7

A SECOND STATEMENT

REAL DANGER

CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

THE KEY. W. GRESLEY.

CONTAINING

ANSWERS TO CERTAIN OBJECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN
MADE AGAINST HIS FORMER STATEMENT.

LONDON:
JAMES BURNS, 17 PORTMAN STREET,
PORTMAN SQUARE.
1846.

LONDON :
PRINTED BY ROBSON, LEVEY, AND FK.VNK1.YN,
Great New Street, Fetter Lane.

A SECOND STATEMENT

REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH.

It is a painful thing to be engaged in controversy;
to feel constrained to speak in terms of strong con
demnation of a party which numbers amongst its
members many good and kind-hearted, though mis
taken, men ; to be looked on by such persons with
dislike, as an enemy of the truth, and an assailant of
principles which, whether from prejudice or conviction,
they have been accustomed to revere ; to be the
occasion of calling up angry feeling, harsh misconcep
tion, and contemptuous sarcasm, in the proud and
violent, — all this is sad and painful.
Still there are times when it seems a duty to speak
out plainly, without regarding who condemn or dis
approve. Such an occasion appeared to me to have
arisen when I sat down to draw attention to the "Keal
Danger of the Church." Much wondering that
others, more influential than myself, whether from
station or ability, did not raise their voices, still their
silence seemed rather to impose on me an additional
obligation that I should no longer hold my peace.

* A SECOND STATEMENT ON
The result of my first statement has been to a
great extent satisfactory. For though it has given
rise to the painful circumstances above described, it
has at the same time elicited from many quarters
assurances of hearty approval and the strongest sym
pathy. Men of weight and high position have borne
testimony that the picture which I have drawn of the
condition of the Church is not overstated; that I have
only given utterance to what they themselves have
long felt: and I have had the satisfaction of being
assured that, though I have used much plainness of
speech, both with regard to parties and individuals,
I have successfully avoided speaking of any one with
bitterness or impropriety. With these encouragements,
I feel that in pursuing the same line of argument, and
bringing forward additional proofs of the present
danger of the Church, I am not uttering my own
thoughts only, but am speaking the sentiments of
many, very many, good and excellent Churchmen.
Another proof that my statements have not failed
in their object, namely, of exciting attention to the
facts alleged, may be found in the several answers and
opposing arguments put forth by those who differ
from me in my views. The Editor of the Record, the
Editor of the Churchman's Monthly Review, and Mr.
Close, the Perpetual Curate of Cheltenham, as well as
others, have noticed my pamphlet in no very compli
mentary terms. I shall not attempt to reply to these
publications in the tone in which they are written, or
bandy hard sayings or personal invectives with my
opponents. All I design to do at present is to shew

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. O
the fallacies into which they have fallen, and the con
firmation which they unconsciously afford of almost all
the charges which I have brought against them.
In order to do away with the force of my dis
closures respecting the state of the Church, the first
point was to injure my credibility. What course was
so easy and effectual as to accuse me of Popery? Only
make out that I am a Papist, only fasten on me "the
suspicion of being suspected" of Popery, and all that
I could say would in certain quarters go for nothing.
I am accordingly charged with having in former pub
lications spoken highly of the writers of the Tracts for
the Times ; one of whom, it is well known, has unhap
pily left the communion of the Church of England ;
and of assuring my readers " that the accusations
against Mr. Newman, Mr. Oakley, and Mr. Ward,
and their compeers, of a tendency to Popery, were
utterly false."1
Now I shall never hesitate to avow my opinion
that Mr. Newman's earlier writings, including some
of the Tracts for the Times which have been attri
buted to him, but especially his earlier sermons, are
amongst the ablest and most valuable portions of En
glish divinity. All who admire warmth of piety, or
depth of learning, must acknowledge their excellency.
Many souls have, I verily believe, been converted and
saved through the instrumentality of his most touching
addresses ; and many forgotten doctrines of the Church
have been recalled to life by his earlier controversial
writings. There are few even of his enemies who
1 See Record of March 19.

A SECOND STATEMENT ON

would not accord him this praise. The opinion which
I declared in one of my volumes of the impossibility
of Mr. Newman ever joining the Church of Rome was
founded expressly on his own frequent and explicit de
clarations1 of his aversion to that Church. Since those
declarations were withdrawn, I have never expressed
any similar opinion. While Mr. Newman's declarations
against Eome remained on record, and were unre-
canted by himself or his friends, I believed it impos
sible that he should join a Church against which he
so strongly protested. But when he withdrew those
statements, then, in common with many others, I
feared for the result.
But the Editor of the Record goes on to accuse me
of having asserted, that the accusations against Mr.
Ward and Mr. Oakley also, of a tendency to Popery,
were utterly false. Now this I must take leave to say
is altogether untrue. When and where have I made
any such statement ? I do not know that I have ever
published any opinion at all about Mr. Oakley. Of
Mr. Ward I did, indeed, speak on one occasion before
he joined the Church of Rome; but it was in strong
terms of reprehension. In speaking of his Ideal of
a Christian Church, I said, "Most heartily do I wish
that Mr. Ward . . . had never been so ill-advised as to
publish his unhappy book, or, indeed, any thing else. . .
The Church was going on very well when Mr. Ward
unhappily became connected with the British Critic :
since which time all has gone wrong. The peculiar
mischief in Mr. Ward's writing is, that he puts for-
1 See " Bernard Leslie," p. 297 ; 1st edit.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 7
ward the most important and valuable truths, which,
if discreetly stated, might be of the greater value to
the Church ; but coupling them with such extrava
gant statements, and such an obvious leaning, or
rather identification of himself with the Church of
Rome, that an insuperable prejudice is raised against
the very improvements which he advocates."1 Now it
is manifest that in connecting my name with Mr.
Ward's, the Editor of the Record has, either from
ignorance or design, published a most unwarrantable
slander. No doubt he considered that by coupling
me in the opinion of his readers with one who had
gone over to the Church of Rome, he would injure
my authority as a writer ; and therefore risked the
assertion without inquiring whether it was true or
false. Such calumnies, however, cannot but redound
to the disgrace of those who employ them.
I should not have cared to notice this mere per
sonal matter, but because it is too common a sample
of the tactics of the Puritan party, whether in de
stroying the reputation of individuals, or in assailing
the doctrines and discipline of the Church. Those
unhappy excesses into which some have been betrayed
have been made the stalking-horse, by means of which
persons whose doctrine is strictly in unison with that
of the English Church, and even those doctrines them
selves, have been brought into disrepute. It is the or
dinary manoeuvre which the Puritans employ, in order
to defeat the endeavours to carry out the principles of
the English Church. "We have but to sound the
1 " Suggestions on the New Statute," p. 3.

8 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
tocsin of Popery," says Mr. Close, " and half the dan
gers of the Church are dissipated."1 If you want to
throw popular odium on those who are endeavouring to
restore the services of the Church to their decent order,
and instruct the people in her genuine doctrines, you
have but to " sound the tocsin of Popery," and straight
way congregations become clamorous, vestries unruly,
and the usefulness of the minister is annihilated. But
it is an unchristian mode of warfare to raise a cry so
manifestly unjust, for the purpose of assailing an op
ponent ; and if that opponent should happen to be
labouring on the side of truth, this invidious measure
of " sounding the tocsin of Popery" to defeat his ob
ject is a deed for which a heavy judgment will be re
quired. To raise a false cry on any account is bad
and dishonest ; how much more when that cry is raised
to counteract the truth !
1 "An Apology for the Evangelical Party, by the Rev. F. Close,"
p. 18. I have, by the way, to complain of Mr. Close's frequent misquo
tation of my words, or rather, ascribing to me words which I have not
used. I have never attributed to the London clergy " time-serving
policy," nor called them the "trimming London clergy." This is unfair.
Neither have I asserted that " the Bishop of Chester has condemned
his clergy for their strict adherence to the rules of their Church, and
blamed them for abiding by their engagements." (See page 8 of Mr.
Close's pamphlet.) With all his zeal against Popery, it is desirable
that the Perpetual Curate of Cheltenham should not imitate a certain
Abb6 Cotin of the Church which he detests, famous in his day for
this useful kind of art in controversy :
" Cotin, pour d£crier mon style,
A pris un chemin plus facile ;
C'est de m'attribuer ses vers."

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 9
In my former statement it was my object to draw
the attention of those in authority to the real con
dition of the Church ; and in so doing I found it
impossible to avoid speaking plainly of our rulers
themselves. I endeavoured to do so faithfully but re
spectfully. Mr. Close thinks it will be advantageous
to him to exaggerate my "amazing freedom in can
vassing the conduct of my superiors in the Church."
"In the whole course of my reading of evangelical
works," he says, " I have never found so much essen
tial and dogmatic independence in a presbyter to a
bishop as I find within the compass of this pamphlet
of the Lichfield prebend.1 Let our Right Rev. Fathers
in Christ weigh well the spirit of the two parties, as
fairly represented in their writings and conduct, and
let them judge which are the obedient sons of the
Church." If Mr. Close, " in the course of his reading of
evangelical works," ever looked into the pages of the
Record, he would, I think, find something beyond
the language of " dogmatic independence." A cor
respondent in the number of April 9th writes :
" Sir, " I see by the Morning Herald that on
Wednesday the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop of
London, and their wives, were at a concert at Court.
One of the songs was, ' Two merry gipsies are we ;'
and the next but one, ' We praise Thy name, O Lord.'
1 Surely Mr. Close ought to have known the difference between
a prebend and a prebendary.

10 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
Though I am no Puseyite, I think that Episcopal
attendance at such concerts might well be dispensed
with  Yours, &c. A. Z."
Y. Z., another correspondent on April 6th, instead
of reproving the Bishops for their " merry" proceed
ings, says that many persons are watching with much
concern the Bishop of London's " melancholy career."
Such language as this, or infinitely worse, is con
tinually recurring in the pages of the Record. But
perhaps it was not penned by "a presbyter." A
layman, I suppose, may criticise his Bishop's conduct
as freely as he pleases. Or perhaps Mr. Close con
siders that the difference consists in its being merely
anonymous : an anonymous writer may say what he
likes ; but when a man writes a pamphlet, as Mr.
Close has done, with his name at full length, he ought
to speak with becoming deference of " our Right
Rev. Fathers in Christ." For my own part, I desire
to write anonymously with the same respect as I would
do openly, and to speak openly with the same free
dom as if my name were concealed. I have, indeed,
used some plainness of speech, and perhaps have em
ployed some terms which, by the aid of partial quota
tion and a liberal sprinkling of italics, may be made
to appear such as my critics wish them ; but I ear
nestly hope and believe that, in what I have said or
may say, I cannot justly be charged with disrespect
either for the office or persons of those who are placed
in authority over me: on the contrary, I trust that
my statements have been such as to awaken their at
tention and approve themselves to their judgment.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 11
The following propositions are what I principally
dwelt on in my former publication, and what I desire
further to illustrate and enforce.
First, that there exists in the Church of England
a great struggle of parties and conflict of opinions,
which has infused itself into the practical working of
almost every principal parish in the land.
Secondly, that this struggle results chiefly, if not
entirely, from the circumstance of clergy of different
views on vital subjects being the instructors of the
people. Honest Church-people, sincerely attached,
as they believe, to the Church of their fathers, and
desiring to live and die in its doctrine and fellowship,
are perplexed by the different doctrines that they hear.
Some side with one party, and some with the other ;
some support the societies and institutions recom
mended by one set of clergy, and some the opposite.
Hence almost " two religions" divide the land ; and
some, in disgust and perplexity at this state of things,
have left the Church of England for other communi
ties, or have become careless and irreligious.
Thirdly, that the obvious cause of this difference
of preaching and acting in the clergy, and consequent
perplexity of the Church, is, that the Bishops ordain
and license men of different views, and suffer them to
go forth with the authority of the Church as teachers
of the people.
Of the correctness of these propositions all parties
seem agreed ; nor have I met with any who venture
to assert that the Church can have peace while this
division of opinion continues within it. The contro-

12 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
versy is too far gone, and the points of difference too
distinctly contradictory, to admit the possibility of
peace being restored without the silencing of one
party or the other ; or at least a decision as to which
is right. I have further endeavoured to prove, from a variety
of facts and arguments, that the blameworthy party
at present existing in the Church, and the cause of
this excitement, are the Puritans or Evangelicals. I
do not deny the disturbance which has been caused by
the Romanizers ; neither do I seek to defend them.
They are, as a party, silenced and extinguished.
But there exists a more formidable body of men, of
equally extreme opinions on the other side, who
ought to be silenced and discountenanced in like
manner ; or, if they be not, will assuredly work most
fearful mischief ; and, if they can, will entirely change
the character of the Church of England. The Evan
gelicals or Puritans are, I conceive, of far greater
danger to the Church than the Romanizers. I admit
that to individuals, especially educated persons, there
has been, and still is, a danger lest they be beguiled to
the side of Romanism. About a hundred and twenty
persons have gone over to Rome ; and a few more
perhaps may be expected to drop off. This is lament
able enough. But that there is danger to the Church
of England — that, with the strong national feeling
against Popery, there is any the slightest fear of
the Church again relapsing into the errors which
it renounced at the Reformation, when the mere
" sounding the tocsin of Popery" is sufficient to

