of " brack-
etting" the Prayer-book ; so that those who object to
the doctrine of certain portions may not be obliged
to use them.
Such are the devices by which this party hope
to reduce the Church to their own standard; con-
1 See Mr. Close's Apology, p. 18.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 13
tinuing for the present to officiate as ministers in
formularies which many of them openly condemn, in
the expectation that ere long they may have things
much at their own disposal. And these persons have
in various ways obtained great power and influence.
They have bought with money many important of
fices, where they place popular preachers, bold and
confident men, active and diligent, and let us trust
conscientious (for there is no reason to believe them
otherwise), who shall embue the people with their
mistaken views. They have also formed various
societies for the employment of missionaries, curates,
scripture - readers, and schoolmasters ; the appoint
ment of whom, as well as their continuance in office,
is most conscientiously reserved in their own hands,
so as to ensure the preaching of the doctrines of Puri
tanism in a vast number of places. They have also at
their command newspapers, magazines, and reviews,
and other organs, in which their own doctrines are
promulgated, their opponents vilified and calumniated,
as occasion arises, and attempts are made to in
timidate the Bishops, whensoever any one of them
sets his face against their proceedings ; and there
can be no doubt that they have, by these means, ex
ercised considerable influence over those who dislike
notoriety, and love peace or a quiet life more than
truth. The question is, then, and I put it to the great
mass of Churchmen who belong to neither extreme,
on which side is the real danger of the Church of
England ? In the dropping off by twos and by

14 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
threes of these hundred and thirty or forty persons
to the Bomish schism in England, or in the esta
blishment and continuance, and daily advance within
the Church, of this other extreme party, organised,
active, and popular — popular, simply because their
real objects are not known, and because no steps
are taken by those in authority to check their pro
ceedings, and open the eyes of the public to their
true character.
I fully admit the great evil that has been caused
by the Bomanizers to the Church. But it was not
their own secession. The secession of a hundred and
forty persons out of the many millions of members
of the Church of England, is comparatively insig^
nificant. The real evil effected by the Bomanizers
is the reaction which they have caused ; the handle
which they have given to the Puritan party to raise
its head, and gather strength ; the resuscitation of
the old " No Popery" cry — and this with apparent
justice — and its direction not against Popery only,
but against the doctrine and discipline of the Church
itself ; the suspicions cast on the Church's best ser
vants ; the confusion of principles ; the revival, in
short, of the factious Puritanical spirit in all its
power and virulence, — this is the real mischief of the
secession. To say that there is any danger of the
Romanists getting the upper hand in England is the
most extreme absurdity.
The case of the Romanizing party is understood
and decided. They claimed to hold all Boman doc
trines ; and their claim was at first received with

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 1.1
astonishment, then formally disallowed ; and so, con
sistently, they gave up their position in the Church ;
and it is possible a few more may yet depart. But
here, on the other hand, are men who claim to hold
all dissenting doctrines, and to interpret the articles
and formularies of the English Church according
to their own distorted views. The case of these
men is yet undecided — undecided, that is, in the
present generation — for decisions enough have been
made in former days, as I intend presently to prove.
But at present these men, strengthening themselves
in their numbers and influence, claim to hold dis
senting doctrines, still remaining ministers of the
Church, not thirty only, but ten times that num
ber, and much more than that. And the authority
and common sense and integrity of the Church
has not yet pronounced their claims to be as ut
terly untenable as that of the Bomanizers. And
so they continue, and advance, and multiply their
positions, and entrench themselves in their ground,
so that many persons begin to think that their ex
istence within the Church is an evil which cannot
be removed ; forgetting that it is more than probable
that if the disease be not eradicated, it will spread
itself over the whole surface of the Church, and
utterly change its form and features.
The question is, what is to be done ? Does any
one think it possible that the danger will pass away
of itself? With the organisation and means and in
fluence that the Evangelical or Puritan party now pos
sess, is it possible that they should remain stationary?

16 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
On the contrary, it is certain that, unless speedily
checked, they will go on increasing until they have
obtained predominant influence. Suppose our present
Bishops to continue to connive at the proceedings of
the Puritan party ; nay, even to seem to encourage
and recognise them, and to promote them to offices of
dignity and influence, so that ostensibly they shall
occupy the position in the public estimation of a
popular and influential party in the Church, — the
following consequence will infallibly happen, viz. :
that Bishops will be frequently chosen from their num
ber. Prime ministers look to public opinion, at
least to the opinion of leading men ; and if from
the conduct of our present Bishops, they have reason
to suppose that the Puritan party, instead of being
what they really are, the opponents of the Church,
are simply a legitimate, influential, and popular
school within it, they will choose Bishops from that
party ; and what should prevent us from having a
majority of Puritan Bishops, who, with the con
currence of those clergy and laity who think with
them, shall remodel our Church and formularies at
their discretion ?
If there be, as I think is manifest, the possibility
of a majority of Bishops, or a large minority of them,
being of the Puritan party, — it is clear that, humanly
speaking, the safety of the Church depends on the
firmness and vigilance of the present Bishops. If they
should take no steps to disabuse the public mind, and
check the progress of organised Puritanism, the as
cendancy of that faction, and consequent recasting

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 17
of our Church on a Puritan basis, is a mere question
of time ; just as a disease unchecked will end in dis
solution. Have I not, then, given proof of the necessity of
calmly and carefully attending to all the symptoms
of the disease that is spreading amongst us ; and of
not being frightened by the bugbear of Popery ; or
suffering ourselves to be misled by popular prejudice,
or the fear of unpopularity, or any such unworthy
motive, from taking such measures as the danger
of the Church requires ?
Now the principal cause of the recent advance of
Puritan principles is the dexterous appeal to the po
pular fear of Popery. That Popery is a thing to be
feared, and that there has been cause for alarm for
the safety of individuals, I am ready to admit. But
the artifice of the Puritans has been, to magnify this
danger, and to stigmatise with the odium of Popery
some of the most undoubted doctrines of the English
Church ; as well as persons whose whole lives and
energies have been spent in her service.
As one principal object of this third pamphlet is,
to reply to those persons who have animadverted on
my former publications, I trust it will not need apo
logy if I proceed to illustrate my position from cir
cumstances personal to myself. A strong indignation
originally induced me to speak of the proceedings of
the Evangelicals in rather plainer terms than its
advocates have recently been accustomed to hear.
What others have said, anonymously, in reviews and
magazines, I have spoken openly in my own person ;
c

18 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
thereby gaining attention which anonymous state
ments would not have obtained ; though at the same
time rendering myself the butt for shafts from various
quarters. My readers will, perhaps, be somewhat amused by
the following extract from the Record, contained in a
review of my second pamphlet on the " Real Danger
of the Church :"
" The inclination of our mind is to believe that he (Mr.
Gresley) is already a member of the Church of Rome,
holding a dispensation to remain in the Church, so as to
work with an effect towards Catholic objects, which it were
impossible for him to attain if he had avowedly apos
tatised."1 Now, had I been disposed to prosecute the editor
for a libel injurious to my character and interests, I
suppose this would have been a good opportunity. I pre
fer, however, simply to use this passage as an example
of that disgraceful system of slander by which the Pu
ritan party brand the personal character of those who
dare to oppose their mischievous course. Many per
sons will doubtless say, " Why take notice of what is
said in such a paper as the Record ? No one believes
a word that it asserts." It may be very true that,
amongst my friends, and those who know the charac
ter of my writings, such an absurd calumny, so far
from injuring me in their opinion, is simply ridicu
lous. But it must be remembered, such is the ex
treme ignorance and party-spirit existing, that there
are a great many ill-informed persons, nay some of
1 Record for November 9, 1846.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 19
station and comparative intelligence, who implicitly
believe the statements of the Record, supposing that
there must be some foundation for its assertions.
Hear the Record's own boast. The editor says that
there are
" Thousands [of people who] constantly read the Re
cord ; and not only in the United Kingdom, the continents
of Europe and America, but very strikingly in India, the
influence of the Record is felt and its value appreciated ;
so that we know that even up to the bosom of the Hima
layan mountains, Mr. Gresley's character will be duly ap
preciated from what we have now written."
This grave avowal of malice prepense may appear
to some a very laughable matter ; but really it is no
joke to those who suffer from it. I may not much
care what is said of me at the foot of the Himalayan
mountains ; but it is not pleasant to be looked on as
such a monster of hypocrisy by my respectable Evan
gelical neighbours, who reside within sight of the
three spires of Lichfield Cathedral. Besides, a vague
report of this nature, however utterly unfounded, is
of course calculated to injure my credit as a writer ;
and such, no doubt, was its object. But how utterly
unworthy of a Christian controversialist is it to seek
to injure the reputation of an opponent by such base
calumnies !
I have, on a former occasion, appealed to the
leaders of the Evangelical party by name, in the hope
of inducing them to put down and discountenance
this system of personal slander ; but in vain. I am
sorry to say, that the only effect of my appeal was,

20 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
a reproachful letter from one of them. I now make
my appeal to men of influence and moderation, to
consider what must be the character of a party which
compasses its objects by such means. This is but a
specimen of the mode in which the Anglican party
is continually assailed. The most approved plan is, to
couple the names of men of the Anglican school with
the names of those who have gone over to Rome. Thus
the editor of the Record persists in coupling me with
Mr. Ward and Mr. Oakely, though I proved to him by
quotations from my own writings, that, as regards the
former, I had long ago distinctly recorded my disap
probation of his principles. Still he repeats the slan
der. Mr. Close, again, tells the people of Chelten
ham that I am, or have been, the " bosom friend" of
Mr. Newman, a gentleman in whose company I have
never been but once for five minutes in my whole life.
The same mode of attack has been adopted by
Mr. Faber, in a long letter which he has published in
answer to my " Second Statement."1
" The open apostacy of Mr. Newman, after his now
acknowledged twelve years of concealed Papistry, has placed
Mr. Gresley and his associates in no very enviable position.
This he evidently feels ; and thence, naturally enough, at
tempts to extricate himself. ' To a certain extent,' he tells
us, ' and before the principles of each were fully under
stood,' Mr. Newman with his seceders, and Mr. Gresley
with his remainers, ' acted and sympathised together. But
now,' he goes on to state, 'the difference is marked; and the
separation defined for ever.' Here, I take it, is the pinch."2
1 See the Churchman's Monthly Magazine, Sept. 1846
2 P. 5.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 21
Why could not Mr. Faber fairly quote the whole
passage, which would have explained itself? " True
(I said) that to a certain extent, and before the prin
ciples of each were fully understood, they have acted
and sympathised together. Reverence for the Church
was their bond of union. But now the separation is
marked and defined for ever. They who, in their zeal
for the Church, fixed their views on the Romish Pontiff,
have withdrawn from us. Those who remain look to
the Church of England as their spiritual mother."
" I never heard [he goes on to say] that either Mr.
Gresley or his associates started a single objection to the
principles of Mr. Newman, up to the very moment of his
open apostacy ; that is to say, I never heard that they repro
bated the principles either of Tract 90, or the non-natural
sense." In answer to this, I would beg to refer Mr. Faber
to a passage written by myself almost immediately
after the publication of that celebrated tract. Speak
ing of the Tract- writers, these are my words : "In
Tract 90 I do not hesitate to say, that they appear
to me to have disregarded their own motto, ' If the
trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare
himself for the battle ?' I consider that there is one
real meaning, if we could but discover it, whether
of a passage of Scripture, or an article of the Church.
And I can never admit that it is right to consider what
a thing may mean : we ought to hole to what it does
xn."1 Of course Mr. Faber may say, when his want of
1 Bernard Leslie, p. 249. Fifth edition.

