m

i

AN

APOLOGY

THE EVANGELICAL PARTY,

A REPLY TO THE PAMPHLET

OP THE

REY. W. GRESLEY, A.M.,

"THE EEAL DANGEK OF THE CHUKCH.

THE REV. F. CLOSE, A.M.,

PERPETUAL CURATE OF CHELTENHAM.

j&MOttli Litton.

LONDON:
J. HATCHAED AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY;
HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO., PATERNOSTER-KOW.
1846.

LONDON:
PRXNTED BY O. J. PALMER, SAVOY STREET, STRAND.

THE

REAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH.

It is impossible to rise from a perusal of this belligerent pamphlet
without being persuaded that there are real dangers in the Church. If it
be a perilous thing for a house to be divided against itself, the Church is
in danger. If strife, contention, and party spirit, are detrimental to the
welfare of any body, civil or ecclesiastic, Mr. Gresley has not only proved
that such things exist in the Church, of which he aifects to be a friend,
but he has done what in him lies to foment and aggravate them. He
appears somewhat doubtful whether those with whom he generally acts
will thank him for this somewhat vehement developement of opinion and
feeling. "It maybe thought by some unadvisable" (he says in p. 27,
28) " to put forward in so broad a light the differences which exist in the
Church of England ; it may be called a stirring up of strife and agitation.
And some whom the writer most respects may think, that if this pamphlet
has any effect, it will be to cause additional bitterness and animosity."
It is to be hoped that these prudent and right-judging friends of Mr.
Gresley may be mistaken ; but that this publication is highly calculated
to produce such a result, the author's friends and foes are agreed. The
Prebend of Lichfield, however, after deliberately studying the symptoms
of his patient, the Church, appears to have determined that, " having
passed through a process of fermentation" — " a fever having raged in her
veins, and a storm having troubled her atmosphere" — (the broken metaphor
is Ms own)—" and these symptoms having subsided," (p. 3,) a dangerous
b 2

stupor, collapse, or atrophe, has come over her, and that nothing but the
application of strong irritating cataplasms can revive the patient ; and he
proceeds in these pages boldly to apply them, even at the risk of incurring a
return of the febrile symptoms.
Whether the practice of this eminent ecclesiastical physician is judicious,
the result must determine : meanwhile, as I not only differ from him as to
the symptoms of the patient, and the treatment of the disease, but as I
am also one of those to whom he in part attributes the perilous state of
the sufferer, I feel called upon to vindicate my own practice, and
justify it as I may in the eyes of the pubhc. Avoiding, as much
as possible, the unseemly consequences which Mr. Gresley apprehends
may flow from his attack upon so large and influential a body in the
Church, of which he is a member, I shall endeavour to meet his
indiscriminate abuse with quiet arguments and simple facts, — hoping
that, by so doing, far more beneficial effects may be produced by
Mr. Gresley's warlike pamphlet than he anticipated. He has, indeed,
thrown down the gauntlet — he has defied, maligned, and calumniated the
" Evangelical party," to which, I am not ashamed to confess, I have
consistently belonged, from my youth up until now. But what if his
attack should recoil on himself; and by its simple exposure in the following
pages, a widely different estimate should be taken of the respective merits
of the antagonistic systems which we respectively defend ? — a result which
I am sanguine enough to anticipate.
That we are not without some just ground of complaint against the
author of this pamphlet, I shall at once proceed to show, by exhibiting
his unmeasured and uncharitable condemnation of
" The Evangelicals."
His favourite term of obloquy for this party, throughout his pamphlet,
is that of "Puritans." Nothing can be more unfair or ungenerous,
nothing more calculated to mislead, than the application of a sectarian
term of one age to a party in another age, who have no sort of connexion
or sympathy with them. It is very probable that I hold many opinions
and doctrines in common with the Puritans ; and it is equally probable
that Mr. Gresley holds many opinions in common with the Romanists •
yet as he abjures the one, and 1 the other, why should I call him a Papist

or he denounce me as a Puritan ? I cordially believe that many of his
views look towards Rome ; and he as cordially believes that some of mine
look towards Geneva : but as long as we both profess to be folded in the
same Church of England, while we may sincerely differ, and very properly
expose those differences, why should we call each other names ?
But what does Mr. Gresley do in this pamphlet ? "Within the space of
seventy-three pages, he many times applies this invidious term to an
admitted influential, and numerous body of his brother clergymen —
headed, as he tells, by two or three Bishops. And he not only calls them
Puritans, but heretics, and such heretics as must be expelled from the
Church ere she can know peace ! We are thus introduced (in p. 9) at
" the Puritan, or anti-Church party," with a Bishop and a Chancellor as
their head ; (p. 10;) "the strange spirit of opposition rising from the Puritan
party; (p. 12;) "errors into which the people had been artfully led;"
" being the tool in the hands of a party whose spirit was very different
from that of the Church of England ;" (p. 13 ;) "the manoeuvres of the
Puritans, skilfully availing themselves of the evil passions of the people ;
under cover of an assault on Popery, they have inflicted a serious wound
on the Church of England."
Speaking of a particular doctrine, which will afterwards be noticed, he
says : — " It is a leading doctrine not only of the Dissenters from the Church,
but of the Evangelical or Puritan party within it." (pp. 23, 26.) After
quoting a few extravagant expressions from indiscreet writers, from which, he
admits afterwards, that the i*r;-«. respectable of the Evangelicals would
dissent ; he nevertheless breaks forth into this emphatic appeal : —
" Now, I desire most solemnly to appeal, not only to the members of
the Church of England in general, but more especially to our rulers, who
have to act, as well as to judge, whether such mutilation (? ?) of our
services and corruption of the Church's doctrine is to be tolerated ; whether
it is possible that the Church can go on much longer with such a mass
of heresy within it."
And the result is, (p. 27,) " the Church cannot contain both doctrines —
the advocates of the one or the other must give way."
He thinks " the evil is now just manageable, and that the Puritan

party, if speedily checked, may give way ; but that if the Puritan party
be not speedily checked, it will ere long have established such an influence
as to defy control." (p. 28.) In this strain of vituperation does Mr. G.
proceed through his whole pamphlet. Patrons " of Evangelical views"
secure livings " where the Gospel according to Calvin may be established
for ever;" (p. 33;) and hence, "Evangelicalism, or Puritanism, has
established itself in a very large number of Churches in every part of
England ;" and thus the permanent maintenance of " unsound doctrine" is
secured. " Evangelical party schemes — as the Pastoral Aid and Bible
Associations — ramify and spread their roots, in opposition to the more
sound, among the parochial clergy." "And when we consider the popu
larity of Puritan doctrine with the ignorant and disaffected, the zeal and
ability of many of its leading advocates, and the unscrupulous perseverance
with which they promulgate their views, there is surely ground for serious
alarm." Mr. G. pronounces the Evangelical theory to be " a radically
erroneous system, very little short of heresy," which the rulers of the
Church ought to take immediate measures to check, (p. 35.) "The
Pastoral Aid Society employs none but those who preach Puritan doctrine;"
and " the sort of doctrine preached to 2,000,000 of souls is dictated by
this self-constituted Puritan committee." " The Evangelicals are a schis-
matical body, distinct in feeling and practice from the Church." (p. 37.)
They are " the most unscrupulous and exclusive of all parties, the modern
Puritans." (p. 44.) In the same page, " the influence of the Puritan
party is said to be destructive." And having proved to his own satisfac
tion that we are responsible for all that is found in the Record newspaper,
(certainly as much so as Mr. Gresley is for all that appears in the English
Churchman,) he finds that Evangelical organ a valuable auxiliary to
establish "not only the extreme bitterness, but also the undisguised
heresy of the party," (the Evangelicals,) " by which our most valued
institutions are in danger of being destroyed."
I fear the length and iteration of the indictment will weary my readers
before I can hope to arrive at explanation or defence. But it appears
necessary that this tirade of abuse, and declamatory defamation, almost
without one specific charge, should be fairly laid before the public, that
they may judge and decide between us. Yet the summary of our im
peachment (in pp. 48, 49) must be noticed. « I wish," says our accuser,
" to call attention to the fact, that there is within the pale of the Church
a body of men prof essing to belong to it, who, neverthless, hold doctrines