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 13
rouse it to a state of excitement, appears to me
utterly absurd and chimerical ; while, on the other
hand, there are symptoms too plain to be mistaken of
imminent danger, unless steps be speedily taken to
prevent the evil, of the Church falling into the same
state as it was in at the time of the Puritan rebel
lion — or, indeed, even a worse, because though per
secuted and trodden under foot by her enemies, she
survived and recovered ; but if she herself be silently
corrupted, she may continue to exist nominally, but
be heretical and dead in fact.
The party in the Church from which this imme
diate danger is to be apprehended, I have called by
the name of Evangelicals or Puritans ; for which I
have been blamed by both friends and opponents, —
by friends, for conceding to them so honourable a
title as Evangelical, — by others, for giving them what
they consider the opprobrious title of Puritan. But,
in truth, the party of whom I speak, have in a great
measure changed their character ; and in so doing
deserve a change of appellation. I used once to
think highly of the Evangelicals, and have not hesi
tated to avow my sentiments. " The first," as I
have gladly acknowledged, " to make a successful
stand against the low and unsatisfactory state of
religion [at the end of the last century^] were the
Evangelicals. The Evangelical clergy saw with
grief the mere moral and worldly ground taken by
the Churchmen of the Establishment : they began to
preach strenuously the peculiar doctrines of the Cross,
faith in a crucified Saviour, and the need of sane-

14 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
tifying grace, — doctrines which had been almost
forgotten. We cannot doubt that they were provi
dentially raised up to infuse a new spirit into the
languishing body ; and that much of the present vita-'
lity of the Church is attributable to their zeal."1 I
1 See " Portrait of an English Churchman," p. 198. It should
never be forgotten that, though the Church, generally speaking,
was in a low and depressed state for a century after the Revolu
tion, yet there never was wanting a succession of pious "Angli
can'' divines, who followed in the steps of Hooker, Andrewes,
Laud, Bramhall, Hammond, Pearson, Taylor, and Bull. Hickes,
Robert Nelson, Leslie, and other names will be remembered long
after the small fry of Hanoverian Bishops shall have fallen into obli
vion. After the succession of George III., Anglican principles were
again inquired for, and the excellent Bishop Home and Jones of
Nayland answered to the call. These good men have disciples still
living. It was the influence of men like these that served to keep
the Church to its right centre, and broke the edge of those revolu
tionary principles which had infected the country from France. We
must not set down the old cry of " Church and King" as altogether
Erastian. Good men used it, as well as mere politicians.
The good Bishop Home, before his elevation to the Bench, had
probably as much influence with the young men at Oxford as any in
the present generation ; and he was attacked much in the same way
by the latitudinarian party. He and his friends, he says, " were
spoken of with more than ordinary contempt and acrimony, as if they
were the most mistaken in their opinions, and the most dangerous in
their attempts, of any men that ever infested the Christian Church ;"
and this " in an age tender to all persuasions, and affecting universal
candour." (See " Apology for certain Gentlemen of the University of
Oxford.") Nor was he afraid of making his appeal to the unprejudiced sym
pathies of the rising generation. " My younger brethren," he says,
" you see what there is to be said against us ; and your candour will
not pass sentence of condemnation without reading what is to be said

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 15
have never denied to the Evangelicals — such men as
Cecil, Venn, and Wilberforce — the tribute of respect
and gratitude for the good of which they were the
instruments in their generation. Their mistake was,
for us. We are accused of proselyting and seducing you. We want
not to proselyte you to any sect or party, for we never design to con
stitute a sect or party ; but, as members of the Church, subjects to
the King, and sons of the University, we desire to spend our lives
in your service, continuing stedfast and unmovable in the stations
allotted us. They cannot stand separate, and can only fall together.
May you so employ the calm days of peace and quietness you enjoy
in this happy retirement, that you may be able, when you launch
forth into the world, to weather all the storms of infidelity, heresy,
schism, and sensuality — those four winds that strive for the mastery
upon that troubled sea, wherever you are sent to preach the gospel,
and wage war with the enemies of man's salvation. If there is any
man into whom we have inculcated principles contrary to these, let him
stand forth and declare it. But if to inculcate these be to seduce you,
then we do verily acknowledge ourselves to be most guilty.'' (Ibid.)
Such is the language which good " Anglicans" of every age desire
to use, and such are the principles on which they have ever acted.
But they must not expect to be more exempt from opposition than
those who have gone before them in the same path. The following
passages from a letter dated March 14, 1761, in Bishop Warburton's
Posthumous Correspondence, p. 263, will shew how Bishop Home,
during his academical career, was regarded in certain quarters :
" At Oxford, like the ancient pagans, they are for deifying their
dead kings. One Home, of Magdalen, has preached at St. Mary's,
the last 30th of January, a sermon, in which he defends the old
parallel in favour of Charles the First. This Horn-work, raised
against all attacks upon that sacred character, may truly be called a
Bull-work  But the surprising part of this affair is, that
Brown, the Vice-Chancellor, should give his imprimatur to all this
insult on the present constitution."
The sermon alluded to, in which, it must be confessed, Home had

16 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
that though they preached the truth, they did not
preach the whole truth. They kept back uncon
sciously a portion of the word of life. Hence it
followed that, like other mere parties who act inde
pendently of the Church, they soon ran out into
vicious extremes. The shining lights of their party
have passed away ; and in their place have succeeded
a scheming, bustling body of eager ambitious par
tisans, inflated with applause, and the influence at
tached to their party, leagued with the world, and
using without scruple all worldly means to obtain
power and ascendancy ; plotting, undermining, calum
niating ; employing popular violence, agitation, cla
mour, the press, the platform, and the pulpit, to
compass their ends. All this is the very essence
of Puritanism, and Puritans they are, to all intents
and purposes, — an infinitely more dangerous body to
the English Church, as history has shewn, than the
admirers of Rome. Rome will never overthrow the
Church of England ; but the Puritans have done so,
and may do so again, and that by the self-same
means which they before employed, — namely, by using
popular arts to seduce the less instructed portion of
the community from the true system of the Church.
Their policy, as I have endeavoured to shew, is to un
dermine and injure the old religious and charitable
associations of the Church ; to establish other associa
tions which shall be under their own management, and
commented with just severity on Warburton's sermon on the same
occasion, preached the year before, may be found in Home's Ser
mons, vol. ii. p. 241, under the title of " The Christian King."

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 17
independent of Episcopal authority : to secure to them
selves posts of influence in important places ; and so
diffuse their doctrine throughout the land, which is
in vital points contradictory of that of the Church of
England, while their practice is at variance both with
its spirit and written law.
These are the charges which in my former
pamphlet I brought against the Evangelical or Pu
ritan party. Without in the least denying that there
are good and sincere men amongst them, who follow
in the steps of the Evangelicals of the last generation,
I maintained — and, as I trust, proved — that, taken
as a party, the modern Puritans are of this plotting,
dangerous, schismatical character ; that they have
already done very great damage to the Church ; and,
if not checked, will at no great distance of time
destroy it.
My first charge against them is of false doctrine ;
and specially of denying the doctrine of spiritual
regeneration in baptism, while at the same time
they scruple not to pronounce of every child whom
they baptise, that he has been regenerated. I dwelt
on this, not because it is the only doctrine on which
they are unsound, but on account of its great import
ance in the Christian scheme, and because their dif
ference with the rest of the Church on this point
is so plain and obvious that there is no possibility
of denying it. Much as this question has been dis
cussed, it occupies so prominent a position in the pre
sent controversy, that I must add yet a few pages.

18 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
And, first, what is baptismal regeneration ? —
Some think that if it were clearly defined, opposing
parties might be reconciled. I fear not ; for, m
truth, no doctrine is more clearly set forth in the for
mularies of the English Church than this doctrine of
regeneration. Of each sacrament, so we learn from
our Catechism, there are " two parts" — " the outward
visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace." With
out both of these there is no sacrament. In the
sacrament of baptism the outward visible sign is
" water," the inward spiritual grace is "a death
unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness [in one
word, regeneration^ ; for being by nature born in sin,
and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the
children of grace." Hence it is manifest that bap
tismal regeneration is the inward and spiritual grace
of baptism. " Baptism," says Archbishop Cranmer,
"is no perfect sacrament of spiritual regeneration,
without there be as well the element of water as the
Holy Ghost spiritually regenerating the person that is
baptised, which is signified by the said water."1 More
over, it is declared of children that they are made
" in baptism" " members of Christ, children of God,
and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven ;" and this
is called " a state of salvation."3 Is it possible to
conceive greater spiritual blessings than these ? To
undergo a death unto sin and a new birth unto right
eousness, to be made a child of God, and, still more,
a member of Christ — surely in that one phrase every
1 Works of Archbishop Cranmer ; Parker Society edit. p. 304.
2 See the Church Catechism.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 19
spiritual benefit is included. I will not repeat the
expressions from the Baptismal service quoted in my
former publication ; but will only remind the reader,
that every infant brought to baptism, on whom water
is poured, and the prescribed words spoken, by the
minister, is solemnly pronounced to be "regenerate ;"
and it is declared to be " certain, by God's word, that
children which are baptised, dying before they com
mit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved."1
With such positive and undeniable statements
contained in the formularies of the Church, I accused
the Evangelicals of gross inconsistency and hetero
doxy in denying this important and prominent doc
trine. Mr. Close does not attempt to disprove the
charge ; on the contrary, he distinctly admits it. For
six and- twenty years, as he affirms, has he ministered
in our common sanctuary ; and whensoever he takes a
child into his arms and baptises it, he declares to the
people that the child " is regenerate" — and every child
whom he instructs in the Catechism he teaches that
he was made " in baptism" " a child of God, and a
member of Christ ;" and yet he considers that if the
child grow up — then " a wicked life and hopeless
death prove that the blessing was not granted." This
is just the same as if the fact of a man falling griev
ously sick and dying were declared to be a proof that
he had never been born. Surely, as a man's death
does not cancel the fact of his having once lived, so
neither does his falling into sin, and eventually being
lost, cancel the fact of his having once been regene-
1 See the end of the Baptismal service,

20 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
rate, except on the Calvinistic and genuine Puritan
principle of the inamissibility of grace. But this is
no doctrine of the Church of England ;x and if it be
the doctrine of Mr. Close and his friends, then it is
manifest that they are but tampering with their own
consciences, and speaking in a non-natural sense when
they "minister in our common sanctuary," and so
lemnly thank God for every child they take in their
arms, that it has pleased Him to regenerate it with
His Holy Spirit.
Presently Mr. Close shifts his ground, and as
serts that " effectual grace" is not always imparted.
What ! is it no " effectual grace" that makes a child
of wrath a child of God, a member of Christ — which
causes " death unto sin, and new birth unto righte
ousness ?" " How can he be taken for a good Chris
tian man," says Cranmer, " that thinketh that Christ
did ordain His sacramental signs and tokens without
effectual grace and operation ? for so might we as
well say that the water in baptism was a bare token."2
Again : Mr. Close denies that in all cases "the child's
moral nature undergoes that spiritual change which
fits it for the kingdom of God ;" and yet our Church
says, " It is certain by God's word, that children
which are baptised, dying before they commit actual
sin, are undoubtedly saved."3 There is not the slight
est hint in our services that one child receives any
thing different from another child. On the contrary,
each child is declared to be regenerate by the Holy
1 See Article XVI. 2 Works of Abp. Cranmer, p. 17.
3 See the end of the Baptismal service.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 21
Ghost, and all who die before they commit actual sin
to be " undoubtedly saved."
There are some things so plain and obvious, that
to argue on them seems almost absurd. If Mr. Close
were to see a person kneeling with uplifted hands
before an image of the Virgin Mary, calling on her
to protect and save him, would he for a moment
doubt that that person was breaking the second com
mandment ? Would he listen with patience to his
declaration that he was offering only " dulia," and
not " latria ?" Let Mr. Close and his friends be
assured that it is with the same feelings of mingled
astonishment and indignation that persons of plain
sense and common understanding see them officiat
ing in the office of baptism, and declaring every child
regenerate, when they deny and explain away the
doctrine. It is a sort of self-deception and hallu
cination that is really quite absurd. I remember
once seeing a person in church with his hat on, upon
which I, of course, remonstrated with him : " Sir, I
assure you," said the person, " I have not my hat on."
" Nay, my eyes cannot deceive me." " Indeed, sir,
I have not." And so, whether from nervousness, or
whatever cause, there the person stood protesting that
he had not his hat on ! Just so will persons of Mr.
Close's school call on their congregations to thank
God over each baptised child, for that it hath pleased
Him to regenerate it with His Holy Spirit, and yet,
five minutes afterwards, stand you out to the face that
the child very probably has not been regenerated at
all. " A wicked life and a hopeless death," says Mr.