22 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
accuracy is exposed, that " he never heard" that 1
had stated a single objection to the principles of Tract
90, or the non-natural sense. Yet the way in which
Mr. Faber has made his statement, while it affords
him this loop-hole to escape the charge of actual
misstatement, evidently conveys much the same im
pression to the reader, as if he had made a positive
assertion. But whatever may have been the state of Mr.
Faber's information with respect to my individual
views, he ought surely, as a literary man, and one
involved in the controversies of the day, to have been
well aware, that, if any disclaimer on my part had
escaped his notice, others, of the same principles with
myself, had loudly and publicly remonstrated against
the progress of Bomanizing views long before the
time of Mr. Newman's defection. He must surely
have known, at least every body else who was at all
interested in the progress of opinions on such mat
ters, was well aware of the publication of Mr. Palmer's
Narrative of Events connected with the publication of
the Tracts for the Times, with Reflections on exist
ing tendencies to Romanism; in which the strongest
protest was made against the Bomanizing] tendencies
of a certain party.
In order to shew the decisive and unmistakeable
character of Mr. Palmer's protest, I shall here set
down a few extracts from it :
" Within the last two or three years (he says), a new
school has made its appearance. The Church has un
happily had reason to feel the existence of a spirit of dis-

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 23
satisfaction with her principles, of enmity to her Reformers,
of recklessness of her interests. We have seen in the same
quarter a spirit of almost servility and adulation to Rome ;
an enthusiastic and exaggerated praise of its merits, an
appeal to all deep feelings and sympathies in its favour, a
tendency to look to Rome as the model and standard of all
that is beautiful and correct in art, all that is sublime in
poetry, all that is elevated in devotion. So far has this system
of adulation proceeded, that translations from Romish rituals
and 'Devotions' have been published, in which the very
form of printing, and every other external peculiarity, has
evinced an earnest desire for uniformity with Rome. Romish
catechisms have been introduced, and formed the models for
similar compositions. In conversation, remarks have been
sometimes heard, indicating a disposition to acknowledge
the supremacy of the see of Rome, to give way to all its
claims, however extreme, to represent it as the conservative
principle of religion and society in various ages ; and, in the
same spirit, those who are in any way opposed to the highest
pitch of Roman usurpations are sometimes looked on as
little better than heretics. The Gallican and Greek churches
are unsound in their opposition to the claims of Rome. The
latter is held to be separated from Catholic unity. The
' See of St. Peter' is described as the centre of that unity ;
while our state of separation from it is regarded not merely
as an evil, but a sin — a cause of deep humiliation — a judg
ment for our sins ! The blame of separation, of schism, is
openly and unscrupulously laid on the English Church !
Her Reformers are denounced in the most vehement terms.
Every unjust insinuation, every hostile construction of their
conduct, is indulged in; no allowance is made for their
difficulties, no attempt is made to estimate the amount of
errors which they had to oppose. Displeasure is felt, and
expressed, if any attempts are made to expose the errors,
corruptions, and idolatries, approved in the Roman com-

24 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
niunion. Invocation of saints is sanctioned in some quar
ters ; purgatory is by no means unacceptable in others ;
images and crucifixes are purchased, and employed in aid of
private devotions ; celibacy of the clergy and auricular con
fession are acknowledged to be obligatory. Besides this,
intimacies are formed with Romanists, and visits are paid to
Romish monasteries, colleges, and houses of worship. Ro
mish controversialists are applauded and complimented ;
their works are eagerly purchased and studied ; and con
trasts are drawn between them and the defenders of the
truth, to the disadvantage of the latter. The theory of de
velopment advocated in the writings of De Maistre and
Mohlerj (Roman Catholic controversialists), according to
which the latest form of Christianity is the most perfect, and
the superstitions of the sixteenth or eighteenth century are
preferable to the purity of the early ages, is equally sanc
tioned, advocated, avowed. In fine, menaces are held out to
the Church, that if the spirit which is thus evinced is not
encouraged, if the Church of England is not ' un-Protestant-
ized,' if the Reformation is not forsaken and condemned, it
may become the duty of those who are already doubtful in
their allegiance to the Anglo-Catholic communion, to declare
themselves openly on the side of its enemies. I have no
disposition to exaggerate the facts of the case ; all who have
had occasion to observe the progress of events will acknow
ledge the truth of what has been said. I would only add,
that I hope and believe that the spirit which has been de
scribed is only to be found amongst a very small section of
those who are popularly connected with the advocates of
Church principles. I believe it is no secret that the authors of
the Tracts (several of them at least), however they may think
themselves obliged to tolerate such excesses, are embarrassed
by them, and deplore their occurrence. I believe that the
great body of their immediate friends concur in this feeling •
and, most assuredly, the advocates of Church principles in

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 25
general most strongly disapprove of the spirit which has
now been described."1
" We have often privately protested against the principles
developed in the British Critic; and yet the writers in that
periodical have deliberately continued in their course, under
the full and avowed consciousness that it is displeasing to
the firmest friends of Church principles."2
" Our remonstrances are disregarded ; the interests of
the Church of England are avowedly set aside ; it cannot,
therefore, be any matter of surprise, if the friends of the
Church, if the advocates of her principles, feel themselves
obliged to disclaim any alliance, as to views and opinions,
with those who have themselves proclaimed their alienation."3
" I deeply regret the necessity of speaking thus strongly
and severely. Occasional errors, such as we saw in the
Tracts, may be excusable ; but when the mistake is per
petuated, when it is canonised, and propagated, and mul
tiplied from day to day, the evil becomes intolerable, and
calls for the public disapprobation of Churchmen. The ad
mission of such articles as that on ' Bishop Jewell' into the
British Critic, the tone and principles of that periodical in
general, and the measures of the party which it represents,
have compelled me to break silence at length, and to state
my dissent from their views ; and I am deeply thankful to
be enabled to add, that all the advocates of Church principles
with whom I have been able to communicate concur in dis
claiming the doctrines of the British Critic."*
" I should not speak thus, had I not ascertained the sen
timents of many influential friends of Church principles, who
have looked with pain and uneasiness on the course of events
for the last two or three years. Their opinions ought no
longer to be misunderstood. Their cause should be no
longer mingled with doctrines and practices alien to it."5
1 Pp. 44-46. 2 P. 48. 3 P. 49. 4 P. 68. 5 P. 69.

26

A THIRD STATEMENT OF

It is of small importance to add, that I myself was
one of the persons with whom Mr. Palmer consulted
with reference to the publication of his protest ; and
that I fully concurred with him, that the time was
come when it was absolutely necessary for us to disso
ciate ourselves from those who had left the principles
of the Church of England, and were advocating those
of Rome. It was in consequence of the concurrence
of very many besides myself, that Mr. Palmer pub
lished his protest, which at once caused the breaking
up of the Romanizing party. The British Critic,
which was their acknowledged organ, was immediately
discontinued ; and the English Review substituted for
it, under the editorship of Mr. Palmer.
How Mr. Faber or Mr. Close should have been
ignorant of these matters it is difficult to conceive ;
but, after the information which I now give them,
I trust that, if they value their reputation as honest
men, they will not again accuse me, or those- who
think with me, of having made no disavowal of the
principles of the Romanizers up to the time of their
secession. But Mr. Close takes a somewhat different view.
His notion is, that if the Anglican clergy have not
gone to Rome, or do not intend, yet that, properly,
they ought to do so. It is only because they are in
consistent or dishonest persons, and in proportion as
they are so, that they have not followed the rest.
The obvious reason of this most unjust charge is, of
course, that Mr. Close is profoundly ignorant of the
difference between the principles of the Church of

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 27
England and the Church of Rome. Mr. Close and
his friends consider doctrines and practices to be
Romish, which are in fact strictly Catholic and An
glican. Take, for instance, the doctrine of Baptismal
Begeneration. Mr. Carus Wilson says plainly that
Baptismal Regeneration is a Popish doctrine. On
referring to the Baptismal Service of our own Church,
any one will find that the doctrine is strictly Anglican.
This is but one instance of many that might be
named ; such as, the apostolical succession, the power
of the Church to absolve sinners, &C.1 What do all
these cases prove ? Clearly, not that we are Roman
izers ; but that Mr. Close and his friends are Dis
senters. But, says Mr. Close, " there is such a propensity
Romeward in those who once embrace Tractarian
theology, that if they are honest, and in proportion
as they are honest, they must ultimately be precipi
tated into the arms of Rome."
And again, by way of illustration : " They have ar
rived at the ' Appii Forum, and the Three Taverns ;'
what is to prevent them going on to Rome ?"
Now this is all mere assumption, and opinion un
supported either by probability or fact. Why should
a man desiring to- go to one place proceed to an
other? If Appii Forum, or the Three Taverns, is the
place he desires to go to, why should he, having got
there, go on to Rome ? It is much the same as to
1 See the service for Visitation of the Sick : " Our Lord Jesus
Christ, who hath left power in the Church to absolve all sinners who
truly repent and believe in Him," &c.

28 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
say, that if a person sets out from the outskirts of
Cheltenham to attend St. John's chapel, he must
needs go on to the parish church. The illustration is
nonsensical, but not more so than the proposition
intended to be illustrated. Why should a person
moving in opinion from one erroneous extreme to the
right mean, be constrained to go beyond it to the
opposite extreme ? Why should a Dissenter, con
forming to the Church, be supposed in danger of
going on to Romanism ? Why should Mr. Close,
standing as he does at the verge of ultra-Protest
antism, fear that, if he became a good Churchman, he
might be hurried farther than he intended, and go
on to Rome ? Men are not like pendulums, swinging
to and fro without the power of standing at a fixed
point. Weak and unstable as we are by nature, the
grace of God is sufficient to guide us to the truth,
and to keep us there, if we be but true to ourselves.
But let us appeal to facts. It is well known that
in consequence of the publication of certain tracts and
other works, which set forth the lamentable state of de
fection from its true principles and practice to which
the Church in this country had fallen, many thousands
of the most intelligent and best-educated persons in
the land did, in the course of a few years, become zea
lously affected for the restoration of the Church to
her true position. A great energy was kindled in the
cause, which even Mr. Close admits to have been pro
ductive of at least much apparent good. Presently,
in consequence, as I verily believe, of the injudicious
and harsh treatment which they met with, certain over-

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 29
eager and unstable persons, many of whom, by the way,
were originally Evangelicals, began to go beyond the
principles and practice of the English Church ; and,
eventually, one hundred and forty, or thereabouts,
left their own Church, and went over to Rome. Are
those thousands of persons who remain stedfast mem
bers of the Church, and intend, by God's help, to live
and die in her communion, and desire nothing so
much as her interest and advancement, — are these
to be taunted and suspected because certain others
have deserted ? Does the defection of these few prove
that it was wrong to seek to restore Church princi
ples ? Are we to go back to carelessness, irreverence,
and Puritanism, because others have gone too far in
the opposite extreme ? Mr. Close's facts fail him
equally with his arguments. It is manifest that there
is not this inevitable " propensity Romeward" that he
asserts, from the fact that not one in a thousand of
those persons who joined in the movement have gone
to Rome, or ever thought of doing so.
The truth is, that the two parties in the movement
are, and always were, essentially distinct. They sym
pathised and acted together as long as the object in
view was the improvement and restoration of the Eng
lish Church ; but as soon as it became evident that
one party had gone beyond the bounds of moderation,
and were deserting the Church of their Baptism, then
those whose sole object was the good of that Church
began at once to remonstrate ; and, as has been proved
from the evidences which I have adduced, when our
remonstrances failed, we formally separated ourselves

30 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
from them. Now such undeniable facts as these will,
I trust, convince all fair and reasonable men, and
especially those whose station and character give
them weight, that the vulgar charges of Romanizing,
so perseveringly reiterated against men who have all
along consistently maintained the cause of the Church
of England, are not only absolutely untenable, but
also ungenerous, and disgraceful to all those who make
them. And if those in authority are convinced that
such is the case, then, I think, we may reasonably ap
peal to them, that they do us the justice to discoun
tenance such unfair accusations, which amount to
something very like persecution. When, for instance,
a clergyman gets up and asserts at a public meeting
that no less than thirty clergy of the Church of Eng
land are in reality Papists, and have a dispensation
from the Pope to continue to hold preferment in the
English Church ; and when challenged is utterly un
able to prove his assertion ; I think nothing less than
a public reprimand ought to have been administered
by the Bishop of the diocese to the clergyman who
made such an assertion, if not for dishonesty, yet for
gross indiscretion, in bringing unfounded accusations
against his brethren. Mr. Close's delinquency is not
perhaps so great as Mr. Hobart Seymour's, inasmuch
as he deals in injurious. insinuations rather than in
false statements of facts. Yet it is surely most repre
hensible in Mr. Close also, and most injurious to the
peace of the Church, to express and publish opinions
respecting the probability of a large number of his
brethren being about to apostatize to Rome, when he

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 31
has not the slightest ground either of probability or
fact for such an assertion. What hope is there of
peace or charity remaining in the Church, if such un
founded accusations are to be promulgated without
censure ?
Since the publication of my second pamphlet, Mr.
Close has delivered three lectures, a sermon, and
divers speeches, in answer to various topics to which
I had adverted : but, singularly enough, he shrinks
from the question on which the whole of my argument
is based. The objections which I have alleged against
the party to which Mr. Close belongs, are simply
these, — that they corrupt and deny some of the fun
damental doctrines of the English Church ; that they
adopt the Zuinglian or Puritan doctrine of the Sacra
ments ; and, especially, that they deny the undoubted
doctrine of the Church, that each child baptised ac
cording to our ritual is regenerated ; while, with the
greatest inconsistency, they scruple not to declare in
so many words to the people, and also thank God,
that each child is regenerated. This proceeding
of theirs is, in reality, going much farther than
using language in a non-natural sense. To use words
in a non-natural sense, is to use them in a sense
which they will bear, though not obviously or natu
rally. But to deny that each child is regenerated,
and to tell the people that it is so, is a direct contra
diction in terms. The doctrine of baptismal regene
ration is, as I have contended, no mere isolated
doctrine, but the foundation on which the Christian
life, as set forth in our Church services, is based. So