diametrically opposed to the plain language of her formularies ," " they
labour to their utmost to undermine and subvert those institutions to
which you, the Bishops of our Church, all of you, or with one or two
exceptions take a warm interest;" "under cover of the national pre
judice against Popery, they are increasing their influence to an alarming
extent, and by methods the most questionable. A popular cry is raised
against the positive ordinances of our Church— her undoubted doctrines
are in the most barefaced manner denied — her old divines mutilated and
corrupted," &c, &c. ; so that the existing state of things " appears, in
many respects, very much the same" (certainly so in respect to the infatuated
zeal of the ultra High Church party) " as that which existed in this
country previously to the breaking out of the Puritan rebellion !" (pp. 48,
49.) " The principal evil is, the existence within the ministry of a body of
active, intriguing men, who are Dissenters at heart, and have no fellow-
feeling with their brethren in the Church; who dislike _ and impede our
services, deny our fundamental doctrines, assail and undermine our ancient
institutions. Such persons ought not to have the power of mischief which
they possess." In other words, their gowns should be stripped from off
them, and they should be excommunicated with "bell, book, and candle !"
Such is the frightful picture which Mr. Gresley draws of the Evangelical
body, both clergy and laity, within the pale of our unfortunate Church.
But before I attempt to allay the fears which must be excited in the public
mind by the discovery of such a formidable body of ecclesiastical conspi
rators in the bosom of the Church, it may be well to follow Mr. Gresley
in his examination into the causes of the existence and continuance of such
appalling evils. We shall find that he traces them to a source little sus
pected, even to the Heads of the Church themselves, whose principles and
practices he visits with censures almost as severe as those which he passes
on the Puritans.
The Bishops.
It is an obvious and undisguised design of the pamphlet under conside
ration to damage the Evangelical party in the eyes of the elders of our
Church — to make it appear that they are Episcopalians only in name, but
" Puritans" in heart ; and, therefore, despisers of the Episcopal order.
And it has ever been the profession alike of that portion of the Tractarian
party which has seceded, and of that which as yet remains with us, to

uphold the order of Bishops — to assign to them almost apostolic authority,
and to yield to them implicit obedience. And yet, in practice, men of
this stamp have, in many instances, shown themselves obstreperous and
rebellious children towards their spiritual Fathers ; and when any parti
cular Bishop has opposed their peculiar opinions, they have thought
themselves justified in arraigning, judging, and condemning his conduct,
even in the exercise of his proper episcopal functions. It is not for me
to say to what party Mr. Gresley belongs ; not, I presume, to that party
which he terms the " vis inertias, '' or dead weight, of the Church the
old high church party, (who must feel much flattered by his description
of them), nor to the "trimming London clergy," distinguished by their
" time-serving policy," certainly not to " the Puritan Faction," nor to
that which has lapsed to popery ; but in one respect he closely assimilates
himself with the last-named body, viz., in the amazing freedom which he
uses in canvassing the conduct of his superiors in the church. It is
strangely inconsistent in those who profess extravagantly high church
notions on episcopacy and apostolic descent, to display such irreverence
towards those who fill those sacred offices. Let our Right Reverend 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. In the whole course of my reading of evangehcal
works I have never found so much essential and dogmatic independence
in a presbyter towards a bishop, as I find within the compass of this
pamphlet of the Lichfield Prebend. He not merely denounces several
individual prelates, as heads of the evangelical, that is, " the puritan and
heretical party," who, as he asserts, deserve to be driven out of the
church, but he impugns the motives which have actuated the whole bench
of bishops, in the exercise of those offices which are in their nature the
most sacred and exclusive in the episcopal functions !
Of the Bishop of Chester, Mr. Gresley says, (p. 10) " that he has con
demned his clergy for their strict adherence to the rules of their church,
and blamed them for abiding by their engagements." That he espouses
" Calvinistic tenets" (p. 41); although any person in the least degree
acquainted with the writings of that excellent and distinguished prelate,
must be well aware that to the distinctive tenets of the Calvinistic system
in doctrine and discipline he is clearly opposed. And having brought
this false accusation against his right reverend brother, Mr. G. proposes

to the Christian Knowledge Society to expel him from their episcopal
committee of referees on tracts ! The Bishop of Calcutta is dismissed in
a note ; (p. 32), being accused of establishing " a pernicious system " of
church patronage in India, " his own opinions being strongly evangelical ;"
and although his accuser admits that the bishop is himself " a liberal
contributor," he might have said a munificent, a princely contributor to
the cathedral establishment of which he is the founder, yet it is sug
gested to the Propagation Society to stop his supplies, — he too is " securing
the perpetuation of his own opinions" in that diocese.
Perhaps this treatment of individual Bishops, who are honestly opposed
to Mr. Gresley's system of divinity, might have been expected at his hands.
But what must be said, and what will be thought of the unceremonious
manner in which he deals with the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's au
thority, and that indeed of the whole bench 1 Unfortunately, the vener
able Archbishop, taking a totally different view of the state of the Church
from that of Mr. Gresley, published, some little time since, a pastoral letter
of a pacific character, " recommending that things should remain as they
were in the different churches :" this sentence occasioned much discourage
ment among the busy innovators, or restorers of ancient and long exploded
forms ; and with them Mr. G. appears deeply to sympathise, and he accord
ingly sets himself (in p. 13.) to examine the degree of authority which is
to be attached to this document. " Of course, legally and strictly speak
ing, the Archbishop's letter can have no cogency whatever. No clergy
man is constrained to obey it. Convocation alone can alter the for
mularies of the Enghsh Church. Still, considering that ''he Archbishop,
no doubt, was aided by the counsel of his brethren," that is, by the whole
bench of Bishops, " and that no protest has been made by any of them
against it ; we may, perhaps, suppose it to speak the sense of the English
Church; such, at least as a synod of the Bishops, had they been convoked,
would have determined." Now what effect should we expect would be
produced on such a high Churchman as the Rev. Prebend of Lichfield by
the publication of such a document 1 It is true his account of it comes
" limping lamely," with the brief and compendious exordium, " that no
clergyman is constrained to obey it," where, by dropping the term legally
"constrained," he prepares the minds of the hot-headed youths of the Angli
can church party to absolve themselves, or one another, from their spiritual
obedience : still, the letter is the Archbishop's, "it is backed, he admits,"
negatively if not positively by the authority of the whole bench of Bishops.