22 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
Close, "prove that the blessing was not granted."
Why, then, did Mr. C. positively declare to the con
gregation that it was regenerated, when he privately be
lieves that very possibly it was not so? Every one, except
himself, sees the gross inconsistency of such conduct.
I turn next to the objections of the Record. The
Editor of the Record blames me for not having
quoted the Articles. My object was to shew that no
person who denied the doctrine of baptismal regene
ration could, without gross inconsistency, use the Bap
tismal service. However, I have no objection to follow
him to the Articles, if he will but quote them fairly,
which he has not done in his strictures on my publi
cation. " What," says the Editor, " does the Church
authoritatively declare of baptism in her twenty-se
venth article ? She says it is 'a sign of profession and
mark of difference ;' not only so, it is 'a sign of re
generation or new birth,' by which sign ' they that
receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church ;'
further, forgiveness and adoption are thereby ' visibly
signed and sealed ;' and lastly, ' faith is confirmed,
and grace increased by virtue of prayer to God.' . . .
This" he adds, " is the whole formal and dogmatic
announcement of the Church on baptism."1
The 25th Article, on the sacraments (though
afterwards quoted), Articles ix., xv., xvi., the Cate
chism, the declarations in the Baptismal service and
the Confirmation service, are here set aside, and the
whole controversy made to rest on this one Article.
1 Record of March 23, 1846.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 23
And will it be believed that the Editor of the Record
has, by a method of suppression which I will not cha
racterise, left out the very passage on which, so far as
this Article goes, the whole argument turns ? " Bap
tism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of dif
ference, whereby Christian men are discerned from
others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of
regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instru
ment, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted
into the Church ; the promises of forgiveness of sin,
and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the
Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed ; faith is
confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer
unto God." This writer best knows why he has
thought proper to leave out the very words on
which the point in the controversy turns. He and
his school believe sacraments to be mere signs. The
Church teaches that they are not mere signs, but
signs which work as instruments, producing that
whereof they are the signs. Thus the 25th Article
declares that " Sacraments ordained of Christ be not
only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession,
but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effec
tual signs of grace, and God's good will to us, by
the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not
only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our
faith in Him." In the words of the Catechism, a
sacrament is " an outward visible sign of an inward
spiritual grace given unto us :" externum et visibile
signum spiritualis et internee gratis collatce nobis —
to Ixrog ku) ogarov r?js 'idea xou ¦xnvfitt.rix.rit; -fcugiros t\^a\>

24 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
loklaris. It consists of two parts, " the outward
visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace," without
both of which, as before observed, there can be no
sacrament either administered or received. Baptism
is no baptism, but mere washing with water, if the
inward spiritual grace be not annexed to the outward
visible sign. " But," says the Record, " the Article
asserts, over and over again, that it [i. e. baptism] is
a sign of the thing, and not the thing itself ; and it
cannot be at once the sign and the thing itself!" Why,
this is the very nature of a sacrament. It is "an
effectual sign of God's good will towards us, by which
He doth work invisibly in us ;" it is " an outward and
visible sign of an inward spiritual grace given unto
us." One part of each sacrament is the sign, and
another the thing signified.1 Are there no analogies
in nature ? Nay, rather is not all nature a demon
stration of the outward visible sign accompanying
that which is inward, and that which is spiritual?
What are the blossoms of spring but signs of God's
preserving and sustaining care in the world which
He has created? When these appear we recognise
God's earnest of present life and future fruitfulness.
1 '* The water," says Dean Nowell, in his Catechism, — which
received the approval of the same Convocation as that which finally
sanctioned the Thirty-nine Articles, — *' The water is a figure indeed,
but not empty or deceitful,; but such as hath the truth of the things
themselves joined and knit unto it. For as in baptism God truly
delivereth us forgiveness of sins and newness of life, so do we cer
tainly receive them. God forbid that we should think that God
mocketh and deceiveth us with vain figures." Pp. 71-2 of the 1st
edition, 1571.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 25
What are the showers that water the soil but signs
and pledges to us of the care of Him who visiteth the
earth, and increaseth it? In these things the laws
of nature are analogous to those of grace. And where
is the difficulty of imagining a sign, which shall be
the instrument or efficient cause of the thing which is
signified? As when a man signs, seals, and delivers
a deed, the sign, and the seal, and the delivery are
the actual taking or yielding possession of the estate ;
so baptism is the sign and seal of our heavenly in
heritance, and the instrument whereby we obtain a
sure title to its possession.
It is really one of the most painful and shocking
things to know that such a print as the Record,
which thus perverts the doctrine of the Church, is
a publication which many hundreds of well-meaning
people constantly read, supposing it, in their ignor
ance, to be an organ of the Church ; nay, some
almost take their religion from it. You shall see ad
vertisements of persons desiring situations, " whose
religious opinions agree with those of the Record."
The thing is so monstrously ludicrous, as well as so
sad and grievous, that one really knows not whether to
laugh or weep. And the Record scatters its calumnies
and misrepresentations in such a manner as to preclude
contradiction. Who amongst the Record's readers will
see my contradiction of the passages which I have just
quoted ? First, in order to injure my reputation as a
Churchman, my name is most unrighteously coupled
with those of Mr. Ward and Mr. Oakley, who are
known to have left the Church, Then one Article,

26 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
the 27th, is declared to be the "whole formal and
dogmatic announcement of the Church on baptism ;"
and even in quoting this one Article, the point on
which the controversy turns is omitted. These un
fair and untrue statements go forth amongst the
ignorant persons of their party, and are received with
implicit belief. It is really most discreditable to
such persons as " Mr. Carus Wilson of Casterton
Hall," Mr. Bickersteth, Mr. Trench, Mr. Goode,
Mr. Burgess, and others, that they should suffer
their public organ thus to blindfold the eyes of those
who ignorantly receive its statements. On the other
hand, I cannot think those persons wise who affect to
despise such an instrument of mischief, and " make
it a rule to fling the Record into the fire, whenever a
copy is sent to them," because " they will not read
wicked publications." It is a wicked publication
beyond question ; but one that should be read and
marked as amongst the worst signs of the times, and
embodying all the evil qualities of the most fanatical
Puritanism. The Editor of the Churchman's Monthly Review,
who has also noticed my former statement, has an
swered it in a more Christian tone certainly, though
not without making some serious mistakes as to facts.
He asserts1 that our most eminent Reformers, and
those who followed them, did not hold the doctrine that
all baptised persons are regenerated. Now I should
like to ask the Evangelical party this one question, If
1 P. 242.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 27

same

the Reformers of the English Church held the
opinions as they themselves do on the subject of re
generation, and believed that either regeneration did
not take place at all in baptism, or not in all cases,
what could possibly be their reason for making the Bap
tismal service, the Catechism, and the Confirmation
service such as they are ? Why go out of their way
to direct that the priest should declare to the people
that each infant was regenerated, if they believed
that it was not so ? Did they desire to deceive the
people ? or did they not perceive that their meaning
must inevitably be mistaken? Suppose that Mr.
Close and the Editors of the Record and Churchman's
Monthly Review were to set about drawing up a ser
vice for baptism, would they frame it as the Reformers
framed it ? There can be no doubt that they would
make it essentially different. How, then, can they
claim community of opinion with the Reformers,
whose language shews that they were entirely of a
different mind ?
" If," says Bishop Bethel, " the compilers of our
Liturgy had thought that only some infants are born
again in baptism, they were men of too much honesty
and simplicity of character to employ what cannot be
called ambiguous, but delusive and dangerous lan
guage. They were not tied down to technical form,
or what has been called ' baptismal phraseology,' but
were at full liberty to frame these offices upon their
own principles, and to couch them in such language
as was best calculated to express their real senti
ments. This they have done with perfect simplicity

28 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
and good faith, and have set forth their own belief,
and the belief of their forefathers in Christianity,
without verbal ambiguity or mental reserve."1
To prove that the Reformers in their other writ
ings teach the same doctrine as that which they have
set forth in the public services, I beg attention to the
following extracts, besides those already quoted.
The first is from Archbishop Cranmer : "Our Sa
viour Christ hath not only set forth these things most
plainly in His holy word that we may hear them with
our ears, but He hath also ordained one visible sacra
ment of spiritual regeneration in water." " And for
this cause Christ ordained baptism in water, that as
surely as we see, feel, and touch water with our
bodies, and be washed with water, so assuredly ought
we to believe, when we be baptised, that Christ is
verily present with us, and that by Him we be newly born
again spiritually, and washed from our sins, and grafted
into the stock of Christ's own body, and be apparelled,
clothed, and harnessed with Him in such wise, that
as the devil hath no power against Christ, so hath he
none against us so long as we remain grafted into that
stock, and be clothed with that apparel, and harnessed
with that armour."2
" To express the true effect of the sacraments : as
the washing outwardly in water is not a vain token, but
teacheth such a washing as God worketh inwardly in
them that duly receive the same ; so likewise is not the
bread a vain token, but sheweth and preacheth to the
1 Bishop Bethel on Baptismal Regeneration, p. 110.
2 Archbishop Cranmer's Works; Parker Society edit. p. 41.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 29
godly receiver what God worketh in him by His
almighty power, secretly and invisibly."1
" In baptism we receive the Holy Ghost, and put
Christ upon us."2
" What Christian man would say, as you do, that
Christ is not indeed (which you call ' really') in bap
tism ? or, that we be not regenerated both body and
soul as well in baptism as in the sacrament of the
body and blood of Christ ? or, that in baptism we be
not united to Christ's divinity by His manhood ?"3
The following is from Bishop Latimer : " Like as
He [Christ] was born in rags, so the converting of
the whole world is by rags, by things which are most
vile in the world. For go to the matter. What is
so common as water. Every foul ditch is full of it.
Yet we wash out remission of sins by baptism. There
we begin. We are washed with water, and then the
words are added ; for we are baptised in the name of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost : whereby
baptism receiveth its strength. Now this sacrament
is a thing of great weight : for it ascertaineth and
assureth us, that like as the water washeth the body
and cleanseth it, so the blood of Christ our Saviour
washeth and cleanseth it from all filth of sins."
Bishop Ridley says, in his work against transub-
stantiation : " For the change of the use, office, and
dignity of the bread, the bread, indeed, is sacramen-
tally changed into the body of Christ, as the water
in baptism is changed into the fountain of regenera-
1 Archbishop Cranmer's Works ; Parker Society edit. p. 17.
2 Ibid, p. 64. 3 Ibid. p. 176.

30 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
tion ; and yet the natural substance remaineth all one
as before."1 Again, "The society or conjunction with
Christ through the Holy Ghost is grace ; and by the
sacrament we are made the members of the mystical
body of Christ, for that by the sacrament the part of
the body is grafted in the head."8 And again, he
speaks of what a " man doth profess in his regenera
tion, when he was received into the holy Catholic
Church of Christ"3 — evidently meaning his baptism,
as in our 9th Article, where it is said there is no
condemnation to them that believe and are baptised
— it is paraphrased " renatis et credentibus." So
in the 15th Article it is said, "All we the rest,
though baptised, and born again in Christ, yet offend
in many things." It was the common language of
the Reformers to speak of baptism and the new birth,
not only as simultaneous but as identical.
Archdeacon Philpot says : " Now will I prove
with manifest arguments that children ought to be
baptised. . . . That thing which God hath purified,
thou shalt not say to be common or unclean. But
God doth repute children among the faithful : ergo,
they be faithful. ... In the sacrament be two
things to be considered — the thing signified, and the
sign; and the thing signified is greater than the sign :
and from the thing signified in baptism children are
not excluded. Who, therefore, may deny them the
sign, which is baptism in water ?''4
1 Works of Bishop Ridley ; Parker Society edit. p. 12.
2 Ibid. p. 239. 3 Ibid. p. 57.
4 Examinations and Writings of Archdeacon Philpot; Parker
Society edit. p. 276.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 31
Bishop Coverdale says: "Look, then, that ye de
clare this joyful and gracious message unto all men,
and plant them in with baptism unto the Father, and
to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost."1
Archbishop Sandys says : " Now, as the graces of
God, purchased for us by Christ, are offered unto us
by the word, so are they also most lively and effectually
by the sacraments. Christ hath instituted and left in
His Church, for our comfort and the confirmation of
our faith, two sacraments or seals, baptism and the
supper of the Lord .... Although we see no
thing, feel and taste nothing but bread and wine,
nevertheless let us not doubt at all, that He spiritu
ally performeth that which He doth declare and pro
mise by His visible and outward signs."2
Archbishop Grindal says : "In baptism men
regard not greatly the water, but account themselves
washed by the blood of Christ. So saith St. Paul :
' Whatsoever we be that are baptised, we are washed
in the blood of Christ.' "3
Roger Hutchinson thus begins his Treatise on the
Image of God : " The first point and chief profession
of a true Christian man is, to believe that there be
three Persons and one God ; as we are taught in bap
tism, which is commanded to be ministered in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. For in that bath of holy baptism we are re-
1 Works of Bishop Coverdale ; Parker Society edit. p. 370.
2 Sermon by Archbishop Sandys ; Parker Society edit. pp. 302
and 303.
3 Remains of Archbishop Grindal ; Parker Society edit. p. 62.