32 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
that the denial of this fundamental doctrine entirely
disarranges and perplexes the whole Christian system.
I have also shewn that the Evangelical or Puritan
party are endeavouring to foist their system upon the
country by very questionable means, especially the
procuring for themselves offices of weight, and the
securing the appointment of a vast number of func
tionaries of their own stamp. These and various
other subordinate matters I alleged.
Mr. Close, in his several replies to my second
pamphlet, alludes to almost all the other matters, but
has, for the present, carefully abstained from all dis
cussion of the main question, namely, what is alleged
respecting the heterodoxy of his party — if it be not in
truth a heresy amounting to denial of a doctrine of
the Universal Church, at any rate a flat contradiction
of the formularies of our own pure and orthodox
branch.1 ' It cannot he expected that I should advert to all Mr. Close's
lectures and speeches, &c, which contain a great many glaring in
consistencies. Take the following instances. In speaking of persons
who have left the Church of England on account of her permitted
corruption, I have said, " I think these persons decidedly wrong.
Rome is still more corrupt than we are, nor is our own amend
ment so hopeless." To this Mr. Close says, " I charge Mr. Gresley
with maligning his own Church, and depreciating her for the pur
pose of palliating Roman apostacy. ... I hesitate not to charge
him with using language here in defence of the apostates, which
is not the language of a cordially attached member of our beloved
Church." (See Mr. Close's second lecture.) Who would have sup
posed, that in a former pamphlet Mr. Close should have said, "I am
as much dissatisfied as Mr. Gresley is (though on opposite grounds)
with her state," i. e. the state of the Church. The sole reason of

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 33
In expectation of Mr. Close's promised explanation
on the subject, I turn to the letter of Mr. Faber, in
which the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is dis
cussed at some length ; and I the rather avail myself of
Mr. Faber's explanations on the subject, because they
remarkably agree with the published doctrines of the
Puritans, which were formally condemned at the last
revision of our Prayer-Book in the year 1662.
The object of Mr. Faber's letter is manifestly this.
He desires to give the sanction of his age and sta
tion and reputed learning to the practice of persons
accepting office in the English Church when they do
not believe its doctrines. His wish is, to countenance
those persons who do not believe that all children
who are baptised according to the services of our
Church are regenerated, in declaring to the people
that each child which they baptise is regenerate ; and
thanking God that it is so. Mr. Faber wishes to prove
that persons can, without blasphemy and dishonesty,
thus teach the people in words the exact contrary of
what they believe in fact; and he evidently thinks
that his name and station will serve to prevent any
misgivings or qualms of conscience in those who are
in the habit of enacting this apparent mockery.
my dissatisfaction is, simply because she is not allowed to maintain
her own doctrine and discipline. What Mr. Close's reason may be
I know not.
I have to compliment Mr. Close, however, on a very great im
provement in his manner of controversy, and the comparative free
dom of his last three lectures from that flippant supercihous tone
which characterised his " Apology." D

34 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
I will first give Mr. Faber's notion of infant Bap
tism in his own words, and with all his own capitals
and italics, in order that there may be no danger of
misrepresentation .
" In the 25th Article (he says), the Church determines,
respecting each of the two Sacraments, that, c in such only,
as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome
effect or operation :' but she is silent as to the cause of this
unworthiness ; whether it be the circumstance of the in
dividual himself, by his own voluntary act and deed, reso
lutely placing an impediment in the way ; or whether it be
the circumstance of that inherent unworthiness, which is not
his own voluntary act and deed, but which, in common with
all mankind, he has inherited from the fall. Our Church
distinctly assigns the latter as an impediment, which must be
obviated, as the Catechism rightly teaches us, by a preparatory
divine infusion of the requisites of Faith and Repentance, of
course,juxta modum recipientis .• but she is silent respecting the
former. No doubt, the voluntary placing of an impediment
in the way by the individual himself will destroy what our
Church calls the wholesome effect or operation of Baptism :
but, unless I wholly misunderstand Mr. Gresley, he would
represent our Church, as making a direct act of volition the
only impediment to a salutary reception of Baptism. Our
Church, on the contrary, shews, that she makes the in
voluntary circumstance of our all being by nature born in
sin and the children of wrath an impediment, yea, a stand
ing impediment, by the very fact of her prescribing the
preparatory remedy of Faith and Repentance."1
" He contends, that all infants, as such, must be worthy
recipients, because they themselves place no impediments in
the way : whence he maintains, very correctly, provided his
1 P. 697.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 35
premises be sound, that all baptised infants must needs be
regenerated in Baptism.
" (I.) If he could prove this somewhat gratuitous as
sumption of premises, there would be an end to the question :
and, if we declined, merely on his private judgment, to con
vict his ' Evangelicals or Puritans' of heresy, we certainly
must acknowledge them to be altogether in error. But
where is proof, that all infants, as such, or quoad infants,
are worthy recipients ?
" Mr. Gresley replies : that they themselves, by an act of
their own volition, place no other impediment in the way
than their simple infancy ; which simple infancy our Church,
indisputably and most rightly, holds to be no impediment to
their worthy reception of baptism.
" (2.) Granted: but what then ? How does the acknow
ledged physical impossibility of themselves, by an act of their
own volition, placing any impediment in the way, prove
them, simply quoad infants, to be all worthy recipients :
the condition, required by our Church for the beneficial
operation of the Sacrament ?
" Mr. Gresley throws no light on a point, which, by one
writer and another of much the same School as himself, is
as coolly taken for granted as if no question could possibly
be raised thereupon.
" The Church of England, from which Mr. Gresley has
sorely departed, acts far more wisely. Soundly and safely
following Scripture, she determines, in her Catechism : that
all are by nature born in sin and the children of wrath ;
and that, through Baptism when worthily received,
these born children of wrath are made children of grace.
" Now it looks very like a contradiction in terms to say :
that persons, born in sin and the children of wrath, are, as
such, worthy recipients of baptism ; no better reason for their
alleged worthiness being assigned, than that they themselves,

36 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
while infants, are physically unable themselves, by an act oi
their own volition, to place any impediment in the way.
" Would we, then, avoid, at once, this glaring contra
diction, and the heresy of Pelagianism, we must admit : that,
in the case of adults and infants alike, a prevenient act of
grace must occur, to make worthy recipients of the naturally
unworthy. " Accordingly, as I have already observed, our truly
scriptural Church refers to such a prevenient act, when she
determines Repentance and Faith to be the prerequisites of
Baptism : which prerequisites we assuredly cannot have,
unless they be given us of God."
" Perhaps I shall be told, that a denial of universally in
fused worthiness in infants is neither more nor less than
virtual Calvinism. I am not apt to be terrified by the bug
bear of names ; and perhaps the less so in the present case,
because, as Mr. Gresley peradventure may know, I am not
a Calvinist. My reason for this is the very same as my
reason for not being a Tractarian, or a Papist, or a Socinian :
the total want of primeval testimony to wit."1
I have given this long quotation in order that Mr.
Faber may state his own doctrine in his own manner.
Stripped of unnecessary verbiage, it is simply this :
that all infants are by reason of original sin unworthy
recipients of holy Baptism, and consequently could
derive no benefit from it ; but that to some the Holy
Spirit, by a prevenient act of grace, conveys the gift
of Faith and Repentance, while to some the Holy
Spirit does not convey this gift ; that they who have
this gift are regenerated, but that those who do not
receive this gift are not regenerate. This is the doc-
1 Pp. 698, 699, 700.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 37
trine which Mr. Faber declares to be the doctrine
of the Church of England, and not Calvinism.
Before proceeding to the refutation of Mr. Faber's
position, I would just observe that the argument, even
if true, does not in the least apply to the real point
in dispute between us. My position was simply this,
that those persons who do not believe that all infants
baptised according to the office of our Church are
regenerated, act with gross inconsistency, not to say
dishonesty, in using a service in which they are re
quired to declare to the people that each and every
child is regenerated, and to call on them to thank
God for it. Mr. Faber gives a long argument, from
which he persuades himself that only some children
are regenerated ; and yet 'he goes on declaring to his
congregation, whenever he officiates, that every child
is regenerated. But now to turn to his argument. He declares
it to be the doctrine of the Church that, in order that
infants should receive the benefits of Baptism, it is
necessary that " a prevenient act of grace should
occur ;" and that " our truly scriptural Church refers
to such prevenient act when she determines Bepent-
ance and Faith to be the prerequisites of Baptism."
A mere reference to the Catechism will shew that
the doctrine of the Church is exactly opposite to that
of Mr. Faber.
" Q. What is required of persons to be baptised ?
" A. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin; and Faith,
whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God, made
to them in that sacrament.

38 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
" Q. Why, then, are infants baptised, when, by reason of
their tender age, they cannot perform them ?
" A. Because they promise them both by their sureties ;
which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound
to perform." Can there be a doubt that it is the doctrine of
the English Church that faith and repentance are not
necessary for infants as a " prevenient" condition,
because, in fact, they " cannot perform" such con
dition ; but that, when they come to age, then they
must perform the promises made for them, otherwise
they forfeit the benefit which, by the free grace of
God, was conferred on them ?
The essentials of valid Baptism in the case of
infants are declared in the service for the public
admission of children into the Church, after having
received private Baptism :
" If those that bring any child to the Church to be
baptised do answer that the same child is already baptised,
then shall the minister examine them farther, saying, By
whom was this child baptised ? Who was present when this
child was baptised ?
"Because some things essential to this sacrament may
happen to be omitted through fear or haste in such times of
extremity, therefore I demand farther of you,
" With what matter was this child baptised ?
" With what words was this child baptised ?
" And if the minister shall find by the answers of such as
bring the child, that all things were done as they ought to be,
then shall not he christen the child again, but shall receive
him, as one of the flock o/'true Christian people, saying thus,
" I certify you, that in this case all is well done, and ac
cording unto due order concerning the baptising of this child ;

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 39
who being born in original sin, and in the wrath of God,
is now, by the laver of regeneration in Baptism, received into
the number of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting
life ; for our Lord Jesus Christ doth not deny His grace and
mercy unto suchinfants."
Now, supposing for a moment that Mr. Faber's
explanation of the Church's doctrine is true, and that
some only of the children washed with water, namely
those who receive a prevenient gift of grace, are
regenerated, and the rest are not so, I would ask
whether it is possible for language to be devised so
completely calculated, as this employed by the Church,
to mislead and deceive the people ? If words were
invented, as the French diplomatist asserted, to con
ceal our meaning, would it be possible to apply words
to this their intended use so completely as the Church
has done, on Mr. Faber's hypothesis ? First, " be
cause some things essential to the sacrament may
happen to be omitted," the minister is instructed to
make certain definite inquiries of those who bring
the child to be baptised, which being satisfactorily
answered, he is directed to declare that " all is well
done, and according unto due order, concerning the
baptising of this child." And that there may be no
doubt that this refers not merely to the administration,
but to the reception also of the sacrament, he adds :
" Who being born in original sin, and in the wrath of
God, is now, by the laver of regeneration in Baptism, re
ceived into the number of the children of God, and heirs of
eternal life; for God doth not [as Mr. Faber says in some
cases He doth] deny His grace and mercy to such infants."

40 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
Further on, the minister again exhorts the people
to the same effect :
" Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe that He
hath likewise favourably received this present infant."
Further on still, the minister says :
" Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child
[and the same is said of every child] is by Baptism regene
rated and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us
give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits ; and with
one accord make our prayers unto Him, that he may lead
the rest of his life according to this beginning.
" Then shall the priest say,
"We yield Thee most hearty thanks, most merciful
Father, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant
with Thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for Thine own child by
adoption, and to incorporate him into Thy Holy Church."
And yet, after all these positive declarations and
the most solemn thanksgiving, Mr. Faber tells us,
that all the time the Church does not consider the
child to be certainly regenerate ! What ! does Mr.
Faber suppose that our Beformers were cheats and
impostors, and wilfully intended to delude the people ?
or that they did not know the meaning of the lan
guage which they used ? What other portion of our
service or formularies can be named in which we are
to take the sense as exactly contradictory to the im
port of the words ? What other doctrine can be
named which is to be taken hypothetically ? Is the
doctrine of justification by faith to be taken hypothe
tically, and only some who truly believe supposed to
be justified, and some not? Is the doctrine of the

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 41
resurrection hypothetical? are some to rise again,
and some to sleep eternally? Why, then, is this
single doctrine of the Christian creed, of " one Bap
tism for the remission of sins," to be considered hypo
thetical, so that some only have their sins remitted,
and some do not ? And if this be the true view, and
Mr. Faber's hypothesis is right, why, we may still
ask, are the services of our Church thus elaborately
constructed to mystify and delude the people ? And
yet, again, how can men who view them in this light
degrade themselves, and force their consciences, by
condescending to use offices which they verily believe
declare in words the precise contrary to what they
mean in fact ?
But Mr. Faber has another argument, which he
puts forth in defence of his hypothesis.
We must again quote his own words at some
length, in order not to run the risk of misinterpreting
his meaning :
" The argument of the pamphlet," says Mr. Faber,
speaking of my pamphlet, or rather my two pamphlets on
the ' Real Danger of the Church,' " is professedly built on
the words of the office for infant Baptism. Every time the
minister uses this office, argues Mr. Gresley, he expressly
declares in so many words that the baptised infant is rege
nerated. Now this office is used in the baptism of every
infant without exception. Therefore every baptised infant
is declared by the officiating minister to be regenerated.
Hence the plain result is, that unless the officiating minister
believes every baptised infant to be regenerated, his de
claration to that effect stamps him with deliberate dis
honesty."