10
" We may, perhaps, suppose" that it speaks " the voice of the English
Church," and what then 1 Surely every true, Anglican churchman, cheer
fully, honestly, unhesitatingly obeys ; and such a good episcopalian as Mr.
G. lays it on his conscience that the voice of the Church, the Enghsh
Church, must be obeyed : all controversy about forms and ceremonies
shall cease, all obsolete rubrics shall continue obsolete, the commander-
in-chief says, " halt, as you were !" Who, in the ecclesiastical army, can
hesitate without insubordination ?
Yet, what says Mr. G. ? Why that under such circumstances " it is
reasonable to infer, that after such a declaration, an individual clergyman,
HOWEVER ANXIOUS TO ACT UP TO THE LAWS OF his church, may feel
himself in foro conscientice, absolved from blame, if he suspend a strict
compliance with the rubric, until he can bring his congregation to receive
as a privilege, what they now reject as a burthen. The responsibility is
thrown, in a great degree, from the individual clergymen on the Bishops !"
And this is the meagre, hollow obedience of ultra Episcopalians to a recom
mendation (to say the least) proceeding from the highest authority in the
Church ! The casuist more than intimates that this document is illegal,
and that the curate is anxious to act up to the laws of the Church, only
the heads of the Church will not allow him ; so he is to " suspend "opera
tions until he can gain over his flock to approve of the strict rubrical
observances, and then he may adopt them with impunity ! This is, indeed,
keeping a law to the eye, and violating it in heart and practice. But even
this meagre and partial obedience, doled out in such scanty morsels, is too
much for Mr. G. " Still," he adds, " this view of the case, and the
attributing such virtual authority to the Archbishop's letter involves very
serious difficulties." Even this obedience is too much. We have allowed
too great authority to the heads of the Church ! and why ? What new
danger is apprehended ? No trifling one, indeed ! The Archbishop of
Canterbury has by this letter " established the very principle of
non-conformity !" This is, indeed, puritanism in high places ! " The
Bishop's authority, so far as the laity is concerned, is defunct." And who
has slain it ? The Archbishop ! "I cannot but think that the injury
done to the Church by thus tampering with her fixed laws, is very serious
indeed :" " the admission of the principle of Aim-conformity into the
Church, is a positive evil, the consequences of which it is difficult to fore
see."

11
Yet, strange to say, the very next words are, " and this serious damage
has resulted from the manoeuvres of the Puritans !" Now, this is really
too hard upon us ! Have we then such influence at Lambeth, and such
power or art to circumvent the whole Bench as to induce " the Synod " to
" establish the very principle of non-conformity," and to " tamper with
the fixed laws of the Church ?" Or is it not rather obvious to all men of
the least discernment, that the whole force of Episcopal authority is as
chaff before the wind, when it is exercised against the most turbulent and
insubordinate of all the sons of the Church, the ultra high Church, Angli
can divines 1
But Mr. Gresley not only thus freely comments on an accredited docu
ment of the Archbishop and Bishops, but he ventures, towards the close
of his pamphlet, to obtrude himself into the very closets of the Order, to
impugn their motives and arraign their honesty in the exercise of the
highest and holiest function — that of Ordination !
Page 52. " There is a prevailing impression, and that not without ap
parent cause, that our rulers" (that is the Bishops) "are unduly partial
in this matter ;" (that is, relative " to candidates for ordination ;") " there
is a deep feeling of dissatisfaction in regard to the one-sided justice that
is administered !" And then he proceeds to complain that " men who
once or twice in their lives sign the Articles in a non-natural sense, are,"
— oh ! cruel and unfounded calumny ! — " stigmatized as disingenuous,
and pointed at as ' Jesuits ;' " " that if any preach the doctrine of purga
tory or transubstantiation they are quickly called to account ;" "that if
any clergyman of the Church of England associates with Romish priests,
or pays a visit to a Popish college, he is denounced as a Romanizer ;"
(most illogical, unfounded, and unjust conclusions, truly;) "while the
Puritans are allowed to deny the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and
even some of them to join the Evangelical alliance with impunity !" And
he sums up the injuries sustained by this oppressed class of divines and
aspirants thus : — " Bishops and their chaplains are careful to detect and
exclude from the ministry candidates of Romanizing views, but take
little or no notice of such as hold Dissenting doctrines."
" But even this is not a, full Btatement of the partialities complained of. This dis
couragement of the rulers of the Church is not confined to Romanizers only, but is ex-

12
tended to those who most strictly hold the doctrines of the English Church ; while, on
the other hand, those who deny her doctrines and debase her services are comparatively
countenanced, or certainly not interfered with. A strict Anglican, who has not the
smallest wish to join the Church of Rome, meets with opposition, or at least finds no
sympathy; while those who are plotting against their own Church, and spreading he
terodox doctrine through the land, are suffered to pursue their schemes unmolested. B7
this apparent partiality many excellent men are much disheartened. Some even are
disposed to regard their Church rather as she is seen in practice than as she is in theory,
and to doubt whether a communion in which truth is discouraged, and heresy suffered
to proceed unrebuked, can be guided by the Spirit of God. Some have been driven by their
feelings to schismatical acts ; and even the most stanch adherents of the English Church
—men who feel it their duty to remain with her, and contend under her banner to the
last— find their spirit damped, and their energies weakened, when those to whom they
looked for countenance and support join in the ignorant outcry, instead of allaying il by
the authority of their office.'" (pp. 53, 54.)
Thus the Bishops of our Church are not only accused of partiality and
injustice in the exercise of their sacred functions, but they are charged with
aiding and abetting those who " are plotting against their own Church,
and spreading heterodox doctrines through the land ;" while it is insi
nuated that the guilt even of the schismatical acts of those who have gone
over to Rome is likewise to be laid at their door ! Nor can this be won
dered at, if our Bishops be generally such men as Mr. Gresley describes
them to be.
" Our Bishops are men of the world, taken from amongst the most
eminent ecclesiastics of the 19th century, and imbued with its character I"
(p. 56.) Alas, for the eminent ecclesiastics of the 19th century ! " Men
of the world!" not, I presume, in the sense of the Psalmist (Ps. xvii.
14) ; but in any sense it is a melancholy, though I hope to a great extent,
a false testimony. But to this Mr. G. attributes their want of nerve to
put down Puritanism. "I do not believe that the rulers of our Church
are restrained by so pusillanimous a feeling as fear. But they are uncon
sciously influenced by feelings of a somewhat analogous character, and so
deterred from taking that high line of duty which the present necessity of
the Church requires." They are "men of the world," imbued with the
spirit of the age, " which is as far as possible removed from the spirit of
martyrdom or chivalry. Men in authority," (that is, the Bishops,) " are
httle disposed to take the part of the weaker, or oppose themselves to the
spirit of persecution, or run a tilt with public opinion." Although the

13
fear of the " Record" may not appal them, the Times, the Quarterly, and
Edinburgh Review, in Mr. G.'s opinion, strongly influence the Bishops,
and deter them from the "high line of duty" which their prebendal coun
cillor assigns to them. " Our Bishops are to a certain extent biassed by
the world ; they are men of discretion rather than of valour, of moderation
rather than seal, courtesy rather than consistency. They are men of re
finement, too. They dishke a stir. They do not wish to be forced to act
or to decide." " Again, public men," (that is, Bishops,) " especially of
liberal and latitudinarian views, are inclined to think little oi positive truth.
Their bias is towards the popular side, and they are anxious to conciliate
rather than to instruct ; to give way to the opinion of many, rather than
lead them into the right path ; and this even though they sacrifice men
unjustly assailed. Witness the recent charges of the Bishops of Wor
cester and Llandaff !" Does Mr. G. feel personally injured, and does he
smart under the just censures of that talented, disinterested, though ac
cording to Mr. Gresley, " liberal and latitudinarian" Bishop 1
Still Mr. G. would rescue the Bench of Bishops from the despicable
charge of cowardice, though at the expense of their honesty.
Page 58. " It is, I am persuaded, not from fear, but from a too great
leaning to the public opinion of the age, that our Bishops have acted with
such apparent partiality, exercising an undue harshness towards the most
consistent members of the English Church," — (that is, to those who falsely
sign the Articles once or twice in their lives, and " associate with Romish
priests,") — " and extending their sanction, or at least toleration, to
wards a party whose principles they evidently dishke."
Hence it is that the Bishops are the cause of the "strife that
rages in our parishes." It is "simply the preaching of contradictory
doctrines by those ordained and licensed by our Bishops. Our
Bishops ordain men who, on vital points, hold different opinions,"
and the people are deluded into heresies. How? Page 61. "Just
because the Bishops have ordained ministers and licensed them to
cures, who in the name and in the authority of the Church are
carrying Dissenting principles into every part of the land." Thus,
upon the principle that what we do by another we do ourselves, Mr,