32 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
generate, washed, purified, and made the children of
God by the workmanship of the three Persons."
Thomas Becon says : " Are not these words plain
enough ? At baptism we are purged through Christ's
blood from original sin, and all other that we have
committed before, so that we be reconciled to God,
and recounted for righteous."1
" Consider, also, what ye are yourselves concerning
your inward man, I mean your soul. Hath not that
through Adam, before it is regenerate in Christ, lost
the favour of God ? . . . After ye be renewed by the
most blessed sacrament of baptism and the Holy Ghost,
remember how soon ye lose again those benefits, through
your own sin and wickedness, which before ye freely
obtained by Christ."2 "Although by Christ we be
set again at liberty, and receive our manumission and
freedom from that captivity whereunto we were made
bond by the sin of Adam, so soon as we are regenerate
and born anew by the honourable sacrament of baptism
and the Holy Ghost; yet inasmuch as afterwards,
through our fragility and weakness, we fall again into
sin and deserve thereby also to be cast from the
favour of God, and to be damned perpetually, if God
did not also help us in this behalf, O Lord God, in
how miserable a case are we !"3
" If the believing Christians only be baptised, ac
cording to this saying of Christ, ' He that believeth
and is baptised shall be saved,' why should the in
fants be baptised, which for imperfection of age
1 Early Writings ; Parker Society edit. p. 333.
2 Ibid. p. 204. 8 Ibid. p. 178.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 33
are not able to believe? Though infants have not
power to believe nor to confess their faith, yet have
they faith imputed to them for the promise' sake of God,
because they be the seed of the faithful."1
Lastly, Bishop Jewel says, in his reply to Mr.
Harding's censure (p. 249), " The mystery of bap
tism is greater than it appeareth to the eye. So St.
Ambrose : ' Aliud est quod visibiliter agitur, aliud
quod invisibiliter celebratur.' In baptism there is one
thing done visibly to the eye, another thing is wrought
invisibly to the mind  Tertullian saith, 'The
Holy Ghost cometh down and halloweth the water;'
St. Basil saith, ' The kingdom of heaven is there set
open ;' Chrysostom saith, ' God Himself in baptism,
by His invisible power, holdeth thy head ;' St. Am
brose saith, ' The water hath the power of Christ — in
it is the presence of the Trinity ;' St. Bernard said,
' Let us be washed in His blood.' By the authorities
of thus many ancient fathers," concludes Bishop Jewel,
"it is plain that, in the sacrament of baptism, by the
sensible sign of water, the invisible grape of God is given
unto us."
Amongst all these passages it is obvious that,
while some shew that the habitual mode of speaking
even incidentally on the subject was such as would
not have been adopted had not the Reformers of the
English Church held the doctrine of spiritual regene
ration in baptism ; others, and these not a few, prove
demonstratively that such was their belief ; and conse
quently that the modern Evangelical or Puritan doc-
1 Prayers, &c. p. 617.
C

34 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
trine is a manifest departure from the doctrine of the
Fathers of the English Reformation.
The question therefore arises, Can any person who
does not believe the doctrine of spiritual regeneration
in baptism with good faith officiate in the baptism of
infants ? And if persons are found who can make up
their minds to do so, ought they to be permitted ? It
is precisely the same question as whether a person
holding the doctrine of the supremacy of the pope,
or any other distinctively Romish doctrine, ought to
be allowed to remain a minister of the Church of Eng
land. The cases are precisely parallel, only that
one party errs in one extreme, the other in the op
posite. Mr. Hugh Stowell declared in a recent speech that
" there were some in the Church of England who en
tertained the same views [with Mr. Newman] ; and he
would boldly say, that if Dr. Pusey and those who sym
pathise with him did not forthwith go over to Rome, a
greater brand would rest upon them than upon Mr.
Newman and his associates." This is precisely what
men of moderate views feel with regard to those who
deny baptismal regeneration, and yet continue to offi
ciate in the English Church. It seems to us the
most unaccountable and inconsistent thing imaginable.
If the persons who offend on the Puritan extreme
were small in number or in influence, it might be safe
to allow them to hold their opinions in silence; but
now that they are in full activity, and have manifestly
set themselves to change the doctrine of the Church,
as they have already corrupted its discipline, and, in

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 35,
fact, aspire to get the whole Church under their in
fluence, it is surely time to bring the anomaly and the
danger in which the Church is placed before those
who are appointed to maintain its integrity.
Mr. Close says truly, that in my former pamphlet
I did not dwell on any erroneous doctrine of the Pu
ritan party except that of their denying baptismal
regeneration. To shew that they denied one impor
tant doctrine of the Church appeared to me sufficient
to prove my position, namely, that they were danger
ous and inimical to her interests. Moreover, this is
a doctrine so prominent and important, that to deny
it is enough to vitiate the whole doctrine of any teacher.
But, in truth, it is connected with a variety of unsound
doctrines, some in the way of exaggeration, and some
of diminution, which form the system of the present
so-called Evangelical teaching.
First, that doctrine, or dictum, which was the
watchword of Luther, and is constantly held by Eng
lish Puritans, viz. that "justification by faith is the
' articulus stantis aut cadentis Ecclesice' " — the article
of a standing or falling Church — the cardinal point
on which the stability of the Church depends. Every
Christian knows full well that the doctrine of justifi
cation by faith is a prominent and important doctrine
in Holy Scripture; but that it is the " articulus stantis
aut cadentis Ecclesice," so that the stability or insta
bility of the Church depends on it more than on many
other Gospel truths — such as, for example, the doctrine
of the Trinity, or the incarnation, the holy Catholic

36 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
Church, one baptism for the remission of sins, the
resurrection, or judgment according to works, — that
it is more fundamental or cardinal than these and
other doctrines that might be named, is altogether an
unscriptural and exaggerated statement. Where in
the Word of God shall we find any authority for this
view of the doctrine of justification ? Nay, rather do
we not find in the Epistle of St. James apostolic re
proof of the exaggeration of this doctrine ? And yet
the Evangelicals, adopting Luther's dictum, have
made it the centre of their system ; every thing else
is considered subordinate and made to give way, is
explained away, or silently passed over. This is the
secret of their repugnance to baptismal regeneration.
The most fatal errors have at different times arisen
from this source. It was the exaggeration of the
doctrine of justification by faith that led to the fatal
heresy of Antinomianism — a heresy of the most subtle
nature, against which Christians of every age would
do well to be on their guard. " Antinomianism," says
Mr. Cecil, "is an error which sets up the grace of
God in opposition to His government. Accordingly
it makes light of the evil of sin, the necessity of re
pentance, the evidence and excellence of holiness ;
and all this upon the specious pretext of exalting and
glorifying the work of Christ. But the work of Christ
was not only to die for the sins of His people, but also
to save His people from their sins, and to fulfil His
great evangelical promise of putting His law into
their hearts, and writing it in their minds, and caus
ing them to walk in His statutes, and to keep His

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 37
judgments and do them. The truth, therefore, as it
is in Jesus, respects what He does for them, and what
He does in them ; but as half the truth is a lie, so
this is the lie called Antinomianism." Again, as to
the prevalence of it (however this fact may be denied
by the modern Puritans themselves), Mr. Cecil is an
unexceptionable witness : — "So deep and dissembled
sometimes is this mystery of iniquity, not only from
the multitude, but also from the Antinomian himself,
that, while he is ranting about the doctrines of grace,
and dealing out vulgar and abusive epithets against
every true minister who adds the practical part to the
doctrinal, he supposes that he is making a stand for
the truth — he is, forsooth, the reformer, the apostle,
the contender for the pure and unmixed faith once
delivered to the saints ; and he is mistaken by his
simple followers for another Paul : and no marvel ;
for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
light ; therefore it is no great thing if his ministers
also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness,
whose end shall be according to their works."1
Of course, no man believes himself to be an Anti
nomian ; but few will dispute that the exaggeration
of the doctrine of justification by faith, so common
amongst the so-called Evangelicals, has a manifest
tendency that way. It leads of necessity to the de-
preciation of the value of good works, and of the cer
tainty of judgment for every deed done in the flesh,
as well as of careful self-regulation, and the need
of strict attention to every act, deed, and thought.
1 Cecil's Memoirs of Cadogan, p. 81.

38 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
Hence sin remains unsubdued ; much self- indul
gence is tolerated, under the notion that faith will
cover all deficiencies. One idea seems to fill the
mind to the exclusion of every other, — only be
lieve, and thou shalt be saved. Faith is the prin
ciple from which all goodness is expected to flow ;
only get faith, and all is right. As a bare 'naked
dogma this is undeniable : it is the undue exaggera
tion of it, the practical misapplication of it, which
mars the teaching of the Evangelicals. They exhort
their hearers to get faith ; but how to get faith, and
how keep it when gotten, the mutual reciprocity of
faith and good works, the impossibility of having faith
while our deeds are evil, the need of personal watch
fulness, self-denial, self-mastery, self-revenge for sin
committed, — all this is comparatively pretermitted and
cast into the shade. That most important branch of
practical Christianity, the right use of ordained means,
is most fatally discouraged. There is nothing in which
the unfaithfulness and unsoundness of the Evangeli
cals more manifestly appear than in their discourage
ment of those means of grace1 which are afforded
1 The old Evangelical divines of the last generation were more
sound in this respect than their worldly successors. The following
is an extract from Venn's Sermons, in which the value of ordinances
is well described :
" To walk in the Spirit implies also that we use the means by
which the Spirit has promised to convey His influence, in the humble
hope of thus receiving it. The influence of the Spirit is not pro
mised except in the use of appointed means  To expect
the help of the Spirit without the use of the means is enthusiasm
and unwarranted presumption. I know not how it comes to be taken

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 39
by their own Church — the daily prayers, the festivals,
and, still more, the fasts. Of all the means of grace
for a luxurious and rich community, none is so ab
solutely essential as that of fasting. People are dying
around us of self-indulgence and worldliness ; yet it
is notorious that the Evangelical party do by their
mode of teaching positively deter their hearers from
availing themselves of this important ordinance. It
is no exaggeration to say, that I never heard an Evan
gelical preacher in Lent who, if he made any allusion
to fasting, did not rather caution people against it
than recommend its use ; and this when probably not
a member of his congregation ever fasted at all. This,
I say, is gross unfaithfulness, and is enough to account
for the uncontrolled self-indulgence and sinfulness of
for granted by some, that the diligent use of means, and dependence
upon the Spirit, are incompatible with each other. They seem to be
afraid of rating too highly the means and ordinances, as if the Spirit
of God were honoured in proportion as we undervalued the ordi
nances. On the contrary, it appears to me that a man cannot so
effectually depend upon the Spirit as by diligently using all the
means. Dependence on the Spirit and the use of means are not
opposed to each other^they are closely allied. By the means the
Spirit works. They are but His instruments by which He is pleased
to communicate His influence to us. We honour the Spirit not by
neglecting His appointed ordinances, but by sedulously using them.
He, therefore, who walks in the Spirit will conscientiously and re
verently attend to all the prescribed ordinances .... He will shew
his reverence for the Spirit, and express the desire he has of obtain
ing His special influences, by a devout and uniform use of all those
means by which the Spirit has been pleased to grant His divine
assistance to the soul." — Venn's Sermons, vol. ii. p. 56.

40 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
the present generation. Who can tell how many souls
have been lost by the neglect of those teachers, who
have not led them to that important branch of repent
ance and means of personal holiness — the ordinance
of fasting? The same preposterous prejudice against
ordinances is the cause of the ill condition and sloven
liness of our Church-services, and the resistance to
the endeavours of Churchmen to restore them to their
true excellence. The Record, in answer to my com
plaints on this head, affects to suppose that the fault
complained of must be in the churches of my own
friends. Let the Perpetual Curate of Cheltenham
himself answer the Record, and describe the behaviour
of persons of his own congregation :
" They enter the house of God with an air and
appearance suited to a place of public dissipation.
Before they are seated, they perform a brief ceremony
— they hastily bow their heads for a moment, as if
in private devotion ; but during the reading of the
prayers these careless ones neither kneel nor stand,
nor follow the words in their books : there is too evi
dently the vacant and wandering eyes, and the absent
mind ; their thoughts ' are with the fool's at the ends
of the earth.' Prayers which are enough to melt a
heart of stone fail to awaken their attention ; or they
mutter over words of petition, confession, supplication,
and adoration [he might have said, of exhortation and
absolution too] the most deeply affecting, and of the
most penitential character, as mere words of course
and unmeaning ceremony. It is really surprising that

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 41
the palpable hypocrisy of such conduct, and its offen-
siveness to Almighty God, does not strike conviction
into the most thoughtless heart."1
This is the very state of things which has roused
the exertions of the Anglican clergy. Their great
object and endeavour has been to remedy this enor
mous scandal ; and where they have not been thwarted
and opposed by the Puritan faction rallying the worldly
and self-willed to their aid, they have succeeded in
effecting a beneficial change. If you desire to see an
attentive and orderly congregation, who really join in
the worship of Almighty God, you must enter the
church of one of these much-abused Tractarians ; there
you will find people devoutly kneeling, and really pray
ing. I advocate no ceremonies additional to those of
our own Prayer-book, no unauthorised "genuflexion
or tergiversation ;" all I desire is simply that congre
gations kneel, and pray, and listen. But I am sorry
to say that you will still find most congregations
much in the case which Mr. Close so graphically
describes. And this most scandalous system is mani
festly traceable to that contempt of ordinances which
springs naturally from the unscripturally exaggerated
doctrine of justification by faith.
There is another Puritan fallacy which is at the
root of much mischief, and is singularly in harmony
with the prevailing popular wilfulness, — that is, the
dogma that " The Bible, and the Bible only, is the
religion of Protestants." Now if it be asserted,
i Excellence of the Liturgy : a Sermon, by the Rev. F. Close,
1838, pp. 22, 23.