42 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
" Mr. Gresley's argument, I trust, is not weakened by
my exhibition of it in the condensed form of a syllogism."
[Mr. Faber has correctly stated my argument ; all
I would except is this, that when I hold the persons
who do so tp be dishonest, I do not mean that I con
sider them persons who would pick pockets or cheat
their neighbours. Mr. Faber must not fasten this
odious interpretation upon my charge against them. I
mean simply, that from habit, prejudice, party spirit, or
some strange delusion, they have brought themselves,
in this instance, to say what they believe not to be true.
I speak, of course, of those who have turned their
minds directly to the subject ; for it is very possible
that there may be many clergymen who have taken
the doctrine upon trust, and have been deluded by
persons like Mr. Faber, who, with the authority of
age and the reputation of learning, stand forward and
tell their brethren in the ministry that they may use
the services of the Church in a non-natural sense, or
rather a sense contradictory of their literal one.]
" But," continues Mr. Faber, "let us now mark what re
sults from the explanation in his letter.
" The pamphlet totally pretermits all reference to the
office for adult Baptism. Yet the phraseology of the two
is precisely the same. Consequently, if Mr. Gresley's argu
ment be valid in the one case, it must be equally valid in the
other case. Let us see then how it will run.
" Every time that the minister uses the office for adult
Baptism, he expressly declares in so many words, that the
baptised adult is regenerated. Now the office is used in
Baptism of every adult without exception. Therefore,

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 43
every baptised adult is declared by the officiating minister
to be regenerated. Hence the plain result is, that unless the
officiating minister believes every baptised adult to be rege
nerated, his declaration to that effect stamps him with deli
berate dishonesty 
"His (Mr. Gresley's) zeal against the 'Evangelical or
Puritan party' led him to quote against them the language
of the baptismal office for infants. Here he fondly thought
he had them on the hip. But unfortunately he did not look
forward to the consequences of his principle : the principle, to
wit, that the office in question, by demonstrating the univer
sal concomitance of regeneration upon Baptism, convicts all
English clergymen who deny such universal concomitance of
rank heresy and atrocious dishonesty."
This is one of those argumenta ad hominem, so
efficacious sometimes in perplexing enemies, but so
totally powerless for purposes of defence. Even if the
parallel were true, it does not in the slightest degree
mend Mr. Faber's own position. Mr. Faber's argu
ment is just this. It is not dishonest in us, he says,
to declare every baptised infant to be regenerated,
though we do not believe it, because just the same
thing is done in adult Baptism by every one, even by
Mr. Gresley himself, — and so we are all convicted of
rank heresy and atrocious dishonesty.
A strange argument truly, that because one party
is heretical and dishonest, therefore another may be
so! One would have thought that the circumstance
of Mr. Faber and his friends being compelled to say
what they do not believe in the service for adult Bap
tism, as well as in that for infant Baptism, was rather
an additional argument for them no longer to officiate

44 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
as ministers of a Church which placed them in so
degraded a position.
But the truth is, that if any one will take the
trouble to turn to the office for "the Ministration of
Baptism to such as are of riper years," he will at
once see that Mr. Faber's argument is absolutely good
for nothing. It begins with this rubric :
" When any such persons, as are of riper years, are to be
baptised, timely notice shall be given to the Bishop, or whom
he shall appoint for that purpose, a week before at the least,
by the parents, or some other discreet person ; that so due
care shall be taken for the examination, whether they be suf
ficiently instructed in the principles of the Christian religion;
and that they be exhorted to prepare themselves with prayer
and fasting for the receiving of this holy Sacrament.
"And if they shall be found fit, then the godfathers and
godmothers (the people being assembled upon the Sunday
or holyday appointed) shall be ready to present them at the
font immediately after the second lesson," &c.
I do not know whether Mr. Faber considers the
rubric, as well as the rest of the service, as mere
" phraseology ;" if he does, he will observe that the
" phraseology" of the rubric (and indeed, as we shall
presently see, of the after-service) is very different
from that of infants. Indeed, it must be so from the
necessity of the case. Here, a week's notice is to be
given to the Bishop, or whomsoever he shall appoint ;
due care is to be taken for the examination of the can
didate, in order that he may be sufficiently instructed.
It must, of course, be explained to him, that unless
he comes with hearty repentance and true faith, his

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 45
Baptism will serve only to his greater condemnation.
He is to be exhorted to prepare himself with prayer
and fasting for this Sacrament ; and then, if he shall
be found fit, he is to be admitted to holy Baptism.
How, then, can the officiating minister be accused
of " rank heresy and atrocious dishonesty" in declar
ing this man to be regenerate ? My position was, that
those who declare that each infant whom they baptise
is regenerate, when in their hearts they believe no such
thing, act a dishonest and inconsistent part. But
where is the dishonesty and inconsistency in the bap
tism of adults according to the order of the Church ?
The officiating minister has carefully examined the
candidate, and does believe that he has found him
fit ; therefore he believes that when he is baptised he
receives the beneficial gift of the Spirit, and therefore
he tells the congregation so, and calls on them to
thank God for it. How can this be alleged as a
parallel case to an officiating minister publicly thank
ing God that He has been pleased to regenerate an
infant with His Holy Spirit, when he believes in his
heart that the very child he has in his arms may very
probably not have received that secret " prevenient"
grace which he fancies is necessary ?
But it will be said, that the officiating minister
cannot be sure that the adult candidate is sincere and
really penitent and faithful. True ; but that does
not affect his own honesty. He has taken due care
to examine and instruct him, and verily believes him
to be fit, else he would not baptise him. But in
order to guard even against this possible mistake, and

46 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
that the people may not be misled, the Church puts
into the mouth of the minister expressions quite dis
tinct from the " phraseology" of infant Baptism. In
the exhortation to the people in the office for infant
Baptism, the minister says :
" Doubt ye not therefore, but earnestly believe, that He
will favourably receive this present infant ; that He will em
brace him with the arms of His mercy : that He will give
unto him the blessing of eternal life, and make him partaker
of His everlasting kingdom."
In this passage it will be observed there is no reser
vation or qualification. Look now at the phraseology
of the service for adults :
" Doubt ye not therefore, but earnestly believe, that He
will favourably receive these present persons, truly repenting,
and coming to Him with faith; that He will grant them
remission of their sins, and bestow upon them the Holy
Ghost; and that He will give them the blessing of eternal
life, and make them partakers of His everlasting kingdom."
And yet Mr. Faber says that " the phraseology
of the two [services] is exactly parallel I"1 whereas, in
the very matter on which the controversy turns, there
is this broad and obvious distinction.
I trust I need not say more to prove that the ar
guments by which Mr. Faber endeavours to prop up
his doctrine are as untenable and fallacious as the
doctrine itself is dangerous and heterodox ; and that
the offices of the Church of England, whether for
adult or infant Baptism, so far from being mere
1 P. 702.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 47
" words" and " phraseology," not intended to be re
ceived in their obvious sense, but in a sense directly
the reverse, are, on the contrary, constructed with sin
gular exactness and felicity to express the real doctrine
of the Church in the different cases with which her
ministers have to deal ; and, consequently, that per
sons who use that language in a reserved or non-
natural sense, and declare to the people that all child
ren are regenerated, when they believe that some are
not, are acting a dishonest part, and are unfit persons
to be ministers of the English Church.1
I come now to the proof which I promised, that
those doctrines maintained by Mr. Faber and Mr.
Close, and by the Evangelicals generally (indeed,
without professing which, no one is, properly speak
ing, of the Evangelical party,) are identical with
those of the Puritans.
Both Mr. Faber and Mr. Close are exceedingly
sore at being called Puritans. They consider it a
term of "scornful vituperation." Mr. Close says,
that he " will not accept the term Puritan, which is
so contemptuously applied to the Evangelicals ; for it
is not only historically false, but discussionally unfair."
This remonstrance is really very unreasonable. They
scruple not to heap all sorts of epithets on those who
honestly desire to keep to the doctrine of the Church
of England, attacking them under the names of Bo
manizers, Semi-Papists, Laudites, Tractarians, and
various other titles ; but they are beyond measure
1 See Appendix, Note A.

48 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
indignant at being themselves called by a name
which, though it is not meant to be complimentary,
is certainly not used as a nick-name or term of re
proach, but simply as the fairest and most appropri
ate term which can be employed to describe their
real character : for, of course, to concede to them,
without qualification, their own favourite title of
Evangelicals, is to acknowledge their doctrines to
be according to Gospel truth, and brand oneself as
an opponent of it. The hard names which the so-
called Evangelicals lavish on others, and their extreme
touchiness as regards their own designation of Pu
ritans, shews only the pitch of confidence to which
they have arrived ; insomuch that it is quite a sur
prise to them to find themselves and their doctrines
seriously assailed.
It becomes, therefore, necessary for me to prove
by documentary evidence, that the very doctrines
which Mr. Faber and his friends advocate are the
identical doctrines of the Puritans, who in times past
trampled on our Church. And this I shall shew,
first with regard to the subject more immediately
before us, namely, that of Baptismal Regeneration ;
and secondly with regard to various other doctrines,
practices, and opinions, which are common to Evan
gelicals and Puritans, and shew their identity.
Let us turn to the records of the proceedings of
the Savoy Conference.
And first I would remind my readers, that the Pu
ritans had at that time been for more than a century
troubling the Church. Dissatisfied originally with

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 49
the Reformation, desiring to assimilate the English
Reformation to the Continental, thereby destroying
the Church instead of reforming it, they did, after
the lapse of two reigns, effect their purpose, and over
turn both Church and State. Then came the Re
storation, and the Puritans were called to account.
The Savoy Conference was held. The Puritan de
mands were deliberately considered, and finally re
jected by the Bishops ; and the Puritans were obliged
to leave the ministry of the Church, and become either
dissenting preachers, or go into lay communion. Now,
if it should appear that the demands of the Puritans
at the Savoy Conference, which were rejected — and
in consequence of the rejection of which, two thou
sand ministers, as it is calculated, were deprived of
their office — are the very same as those of the modern
Evangelicals, — not only will the identity of the two
parties be established, but also a strong proof afforded
that the present Evangelicals, if they do not retract
their unsound opinions, have no business whatever
as officiating ministers in the English Church.
The account of the Savoy Conference is given at
length in Cardwell's History of the Conferences on
the Book of Common Prayer. The " Exceptions" of
the Puritan party are enumerated, and then the an
swer of the Bishops. The following are extracts :
OF PUBLIC BAPTISM.
Exception of the Puritans.
"There being divers learned, pious, and peaceable minis
ters who not only judge it unlawful to baptise children
E

50 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
whose parents, both of them, are atheists, infidels, heretics,
or unbaptised, but also such whose parents are excommuni
cate persons, fornicators, or otherwise notorious and scan
dalous sinners ; we desire they may not be enforced to bap
tise the children of such, until they have made due profession
of their repentance."1
The answer of the Bishops is as follows :
" Until they have made due prof ession of repentance."
" We think this desire to be very hard and uncharitable,
punishing the poor infants for the parents' sakes, and giving
also too great and arbitrary power to judge which of his
parishioners he pleaseth, atheists, infidels, heretics, &c. Our
Church concludes more charitably, that Christ will favour
ably accept every infant to baptism, that is presented by the
Church according to our present order. And this she con
cludes out of Holy Scriptures (as you may see in the office
of Baptism), according to the practice and doctrines of the
Catholic Church."2
Afterwards the Bishops say :
" The effect of children's baptism depends neither upon
their own present actual faith and repentance (which the
Catechism says expressly ' they cannot perform'), nor upon
the faith and repentance of their natural parents or pro-
parents, or of their godfathers or godmothers : but upon the
ordinance and institution of Christ."3
Here it is evident that the very doctrine, so ela
borately brought out by Mr. Faber, is distinctly and
formally condemned by the Bishops who restored and
revised our present Prayer-book at the last settlement
of it, under which we are now living ; for it is the
1 Cardwell's Conferences, p, 323. 2 lb. p. 355.
3 lb. p. 357.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 51
form of the Book of Common Prayer to which every
Clergyman now declares his assent and consent.
But to proceed with the objections of the Pu
ritans :
The second Prayer before Exception.
Baptism.
" May receive remission of " This expression seeming
sins by spiritual regenera- inconvenient, we desire it may
tion." be changed into this : ' May
be regenerated, and receive
remission of sins.' "
In the Prayer after Baptism.
" That it hath pleased Thee "We cannot in faith say
to regenerate this infant by that every child that is bap-
Thy Holy Spirit." tised is ' regenerated by God's
Holy Spirit,' at least it is a
disputable point ; and there
fore we desire it may be
otherwise expressed."1
Here it will be observed, that it is admitted by
the Puritans that the officiating minister, when he
uses the prayer in question, does " say that every
child is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit," which
the Puritans declare that they cannot " in faith"
agree to.
The note of the Bishops in answer to these ex
ceptions is remarkable :
" § vi. p. 24. ' Receive remission of sins by spiritual re
generation.' Most proper (say the Bishops) ; for Baptism
is our spiritual regeneration (St. John iii.). Unless a man be
born again of water and the Spirit, &c. And by this is re-
1 Cardwell's Conferences, pp. 324, 325.