14
Gresley traces all the error, heresy, and schism in the Church to the
Bishops : — the remedy is obvious, and their Lordships' duty urgent, —
" let them refuse ordination and license to those candidates whom, upon
examination, they find to be manifestly unsound and to hold Dissenting
doctrines, as they do now to those who hold Romish doctrines :
then, and not till then, will one of the principal causes of strife be re
moved from the bosom of the Church !"
Men of all parties will, I think, stand amazed at the coolness and deter
mination with which the Prebend of Lichfield thus arraigns, condemns,
and dictates to the Bench of Bishops ; and the heroic sternness with which
he demands the expulsion of the whole Puritan or Evangelical party with
their Episcopal leaders. Truly, the chivalrous spirit of the age, to use
Mr. G.'s language, seems to have concentrated itself in Mr. Gresley,
when he thus " enters the lists" and runs so fearful " a tilt" against the
Bishops ! I do suspect his judicious friends will not thank him for this
evidence of his courage ; and I think it must open the eyes of many to the
real principles of the party which he represents.
The Evangelicals.
And what, then, have we now done to merit such unsparing censure and
so pitiless a storm of hard words? "Puritans," "heretics," "dishonest
manceuverers," maligners of the Church's doctrines, and corrupters of her
practice as we are, — what proof does Mr. G. allege of our misdoings 1
What specific charge does he fasten upon us ? He objects, indeed, to vari
ous of our benevolent schemes and societies, to which pious efforts he
attributes the most unworthy motives ; but no doctrinal error does he
even attempt to fasten upon us, excepting one, which he endeavours to
magnify into formidable proportions. In " the doctrine of baptismal re
generation" he thinks he has discovered a Shiboleth of party by which
he will slay us at the fords of Jordan, and detect our disloyalty to our
Church, and dishonesty to our people.

"Reasoning a priori," (he says, p. 16,) " one would have thought it incredible that
any set of English clergymen should seriously deny the doctrine of baptismal regenera
tion, and yet continue to officiate in the baptism of infants, instruct children in the

15
Catechism, and prepare them for the rite of confirmation. The utter incompatibility of
the denial of baptismal regeneration with the profession and practice of an English clergy
man, is, I say, as self-evident a fact as the maintenance of the supremacy of the Pope,
or any other Romish doctrine."
He affirms, " that the whole character of the Christian religion depends
on this primary doctrine." (p. 20.) He accuses us "of the mockery of
thanking God that each child is regenerate, when we altogether disbelieve
and deny it." (p. 21.) He traces the "greater part of the nation's sin,
the desperate wickedness of the mass of our population, and the general
wickedness of all classes, to this denial of baptismal regeneration ! !"
(p. 22.) Nay, monstrous conclusion, " Thousands who once were made
members of Christ and children of God, are thus eternally lost, mainly in
consequence of this great heresy, whereby our country and even our Church
is overrun." How perfectly sure ought this " accuser of his brethren'' to be, that
they have really committed this great sin and occasioned this great wicked
ness ; in other words, that they do deny the doctrine of baptismal regene
ration, before he ventured, after such appalling charges, to say, —
" The denial of baptismal regeneration is the leading doctrine, not
only of Dissenters from the Church, but of the Evangelical or Puritan
party within it." (p. 23.) Were I to stigmatize this statement as both
false and invidious, I should but do it justice. And upon what is this
sweeping accusation based ? Upon two or three solitary extracts from
fugitive tracts, and from a few paragraphs from the Record newspaper !
Are these sufficient to establish such a charge as this against the whole
Evangehcal body ? Besides, if we could see the context of these very
passages, we should probably find that it was neither the Church's nor the
Scripture doctrine of baptismal regeneration which even these writers
abjure, but only that view of it which Mr. Gresley and his friends adopt.
And this is the clue which leads us easily out of this difficult labyrinth
in which Mr. G. would involve us. He uses this expression, " the doc
trine of baptismal regeneration," as if it were a term as well denned and
understood as the first definition in Euclid ; but he never stops to explain
what he means by it. He wisely abstains "from entering into the scrip
tural proof of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration;" that task he might

have found a difficult one. If his view of baptismal regeneration be what
I suspect, he would find more proofs multiplied to him in the writers of the
middle ages than in the Scriptures. He attempts to show that the Church
holds the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, while he only proves that
she holds " baptismal regeneration." But whether she holds " the doc
trine" which Mr. G. espouses we have no means of judging.
I can speak not only for myself, but for very many of my brethren with
whose opinions I am acquainted, and I can assure our most uncandid
accuser that he has charged us falsely. I hope I have not ministered
six-and- twenty years in our common sanctuary without conscientiously
weighing the services of our church, and that of baptism especially. And
I hope I should sooner renounce all connexion with the church, than be
guilty thousands of times of " the solemn mockery of uttering before God
what I altogether disbelieve and deny !" Greater hypocrisy, and wickedness
in sacred things, could hardly be conceived. In the Church's language I
pray for the spiritual blessing to accompany the outward ordinance ad
ministered, according to the command of Christ, to our dear children.
Most scripturally the church calls upon me not to doubt, but earnestly to
believe that the prayer of faith has been heard and answered : and in re
liance on the general promises of God to believing prayer, I give thanks
to God for the blessing vouchsafed : and until a wicked life, and hopeless
death, prove that the blessing was not granted, I never question it. This
is simply the view I have ever taken of this difficult and much debated
point. And to all curious and ecclesiastical querists as to the exact nature
of the spiritual benefit conferred, I am ever disposed to reply, " The
wind bloweth where it listeth, and ye hear the sound thereof, and cannot
tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth ; so is every one that is born
of the Spirit." Far from bringing up my children as heathens, I hope
I have educated them as those who have the vows and' privileges of infant
baptism upon them ; and in like manner have I dealt with the hundreds
of young persons who have passed through my hands for the interesting
and primitive rite of confirmation. In these feehngs, though it may be
with some shades of speculative difference in detail, I am confident that
the great body whom Mr. G. has so calumniated, sympathize ; and that
in the use of this initiatory sacrament of our church they are as honest as
he is himself. But if by " the doctrine of baptismal regeneration," he
means that in every case, and in all cases of infant baptism, effectual