42 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
that the religion of the Church of England is iden
tical with that of the Bible, the position would be
intelligible and true ; but to say that the Bible is
the religion of Protestants is a paradox or contra
diction of terms. Who are Protestants ? Lutherans,
Zuinglians, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Socinians, Inde
pendents, Wesleyans, Quakers, Unitarians, and five
hundred other sects, by one or other of which every
vital doctrine of the Christian faith is disputed or
denied. How can the Bible be the religion of all
these ? The proposition contradicts itself. And yet
it is one of the first positions of so-called evangelical
truth. Contrast the Anglican- Church doctrine on
this head with the Evangelical. " Holy Scripture
containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved
thereby, is not to be required of any man that it
should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought
requisite or necessary to salvation."1 " The Church is
a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ ; yet as it ought
not to decree any thing against the same, so besides
the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be be
lieved for necessity of salvation."2 Here the respec
tive offices of the Church and Bible are set forth.
Neither is unduly exalted above the other. On the
other hand, observe the principles of " the Evangeli
cal Alliance," a society recently formed consisting of
various Dissenting ministers and others nominally in
communion with the English Church. Their first
principle is " that to every person belongs the right
1 Article VI. 3 Article XX.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 43
and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of
the Holy Scriptures." This is only a corollary of the
dogma that " the Bible, and the Bible only, is the
religion of Protestants," and both are essentially dis
tinct from the doctrine of the English Church. The
Churchman holds that whatever is really contained
in Scripture is to be received as truth. The Evan
gelical believes, that each man is to receive as truth
whatsoever, in the exercise of his own private judg
ment, he fancies is contained therein. But it is
manifest, that of the multitude of conflicting sects,
who all fancy that their respective doctrines are
based on Scripture, the majority do not really re
ceive Scripture, but something which they mistake for
Scripture. In truth, this notorious dogma that " the
Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Pro
testants," is, in effect, but a license to men to believe
or disbelieve just what they please. It gives autho
rity to every error, and renders it absolutely impos
sible that any union or harmony should exist among
Christians. Division must go on ad infinitum. Unity
of faith, or unity of worship, is utterly impossible, so
long as this most pernicious paradox is believed to
contain either sense or truth.
These are a few of the doctrinal errors and cor
rupt practices which are more or less engrained in
the Puritan system, and which are fast gathering
over the face of the Church, with little apparent
hindrance to their fatal progress.
Amongst the most effectual means by which, as we

44 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
have already seen, the Puritans succeed in spreading
their opinions and influence, one plan is to subvert or
enfeeble the old Church societies, and set up others in
their stead. If they can gain a footing in an old society,
so as to change its principles, that best answers their
purpose ; for while it promotes Evangelicalism, it de
stroys the contrary principle. But if they are unsuc
cessful in establishing their influence, then "the tocsin
of Popery is sounded," the pages of the Record and
other such periodicals are filled with letters and lead
ing-articles, and every exertion is made to damage
the old society, while another on Evangelical prin
ciples is established in its place. If I wished con
firmation of these assertions, Mr. Close's pamphlet
furnishes ample. It is, in truth, a valuable document,
in so far as it admits the truth of almost every state
ment which I have made,
With regard to the Society for the Propagation
of the Gospel, let Mr. Close speak for himself. " I
am constrained to confess," he says, " that I have
recently again withdrawn my subscription, and re
tired from among the ranks of its supporters, and
shall remain unconnected with it, until the grievous
evils exposed by the metropolitan Bishop of Calcutta
are honestly met and removed. I cannot conscien
tiously support a society, by my money or my influ
ence, which, upon the testimony of the Diocesan [of
Calcutta], is convicted of employing missionaries,
' who are unhappily imbued with sentiments' 'by
which souls are fatally endangered,' ' who have done,
and are doing, incalculable mischief in their several

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 45
spheres,' ' holding opinions distorted and unprotest-
ant,' ' so that the missions in and about Calcutta
have unquestionably been injured.'"1 This is a direct
acknowledgment of the truth of my accusation, — habes
confitentem reum. A society which is warmly sup
ported by all the Bishops of the English Church, who
have one and all written very urgent letters in its
behalf, and have expressed even an unusual earnest
ness in its favour, supported also and warmly eulo
gised by the Colonial Bishops, as the greatest aid and
assistance to them in their labours, — this society is
decried and injured by Mr. Close's party, on the ex
press ground that its missionaries do not preach the
Gospel. The necessary inference is, that he and his
party are, as I have before said, at issue with the rest
of the Church as to what the Gospel really is.
The Record still continues to keep up its attacks.
A large meeting has been held recently in the city,
for the purpose of supporting this venerable society.
Immediately after appears a leading- article in the
Record, accusing the society of not propagating the
the true Gospel ; and another long letter from " the
Rev. Carus Wilson of Casterton Hall," trustee of
Mr. Simeon's fund, &c. &c, complaining that the
Bishop of Toronto insists on refusing ordination to
his (Mr. Wilson's) protege", who is otherwise perfectly
unexceptionable, but does not believe the Church's
doctrines of the apostolical succession and baptismal
regeneration. " His prospects for the ministry are
blasted for ever," says Mr. Wilson, " because, and solely
1 Apology, p. 25.

46 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
because, he is so incorrigibly self-willed, and pre
sumptuously stubborn, as not to go counter to his
conscience and his judgment, in avowing his accord
ance with the views of the Bishop and the Principal
on the subject of apostolical succession and baptismal
regeneration." He declares " his cheerful readiness"
to subscribe the Articles, and conform to the discipline
of the Church ; and whenever he baptises children
will readily declare each and every one of them to
have received spiritual regeneration — and yet because
he does not believe the doctrine itself, the Bishop,
cruel man ! will not ordain him. This is indeed a
hard case ; the more so as this young man " has refused
very tempting and lucrative offers from Dissenters,"
and is resolved to " cling to the Church to the very
last." " The "offence perpetrated by the Bishop of
Toronto," in refusing ordination to one who denies
baptismal regeneration, appears to the Editor of the
Record so very heinous, that he declares that "the
Bishop must be stopped in his infatuated career" —
[these complimentary expressions are, of course, from
the anonymous portions of the article] ; otherwise, if he
be not speedily stopped, " short indeed will be the
time, according to all human probability, in which a
like course of procedure, in unison with the recom
mendation of Mr. Gresley, and such as he, will be
introduced into this country."
Another attack appeared in the number of April
30th. After a brief report of the great meeting
held in Westminster, two letters are given, dissuading
persons from supporting the institution. " Having be-

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 47
come fully convinced," says one correspondent, "from
facts brought before me in your paper, as well as by my
own observations among the clergy, that the managers
of that society connive at Puseyism, the now manifest
ally of Romanism, among their missionaries, I have
been brought, with much painful reluctance, to dis
continue my subscription to the Propagation Society,
until it shews itself more faithful to its trust, and to
give my money where I feel certain it will be faithfully
applied to the propagation of the pure Gospel of our
Lord Jesus Christ, I take this course not from any
party-spirit, but because I know of no means so likely
to bring the Propagation Society to be faithful to the
interests of the Protestant Church, as cutting off the
supplies." " I quite agree with you," says another
correspondent, "as to the unsatisfactory condition of
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and
the want of confidence which those who love evan
gelical truth must feel in many of its proceedings."
This confirms what I have all along asserted : while
the Bishops of the English Church are straining every
nerve to uphold this ancient and valuable society, and
extend its important labours, here is a party in the
Church openly or secretly endeavouring to counter
act those efforts, on the plea that the society does
not preach the " pure Gospel," and does not enjoy the
confidence of those who love " evangelical truth." It
is evident from these facts, that the Evangelicals —
represented by Mr. Carus Wilson, One of Mr. Simeon's
trustees, and Mr. Close, one of the principal nominees
under that trust, as well as the Editor of the Record —

48 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
are seeking to destroy or injure this ancient and valu
able society — for the express reason that it sends out
missionaries who preach the true doctrines of the
English Church, and discourages those who deny
them. This, like almost every other dispute, hinges,
as will have been seen, on the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration. The same aversion which Mr. Close and his party
exhibit with respect to the Society for the Propaga
tion of the Gospel, is equally avowed by him as re
gards another society, which is the right arm of the
English Church in the education of the people,
namely, the National Society. " I will dismiss this
institution," he says, "with an expression of my deli
berate conviction, that the ' earnest Anglican party'
have stolen a march .upon us in the management of
its affairs ; ancl that the instruction afforded by the
teachers, and the mode of conducting divine worship
in the churches where they attend, are exceedingly
different from what could be wished."1
Mr. Close is zealously supported in his attacks
on the National Society by his ally, the Editor of the
Record. The proceedings of the Record in regard to
this society have been most discreditable. Reporters
are sent to the church attended by the training pupils,
who take down in short-hand the catechetical instruc
tion given by the clergyman — a proceeding illegal in
itself — then " the tocsin of Popery is sounded," and a
strenuous endeavour is made to excite the suspicion
of the Bishop, — but happily without effect ; for, upon
1 Apology, p. 27.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 49
examination, it turns out that the services are strictly
according to our Prayer-book, and the doctrine, on
the Record's own shewing, most sound and scriptural.
Still Mr. Close and his party repeat their accusations,
and go on in their endeavours to damage the insti
tution. s I do not accuse Mr. Close of insincerity or
wilful malice — but simply of entire misconception as
to what is the pure Gospel, and what is the doctrine
of the Church of England. He is at variance with
our formularies, our doctrines, our Bishops ; in short,
his notions of the Christian religion are, in important
points, distinct from those of the Church of England.
Equally does the Perpetual Curate of Cheltenham
bear me out in the statements which I have made
with regard to the exclusive character of the institu
tions which are supported by himself and his friends ;
and acknowledge the fact of their constituting them
selves judges of the qualification of curates and mis
sionaries, and reserving the power of removing them
by stopping the supplies. " It is perfectly true," he
says, " that the one great distinctive mark between
the Church Pastoral-Aid Society and the Curates'
Aid Society is this — that the former professes to look
unto [into?] the principles and practice of the curates
whose salaries it pays, and the other does not so."1
In other words, the Curates' Aid Society leaves to
the incumbent of the parish and the Bishop of the
diocese the privilege and responsibility of "looking
into the principles and practice of their curates." The
Pastoral- Aid Society, like the Puritan Triers of the
1 Apology, p. 21.
D

50 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
time of the Commonwealth, takes upon itself the
Episcopal functions, and interferes with the privi
leges of the incumbent : so much so, that I have been
credibly informed, that even Evangelical incum,-
bents prefer going for aid to the Curates' Aid Society,
which is the orthodox one, rather than submit to the
dictation and interference exercised by the other.
"I grant," says Mr. Close, "that the Curates' Aid
Society fairly represents the Church of England in
her present state ; and it is because I am as much
dissatisfied as Mr. G. is (though on opposite grounds)
with her state, that I cannot support a society who
will employ any man, let his opinions be what they
may, so he be an ordained and licensed priest of the
Anglican Church."1 Does not this prove demonstra
tively that Mr. Close and his party are of an anti-
Church and sectarian spirit ? We support a society
which " fairly represents the Church of England,"
and are content that the Bishops and incumbents
should choose their own curates ; Mr. Close withholds
his support unless the curates submit to the ordeal of
an examination by his own clique.
The same objection applies to the Church Mis
sionary Society, namely, that it is the organ of a
party, and not of the Church, and spreads through
the world Evangelical or Puritan principles instead
of those of the Church of Christ. The Colonial
Church Society is still more objectionable, as it oc
cupies itself on the very same ground selected by the
Society for Propagating the Gospel. Mr. Close speaks
1 Apology, p. 21.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 51
as if I had found fault with the object of the Church
Missionary Society, and had no sympathy with the ear
nest-minded men who labour in its missions. God
forbid that I should entertain such a thought. On
the contrary, I cannot but think with wonder and grief
on the utterly inadequate efforts of this society towards
the accomplishment of its great object : and whenso
ever the annual Exeter-Hall exhibition arrives, it is
with a feeling very much akin to indignation that I
read the extravagant laudation of each other, which
the members and officials of the society bandy to and
fro, as if they were the great instruments of God for
the extension of His kingdom. The Bishop of Ches
ter seems almost to think that the members of the
Church Missionary Society constitute the Church of
England. His Lordship's argument, as I collect it
from his last speech, is this : It is unnecessary to
place the Church Missionary Society more directly
in connexion with the Church — because the Church
consists of all good men — all good men, of course,
subscribe to the Church Missionary Society ; there
fore the Church and the Church Missionary Society
are, in fact, one and the same thing. And yet his
Lordship immediately after admits the efforts of the
society to be so insignificant, that, to use his own il
lustration, the funds at its disposal are scarcely equal
to what the people of England spend in the luxury
of ice, and but one forty-fifth part of what they waste
in spirits !' Most impotent conclusion ! But what
1 See the report of his Lordship's speech in the Record of May
7th. I have to express much unfeigned regret, if in this, or in my