52 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
ceived remission of sins (Acts ii. 3). Repent and be baptised
every one of you for the remission of sins. So the Creed :
one Baptism for the remission of sins."
"§ vii. p. 24. ' We cannot in faith say that every child
baptised is regenerate, fyc' Seeing that God's sacraments
have their effects when the receiver doth not ' ponere obicem,'
put any bar against them [ivhich children cannot do) ; we may
say in faith of every child that is baptised, that it is regener
ated by God's Holy Spirit; and the denial of it tends to Ana-
baptism, and the contempt of this holy sacrament, as nothing
worthy, nor material whether it be administered to children
or no."1 Of the Catechism. Exception.
" In my Baptism, wherein " We conceive it might be
I was made a child of God, more safely expressed thus :
a member of Christ, and an < Wherein I was visibly ad-
inheritor of the kingdom of mitted into the number of the
heaven." members of Christ, the chil
dren of God, and the heirs
(rather than inheritors) of the
kingdom of heaven.' "2
To which the Bishops answer :
" § ii. Ans.2. We conceive this expression as safe
as that which they desire, and more fully expressing the
efficacy of the sacrament according to St. Paul, the 26th and
27th Gal. iii., where St. Paul proves them all to be children
of God, because they were baptised, and in their Baptism
had put on Christ : ' if children, then heirs,' or, which is all
one, ' inheritors.' Rom. viii. 17."3
These extracts are conclusive ; they prove beyond
1 Cardwell's Conferences, p. 356. 2 lb. p. 326.
3 lb. p. 357.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 53
dispute, that, on the question of Baptismal regenera
tion, not only were the sentiments of the Puritans
essentially the same as those of modern Evangelicals ;
but also that the question was formerly discussed and
decided against them by the Bishops. And the Puri
tans or Evangelicals of that day did, in consequence,
relinquish their ministerial office in the Church of
England. But the identity of doctrine and sentiment in
Puritans and Evangelicals is by no means confined
to the Baptismal service. It pervades their whole
system. The following are among the suggestions of the
Puritans, in which the similarity of feeling with
modern Evangelicals is obvious. They desire :
" That there be nothing in the Liturgy which may seem
to countenance the observation of Lent as a religious fast."1
" That the religious observances of saints' days appointed
to be kept as holydays, and the vigils thereof, without any
foundation (as we conceive) in Scripture, may be omitted.''2
"That the gift of prayer being one special qualification for
the work of the ministry bestowed by Christ in order to the
edification of His Church, and to be exercised for the profit
and benefit thereof, according to its various and emergent
necessity, it is desired that there be no such imposition of
the Liturgy, as that the exercise of that gift be thereby
totally excluded in any part of public worship."3
They judge it " unwarrantable" :
" That public worship may not be celebrated by any
minister that dare not wear a surpless ;"
1 Cardwell's Conferences, p. 306. 2 lb. 3 lb.

54 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
And:
" That none may baptise, nor be baptised, without the
transient image of the Cross."
They desire that at the distribution of the bread
and wine to the communicants :
" The minister be not required to deliver the bread and
wine unto every particular communicant's hand, and to re
peat the words to each one in the singular number, but that
it may suffice to speak them to divers jointly."1
In the order for the Visitation of the Sick, they
desire :
" That the form of absolution be declarative and condi
tional, as ' I pronounce thee absolved,' instead of ' I absolve
thee,' ' if thou dost truly repent and believe.' "2
To which the Bishops answer :
" The form of absolution in the Liturgy is more agree
able to the Scriptures than that which they desire, it being
said in St. John xx. ' Whose sins ye remit, they are remit
ted,' not ' Whose sins you pronounce remitted ;' and the con
dition needs not to be expressed, being always necessarily
understood."3 The following are a few more extracts on not un
important matters.
Before the Confession. Exception.
"Then shall the priest or "The minister turning him-
the Bishop (being present) self to the people is most con-
stand up, and turning himself venient thoughout the whole
to the people, say thus." ministration."4

Cardwell's Conferences, p. 321. 2 lb. p. 332.
lb. p. 361. 4 lb. p. 320.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 55
On which the Bishops observe :
" § vi. Minister's turning. The minister's turning to the
people is not most convenient throughout the whole minis
tration. When he speaks to them, as in Lessons, Absolu
tions, and Benedictions, it is convenient that he turn to them.
When he speaks for them to God, it is fit that they should all
turn another way, as the ancient Church ever did. The rea
sons for which you may see, Aug. lib. ii. de Ser. Dom. in
Monte."1 In respect to the general observance of the orders
of the Church, the Bishops make the following wise
remarks :
" For preserving the Church's peace, we know no better
nor more efficacious way than one set Liturgy ; there being
no such way to keep us from schism, as to speak all the
same thing, according to the Apostle.
" This experience of former and latter times hath taught
us : when the Liturgy was duly observed, we lived in peace :
since that was laid aside, there hath been as many modes and
fashions of public worship, as fancies. We have had con
tinual dissensions, which variety of services must needs pro
duce; whilst every one naturally desires and endeavours not
only to maintain but to prefer his own way before all others :
whence we conceive there is no such way to the preservation
of peace as for all to return to the strict use and practice of
the form."2 These are but a few points taken from the minutes
of the Savoy Conference. The whole Conference it
self, as well as other similar documents relating to
preceding times, should be read by any one seriously
1 Cardwell's Conferences, p. 353. -' lb. p. 336.

56 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
desirous of understanding the merits of the question.
And it will be manifest, that the dispute between the
Puritans and Bishops of that day was, both as regards
the spirit and many of its details, the same as that
which is now going on between the English Church
party and the Evangelicals ; that the very same
points which Mr. Faber and others now bring for
ward were then mooted and discussed; and that the
formal and unquestionable decision of the Church
was against the Puritan party, who did thereupon,
under the name of Non-conformists, leave the ministry
of the Church.
It may be urged, and has been urged, that this
expulsion of the Non-conformists was a harsh mea
sure ; that they were zealous men, and should have
been suffered to remain in the Church. But the truth
is, that the Bishops had no alternative. If they had
not insisted on maintaining the doctrine and discipline
of the Church, in opposition to the wishes of the
Puritans, they must have sacrificed the true doctrine,
and given up the Church to them, to be modelled
after their fashion. It was simply a question whe
ther Puritan doctrine or Church doctrine should
thenceforth be that of the Establishment.
And so it is at the present time : the circum
stances are essentially the same ; only that points of
doctrine which were then discussed in Conference,
and which, if there were a Convocation sitting, would
be under formal discussion at the present time, — such,
namely, as Baptismal regeneration, the power of abso
lution, and other doctrines which have been alluded

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 57
to, — are now less formally, but not less strenuously
debated through the instrumentality of the press, the
platform, and those other means by which, in the
present day, public opinion is expressed and influ
enced. And now, as formerly, it is on the part of Church
men purely a matter of self-defence. We are contend
ing for our very existence. If we cannot maintain our
ground, we must submit to see the Church overrun
by Puritans, as it was in times past — our whole sys
tem remodelled — and ourselves, unless we conform to
a new establishment and a new system of doctrine,
speedily driven from the Church. Eight thousand
clergy were deprived of their livings by the Puritans
at the Great Bebellion, because they would not conform
to the usurped authority of the Assembly. Let no
one, therefore, say that a similar breaking up of our
Church is not within the range of possibility.
I have drawn my illustrations of Puritan doctrine
chiefly from the records of the Savoy Conference, be
cause that was the last great settlement of the Eng
lish Church ; and what was done then, is that by
which we are now bound. But in truth, Puritanism
has been troubling the Church ever since the Refor
mation. Read the records of the proceedings which
took place just before the Great Rebellion, or at the
Hampton Conference, or the controversies in the pre
ceding reign ; and it is abundantly manifest that the
Evangelical party, which is now striving for mastery
in the Church, is that old faction which has troubled
our Israel from the beginning ; which rendered the

58 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
reigns of Elizabeth and James unquiet and unsettled,
trampled the Church under foot in the time of Charles
I., and was itself formally ejected at the Restoration.
Evangelicalism is not, as Mr. Close strangely enough
declares, a new sect, which derived its origin from
Wesley, and was brought to maturity by Simeon. If
it were, that would in itself be sufficient cause for its
condemnation. But it is the old leaven of dogged
opposition to the doctrine and discipline of the
Church, which has continually shewn itself through
a succession of ages. The very same principles and
doctrines and practices which came under discussion
at the last settlement, and which, it was then hoped,
were decided for ever, and pronounced extraneous to
the English communion, are now revived and forced
into notice — and this so precisely by the same arts
and methods which once overthrew the Church, that
the wonder is, how any one can fail to see the immi
nence of the danger. What are the Simeon Trust,
and other kindred devices, but the very counterpart
of the combination which existed before the Rebellion,
to obtain possession of pulpits in populous places for
the purpose of preaching Puritanism ? What are the
Committees of the Pastoral- Aid Society, the Church
Missionary Society, and other societies, but the Com
mittees of Triers revived, for the purpose of super
seding the authority of the Bishops, and procuring
the appointment of Puritan ministers. What is Mr.
Close's opposition to the ornamenting of churches but
the revival of the spirit of Will Dowsing and his as
sociates, who " broke down with axes and hammers"

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 59
the carved ornaments of the house of God ? What
are the proposals of some to remodel the Prayer-book,
excluding those portions which distinguish the Church
from the sects, and the significant assertions of others
that alterations had better not be made "just now,"
but evidences of the very same spirit, and instances of
the very same mode of acting, by which, in former
periods of our history, so much trouble and devasta
tion has been caused ? What are the disturbances at
Exeter, and in other parts of the country, in opposi
tion to the orders of our Bishops, but unmistakeable
evidences of the determination of the Evangelicals to
resort to violence, and use, if need be, the force of
democratic assemblages, in defiance of lawful autho
rity, as the Puritans did before them ?
Owing to concurrent circumstances, the Puritans
of the present day have so dexterously worked upon
the minds of the people, that they have already to a
great extent corrupted the middle classes, and have
thereby acquired such power and influence, that, if
they be not checked, the destinies of the Church will
ere long be at their command. And surely history
must be little more than an old almanac, if we may
not gather from it, that the spirit of Puritanism which
has been at work ever since the Beformation, and has
once overthrown the Church, will assuredly do so
again, if the power be allowed it.1 Good-natured and
easy people find it difficult to believe that there can
1 Amongst other signs of the times, it is worthy of note that the
Puritan party are preparing to introduce the spirit of religious con
troversy into the coming election for parliament.