17
grace is imparted, and that the child's moral nature undergoes that spiri
tual change which fits it for the kingdom of God — I have no hesitation
in avowing my disbelief of any such theory, which I regard as nothing
more nor less than the opus operatum of the papists. If for this confes
sion I deserve all the vituperative language of Mr. G., I am quite content
to endure it.
This then is really the only doctrinal error which Mr. G. attempts to
fasten upon us, an error if it be one, even more prevalent in the church than
Mr. G. at all supposes. There is no one subject on which there are so
many shades of opinion among all parties as on this ; and I would dismiss
it with an expression of my conviction that it is a point not clearly defined
by the church herself, and upon which her services are not easily and
palpably reconcileable with her more dogmatic teaching.
All the other charges which Mr. G. has to allege against us, are of
a practical kind. He attributes to the " unscrupulous" efforts of the
puritan party the defeat of the Anglican churchmen in their attempt to
restore the rituals of our church to what they conceive to be their primi
tive integrity. " This is one advantage" (alluding to another point)
" the puritan or anti-church party have gained. Another consists in
their successful resistance to the restoration of the ritual of the English
church to its genuine form." (p. 9.) He mourns over " the general
revulsion of opinion" on this subject (p. 10). " I do not think that
earnest Christians," (a favourite term among the Tractarians for a pious
person) " could or ought to have anticipated the strange spirit of oppo
sition arising from the puritan party, by which this most wholesome
and desirable measure was frustrated." " If the Bishop of Exeter had
been supported by his- brother prelates, and the subject fairly represented
to the people ... if the bishops had calmly and dispassionately
laid these things before the people, &c," (p. 12,) a different result no
doubt would have been brought about. But it proved far otherwise ; a
majority of the bishops denounced this revival of ancient usages as un
wholesome and undesirable. And again, strange to say, the bishops and
the " puritan party " were found on the same side, and the ritualists were
for the time defeated. But Mr. G. has himself furnished in three lines
the clue to the zealous opposition which many of the clergy, and more of
the laity offered to these changes : he has most truly said — c

18
" It may be taken as an axiom that whenever external ordi
nances ARE ATTACKED, THE REAL SUBJECT OF DISPUTE IS SOME VITAL
doctrine." (p. 15.) This is about the truest statement in the whole
pamphlet ; and it was for this reason that we resisted the slightest altera
tion in our usual services or ceremonies just now. The surplice, the gown,
the altar, the. piscina, the genuflexions, and tergiversations, in the service,
are all doctrines, " vital doctrines" involve the essentials of protestant
truth, and popish error ; and therefore we resist the one and chng to the
other ; and we thank God that there is not a " mass of heresy," but a
mass of sound, biblical, enlightened, protestant truth, within the pale of
our beloved church, which all the manoeuvres of the anti-protestant party
will not be able to uproot. We have but to sound the toscin of popery,
and half the dangers of the church are dissipated.
" But there are other methods," Mr. G. informs us, (p. 31,) not suffi
ciently adverted to, in which " the evangelical party have greatly added
to their weight and importance." The system of lay patronage, by which
the advowsons of livings and churches are perpetuated in the hands of
trustees, who will appoint pious clergymen, is peculiarly offensive to Mr.
G., who again laments himself over the extensive effects produced espe
cially by the trusteeship founded by the late Rev. C. Simeon. " Many
very important places have already fallen under the patronage and manage
ment of Mr. Simeon's trustees ; and by the judicious appointment of able,
zealous, and unscrupulous partisans, a sensible effect has been made on
the general character of the church. When the living of Bath fell into
their hands, every curate in the dependent chapels whose doctrines were
not those of the evangelical party, was at once removed, and Bath has
since been the hotbed of puritanism /" I can assure the Rev. Prebend
that my friend the rector of Bath as little deserves the title of an " unscru
pulous partisan," or that of a "puritan" as Mr. G. himself can. But
the case of Bath is not peculiar ; " Clifton is likely soon to suffer the
same fate;" that is, by falling into the hands of the Rev. J. Hensman,
as pious, wise, and moderate a clergyman as any of whom the church can
boast ! " The greater part of Bristol is similarly circumstanced; The
case of Cheltenham is notorious." (Let us hope in a good sense!)
" Derby, Beverley, and many other places might be named, which,
unless Divine Providence open some way of escape, are likely
to remain for generations under the same influence, &c," (p. 31). And

19
is it come to this, that the spiritual labours of so many of my faithful
friends and godly brethren are considered by a dignified clergyman of our
own church to be such plague-spots, such moral and spiritual evils, that
he actually desires some providential interference, some interposition of
God, to remove them ! How thankful ought we to be that our respective
diocesans before whom we have preached, under whose supervision our
labours have been patent for many years, judge us differently, — uphold,
sanction, and applaud us ! The testimony of our consciences, the blessing
of God upon our unworthy labours, and the encouragement of our eccle
siastical rulers, are more than sufficient to turn the edge of the censures
of the Prebend of Lichfield. I do not think we need fear that " our rulers
will take any decided measures to check this evil," even at Mr. Gresley 's
suggestion, (p. 32.) He condemns in equally strong language the recent
parliamentary measures for promoting this system of patronage, " where
by the gospel, according to Calvin," as he contemptuously calls it, " is
established in such churches for ever." (p. 33.) And yet with singular
inconsistency, at the close of his pamphlet, he recommends the adoption
of the self-same scheme by his own party ! " I venture to suggest a mode
in which I think the true sons of the church, those especially who are able
and willing to devote a portion of their wealth to her wants, may greatly
advance the cause of true religion at the present time ; that is, the build
ing and endowing churches in populous places, where the service of the
Church of England may be carried out in its true and genuine form." . . .
" The condition of the endowment should be the performance of daily
prayers and weekly communion, together with the exact English service
in its most beautiful style ! Can no one be found to undertake such a
work ? If it be too great for one,"why should not two, or three, or more,
unite together?" Why not a society? Why not a trust? The " con
dition of the endowment" is to serve instead ! This is not the first time
in which the condemned efforts of the evangelicals have been copied by
their opponents. " The venerable societies," for a long time, condemned
the system of public meetings and itinerant deputations, but they have
since adopted both ! The lay-agency system was proscribed as long as it
was adopted only by the evangelicals, but it has since been sanctioned by
the highest ecclesiastical authority ; and so the right of lay patronage,
which is coeval with the building of churches, and the formation of
parishes, will ere long be fully recognized, and introduced into the church
more widely, as a wholesome variation from the uniformity of ecclesiastical
c 2

20

preferment. But I must not anticipate observations which may be made
more appropriately when considering another topic, thus introduced by
Mr. Gresley : — -

" THE SOCIETY SYSTEM.
" Perhaps the most formidable of all the instruments which the modern
puritans know so well, by constant practice, how to use, is the society-
system, by which extensive funds are obtained from benevolent persons,
and placed at the disposal of the leaders of the puritan party, who make
use of them for their own party purposes /" (p. 35.) Was there ever a
more wanton, cruel, or false charge made against men of equal respectabihty
and station with their calumniator ? This is nothing less than accusing
them of obtaining money under false pretences. The first institution
selected for his illustration of the working of the society-system, is the
" Church Pastoral Aid Society." Its delinquencies are thus enumerated :
" A select committee is appointed who under the plea of securing the appointment of
proper persons, inquire privately into the character of each applicant, and unless a
guarantee is given that he is one who preaches puritan doctrine, no grant is made. Thus
it is managed that the appointments shall all be of a party character ; but even this
precaution does not suffice. The committee have constituted themselves perpetual
patrons, with more than episcopal powers. A sharp eye is kept over their curates, and
if they are caught tripping, i. c, teaching anything but puritan doctrine, their salary is
liable to be stopped. Thus the sort of doctrine preached to 2,000,000 of souls is dic
tated by this self-constituted puritan committee." (pp. 36, 37.)
It may be well here to inquire into the character and station of those
of whom this "puritan committee" consists, who, to say the least, sanc
tion, uphold, and support this " puritan doctrine," &c. They consist of
the Lord Bishops of Winchester, Llandaff, Chester, Chichester, (of
whom Mr. Gresley says, (p. 57), " that he has generously taken the
opposite side,") Ripon, Norwich, Peterborough, Worcester, Oxford, Sodor
and Man, Calcutta, besides a goodly list of honourable and right honour
able gentlemen, who together constitute Mr. Gresley's "puritan com
mittee" and who " pervert to party purposes the funds entrusted to them
by benevolent persons!" Mr. Gresley is peculiarly unfortunate in his
modes of attack ; to which ever point he directs the artillery of his abuse,
he finds it protected by the episcopate ; the small arms of the evangelicals