52 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
is the cause of this lamentable imbecility? None
other, I verily believe, than that the society is the
organ of a sect, and not of the Church, and is
the means of marring, through its sectarian spirit,
those holy energies which, but for their division,
might be exerted by the united Church. If the
members of these sectarian associations would but
devote their zeal and energies to the service of the
Church of Christ, and seek the extension of its
doctrines, and place themselves honestly under the
control of those rulers to whom God has given the
guardianship of His Church in this land, thus acting
with one body and with one spirit, " moving," as his
Lordship says they should not move " in one band
and one phalanx against the hosts of heathenism, '
we might look confidently for God's blessing on our
labours, and our funds and our converts might be
increased an hundredfold.
former statement, I have said any thing which can be construed as
disrespectful of so excellent and amiable a man as the Bishop of
Chester. But I cannot subscribe to the opinion that courtesy or
respect for office requires a member of the English Church to shrink
from speaking openly where he thinks he is able to shew that great
evil is happening to the Church, as I verily believe it does from his
lordship being one of the referees respecting the publication of the
books of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge — a society
which, from the very commencement, has promulgated a system of
doctrine in many respects the exact reverse of that of the party of
which his lordship is a confessed leader. It is his very conscientious
ness and zeal in doing what he believes his duty which renders the
Bishop of Chester so unfit a person for such an office in the eyes.of
those who conscientiously differ from his views. The case is much
the same as if the Bishop of Exeter had a veto on all the publica
tions of the Religious Tract Society.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 53
At present, the operations of the Church Mis
sionary Society not only are productive of a very
insignificant amount of good, in comparison with what
might be effected by proceeding on better principles,
but also are most pernicious in many ways both at
home and abroad. At home, this society is estab
lished in every principal parish as the rival of the
Society for Propagating the Gospel, intercepting its
funds, openly or secretly decrying its principles, and
causing much unseemly strife and jealousy amongst
earnest-minded persons ; who all believe they must be
acting right, because unfortunately both societies,
though very different in principle, are able to appeal
to Episcopal sanction. The one has, indeed, always
been supported by the Bishops of the English Church
— the other by a pretended concession, which was
never really intended to be made, has recently obtained
the sanction of several leading prelates, who joined
it chiefly, as it would appear, with the fallacious hope
of keeping the society, if possible, out of mischief.
But what is the obvious result of the sanction thus
given by some of our Bishops to this society ? mani
festly that they are believed by Church people generally
to approve of all the society does : and their authority
is quoted for many things of which those who know
any thing of the Bishops themselves are well aware
that they wholly disapprove. The exclusive employ
ment by the society of one class of missionaries, and
those Evangelicals, the doctrine which they preach
(being such as I have already described), the usurpa
tion by the society of Episcopal functions, the power

54 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
which it reserves of withdrawing missionaries with
out the consent of the diocesan, its rivalry with the
old society, — all these things are naturally supposed,
by the people of the various parishes in which its
claims are urged, to have the Bishops' approval — or,
at least, it is thought that they consider these pro
ceedings of the society of so little importance as not
to require reprehension or discouragement.
Such, I very much fear, is the effect of the
Bishops' sanction to the Church Missionary Society
at home : while abroad its evil influence is equally
felt. Its supporters boast that " the Church Mis
sionary Society stands prominently forward among
the nations of the earth, as the great character and
genius of the Church of England." Thus, in the
minds of the heathen, the English Church is most
unjustly identified with the Evangelical party. In
stead of a branch of the Church universal, it appears
as one amongst many Protestant sects.
Our Lord and Saviour prayed for His disciples
that they all might be one, " as Thou, Father, art in
Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us,
that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me."1
In direct opposition to this most solemn desire of
our Lord, this, and other missionary societies, instead
of advancing the kingdom of Christ in its unity and
integrity, are spreading throughout the countries of
the world the same unhappy division by which our
own Church is distracted. Thus are we the authors
of strife and division, instead of the harbingers of
1 John xvii. 21.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 55
peace through the world. Perhaps no greater weight
of sinfulness rests upon this nation than the fact
that, instead of using her great power and influence
in spreading the kingdom of God, and teaching the
true Gospel to the nations of the earth, she has thus
spread her hateful schisms and heresies. The tares
are sown in such abundance that the good seed has
little chance of flourishing. And this monstrous evil
is manifestly the result of persons, , and those even of
the same Church, acting upon schismatical and un
authorised principles, and promulgating contradictory
doctrines, instead of labouring with one heart and
hand to promote the pure and scriptural doctrine
and discipline of that Church of which they are
common members.
Some persons will say, " Surely you would not
wish to prevent the exertions of the Church Missionary
Society, by which Christ's name is spread amongst
heathen nations, who otherwise might never have
heard it. We must accept the good we can get, even
though we may not altogether approve of its accom
paniments." But I must take leave to say that that
is not the real question. The practical question is,
whether our rulers might not, by*the legitimate ex
ertion of their influence and authority, reduce this
and other professedly Church societies to due order,
by taking them out of the hands of a sect, and
placing them under the governance of the Church,
and so enabling them to effect ten times the good
which they do at present. I can see no reason to
doubt that, if our Bishops came forward with pru-

56 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
dent firmness and resolution to place these things on
a right footing, the Church, as a body, would go with
them, and the work be easily accomplished. At any
rate, nothing could well be worse than the present
state of things.
Since the publication of my former pamphlet two
circumstances have occurred strongly corroborative of
the statements which I then made with regard to the
sectarian and aggressive character of the Puritan
party. The first is, the sudden springing into exist
ence of what is termed a Protestant College at Malta,
the supporters and managers of which belong almost
exclusively to the extreme Puritan party.
The mode of conducting this institution may be
judged of by the following extracts from its laws : "xvii.
The government of the institution shall be vested
in an executive council, to consist of not less than
twenty-four, and not more than thirty-two, gentlemen
holding sound Protestant principles, and of known
piety, selected from the clergy and laity of the Church
of England and Ireland, and from among such mem
bers also of other Protestant Churches as shall be
willing to co-operate upon the principles recognised
by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the case of the
Jerusalem bishopric [Alas, how soon has that un
happy measure become a precedent!]. The council
shall hold its meetings in London, as being most cen
tral ; and shall have the power of filling up vacancies
as they may occur. — xvm. The executive council shall
be empowered to nominate the patrons, vice-patrons,

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 57
visitors, president, vice-presidents, secretaries, and
treasurers, whether in England, Malta, or elsewhere :
also to appoint the principal, vice-principal, . . .
fix salaries, . . . prescribe the course of education,
. . . and have the entire management and superin
tendence of the affairs and property of the institution.
xix. The Bishop of Gibraltar [i. e. the Bishop of the
diocese in which the college is placed] shall be ex-
officio visitor of the College, if willing to accept the
office [if not, they can do very well without him.
And what is to be his office ?]. The visitor shall be
requested to hold a visitation of the institution once
a year, and at such times as may, with his approba
tion, be deemed necessary to inquire into the state of
the institution, as respects the due observance of the
regulations and discipline, the efficiency of the course
of education, and the general management of the
affairs of the establishment ; and to make known to the
executive government any matters requiring altera
tion or amendment." That is, the Bishop of the
diocese is to be a sort of local inspector ; and when
any thing is going on amiss, he shall report thereon
to these four-and-twenty " gentlemen of sound Pro
testant principles and known piety," who shall hold
their sittings in London, and will thence send their
orders for its correction.
Was there ever such a monstrous piece of impu
dence ? Did ever Puritan committee in the days
of the Commonwealth exercise such an intolerable
interference ?
The wonder, of every one is, how Bishop Tomlin-

58 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
son, who has generally been considered a good High
Churchman, could in any way countenance or mix
himself up with such a system. Whether the insti
tution has been forced upon him, so that he could not
courteously refuse — and so this is another instance of
the Church suffering serious loss from that false cour
tesy or liberality, which I fear is too often an excuse
for concession, when there is not the firmness to say
No ; and which gives to Christian people, who natu
rally look to the conduct of their rulers, the impres
sion that they sanction what they really disapprove —
or whether it was (as in the case of the Bishops who
joined the Church Missionary Society) from a mis
taken notion that he might possibly control and mo
dify what it would give him a good deal of trouble to
remodel or prevent ; how, in short, it happened that
an orthodox Bishop should be thus voluntarily saddled
with an institution which is likely to frustrate all the
endeavours which he or his successors can ever make
to maintain sound doctrine in his diocese — I cannot tell.
It is, however, another sad proof of the surrep
titious manner in which the Low-Church party are
pushing every where their exclusive and sectarian
influence in spite of every difficulty, and, like their
predecessors the Puritans, establishing themselves so
firmly, that unless some steps be speedily taken, the
whole Church, both at home and in the colonies, will
ere long be under their command.
The other instance is nearer home, and I do most
earnestly call attention to it, as amongst the most
alarming facts, and the most obviously subversive of

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 59
the principles of the Church, of any circumstance
which has recently happened. I allude to the first
annual Report of the Church-Extension Fund, an
institution which has been established without the
sanction of any of our Bishops ; and, as I believe, in
spite of their remonstrances. The object is, to build
new churches in populous districts, and to vest the
perpetual patronage of them in trustees, so as to secure
that puritanical doctrine shall be preached in them
for ever. A further object is, to secure a fund, which
was devoted by government, in the Church-Endow
ment Act of 1843, for the Establishment and Endow
ment of Perpetual Curacies. The first person to
avail himself of this new system was the Rev. F.
Close. By means of collecting and transmitting a
sum of 2000/., that gentleman has secured the per
petual patronage of a new parish for himself and his
co-trustees for ever. By the same means a similar
district is secured at Stockport by the Worshipful
Henry Raikes, Chancellor of Chester (the same who
wrote the Charge to Churchwardens), the Rev. Hugh
M'Neile, minister of St. Jude, Liverpool, and three
others. The Rev. Edward Bickersteth, rector of
Watton, Herts, John Pemberton Plumptre,Esq.,M.P.,
and three others, have secured another at Ramsgate.
The Report goes on to state that " There are sundry
other applications before the committee, which are
not yet in sufficient forwardness for decision. But
the general result up to the present moment appears
to be, that seven new churches are determined on;
and nearly all of them will owe their existence, in a

60 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
great measure, to the aid rendered by the committee
[and of course will be placed in the perpetual patron
age of their party]. The important fact, however, on
which the committee desire chiefly to fix the atten
tion of the Christian public is this — that it has now
been demonstrated that the way is perfectly open for
the erection of almost any number of churches that
may be required, and their settlement in the hands of
trustees, under the existing laws. Trust-patronage
has been, during the present year, recognised in the
fullest manner by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ;
and there is no reason to apprehend any further diffi
culty on that score. No obstacle remains, no ques
tion now exists, but simply, How funds are to be
raised to supply the destitute districts of England
with churches, in which the pure doctrines of the Re
formation shall be preached for ever." That is to
say, the Puritanical doctrines before adverted to, and
proved to be no doctrines of the English Reformers
— these will be preached on Sundays ; while during
the whole week these churches will remain with
closed doors ; no festival, probably, and no fast ob
served : — thus will the ordinances and doctrines of
the English Church be set at nought throughout
the land. In short, there cannot be a shadow of
doubt that these new churches will be nothing more
or less than Dissenting conventicles, and that for
ever ! The system of self-election amongst the trus
tees prevents the hope of their being used for the legi
timate purpose of the Church ; that is, if the secta
rian scheme is suffered to proceed. But meanwhile