60 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
be any real danger from persons who make profession
of religion. How can we suppose that our respec
table middle classes, and some highly distinguished
noblemen and gentlemen who favour Evangelicalism,
"such an admirable person as Lord Ashley," and even
" persons upon the English and Irish Episcopal
bench," are likely to work the overthrow of the
Church? A mere glance at history will shew that
precisely the same thing took place at the Great
Bebellion. Lord Brooke was apparently a pious and
earnest man — so was Fairfax — Cromwell himself
made great pretensions to religion, and deceived
many — the middle classes were, or seemed to be, im
bued with a sort of religion. And yet, their religion
being unsound, and not the religion of the Church,
became the instrument of the Church's overthrow.
And so it may, and so it will be again, if Evan
gelicalism be suffered to have its way. There never
was a time except that just alluded to, namely, the
eve of the Great Bebellion, when the Puritan spirit
was so dangerously active as at present. There may
not be the same danger of any violent overthrow of
Church and State — at least not from religious fana
ticism — but of the gradual but sure corruption of the
Church of England, the suppression of its distinctive
doctrines, and sectarianising of its spirit, by the en
croachments of Puritanism, I verily believe there
never was the same imminent danger as in the gene
ration in which we are now living. It may almost be
doubted whether things have not already gone so far
that the Church even now may be incapable of right-

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 61
ing herself until after an Ecclesiastical Revolution
and Restoration. There is, however, a still worse
fate that might befall us ; and that is, if through our
apathy and timidity the Church should gradually and
silently sink into the power of the Puritans, and be
come, like the continental communions, a mere Pro
testant sect. But I do not think that such will be its
fate, because I believe that there are yet within the
pale of the Church of England enough of good men
and true, who, when they shall at length awake to the
danger of their position, will stand up manfully and
witness a good confession for the truth.
God grant that their awakenment to the necessity
of exertion may not come too late !
In my former pamphlets I have pointed out at
considerable length some of the methods by which
the Puritans have gained so much influence, and are
advancing onwards to the accomplishment of their
purpose. Amongst the principal of them are, the
constant vilification of the old orthodox societies,
which have received the concurrent patronage of our
Bishops — as, for instance, the National Society for
Education, and the Society for Propagating the Gos
pel in Foreign Parts — and the founding other socie
ties, of which they themselves shall have the exclusive
control, as the Church Missionary Society, Pastoral-
Aid Society, and others. It is to this particular de
partment that the tactics of the Puritans are just
now specially directed, namely, the foundation of so
cieties which shall be under the control of their own

62 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
committees, and from which the authority of the
Bishops shall be as much as possible excluded. They
have made the experiment whether the Bishops will
submit to such interference, and finding them patient,
they are making the best of the opportunity. The
most recent movement is the announcement in the
Record of April 8, of the foundation at Cheltenham
of "a new training-school for the education of mas
ters and mistresses for the Church of England" — in
opposition to the training-schools of the National So
ciety, which are supported by all our Bishops. It is
not concealed, but plainly avowed, that the cause of
the aversion in which the National Society's schools
are held by these modern Puritans, is because the
doctrine of Baptismal regeneration is taught in them,
and because the pupils attend a place of worship
where the Liturgy of the Church of England is faith
fully performed. And yet it is very probable that,
in the present state of feeling, this new society will
be tolerated, and perhaps encouraged — or at least not
denounced — by those in authority ; and our parishes
will be inundated by a tribe of schoolmasters edu
cated on principles directly hostile to the Church,
whose children they are to teach.1
Another similar scheme is the formation of a (so-
called) Church-of-England Society for Educating the
Poor of Newfoundland and the Colonies. This society,
formerly confined to Newfoundland, is now about to
extend its operations to the colonies in general.
' See Appendix, Note C.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 63
Though professing itself to be of the Church of Eng
land, it
" Opens its doors to all who are willing to be instructed
in the Holy Scriptures by its accredited masters, without en
forcing upon the pupils as an indispensable part of their
instruction, the Catechism and other formularies of the
Church."1 Its fourth rule is, that
" The schoolmasters and catechists of the society shall be
licensed by the Bishop; their appointment, removal, and re
spective salaries resting with the Committee."
" The fullest security (says the Report) is given that
only such teachers will be appointed as shall have the entire
confidence of the Committee— inasmuch as their appointment
rests entirely with the Committee, and equally, whenever they
(i. e. the Committee) see cause, the power of removal."
Here we have a set of men, who, on the strength
of subscribing, some, it may be, a guinea, some two
guineas, take upon themselves the appointment, and
reserve to themselves the removal, of all the Church
schoolmasters in the British colonies, at least wher
ever they find people willing to admit their imper
tinent interference. So that a minister of the Church
in Newfoundland, or in New Zealand, having under
him an able and confidential schoolmaster, may find
him suddenly removed by this meddlesome Committee
in London : just as one of the clergy in the diocese
of Madras actually was recalled, in opposition to the
wishes of the Bishop, by the Committee of the Church
Missionary Society. 1 See Report, pp. 9, 10.

()4 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
But the great advantage proposed by the society
is, the introduction into the colonies of Evangelical
schoolmasters, who shall be a check on the Bishops ;
for, as the Record says, with great ndiveti, with refer
ence to this very society, " the more objectionable the
doctrinal views of the ecclesiastical persons (meaning
the Bishops) in the colonies, the more striking and
useful the contrast to be afforded by faithful teachers,
wisely selected and ably superintended, teaching in the
schools the evangelical and scriptural doctrines of the
Church." This will be particularly useful in the
diocese of Newfoundland, the Bishop of which, in the
belief of the editor of the Record, " holds and incul
cates the frightful error of the spiritual new-birth of
every infant brought to the baptismal font, and does
not understand, and therefore cannot preach, the Gos
pel in its evangelical purity and truth I"1
1 Mr. Close has found great fault with me for saying that the
Church Missionary Society was established in opposition to the prin
ciples of the Society for Propagating the Gospel, and has intruded
upon its field of labour. In particular, with reference to India, he
says, that, at the time of the establishment of the Church Missionary
Society, the missions in that country had not been transferred, as
they afterwards were, from the Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, which
was in reality an offshoot from it. But what difference can it pos
sibly make to the argument, whether the Church Missionary Society
interfered with the one Society or the other, of which the principles
were exactly the same ? It is just as if I were to be accused of mis
representing Mr. Close, by saying, that he had committed a violent
assault upon some person, when it turned out that it was the father
that he assaulted — not, as was affirmed, the son. Surely Mr. Close
does not think that he can persuade people that the Church Mis-

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 65
The same sort of interference is making stealthy
but rapid progress nearer home, through the founda
tion of societies for the employment of Lay-readers.
When the scheme was proposed to the Archbishop
of Canterbury, he consulted with other Bishops, and
plainly intimated his opinion, that the same funds
would be better applied to the increase of the number
of ordained ministers. Several of the Bishops, how
ever, have assented to the employment of Lay-readers.
It seems indeed a sound principle, that the Church
should enlist in her service all the aid she can ob
tain ; and if properly trained laymen are employed,
under proper regulations, there appears to be no valid
objection. Let charitable persons supply the funds,
let the incumbent choose his own Lay-reader, and
the Bishop approve and appoint him ; and it would
no doubt be a great help in many ways to the over-
sionary Society was not originally set up by persons who disapproved
of the principles of the old Church-of- England societies, i. e. the So
cieties for Promoting Christian Knowledge and for Propagating the
Gospel in Foreign Parts, and who, instead of giving their money and
influence to forward the exertions of these old societies, which had
long been the organs of the Church, and were supported by all the
Bishops and principal Churchmen, chose to set up a society of their
own on different principles, and therefore, of necessity (if Church-
of-England principles be sound), on wrong principles, i. e. Evange
lical or Puritan. The real object of the Church Missionary Society
is, and always has been, to send out Evangelical or Puritan clergy
as missionaries ; and thus, under the conscientious impression, no
doubt, that they are advancing the Christian faith, its supporters are
in reality scattering over the world the seeds of the same divisions
and contests which vex our own unhappy Church.
F

66 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
burdened parish Priest to have an assistant of this
sort. But such a plan as this did not suit the
views of the promoters of the scheme. Nothing
would satisfy them but that they, instead of the
Bishop and incumbent, must have the selection of
the reader, and the privilege of inquiring into
his qualifications. And still further, in order to
push their opinions and interference, they must re
serve to themselves even the right of removal —
thereby establishing a perpetual interference in the
parishes of such clergymen as will endure their med
dling. Thus, under the pretence of providing for the
wants of the destitute poor, these persons canvass a
diocese, and get hold of the alms of charitable per
sons, which they forthwith apply to the furtherance
of their own party schemes. They will, of course, in
dignantly disclaim the charge of obtaining money
under false pretences. I do not accuse them of being
guilty of worldly dishonesty ; they suppose, no doubt,
that they are doing an infinite deal of good. They
collect subscriptions from the public, and appoint
persons of their own views exclusively, under the
false impression that their own views are gospel
views. One principal object is to secure the appoint
ment of Evangelical agents, to the exclusion of all
such as are " tainted with Tractarianism and its kin
dred errors ;" that is to say, all persons who believe
and teach Baptismal regeneration, Apostolical succes
sion, the power of the Church to absolve sinners,
and other doctrines which distinguish the Church of

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 67
England from the Protestant sects ; such persons are
carefully excluded, and those only appointed who are
thorough-going Puritans.
This is the plain state of the case. This is
literally the system that is creeping in amongst
us. This is the way in which, step by step, here
a little and there a little, the distinctive doctrines
of the Church of England are being surreptitiously
excluded from our dioceses, and a dictation and
interference gradually established, which threaten
to enslave the Church, and oust the Bishops from
their authority. If all this be not of the very es
sence of Puritanism, no such thing as Puritanism
ever existed. And if it do not work the speedy ruin
of the Church, all history teacheth but in vain.
The points which I have endeavoured to establish,
and which I do most earnestly entreat all Churchmen,
especially those in authority, to consider, are these :
(1.) That Evangelicalism, wrongly so called, is
the same in spirit, and in many minute particulars
identical with that Puritanism which has for so long
vexed the Church, and once trampled it under foot.
(2.) That by its activity, organisation, and popu
lar arts, especially the unjust imputation of Popery
against its opponents, this modern Puritanism has
acquired a most dangerous hold over the middle
classes, and some of the higher ; just as it did be
fore the Great Rebellion.
(3.) That no adequate means are taken to prevent
the spreading of the disease ; and consequently, that

68 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
it is likely to spread more and more, until it becomes
inveterate and incurable.
It is impossible to say what may be the design
of Providence with regard to our troubled Church ;
or to predict with certainty whether we are to go
through another Puritan ascendency or not ; — at pre
sent things are evidently tending that way. Yet we
have no reason to despair of Divine Providence open
ing some means of escape; — not, as Mr. Close most
unjustly insinuates that I have wished, by causing
the death of himself and others, who now are op
posed to the Church and true religion ; but by open
ing their hearts to the reception of the truth. Still,
while we pray for aid from above, we must not ne
glect to look to the operation of secondary causes.
God has not left His Church without means of safety:
and, when we are in trouble and danger, to whom,
under His own good Providence, are we to call for
help but to those chief pastors whom He has set to
govern the Church, and to " set in order the things
that are wanting ;" and who when they received their
holy office, solemnly promised " to banish and drive
away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to
God's word ; and both privately and openly to call
upon and encourage others to the same ?"¦
Every one is well aware that the great majority
of those who at present hold office or prominent
station, are, or at least were, decidedly opposed in
opinion to Evangelical or Puritan views.
Our Bishops are all, with scarcely an exception,
1 See the Ordination Service.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 69
supposed to be sound on the cardinal doctrine of
Baptismal regeneration. They disavow the Zuin-
glian doctrine of the Sacraments ; they believe the
Apostolical succession and divine commission of the
ministry ; they approve of a decent ceremonial, and
reverential character of divine worship; they would
gladly see, if the Puritans would allow it, the pre
scribed order restored in our services ; in a word, they
are decidedly opposed, in feeling and theory, to Pu
ritanism; — and, one would think, they could not but
be well aware of the extreme danger of the reaction
that is setting in towards that mischievous system.
Yet what is the obvious state of things at present
existing ? The Church of England is menaced, as
we have seen, by two extreme parties — Romanizers
and Puritans. The Romanizers are discountenanced,
and rightly so ; called to account, and checked ; their
party dispersed, broken, and driven from the Church.
The Puritans, on the other hand, are not only tole
rated, but sanctioned, encouraged, suffered to or
ganise themselves, acquire power, intrude themselves
every where, and this almost without rebuke, by those
who in reality have no sympathy with them.
Surely it cannot be wrong or disrespectful to call
on the Bishops, in the name of their high office, to
remedy this most dangerous state of things. All we
ask for is common justice and fairness. The same
measure that they mete to those at one extreme, let
them mete also to the opposite. If they discourage
and condemn Romanizers, let them discourage and
condemn Puritans. If they are careful not to ordain

70 A THIRD STATEMENT OF
or license the one, let them be equally careful not to
ordain or license the other. And surely of the two,
the Puritan extreme is much more to be guarded
against than the opposite. Men are sufficiently alive
to the danger of Romanism ; any symptom of extreme
views on that side at once awakens alarm ; but they
are blind to the danger on the other side. They suffer
Puritanism to make its stealthy approaches, to spread
its agents through their parishes, their schools, their
colonies; and meddle every where and work its
mines, without rebuke or hindrance. And therefore
it is clearly necessary that the watchful eye of autho
rity should be the more constantly on the alert to
guard the Church against this insidious foe.
Is it too much to ask our Bishops publicly to
declare in their Charges, as some indeed have done,
what is the true doctrine of the Church of England
with regard to regeneration and other points in dis
cussion, in order that the people may no longer be
driven about by divers winds of doctrine, and deceived
and led astray, to their great harm and danger ? Is
it too much to expect our Bishops to discountenance
those persons who band themselves together for the
express purpose of spreading unsound doctrine ; and
to put down those Committees which most presump
tuously and dangerously assume to themselves the
functions of examining, appointing, and removing
curates, lay-readers, and schoolmasters. And if such
persons contend that they have acquired these more
than Episcopal rights by payment of their money, is
it too much to bid their money perish with them, if