21
are covered by the heavy metal of many bishops. But perhaps these
prelates are among the " worldly men of the nineteenth century," whose
character and opinion have so little weight with Mr. Gresley !
It is perfectly true, however, 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 the principles and practice of
the curates whose salaries it pays, and that the other does not so. And
how Mr. Gresley can, in the present divided state of the Church, rest
satisfied with the arrangement and constitution of " the Curates' Aid
Society," I am at a loss to imagine. If it be true, as he has shown,
that the Bishops themselves ordain, license, and induct men who preach
doctrines vitally opposed to each other — if it be true that so large a portion
of the clergy are under the influence of the Puritan party — what security
has Mr. G. (if, indeed, he subscribes to " the Curates' Aid Society") that
his money may not go towards paying one of those mischievous, manceuver-
ing, Evangelical, Puritan clergy ? And what security should I have, if
I subscribed to that Society, (which I never have done,) that my money
would not go to pay the salary of some bowing, cringing, intoning priest
of the Anglican Church — "some Romanist in heart" — of whom Mr. G.
himself admits (p. 5) that some were " left behind" when their more
honest brethren "went over to Rome?" The whole tenor of Mr. G.'s
pamphlet establishes, beyond controversy, if it proves anything, that
Anglican orders, and Bishops' licences, are no sort of security either against
Papists or Puritans ; and how can he, then, condemn any conscientious
man who thinks quite as ill of the Anglican as Mr. G. does of the Puritan
party, for giving his support to those societies only who, in the prosecution
of their appropriate work at home or abroad, give the Church some
security that men of Romish propensities shall not be employed. I grant
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 but an ordained licensed priest of the Anglican Church. It should
be added, however, that "the Curates' Aid Society" was formed imme
diately, after the " Church Pastoral Aid Society," and in opposition to it ;
not on the absurd ground of objecting to the investigation of the merits of
the clergy whom it employs (a plan adopted by the Propagation Society,

22
and every kindred institution,) but simply because of the lay-agency prin
ciple involved in the original Society— a principle then vehemently con
demned, but since established and authorized by those who formed the
Curates' Aid Society.
For Mr. Gresley's sake, one is sorry to find that, in his merciless pursuit
of the Puritan party and their " manoeuvres," he next bears down upon the
Church Missionary Society. His attack on them is brief, but vigorous.
" The system of schismatical interference, instanced in the Pastoral Aid Society, is
practised also in the Church Missionary Society. On the plea of collecting subscriptions
to spread the doctrine of the Church of England amongst the heathen, they not only
require the missionaries whom they send out to satisfy a private committee as to the
evangelicalism of their doctrine, but also retain the power of removing them afterwards,
and that in defiance of the Colonial Bishop in whose diocese they may be placed."—
(pp. 37, 38.)
Here, again, is an insinuation of dishonesty against a society with even
more dignitaries of the Church at her head than the former— and an
attempt to prove that she is refractory and disorderly in the adjustment
of her powers over the missionaries she employs, with respect to Episcopal
control. Has Mr. Gresley heard of the reports of the first Bishop of
New Zealand relative to the conduct of our missionaries in that remote
colony ? Has he seen that of the Bishop of Montreal, relative to our
primitive and blessed missions among the North- West American Indians ?
Did they find Puritanism in those favoured spots ? or did they find
Churches of singular beauty and order, alike yielding the fruits of righ
teousness and walking according to the discipline of our Protestant English
Church? Above 10,000 converts, gathered from among the heathen,
assemble in various places, every month, around the table of the Lord,
and intelligently partake of the emblems of redeeming love, according to
the doctrine and discipline of our Church : above 80,000 persons, once hea
thens, by means of this society, are weekly enjoying the benefits of pastoral
influence under men as rightly ordained, as duly licensed, and as well in
structed, at least in their professional duties, as Mr. Gresley himself;
but, unlike Barnabas of old, "when he sees the grace of God," thus
palpably exhibited in the reformed lives and happy deaths of those who
were once barbarian savages — he cannot " rejoice" — he cannot thank God
— he sees only a combination of party men, united "for carrying out a

23
system of schismatical interference" with the Episcopal order I Let Mr.
G. investigate the condition of the Society's missions in Tinevelly, Krish-
nagur, Benares, Ceylon, Western Africa, the West Indies— indeed, in all
parts of the world : and if he will believe the testimony of the Bishops'
for whom he seems so zealous, let him blush to have brought this accusa
tion against this admirable institution.
Not content>ith this, however, Mr. G. proceeds through an extrava
gant laudation of the Gospel Propagation Society, further to wound the
Evangelicals and their Church Missionary Society.
" But the danger of Puritanism is shown, not only in its own advance and enlarge
ment, but in its destructive tendency,-its power of overturning or undermining what
opposes it. This power of mischief is evidenced in the successful attacks which it is
continually making on our time-honoured and valuable institutions. The venerable
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was established, as needs
scarcely be said, more than a century ago, and has been the means of supplying our
numerous colonies with missionary and parochial clergy, which the government of the
country havefneglected to afford. If any society is free from party bias, it is this. It is
supported by all the Bishops on the English bench, and most of them take warm interest
in its welfare. The first aggression of the Evangelicals was the establishment of a
rival society, called the Church Missionary Society, under the pretext of sending
missionaries to the heathen, {though it is well known that this is a branch of the
undertaking of the Society for the^Propagation of the Gospel,) but with the real inten
tion of sending out persons imbued with puritan principles, over whom the London
committee may exercise control. Not content with this, however, they have in various
ways raised so great a prejudice against the Propagation Society, that its exertions to
increase its funds have been much counteracted, its capital is all expended, and there is
reason to fear that the salaries of the colonial clergy must be withdrawn or much
diminished. This is naturally a great grief and embarrassment to our Bishops, as it is
to all good men ; and in order to remedy the evil, they have unanimously published
letters of approval of the Society. Still the attacks of the Evangelical party go on."
¦' Here is one of the most ancient and venerable societies of the English Church, iden
tified, in fact, with it, approved, supported, and cherished by every one of our Bishops, as
the means of spreading the Gospel in foreign parts ; yet so attacked and vilified by a
party of the English Chwrch calling themselves Evangelicals, that its means of useful
ness are seriously impeded, its increasing efforts checked, and the good work in which
it has been so long employed in danger of being suspended. Can there be a greater
instance of unmitigated mischievousness." — (pp. 39—41.)
It is painful to read, from the pen of a dignified clergyman, language so
intemperate, and, I am constrained to say, conveying such false impres-