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 6l
I would ask, Can it be possible that our rulers have
made up their minds, or rather their consciences, to
acquiesce in the continuance of this project? Can
they consider themselves personally irresponsible for
the introduction into hundreds of new districts of the
pernicious doctrines of Puritanism ? Will it be said,
that the law of the land allows the system ? True.
But have they no influence as legislators to amend
the law, if thus abused? But, in truth, the law in
itself is good. It was framed on the supposition that
the Bishops would ordain and appoint to cures none
but sound members of the Church : whereas this
private society, which is rapidly absorbing the funds
afforded by the government, is instituted for the very
purpose of excluding sound Churchmen, and appoint
ing men of different principles.
If the real truth must be spoken, it is nothing
more or less than this, — that these, and similar pro
jects of the Evangelicals, have crept on so stealthily,
and, owing to peculiar circumstances, the party has
gained such an influence, that, much as the Bishops
dislike and fear their proceedings, they know not how
to check them : and if they continue in the same
mind, the Church must be most seriously damaged or
destroyed. Even now the Puritan party threaten a
" disruption" of the Church, if their schemes are to
be interfered with. I do not think they have that
power, as yet, which they suppose. By firm and tem
perate measures the masses of the people, who are
now misguided, might be disabused of their delusion.
But suppose the case to be as the Puritans threaten,

62 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
then the alternative is simply this, a disruption of the
Church at once ; that is, the secession of those whose
doctrine is condemned ; or the still further corruption
of the Church's doctrine and discipline, until it shall
be so completely in the hands of the Evangelicals,
that they may puritanise and re-model it at their will.
Another very remarkable sign of the times de
serves to be noted. It will be remembered that
some years ago Mr. M'Neile of Liverpool put forth a
plan of bracketing the Prayer-book ; that is, placing
certain portions in brackets, so that they might be
used or not, at the option of the officiating minister ;
the object being to leave those doctrines in which the
Evangelicals differed from the Church as open ques
tions. But another scheme has been recently devised,
which is even more ingenious than Mr. M'Neile's. A
book has been published, and frequently advertised
in the Record, called The Layman's Prayer-book,
which is just like the Book of Common Prayer of the
Church of England, except that " all the unprotestant
and unscriptural passages" (!) are carefully altered.
This is intended to be used, not by professed Dis
senters, but by those who attend the church service ;
so that while the service is going on, the person
using the book will be able to correct all the unscrip
tural passages that occur. A short address has been
published with it, called " The Layman's Voice :"
the tone as well as the arguments of the writer well
deserve consideration. " The Oxford Tracts," he
states, " have led persons to examine their principles,

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH.

63

and scrutinise their Prayer-book, which I find, with
grief of heart, to have many serious defects. The
oftener I examine them, the more dangerous they
appear ; the more I seek to think them right, the
more I think them wrong. Has it been so with you,
my dear Christian brother ? Do you think the
Baptismal service will hardly bear the light; that
the arguments you have listened to do not prove its
truth ; and that learned explanations of it only puzzle
you the more ? Do you feel that you would not like
in secular affairs to need long explanations and skilful
arguments to save your words from being false, your
statements from being lies ? Turn with me once more
to the Service for Infant Baptism (do not let us
shrink, brother, though my heart misgives me much)
— let us pause at the sentence pronounced over the
infant the moment after its baptism. ' Seeing now,
dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regene
rate.' What can this mean? Our pastors have
been talking to us about two sorts of regeneration, —
ceremonial and spiritual, a change of religion and
a change of heart ; and, though we do not quite un
derstand them, we must not contradict. Let us, then,
brother layman, reason awhile alone, and see whether
the Prayer-book does not seem to teach a lie. Our
pastors may have told us, by way of explanation, that
persons may be led into the enjoyment of one privi
lege without receiving the other ; that is to say, that
persons may be regenerated into the full privileges
of the Church without the regeneration of the heart,
without being born again of the Spirit : that is, that
they may be admitted as professed followers of Christ,

64 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
while their heart is unchanged, unrenewed — yet surely
we ought not to pray for the poor infant, that 'the rest
of his life may be according to this beginning ;' which
[is] the end of the very sentence whose first words
we have just read. ' Seeing now, dearly beloved
brethren, that this child is just regenerated into full
Church privileges, with its heart unrenewed and un
changed, let us pray God that its whole life may be
according to this beginning ;' — fortunately such a
prayer would meet with a poor reception at the
throne of grace. . . .
" Oh, it grieves me to think how easily we are led
to content ourselves with explanations which in worldly
affairs would be deemed but paltry shuffling, not de
serving to be heard." After some other instances, he
continues : " And now comes the question, What can
be done ? who can alter the Prayer-book, and take
away these unprotestant portions of it ? ... . The
Prayer-book must be altered by the layman's voice.
.... I have written a book myself called the Lay
man's Prayer-book ; it is altered so slightly from that
you now use as to be perfectly adapted for use in
churches by the congregation, without inconvenience,
while the minister is reading from the present one ;
yet it is altered sufficiently to avoid unscriptural and
unprotestant doctrines. Will you buy my little book,
brother ? will you take it with you to church ? . . . .
The proper way is, to place the substitute in the
hands of the people before we ask them to give the
other up : we should prove the next stepping-stone,
and try whether it will bear our weight, before we
give the other up."

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 65
It is scarcely necessary to add, that in this Lay
man's Prayer-book all that relates to baptismal rege
neration, whether in the Services or the Catechism, is
carefully altered, as " unscriptural and unprotestant."
The Athanasian Creed is omitted, the oblation in
the Communion-service, the invitation to those who
are troubled in spirit to seek absolution, as well as
all direction for fasting : these portions of our Church
formularies are carefully erased, and more alterations
are promised if these should prove acceptable.
Thus is dissent and nonconformity eating its way
silently but surely into the Church. You may see a
full congregation in God's house — as full as ever glad
dened the heart of the Perpetual Curate of Chelten
ham — who at the very time shall be performing a
deliberate act of schism. Just as the fruit may be
outwardly fair and blooming, while its secret core is
a mass of corruption. ; so may a Church or a parish
present a fair outside, while secret heresy is preying
on its vitals. Our scriptural liturgy may be read in
the desk, while the congregation are secretly using a
debased and mutilated service. The minister may
declare to the people that God has been pleased to
regenerate each child, while the congregation smile at
what they know to be mere " baptismal phraseology ;"
and if he should happen to read the Athanasian Creed
on the days appointed, the congregation, not finding
it in their " scriptural and Protestant" Prayer-books,
will beguile the time by some private meditation of
their own, probably on the folly and hypocrisy of pro
fessing any longer to belong to a Church the doc
trines of which they do not believe.

bO A SECOND STATEMENT ON
Alas, what a system of deception is creeping in
amongst us ! Even now, I verily believe, many a pa
rish, which is under the*ministry of an " Evangelical"
clergyman, is a very nest of Dissent. Every notion
of Church authority and Church principles is in these
places extinct. Thus, when the Bishop of London
required his clergy to conform to the rubrics, the
Islington congregations first began to make resistance.
The idea of submission to authority never entered into
their minds; and so, it is to be feared, have other
Christian truths vanished away in very many places,
and whole parishes been literally " unchurched." By
a continued system of either omitting, or preaching
against the doctrine of the sacraments, by singing
Dissenting hymns, lecturing at the school-room,
closing the church during the week, taking no notice
whatever of the fasts and festivals, except, it may be,
to warn people against their abuse, — many a parish is
so completely saturated with Dissenting doctrine, that
if a sound Churchman, even of the most moderate
views, were to succeed the Evangelical minister, the
congregation would take him for a Papist, and
speedily desert his ministry. This system is creeping,
or rather hastening, on. The case of one parish is but
an example of what the whole Church is gradually be
coming. The Bishop of St. Davids says, in his last
Charge,1 that when the Church is unable, as she is at
present, to make a declaration of her opinions through
her proper organ, it does not seem a violent construc
tion, to regard the prevailing practice as supplying its
1 P. 20.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 67
place. His Lordship forgets that the present practice
has grown up since the Revolution, in opposition to
the declared sentiments of convocation. However,
be that as it may, the view thus glanced at by his
Lordship has been already adopted as regards our
formularies, and bids fair to be followed in respect
to our doctrines, The surreptitious introduction of
Puritan doctrine, if unresisted, will be taken as the
deliberate act of the Church, and come at length to
be recognised as valid. So that we have not the safety
which we thought in the suspension of our convocation.
It may need no formal act of authority to make the
change. Our Church, externally Catholic, so far at
least as regards her acknowledged formularies, will
become in fact Puritan, by the secret process of
internal corruption.
It would appear harsh and uncharitable to accuse
the Evangelical party of having entered into a conspi
racy to destroy their spiritual mother. Such a con
spiracy would imply deliberately wicked intention, of
which I do not desire to accuse them. But if the
facts which I have brought forward are correct (and
as regards my former pamphlet, not one of them has
been contradicted, nor, I honestly believe, can what
I have stated here), then, to say the least, there is
abundant evidence of a most dangerous combination,
actively employed in completely altering the character
of the Church of England. Some are engaged in
changing our authorised formularies, and thwarting
those who desire to maintain them ; others in corrupt
ing our doctrine, and surreptitiously introducing a spu
rious form of worship ; some assailing our old Church

68 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
institutions ; others busy in establishing new ones which
shall be under their own exclusive management ; others
"sounding the tocsin of Popery," and bringing un
founded accusations against those who desire nothing
but to maintain the doctrine and discipline of the
Church of their fathers. Many of these assailants are,
no doubt, acting most conscientiously in their various
plans ; but others, I fear, and not a few, are urged on
by ungodly partisanship. Most truly rejoiced should I
be, if it could be shewn that my apprehensions were
groundless ; but if these things are really going on, it
is surely time for English Churchmen, who remain
stanch to her interests, to take some steps in defence
of their ancient faith and worship. It is no time
to rail against the bombast and nonsense of Exeter
Hall, or to throw the Record from one in disgust, or
laugh at Puritan absurdities. It is no time to pick
and choose one's words in speaking of this or that
abuse so as to avoid offence; still less to sit with one's
arms folded, in the hope that the Church may wea
ther the coming storm. Something must be done, and
that soon, if we desire to save the Church from vio
lent disruption, or, what is worse, a fast encroaching
and general heresy.
And if all this be true, or any thing like the
truth, surely it cannot be deemed improper or unsea
sonable even for the humblest member of the Church
to raise his voice in the hope of calling the atten
tion of those in authority to the rapidly -approaching
danger ; as the poorest passenger in a vessel would
cry out if he saw breakers a-head. If, in doing so,
I have been guilty of too great plainness of speech, —

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 69
if, in adverting to the general state of the Church
and the character of the times, I have commented too
freely on the position of our spiritual rulers, and the
influences by which, in common with the rest of the
age, they are liable to be biased, —nothing, I can
most truly say, was more contrary to my intention
than to hold up those for whose office I have so high
a reverence to public censure or suspicion. Nor do
I think it can be fairly said that I have been guilty
of such indiscretion. To gain attention, it is neces
sary to speak strongly and to the purpose. I trust
I have done no more. At any rate, I earnestly hope
that no appearance of rudeness or unintentional im
propriety may have the effect of lessening the force of
my appeal, or preventing the rulers of the Church
from giving their serious attention to the real danger
of its present position.
Though no one besides myself is responsible for
any thing contained in these pamphlets, yet their
Lordships cannot but be aware that I am speaking
the general sentiments of very many besides myself,
and these amongst the most devoted members of the
English Church. The position of English Church
men is, in fact, most trying and difficult. We are
accused by designing persons of being disaffected to
the Church, when the very reverse is the truth : all
our hopes, both for ourselves and our country, are
centred in it ; all our endeavours are directed to its
maintenance and advancement. We are quite satis
fied with our Church as presented to us in her time-
honoured formularies. We desire no change. All
we desire is, that the Church should be in practice

70 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
what she is in theory. We claim that the doctrines
and discipline of the Church should be maintained.
We ask that none should be admitted to the sacred
office of the ministry but those who really believe,
and are prepared to teach, her doctrines. We claim
that Puritanism should not be tolerated in our pulpits
any more than Romanism ; and that all flagrant viola
tions of the doctrines of the Church by her ordained
ministers should be repressed by authority. Is there
any thing unreasonable or disrespectful in the expres
sion of such wishes ? Are our spiritual rulers con
strained by circumstances to ordain and tolerate in
the ministry those who deny the Church's doctrine
and contemn her discipline ? Is the English Church
destined by some fatal necessity gradually to sink into
the condition of a mere sect ? Is the disease of
Puritanism already so deeply seated as to have be
come ineradicable ? And as the discipline of the
Church is given up, must its doctrine be sacrificed
also ? We have a pure doctrine and a sound ritual,
if we did but maintain them ; but the one is cor
rupted, and the other despised. A contradictory and
rival system is fast insinuating itself, and, under
specious pretences, claiming to be the very Church
which it corrupts. The broad page of history shews
us that this system, working by the self-same means,
has once wrought the overthrow of our establishment.
Are we to sit still and suffer it again to undermine
and destroy us ?
There is a new and remarkable phase in the re
cent aspect of the Church which deserves to be noted,
namely, that many of those who have gone over to

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 71
Rome have done so, not in consequence of the attrac
tion of that Church, but from disgust at the practical
evils of their own. Rome they acknowledge to be
corrupt ; but the English Church appears to them
to be more so — at least in practice. The Puritan
system seems to them to be so tolerated and coun
tenanced, and to have established itself so com
pletely, as to have become identified with the
Church of England, — and they see no hope of
amendment. I think these persons decidedly wrong. Rome is
still far more corrupt than we are ; nor is our own
amendment so hopeless. Besides, the Church of Eng
land is the post assigned us, and we must remain with
her while she remains a Church.
But what is to be done ? The question recurs
again and again. Our rulers themselves are aware
of the advance of Puritanism. Perhaps they may
not, from their station, know how it is intruding
itself into every parish, and almost every family.
They may not know all the stealthiness of its pro
ceedings, nor the bickerings and feuds which it en
genders. Still they discern its presence and feel its
influence. They see unauthorised committees exer
cising Episcopal functions — nay, more than Episcopal
functions — as in the days of rampant Puritanism.
They see institutions springing up in opposition to
their wishes. Both at home and abroad, societies,
which have not the sanction of a single English
Bishop, are exercising great and increasing influ
ence ; drawing up articles, and dictating terms of
faith, distinct from those of the Church of England.