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 71
they think that the function of the successors of the
Apostles, the appointment of men to the office of the
ministry, can be purchased by gold ? Is it too much
to call on our Bishops to take these obviously neces
sary steps to secure the Church, of which they are
rulers, from the domination of a faction which thus
threatens to enslave it ?
Let not our rulers suppose that the present con
test is for the mere dominance of one or another set
of men in the Church — that it is a mere struggle
which school of opinions shall prevail — and that the'
Church will best be served by keeping the peace as
long as possible between men who unreasonably dis
pute about unimportant matters. No, the real con
test is, as I began by shewing, and now repeat, for
the revival or extinction of practical religion. For,
under cover of an assault on Popery and Romanizers
within the Church, the Puritan party are, in reality,
carrying on a war against that growing spirit of true
holiness and practical piety which had begun to re
vive, and which, if encouraged and directed aright,
might have produced the most precious and abundant
fruits. Reverence, devotion, strictness of life, habits
of self-examination, self-mastery, self-discipline, care
ful training of the young in ways of pure religion,
devout and liberal almsgiving, frequent prayer and
communion, humble confession of sins, confidential
intercourse between God's ministers and the people —
these, and a variety of pious habits, which are of the
very essence of practical religion, and are in strict
accordance with the letter and spirit of our own

72 THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH.
Church, all these, under the name of Popery or
tendency to Popery, are the subjects of attack or vili
fication. And the present struggle is for nothing less
than the maintenance or extinction from the Church
of that which, in reality, constitutes the practical
basis of religion,— the building up of the soul and
body of man in union with the Divine Head.
O that our rulers might be guided to view the
question in this solemn light, and to feel that on the
course which they shall take depends mainly, not
only the external fortune of the Church, but the ever
lasting destiny of the multitudes who are its members!
O that they might be led to discern, that the re
quirement of their sacred office is not merely to keep
up the balance of parties, or preserve the peace be
tween adverse controversialists ; but that the question
for them to decide is, whether they shall suffer the
branch of God's Church, of which they are the di
vinely appointed governors, to sink to the level of a
mere Protestant sect, her sacraments to be denied,
her ordinances to be neglected, and her spirit to be
quenched ; — or whether they shall be instrumental, by
their authority, in reviving the practice of true reli
gion, the holy use of those sacraments and means of
grace which God has ordained for the salvation of
His children, and of that pure and spiritual worship
whereby God's name is glorified, and the souls of men
prepared for a place among the blessed !

APPENDIX.

Note A.
There is another view of the effects of valid Baptism which
must not be forgotten — though I mention it here for the
purpose of shewing that it is not connected with the present
argument. This view is thus stated by the Bishop of Bangor
in a letter recently addressed to Mr. Faber.
" The doctrine of the Catholic Church on this question in
St. Augustine's time, as expounded by him in his controversy
with the Donatists, was as follows :
" That neither the validity nor the sanctity of Baptism, -
duly administered, is impaired by the unworthiness of the
party baptising, or of the party baptised.
" That the validity and sanctity of Baptism depend on the
presence of the Spirit in the ordinance ; and that neither the
Spirit can operate without the water, nor the water without
the Spirit.
" That since the baptism of unworthy recipients is, as is
allowed on all hands, valid, they are not baptised with water
only, but with the Spirit ; or, in other words, are regenerate.
"That such persons, nevertheless, do not partake of saving
grace, but are born of the Spirit, not with a saving, but with
a pernicious effect. Vide 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16.
" That when such persons repent of their sins, or, in the
case of heretics, are received into the communion of the

74 APPENDIX.
Church, that saving grace which had been withholden, or,
as Waterland expresses himself, suspended, begins to mani
fest and exert itself, and the Sacrament which had been
hitherto of no profit to them, begins to operate to their ad
vantage. "But this saving grace of regeneration, whenever it might
begin to manifest itself, was considered as connected and
dependent on Baptism. They knew of no other new birth
either before or after Baptism, and repudiated the notion that
a man might be born of water at one time and of the Spirit
at another ; or that he could be baptised with water, and
not born of the Spirit."
This is an important view — but it will be seen that it is
one which should not be mixed up with the subject imme
diately before us, because my whole argument, as well as
Mr. Faber's, has reference to the beneficial operation of the
Spirit. I will only add, with regard to the Bishop of Bangor's
letter, that it is one of the most perfect specimens of contro
versial writing. The quiet way in which the learned prelate
"exposes the self-sufficient ignorance and blunders of his op
ponents, is most admirable. Mr. Faber declines answering
Bishop Bethel on the score of his advanced age ; but at any
rate, he is bound by every sound principle to acknowledge
and retract the false quotations and misrepresentations, by
which he has no doubt misled many persons who inadvert
ently trusted to his supposed accuracy of research, and re
puted learning.

APPENDIX. 75

Note B.

Since the foregoing " Statement" was written, I have seen
a pamphlet, the title of which is, "A Letter to the Rev. W.
Gresley, Prebendary of Lichfield, in reply to certain views
advanced in his pamphlet on the Real Danger of the Church of
England— -by a Clergyman of the Church of England."
The " Clergyman of the Church of England" is exceed
ingly angry at the tone of my statements — complaining of its
" domineering dogmatism," " unreasonableness, and arro
gance," &c. The only difference between his pamphlet and
mine, in respect to their tone is, that whereas I have spoken
strongly and plainly wherever occasion seemed to require it,
he has placed all his censure, and it is pretty severe, in the
two or three first paragraphs ; and afterwards assumed the
language of courtesy, which is confessedly unreal. His let
ter is like the leaves of certain flowers, in which the colour
ing matter, instead of being diffused throughout the whole,
is all concentrated in one dark spot. For my own part, I
have spoken as I felt. Had I not done so, my statements
would have been valueless. 1 have written under a strong
sense of indignation at the permitted proceedings of a party
in the Church, through whose means, I verily believe that
the revival, or at least the progress, of true practical religion
is for a time impeded, and the Church itself in imminent
danger of ruin. With these feelings, it was impossible for
me to write with the same coolness as if I was merely dis
cussing a point of abstract doctrine, or debating some un
important matter.
The writer of the " Letter" will find most of his argu
ments anticipated in the foregoing pages ; and will not,
therefore, I trust, be displeased at my devoting only a note
to the farther remarks which I have to make respecting what

76 APPENDIX.
he has advanced. His main position is as follows : " It is
needful (he says) to premise a very simple remark on the
nature of forms of prayer, and of public worship in general.
It is obvious, on a little reflection, that such must be framed
for the highest case. They must go on a certain hypothesis,
viz., that the persons using them are sincere worshippers. . . .
Common prayer, it will at once be seen, must be based on
the supposition of the right-heartedness of those who are
designed to unite in it. On this principle it is that the
worship and ordinances of the Church of England are con
structed. She instructs her people by her formularies them
selves, and by her ministers, of their nature and the spirit
in which they are to be approached ; but, having done this,
she assumes, upon their so approaching, that they do so wor
thily. She takes them at their profession, and deals with
them as being in truth what the}- profess to be ; putting into
their mouth the expressions, and addressing them as pos
sessed of the privileges of the real character  In the
confessions with which the public worship begins, we have
words provided expressive of the feelings of repentance and
faith, and presupposing, therefore, the existence of those
graces in the hearts of those for whose use they are provided.
But I prefer turning to the Communion-service, as illustrat
ing the above remarks the most fully. We here find the
Church warning her people of the danger of unworthy,
whilst she sets before them, on the other hand, the blessings
of worthy approach. We find her also laying down most
distinctly what are the features, and what is the spirit which
mark the worthy reception. But having done this, she pro
ceeds to frame her service, as a moment's thought shews she
must — for the worthy recipient. She deals with such as
approach as such. She treats them as being, in truth, what
by that approach they publicly and in the face of God pro
fess themselves to be — viz., sincere penitent believers, and
puts into their mouths words expressive of the feelings of

APPENDIX. 77
such, and such alone, and addresses them as possessing the
privileges which belong to such, and such alone, leaving to
the individual himself the duty of examining into the sin
cerity of that profession on which she acts. I need not go
minutely through the service to prove this. A glance at it
will satisfy you."1
Had the writer taken a less hasty "glance," I think he
would have found cause to doubt the correctness of his
theory. How can the " Clergyman of the Church of Eng
land," who appears to be an honest man, bring himself to
believe that the services of his Church are constructed on a
theory or hypothesis, in order to carry out which it is neces
sary, in some of them, to use the language in a sense the
very reverse of that which it naturally bears ? Such a theory
carries with it its own refutation. Where is the need of any
such theory ? where is the proof of any such hypothesis ?
Surely for persons who have declared their assent and con
sent to the formularies of the Church, and are continually
using them, it is a better theory to believe that they really
mean what they say — that the compilers wished, and, by a
good Providence were enabled, to construct a service, the
various parts of which are adapted to the uses for which
they are respectively intended — and the language of which
conveys the real sense which it was meant to convey.
Such is my theory, if theory it can be called. I maintain
that each one of our services is well adapted to the use to
which it is to be put, and is constructed with a view of being
used in its natural and plain meaning. Besides, the theory
of the writer of the " Letter" altogether fails when tested by
facts. There is no evidence whatever of the services being
constructed for the " highest cases" only, or on any assump
tion of the worthiness of all who partake in them, whether
they are really worthy or not. On the contrary, even in the
1 Pp. 14, 15.

78 APPENDIX.
prayers there continually occur expressions which shew that
the worthiness of those who utter them is by no means
taken for granted : while in those portions of our formu
laries in which the minister addresses the people, nothing is
more common than to find a marked distinction made be
tween the worthy and the unworthy. Thus in the case of the
Communion-service, to which the "Clergyman" has adverted,
the minister speaks in a tone of most solemn admonition:
"as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively
faith we receive that holy Sacrament, ... so is the danger
great, if we receive the same unworthily." And in the prayer
after the reception : " We most heartily thank Thee for that
Thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these
holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious
Body and Blood of Thy Son." Here even in the prayer there
is no assumption of the worthiness of all, but just the con
trary. So in the Collect for Ash-Wednesday, we pray " that
we, worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our
wretchedness," may obtain remission. So in the confession
in the morning and evening service : " Spare Thou them that
confess their sins; restore Thou them that are penitent."
And in the absolution that follows, so far from all being ab
solved on the hypothesis of their worthiness, it is distinctly
said, " He pardoneth and absolveth all them [and of course
them only] that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe His holy
Gospel." Take again the marked contrast of the expressions
before alluded to in the form of Baptism for adults and that
for infants. In that for adults, the minister addresses the
people, " Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe that
He will favourably receive these present persons, truly repent
ing, and coming to Him in faith." Whereas, in the corre
sponding passage of the Baptism for infants, it is said with
out reservation, "Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly
believe that He will favourably receive this present infant."
Why this marked distinction ? Why this reservation in one

APPENDIX. 79
case, and not in the other ? Simply because the adult, not
withstanding the thorough belief of the minister of his fit
ness, may nevertheless be unworthy ; whereas the infant, by
reason of his tender age, cannot by possibility ponere obicem
(to use the expression of the Bishops at the Savoy Conference,
when they deliberately retained this service) — that is, cannot
place any bar to the beneficial reception of the holy Sacra
ment, and therefore, beyond a question, receives the inward
spiritual grace of regeneration.
The writer of the Letter professes to find a parallel to
his own view of the Service for the Baptism of Infants, in
the Burial-service. I do not think the parallel holds good.
The Burial-service is so constructed as to afford strong hope
and consolation to the survivors, in the case of one whom
they believe to have died in Christ, and not to exclude hope
in any case ; but there is no assertion whatever that he whose
soul has passed from the troubles and miseries of this sinful
world, and has returned to the hands of Him who made it,
is taken to an eternal reward irrespectively of his good or evil
character. On the contrary, many expressions occur from
which the direct reverse is to be implied. " He that believeth
in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." " Blessed are
the dead that die in the Lord." " We humbly beseech Thee
to raise us from the death of sin to the life of righteousness ;
that when we depart hence, we may rest in Him, as our hope
is this our brother doth." Thus there is hope, but no cer
tainty expressed, except in the case of those who have lived
a " life of righteousness," or died " in the Lord" While
in the case of infants, the service ends with these marked
and positive words: "It is certain by God's word that
children which are baptised, dying before they commit actual
sin, are undoubtedly saved."
There can be no doubt that it was the intention of those
who framed our Baptismal-service, to declare, as they have
done, that all infants baptised according to it are regene-