24
sions. He states "that the establishment of the Church Missionary
Society, under the pretext of sending missionaries to the heathen," was an
aggression upon the Propagation Society— in proof of which he says — " It
is well known that this" (the sending out of missionaries to the heathen)
" is a branch of the undertaking of the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel." It is now a branch of this Society's operations ! But how long has
it been so? and was it so when the Church Missionary Society was founded 1
Would any honest man believe, from Mr. Gresley 's statement, that until
more than twenty years after the formation of the Church Missionary
Society, the Propagation Society had not a single missionary to the
heathen ! The present missions in Trichinopolly were then, and had been
for nearly one hundred years, under the care of the Christian Knowledge
Society; and they were not transferred to the Propagation Society until the
year 1824. The Propagation Society was formed and chartered for the colo
nies only, and its missionary branch to the heathen sprung out of a desire
among some of its members to have a missionary society distinct from the
Church Missionary Society, which was too Evangelical for them ; and
until these matters were explained, some of the votaries of the Propagation
Society were wont to call it the " oldest missionary society to the heathen
connected with the Church of England." But the simple facts of the case
will not allow of that title. In truth, the formation of a purely missionary
branch in the Propagation Society was a direct, overt interference with
the work and province of the Church Missionary Society ; so that my
reply to Mr. G. on this primary aggressive charge is simply, " mutato
nomine de te fabula narratur /"
Still, the opposition of the Puritan party to this venerable society, de
scribed by Mr. G. to be so virulent, remains to be explained or justified.
I believe, however, Mr. G. will find a large portion of the failing resources
of this Society are still contributed by the condemned Puritan faction :
and I do not believe that there is anything like a general secession from its
ranks, or opposition to its interests, among the Evangelical clergy. For
my own part, I did some time since publicly retire from this society,
upon what appeared to me sufficient grounds, and I returned to it in the
hope that circumstances had undergone a favourable change. I am
constrained to confess that I have recently again withdrawn my sub
scription and retired from among the ranks of its supporters, and shall
remain unconnected with it until the grievous evils exposed by the metro-
7

25
pohtan Bishop of Calcutta are honestly met and removed. I cannot
conscientiously support a society, by my money or my influence, which,
upon the testimony of the Diocesan, is convicted of employing mission
aries "who are unhappily imbued with sentiments" "by which souls are
fatally endangered" — "who have done, and are doing, incalculable
mischief in their several spheres" — " holding opinions distorted and un-
protestant" — so that " the missions in and around Calcutta have un
questionably been injured." To the expensive religious establishment,
Bishop's College, at Calcutta, the Metropolitan " adverts reluctantly."
There, too, is deposited " the blight" which "mars the harvest;'' and no
hope of amendment is held out — " no change for the better appears to
have taken place in the minds of the clergy once possessed with the
extreme views ;" " they have yielded to Episcopal authority to a certain
extent; but the negative influence goes on."* They of Calcutta judge
as Mr. Gresley does at home, that the Protestant Bishop's bold
and severe censures of their system " may, perhaps, be supposed" to carry
some authority — so the positive mischief is checked, but the negative
goes on I How identical is the essence of Romanism — how irreconcilable
with Protestant principle ?
Now, I fully appreciate the line of conduct which my venerable friend
the zealous and excellent Bishop of Calcutta is pursuing ; he, notwithstand
ing all this, holds by the society, and has nobly endeavoured to infuse a
Protestant principle into its veins. But I must, as a simple subscriber to its
funds, (for this society is exclusive in its constitution, and subscription
gives neither voice nor influence in its movements,) stand aside until the
society as a branch of our Protestant Church, clears itself of the charge of
knowingly employing men who, instead of preaching the gospel and saving
souls, are, in the judgment of their isNhop " endangering souls," and
" doing incalculable mischief"
Mr. Gresley's disquisition and lamentation over the lapsed and corrupted
state of the venerable Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, are
curious and instructive. " This society," he says, " is unfortunately
peculiarly suitable to the tactics of the Evangelical party ;" unlike the
former, its constitution admits the free expression of the opinion of its
* The Bishop of Calcutta's Address, published with the last report of the Propagation
Society.

26
members; a cardinal misdemeanor in the judgment of Mr. G., who admires
the construction of the Propagation and National Societies, because they
" do not admit of the disorderly and democratic assemblage" which is
found monthly in Lincoln's Inn Fields ! This unsparing castigator of all
ranks and orders of his brethren thus censures the London clergy : no
" puritans," these, be it remembered, nor " unscrupulous manceuverers."
" Lately, however, owing to the temporising policy of the members of the Committee,
who consist chiefly of London clergy, and the reaction against Romanizers, the Evange
lical interest has begun to preponderate, and bids fair to obtain the ascendant in the
Society, and convert what, from its beginning, has been one of the most orthodox insti
tutions in the Church, into an engine of Puritanism ! One rule of the society is, that all
books and tracts proposed for the society's catalogue, shall be submitted to five episcopal
referees ; amongst them is the Bishop of Chester, who, I suppose, far from being offended,
will consider it rather an honour to be designated one of the heads of the Evangelical
party," (that is, of the " Puritan faction /") " Consistently with this position," this post
of honour which the Prebend of Lichfield has courteously assigned to the Bishop of a
neighbouring diocese : " his Lordship pretty freely exercises his power of placing his
veto on such tracts and books, or such portions of them, as according to his judgment of
them do not harmonize with Evangelical truth, or rather the Calvinistic tenets which he
espouses. Those Episcopal referees who are of a different school," (so there are ' schools,''
and sections among the Bishops as among the clergy,) " have the power of excluding
books of a low church tendency. The obvious effort of this system is, to exclude from
the society's catalogue all books of a positive doctrinal character, and admit only such
as are vague and neutral.''
Alas, for the poor society ! if this picture be correct, its books are a mere
nullity! Yet this does not appear to be quite the case, for, ac
cording to Mr. G., the Bishop of Chester is more active than his
coadjutors, " and the consequence is, that, gradually, a set of books,
more or less tinged with Calvinism, has been added to the society's
catalogue, and those of decided high-Church Principles are denied
admission." A singular result, considering, as I have before ob
served, that the Bishop of Chester is not, in any sense of the word,
"a Calvinist;" yet he finds no mercy at the hands of this "Anglican
divine." " What," says he, " is the remedy ? Obviously not to re
elect the Bishop of Chester on the committee /" And this, again, is high-
Church principle, and reverence for the Episcopate ! Others, however,
are not quite so courageous, and so Mr, G. laments himself over the fact
" that this would be looked on by the chief managers of the society as
uncourteous and exhibiting party spirit, and so his lordship remains, and

27
probably will remain." (p. 42.) Yes, despite the protestations of this
high^-Churchman !
Mr. G. proceeds to lash the London clergy for their " corruption and
mutilation of standard works :" but great as was their offence, it was
nothing compared with " the effrontery " of some of the proscribed party
who attempted to vindicate them. This exceeds all bounds. " It is diffi
cult to conceive a more striking proof of the unscrupulous encroachment of
the Puritan party, and the extreme depravation of principle in men who
could employ or defend such means of propagating their own peculiar
views." The London clergy had " employed" — the Puritan party " de
fended" these measures ; yet they are accused and condemned for adopting
them in order " to further their peculiar views !" What views? Those of
the London clergy, or those of the Puritans ? As these are diverse the one
from the other, it is mere indiscriminate abuse to indulge in such incon
sistent and incoherent censure. The condition of the Christian Knowledge
Society, as it is to be gathered from this pamphlet, is, I think, encouraging ;
at all events it is displeasing to extreme men of the Anglican high church
party ; always so far, an evidence for good. Mr. G. fears, that on account of
these things, the " Anglicans " may withdraw. He deprecates this for the
present, or at least condemns a particular mode of departure. "Nothing
could be more injudicious than for the Anglicans to recede one by one from
these societies, however objectionable some of their proceedings may be."
No, let them stay, and go out, if possible, in a body, and strike a heavier
blow, or let them try secret influence. " The tracts recently published are
not so bad, there are improving symptoms. There could not be a more
severe blow to the Church than for the Anglicans, in a fit of disgust, to
suffer this society to fall into the hands of the Puritan party as it must do
if they withdraw!" It is evident, that in Mr. G.'s judgment, the Angli
cans are the sole " defenders of the faith."
Mr. G.'s accusations relative to our conduct with respect to the national
society being based exclusively on anonymous and newspaper authority
and being much the same in substance as that which has been already dis
cussed at length : I will dismiss this institution with an expression of my
deliberate conviction that the "earnest Anghcan Party" have stolen a
march upon us in the management of its affairs, and 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 he