72 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
If any Bishop attempts in his own diocese to restore
discipline, there is the Puritan faction ready, with
the aid of the worldly and prejudiced, to thwart
his endeavours. In short, this most dangerous body,
through the means of its ramifications and influence,
is every where drawing to itself power, and silently
superseding the authority of our constituted rulers.
Are our Bishops waiting in the hope that the river
will have flowed away ? Alas, its sources are too
deeply fixed in the corruption of human nature to be
soon exhausted ! Lust of power, gratification of va
nity, party-spirit, rendered more intense by religious
fanaticism, — these are the foundations of Puritanism.
Do they hope to tame it by caresses ? Let them be
assured that it is an enemy far too dangerous to be
dallied with. A truce does but give it time to work
its mines. Conciliation does but render it more con
fident. Mr. Close boasts openly of the countenance
which he and his friends receive. " Our respected
diocesans," he says, " before whom we have preached,
under whom our labours have been patent for many
years, judge us differently — uphold, sanction, and ap
plaud us." Yes ; that is, I fear, one principal cause
of the mischief. While it is notorious that nine-
tenths of our spiritual rulers are in principle averse
to Evangelicalism — at least to that worldly factious
form in which it now appears — yet they seem, both to
the Evangelicals themselves and to the world at large,
to " uphold, sanction, and applaud" it. Though, in
reality, dreading and disliking this most restless and
obtrusive party, yet, by their courtesy to individuals,
and by the countenance which, in the abortive hope

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 73
of conciliation, they afford to some of their societies,
they give the people the most erroneous impression
that they approve their principles and sanction their
proceedings — at least, that they consider them nei
ther dangerous nor reprehensible. The system of
Evangelical teaching, the denial of one vital doctrine
at least, the exaggeration of others, the consequent
confusion of all, and the sectarian means employed to
promulgate these views, are most erroneously sup
posed to have our rulers' sanction. The Evangelicals
boast that they are "upheld, sanctioned, and ap
plauded," and the people believe that their peculiar
doctrines and proceedings are so ; whereas nothing,
I am persuaded, is more contrary to the intentions of
our spiritual rulers. They are men of eminent cha
racter, whose opinions have been long known to the
world ; and it is notorious that, with one or two ex
ceptions, they are all decidedly averse to the peculiar
doctrines and factious proceedings of so-called Evan
gelicalism. Still they are claimed by this party as aiding and
abetting them. This wrong impression — for a wrong
impression it most certainly is — cannot but be produc
tive of evil effects. If parties were quiescent, even
then the inculcation of a false or defective system,
with the supposed sanction of the heads of the Church,
would be no slight evil. But when an active contest
between truth and error is going on, when religious
strife rages more or less in all the principal parishes
of the land, and the false system is in many quarters
superseding the true, — it is fearful to contemplate
the result of the neutrality of those in power. The

74 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
Church cannot but suffer grievous harm from such
a state of things.
It is obvious that the time will come when there must
be a decision in the English Church on the subject of the
sacraments. Is the Anglican doctrine of the sacra
ments to be maintained ? or is it to be abandoned for
the Zuinglian? or is it to be left an open question?
It is scarcely necessary to remark, that if the An
glican doctrine, — the doctrine, as I have shewn, of
the English Reformers, gathered by them from Scrip
ture and the writings of the ancient Fathers, embodied
by them in our services and formularies, — if this doc
trine is abandoned, or left an open question, the Eng
lish Church will be no longer the same, if indeed it
remain a Church at all. Then will come the crisis :
and a sore trial it will be, especially to those in ele
vated station. When the aggressions and encroach
ments of Puritanism shall have been so long un
checked, and the true doctrine in many places un
heard, or spoken of only to be condemned, and our
principal congregations imbued with the notion that
the Prayer-book is " unscriptural and unprotestant,"
and a large body of them, the most clamorous and ac
tive, shall come forward and demand a change in our
formularies, — a sore trial and perplexity must needs
arise. The Evangelicals are far too sincerely wrong-
headed to submit only to be tolerated : they already
contend for the mastery, and are attempting to silence
the Church party. There is a sort of persevering
energy in religious fanaticism that will not stop while
there is any thing to be gained. In the case of rubrics
and church observances it has been ruled that a cor-

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 75
rupt practice may supersede the written law. The
same rule may be applied to doctrine. The large
majority of our Bishops, I suppose, hold the doctrine
set forth by Bishop Bethel in his Treatise on Baptis
mal Regeneration. What course will they take if
called on by clamorous addresses to sanction changes
in our Baptismal service, our Catechism, and other
formularies ? No means, they may rest assured, will
be left untried to shake their constancy. The " toc
sin of Popery" will be sounded ; the " Layman's Voice"
will demand to be heard ; threats of the disruption of
the Church ; newspaper agitation ; perhaps scenes of
popular violence, like those recently witnessed at Exe
ter, will be resorted to : for the modern Puritans have
plainly shewn their disposition to avail themselves,
like their predecessors, of the violence of the people,
or, as they themselves describe it, the legitimate in
fluence of the enlightened laity. Then, in the midst
of this wrangling, will be brought to bear the prudent
counsel of the politic, the latitudinarian, and the
timorous. Why all this strife for the sake of a
mere form ? Why not adopt some half measure,
some conciliation for the sake of peace ? Why not
have a bracketed Prayer-book ?x That is, give up the
' The Rev. Hugh M'Neile, who before proposed a bracketed
Prayer-book, has, in a sermon printed this present year, spoken of
the Act of Uniformity as the main grievance in our existing system,
and proposes as " the true healing measure," " the repeal," or " a
very decided modification of that act." Oneness of the Church of
Christ, p. 17. It is thus that an English clergyman, whom the
Bishop of Chester has lately made a canon of his cathedral, proposes
to undo all that our Church owes, from the time of its restoration, to

76 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
Church's authoritative teaching; and in so doing
cast a new apple of discord into every parish.
I will not allow myself to believe that our spiritual
rulers will be induced by any consideration to betray
their trust, to sanction the direct admission into the
Church of unsound doctrine, or the exclusion of the
true. But I would only beseech them to consider
what a store of trouble they are laying up for them
selves by suffering the Puritan party, even now scarcely
controllable, to spread themselves as they are doing
over the land, and gather every day fresh accessions
of strength and influence. Every unsound minister
they ordain, or license in an important cure, will be
the cause of additional difficulty, by giving strength
to the Puritan faction ; every new trustee-church that
is consecrated will be an enemy's fortress within our
lines ; every new Puritan society established, another
battery raised against the Church.
But the trial and perplexity will not be all with
our rulers. What will the incumbents of parishes do
if the Prayer-book is tampered with or changed ? The
great mass of the old High- Church clergy, who have
always held and preached the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration, — will they consent to administer the
sacrament of baptism in an altered form ? or will
they resign their preferment, if that be the alter
native? Even now there are parishes in which the
minister is obliged to keep the doctrine of the sacra-
the sound policy of Clarendon and Sheldon, the wisdom and learning
of Sanderson, Sancroft, and Pearson. These things are said, and
proposed, and acted upon openly, as we see in the Layman's Prayer-
hook ; and yet I am blamed for calling the proposers Puritans.

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 77
ments in reserve, for fear of driving the people from
his church, or seeing them tumultuously leave it.
Are the clergy in general prepared to submit to this
dictation ? What a painful trial — what a danger
ous conflict — must this attempt to tamper with the
Prayer-book occasion ! And yet to such a conflict and
trial the proceedings of the Puritans plainly tend.
The large majority of our young clergy have imbibed
sound Anglican views ; the Romanizing mania has
subsided, and a healthy Anglican feeling has suc
ceeded ; whilst, by means of the Simeon Trust, the
Church-Extension Society, the Pastoral-Aid Society,
and various other instruments of heterodoxy, Zu-
inglian views on the sacraments, and Puritan views
on Church government, are being spread amongst
large classes of persons, especially in our towns. If
this process goes on, there must ensue a decided aliena
tion between the rising generation of clergy and the
mass of the people. The " Layman's Voice" is in
itself an ominous note of coming discord. I will not
attempt to describe the religious and social evils to
which this state of feeling must give occasion ; and
only point out its obvious probability, in order to shew
the extreme danger of allowing Puritanism to fix
itself more strongly in the public mind, and the
urgent necessity for those who have the power to
discountenance and check its progress.
That the progress of the evil may yet be checked
by vigour and prudence on the part of our rulers I
have no doubt. There is yet enough of sound prin
ciple in our Church congregations to respond to the
voice of their chief pastors, if they did but speak out.

78 A SECOND STATEMENT ON
Even amongst those who have been led to favour
Puritanism, a large number do so because they be
lieve that the views they have embraced are the real
views of the Church of which they are baptised mem
bers. They desire to be good Churchmen ; they are
so in intention ; — their error is attributable mainly to
the false instruction which they have received from
the ministers ordained to teach them. Only let the
rulers of the Church explain what the doctrine of
the Church on these disputed questions really is ;
let them disabuse the public mind, by openly dis
countenancing the promulgation of error, and check
ing any flagrant teaching of unsound doctrine ; above
all, let them prevent the farther spread of the evil,
by refusing ordination to all candidates, of whatever
party, who are unsound on vital points ; and the down
ward career may yet be checked, and the Church pre
served in her integrity.
But the onus and responsibility does not all rest
on our rulers. Priests as well as Bishops are pledged
by their ordination-vows to " be ready to give faith
ful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous
and strange doctrines contrary to God's word." The
question is, whether the time has not arrived, or is
not fast approaching, for all members, and especially
all ministers, of the Church, who value her integrity,
to stand forward and declare so. We all know the
peculiar temper of the times, and how difficult it is
for those in authority to act without support. Truth,
unless it have some basis of public opinion to rest
on, is too often quietly set aside, and treated with
contempt. Is it not time for those who are deter-

THE REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. 79
mined to abide by the Church as it is, — to diverge
neither to Romanism on the one hand, nor Puri
tanism, on the other ; — those who believe the Reformers
of the English Church to have been providentially
guided to preserve essential truth, — who desire to
stand in the old paths, — to keep to the formularies
of the English Church, and neither add thereto nor
diminish aught from them, believing them to be ac
cording to the word of God : — is it not time, I say,
for such as these to take counsel together, and enter
into some mutual bond to stand by their rulers and
each other in resistance to any attempt to mutilate or
corrupt our formularies ? I am far from wishing to
be an alarmist. In truth, I believe that there is still
within the Church enough of right principle, with
God's help, to preserve it. There is no cause for
apprehension, if only men were agreed as to the
quarter from which the danger threatens, and were
prepared to act together on the defensive. The
Church has often been compared to a fortress ; and
such, in truth, must ever be her position in this
world. She must ever be on her defence against be-
leaguring enemies. At present Satan has made a
feint, as it were, on the side of Popery ; and while
the attention of the garrison has been drawn off in
that direction, the forces of Puritanism are establish
ing themselves in the very centre of the citadel, and
quietly occupying all her posts.
This is the real danger, if men could but be
brought to discern it. If I were setting forth my own
unsupported opinion, I should have some diffidence in
so pertinaciously maintaining it ; but I feel that I am

80 A SECOND STATEMENT, ETC.
uttering the matured sentiments of many whose cha
racter and station would command attention.
The credibility of my statement must of course
depend mainly on the facts which. I have brought
forward ; and they are not half what might be ad
duced in support of my allegations. I am not without
hope, however, that they may prove sufficient to in
duce those to whom chiefly they are addressed to give
their serious attention to the real state of things ; and
that possibly they may lead, indirectly at least, to
such measures as may meet the threatening danger
before it overwhelms us.
But if no such result arise from- my labours, and
my warnings fall unheeded to the ground, I have but
followed the dictates of my judgment* and conscience,
and, in so doing, liberavi animam meam.

THE END.

PRINTED BY ROBSON, LEVEY, AND FRANK LYN ,
Great New Street, Fetter Lane.

3 9002