80 APPENDIX.
rated, and, if they die without committing actual sin, are
undoubtedly saved; and, equally so, that it was not their
intention, in the Burial-service, to declare, as they have not
done, that all who are buried are undoubtedly saved. What
right have we then to force into a parallel, services the whole
intention of which is so obviously distinct ?
The writer of the Letter, and others of his school, seem
never to take into account that the questions which they per
sist in disputing have been discussed and determined long
ago. Suppose it possible, though I can never admit so
strange a supposition, that the Reformers of the sixteenth
century were so careless or dishonest as to construct a ser
vice that must of necessity deceive those who heard it; there
have been sufficient occasions on which their error might
have been remedied. And yet the service has been deli
berately retained without alteration, on the express ground
that it is strictly and literally true. The Evangelicals really
have no right to go on disturbing the peace of the Church,
and dividing parishes, as they do, on a question which has
been decided against them over and over again ; and with
regard to which every one except themselves — Dissenters,
Romanists, as well as Churchmen — declare that they are
unquestionably wrong. They ought either to use the ser
vice in its natural sense, or else say honestly they cannot use
it, and leave the ministry.
" If," says the writer of the Letter, " we of the Evan
gelical clergy are in error on the subject, then, to say nothing
of the confusion and ill effects of which such error may be
the cause in our own souls, we are guilty certainly of intro
ducing confusion, and perplexity, and anxiety, into the souls
of our people, and making those sad whom God would not
have made sad. We fall, it is to be feared, under the censure
of that affecting passage in the closing chapter of the Apo
calypse, which condemns as much the adding to as the
taking from the word of God. This, especially when we re-

APPENDIX. 81
fleet, that none can tell what may be the pernicious effects of
such misrepresentions of God's truth, is awful enough."
This is just what I have said all along ; I do not know
that in any of my " Statements" I have used stronger lan
guage than this respecting the Evangelicals. Believing, as
I do, that several of their doctrines, especially their denial of
Baptismal regeneration, are contradictory to the doctrines
of our Church, which are founded on holy Scripture, and
seeing the zeal with which they disseminate their opinions,
and their anxiety to suppress the opposite, by every means
in their power, I have plainly accused them of " introducing
confusion, and perplexity, and anxiety, into the souls of our
people," and of diffusing amongst them "misrepresentations
of God's truth," the " pernicious effects" of which none can
tell. The same, of course, holds good with those who take
the contrary side, if they are in error. Only it must be
remembered that their guilt is shared by those who inserted
the doctrine in question in our services, and those who have
since deliberately retained it.
It is most true, as the writer states, that we are " dia
metrically opposed in a question affecting most intimately
the interests of eternity." What then is the conclusion ?
" If" (says the writer of the Letter) "we are still to differ,
all that remains is to forbear, one another in love ; and
going on in prayerful, diligent, thoughtful humility, in the
course we believe to be that of our Church and Scripture,
wait the day when our common Master, to whom we are
responsible for our opinions, shall come, and determine
before all, who it is that have faithfully delivered His mes
sage — and who it is that have, on the other hand, mingled
and marred it with the fancies of themselves and other
men." Surely this is most strange. An active and numerous
party are to be permitted to go on till the end of the world,
" mingling and marring" God's word with fancies of their
G

82 APPENDIX.
own, spreading " confusion, and perplexity, and anxiety"
amongst the people, and promulgating " misrepresentations
of the truth," the pernicious effects of which none can tell :
this they are to do in the character of commissioned minis
ters of the Church, and no authority is to be exerted to stop
the progress of their error, and save the people from confu
sion and perplexity !
What ! has the Great Head of the Church left no provi
sion against such a state of things ? Are there none who
have received a commission to set in order the things that
are wanting ? None who have pledged themselves to "banish
and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary
to God's Word ?" Must we, indeed, wait till the end of the
world before these questions are decided — and must the
Church continue, as it is, the arena of conflicting parties,
whose very earnestness only renders the confusion greater ?
How long shall the enemies of the Church have it in their
power to cast the reproachful imputation in her teeth, and
that with justice, that on some of the most important ques
tions of practical religion, her children are unable to learn
from their divided teachers " what is truth" ?

APPENDIX. 83

Note C.
While these pages have been going through the press,
the Evangelicals have opened a new and vigorous attack on
the old-established National Society, which is the right arm
of the Church in her laudable endeavours to educate the
people. The object of the attack is apparently to promote
the success of a rival training-school proposed to be estab
lished at Cheltenham — a place most fitted for the purpose,
both on account of the personal influence of the present in
cumbent — and also because the patronage being in the hands
of Mr. Simeon's trustees, the Evangelicals hope to have a
continual control over the new institution.
The following is a portion of a letter, which, as it appears,
is the first of a series, printed in the Record of April 29th.
'• NATIONAL SCHOOL SOCIETY.
ANOTHER VISIT TO CHRIST CHURCH, WESTMINSTEE, AND
ST. MARK'S CHAPEL, STANLEY GROVE.
No. I.
To the Editor of the Record.
«Sir,— When you published, in 1845, your important
reports on some of the proceedings of the training-institu
tions of the National School Society for the education of
schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, I was induced to attend
occasionally the services at Christ Church, Westminster, and
at St. Mark's, Stanley Grove ; and I can bear full testimony
to the perfect accuracy of all you then stated concerning the
antiprotestant, popish character of the religious instruction,
in respect both of doctrines and forms of worship, provided

8i APPENDIX.
at these places for the future instructors of the youth of our
country. " Being again in London, I wished to ascertain whether
your just remonstrances, which have excited considerable
attention and well-founded alarm throughout the country,
had produced any reform of the evils complained of. I have
accordingly paid several visits to Christ Church and St.
Mark's, and it is with the deepest regret I am compelled to
state, that I have found exactly the same system prevailing
as in 1845, respecting both the unsound antiprotestant cha
racter of the doctrines taught, and the objectionable manner
of conducting public worship 
" The example of our cathedrals, and the improvement
of the pupils in Church music, have, I know, been pleaded
in justification of these proceedings. As regards our cathe
drals, they have always been considered as the black spots of
our Church, in consequence of the unsoundness, spiritual
deadness, and inefficiency by which their clergy have been so
generally characterised, with a few exceptions, as to have ob
tained for them the name of the drones of the Establishment;
their example is therefore one more worthy of avoidance than
of imitation 
" The healthy development of the moral faculties, and
right direction of the religious feelings, ought undoubtedly
to constitute the ground-work of the education of the great
body of the people. This can only be accomplished by bring
ing them, from an early age, under the converting and con
trolling power of a sound scriptural knowledge of the funda
mental truths of Christianity ; and more especially, as the
key-stone of the whole system, of the humbling, yet soul-re
newing, doctrine of the promise to the penitent sinner of the
free grace of God, through faith in the imputed righteousness
of a crucified Saviour ; a doctrine which, by leading them to
cleave continually to Him who is the ' Rock of Ages,' will
be found an unfailing source of strength and consolation in

APPENDIX. 85
the trials and temptations of their often chequered life, and
will afford them at its close the only well-grounded hope of a
happy eternity 
" When once a man has been brought to the humbling,
self-abasing conviction, that his only hope of reconciliation
with a justly-offended God, and of the recovery of a renewed
and holy nature, is by trusting exclusively and implicitly to
the justifying pardon purchased for him by an atoning Sa
viour, and to the sanctifying influences upon his heart of the
Holy Spirit, — pride is then effectually rooted out of his na
ture, and he will ever after be ready to exclaim with Job,
c I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.' When,
however, I consider the cold formalism of the religious exer
cises at St. Mark's, and the generally unsound lifeless charac
ter of the preaching, I should greatly fear there is little pro
spect of the pupils of that institution imbibing the deep
Evangelical humility which invariably flows from the glorious
doctrines of the cross, when rightly inculcated. I shall re
serve, however, for another communication, some additional
remarks on this part of the subject.
" I have the honour to be,
" Cranmeb."
The Editor of the Record calls the special attention of
his readers to this notable letter, in a leading article.
" Now that the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland
have voted a large sum of money for the purposes of national
education, the conduct of the National Society in its incul
cation of religious knowledge will be watched with an in
terest proportioned to its increased importance. We regret
to state that our information indicates no improvement either
in the model-schools at Westminster, or the training-seminary
at St. Mark's College, Chelsea. Our readers will find in
this day's paper the first of two letters by a valued corre
spondent, bringing once more into prominence the Tractarian

86 APPENDIX.
leaven which pervades some of the chief of these establish
ments. The mischief which may be done by teachers thus
trained and initiated in the follies of Puseyism is incalcul
able ; the peace of parishes will be disturbed, even where
there is enough of Christian Protestantism to neutralise the
poison ; and if the evil be not crushed in the bud, the addi
tional power given to the National Society by the munifi
cence of Parliament, may become a curse instead of a bless
ing, and suggest motives for regret that the education of the
masses had not been left to the necessarily imperfect and in
adequate supplies of private benevolence.
"But why should we look on this fearful alternative, when
the remedy is in our own hands ? The subscribers to the NaT
tional Society have it in their own power either to abate the
moral nuisance, or to withdraw from an institution which is
perverted from its benevolent objects. Why should they
not employ their funds in establishing some other institution,
where the education of the poor may be conducted in a man
ner more consistent with the simplicity of the Gospel, and
the unsophisticated doctrines of our great English Refor
mers, before Laud and his Romanizing associates revolu
tionised the kingdom in striving to impose the old yoke of
Popery on a reluctant and indignant people."
Here it is recommended that the supporters of the Na
tional Society should withdraw their funds from this valu
able society ; the only reason being because the doctrines of
the Church are taught there, and her ordinances observed.
The same post brings me the Cheltenham Journal of April
26lh, from the leading article of which the following is an
extract :
" The prospects of England are brightening, when we
hear our leading statesmen declare that a merely secular
education is not the panacea that will do. The statement
will find its echo in the breasts of millions, who feel that it
must be based upon the motives and principles which the

APPENDIX. 87
revealed Word of God alone supplies. We take it as a re
markable token of good, a peculiar omen of future blessings,
that efforts should have been made at this present juncture
to raise a new and extensive normal institution, for train
ing masters and mistresses for national and infant schools.
The objects of the institution are general — the locality is
Cheltenham. Diocesan training-schools have failed to secure
the confidence of the very class of Clergy who are most for
ward in the work of education — the Evangelical. The nor
mal schools of the National Society are suspected of the
soul-destroying leaven of Baptismal regeneration ; and it be
hoves the patrons of a truly scriptural and evangelical edu
cation to second the efforts of fav-distant friends, who have
confided this undertaking to the care of our local Clergy.
We have understood that the Council of Education will
themselves contribute, whether towards the erection of a
large normal school, or the annual support of the inmates,
sums proportionable to the amount of voluntary exertions.
Who will refuse his helping hand? Is it better to make
education or crime the great architect of the day; to cover
our land with national schools, or bastilles ; to provide an
army of policemen fortified with staves, or of teachers whose
only weapon is the page of wisdom, truth, and love ? We
wait for the answer."
The doctrine of Baptismal regeneration, which is as
much a doctrine of our religion as the Atonement itself, is
here described as a soul-destroying doctrine. The training-
schools of the National Society are condemned, because the
pupils educated there are taught this doctrine of the Church ;
and a new training-school, from which this doctrine is to be
specially excluded, is to be set up in rivalry.
Is it possible that this movement of the Evangelicals can
fail of bringing matters to a crisis ? Is it possible that the
rulers and leading men of the English Church can remain
silent, and suffer this old Church-society to be thus at-

88 APPENDIX.
tacked, undermined, calumniated, injured — perhaps eventu
ally destroyed — and a Puritan institution erected on its
ruins, without exerting the authority which God has given
them to prevent such a calamity ? It is not too much to say,
that the preservation of the Church and country from a sys
tem of latitudinarian, if not infidel, education, is mainly
owing to the zealous exertions which for the last ten years
this Society has been making. Where would the Church be
now, if the National Society had not called forth her re
sources, and shewn the power which she possessed, and led
the way in the extension and improvement of education ?
And now the right arm of the Church is to be paralysed,
and cast aside as useless ! its most valuable institutions to
be superseded by a rival society, whose expi'ess object is to
corrupt and mutilate the Church's teaching ! If they who
are able to influence the Church's doctrines sit with their
hands folded, and do nothing to save her from this intoler
able aggression, it will be indeed time for her true sons to
hide their faces with shame and indignation.
But it is impossible to believe that our rulers will tamely
submit to sacrifice this invaluable institution. The Puritans
are bold and indefatigable men ; but this last step must, one
would think, rouse the Church at last to vindicate her prin
ciples.

THE END.

PRINTED BY LEVEY, ROBSON, AND FTlANKLYN,
Great New Street, Fetter I.ane.

3 9002 04077