28
wished ; indeed, from what we have a right to expect in such an institu.
tion. Having ardently assisted in reviving this society some years ago
when it was at a low ebb, I think I have a right to say thus much. " If
this evil is not checked," to use Mr. G.'s language, this society will soon
be affected deeply with the Tractarian heresy.
Having thus followed Mr. G. through all his multiform accusations of
his brethren, it only remains that I examine from his pamphlet, as far as
they are discoverable, his own opinions and the remedies he suggests for
the evils of the Church.
" The Anglicans."
It is extremely difficult to speak of parties and persons without giving
unintentional offence. I would ever prefer combating principles and theo
ries ; but Mr. G.'s pamphlet is from one end to the other, both a party
and personal production. Not that even then, I would wish to retort, or
desire " the interference of Divine Providence " to remove him from his
position in our Church, as he has devoutly and piously wished for me and
for some of my personal friends. But I suppose without uncharitableness,
I may class him with that party in the Church which he calls "Anglican,"
and whom he vividly describes in his opening pages. In common with
that ultra-high Church party, Mr. G. has the tenderest sympathy with
those who have already lapsed to Romanism : " he speaks and thinks of
them with the deepest sorrow ; especially," he adds, " when we consider
the offences thrown in their path, and how possible it is that we who
remain may, by our sins, and still more by our negligences, be in no
slight degree answerable for their schism." This is a pungent and true
confession, if it be applied to those who fostered and encouraged the aus
terities, and vain observances, of the younger men, who have thus been led
to greater lengths than some of their teachers intended. Mr. G. does not
feel very confident even of himself. In ominous and foreboding language
he adds, "They have gone and we yet remain : let us not be high-minded
but fear." (pp. 3, 4.) " We yet remain," — how long we shall do so may
be doubtful ! " Let us therefore fear." But meanwhile he rejoices in the
birth of a new and vigorous party in the Church of England, which
forms a new feature in her history. He thus describes it.
" The principal feature is, the growing up and establishment within her bosom of a
new and energetic school, or rather the revival of a school, of theologians, which, though
largely influential in various periods of our Church's former history, had more recently,

29
till within the present generation, almost become unknown. The last ten or twelve years
have seen the rapid progress and established influence of what are commonly called
Church Principles. Hundreds, nay thousands, of our clergy, and these amongst the most
zealous and learned, and, what is much to be considered, the youngest; a large proportion
of our best-educated laymen ; our aristocracy and gentry ; our professional men, and
men of business, and these undeniably amongst the most serious and religious, — have
more or less embraced these principles. The rising generation at our Universities is
deeply imbued with them. Nor are they confined to educated persons, though unques
tionably most prevalent amongst them. On the contrary, wherever such principles have
been fairly set forth, there will be found many families and individuals amongst the
middle and the lower classes, in Borne instances whole parishes, enthusiastically attached
to them, and embracing them with a warmth and energy not to be surpassed by those
who have been enabled by their attainments more deeply to examine them." p. 4.
He protests against " any attempt to mix up this school with the Ro-
manisers which have left us ;" to do so proves either ignorance, ot "a deliber
ate intention of causing prejudice." (p. 5.) "True," he adds, "that to a
certain extent, and before the principles of each were fully understood,
they have acted and sympathised together. Reverence for the Church was
their bond!" "Perhaps," also, " some Romanists in heart may yet be
left behind; but to represent these as identified in principle with the An
glican body, is an unfair and disingenuous manoeuvre unworthy of an
honest controversialist."
What strange admissions have we here, ill-concealed by the threats
which accompany them ! Will Mr. G. kindly tell us, in order that we
may escape these heavy censures, how we are to discover these " Romanists
in heart" amidst " the Anghcan body ?" Does he triumphantly reply,
you may know the genuine Anglicans " by their devoted attachment to
their own Church ?" Alas ! all of those who have deserted to Rome once
made the same professions, and were held up by some of these " Angli
cans who remain* as the only champions fit to contend with Popery ; and
if I mistake not, a distinguished Divine with whom it appears from this
pamphlet Mr. G. fraternises closely, once talked of nailing his colours to
the mast of the ship commanded by Mr. Newman ! How, then, can Mr.
Gresley expect for a moment that the Church or the world can make the
distinctions which he so loudly requires ? " Young England" has been
brought up at the feet of that Gamaliel who now sits at the Footstool of
Peter ; all the " earnest Christians' of the Anglican school have been
educated by the leaders who are now Papists ; they have conspired to form

30
a new and influential and most dangerous party in the Church ; and now
Mr. G. is offended, accuses us of dishonesty and ignorance, and I know
not what, if we confound them. For myself, I assure him I never should
confound them, or suppose that the zealous Anglicans are identical with
the lapsed Romanists — there is as much difference between them as there
is between the egg and the chicken, nothing can be more different in ap
pearance ; but some day the egg will produce a chicken ; — and so surely
I do believe that the Church principles advocated by Mr. Gresley are only
Popery in the egg ; when hatched and fledged they will furnish wings,
on which Mr. G. may fly away after his brethren, with whom it is evident
that he has at heart more sympathy than he has for a large and influen
tial party in his own Church.
Believing this deliberately, and in this belief I know I am by no means
singular, the forcible picture of the real power and activity of this restless
party in Church and state must excite evil forebodings.
Page 7. The existence of this body of men is thus described :  " As a
school or party they occupy a distinct position in the public eye, and still
more so as an element in the moral power of the country. Their influence
is more quiet than obtrusive ; it is rather an under current than an
agitation of the surface." (Let the friends of Protestantism mark the
subtle and insidious character of these principles as thus betrayed by their
advocate.) "A free press is at their command, and has afforded them a
position in every kind of literature. Not only books of theology of tbe
highest order, but periodicals, works of education, works of fiction,
poetry, memoirs, travels, all departments, in short, are more or less im
bued with Church principles. Church principles appear continually where
you would least look for them " (p. 7.) "In short," he adds "the existenceof
this body," the promoters of the Church principles of the Anglican party,
" is a great fact which cannot be denied. Church principles have
gained a position in the mind of the nation, from which they are not likely
soon to be dislodged ; nay, if we may judge from the circumstance of their
taking hold principally of the seriously-minded of the younger portion
of the community, it is reasonable to expect that they will, in the next
generation, make a great advance and take a firmer hold."
This portrait of our times, which I believe to be but a too faithful one,

31
is sufficiently alarming ; and appears to me perfectly inconsistent with the
description elsewhere given in this pamphlet of the extending influence of
the Evangelicals. If Mr. G. sincerely believes what he has here written,
it is ridiculous to express fears of the progress of the Puritan faction. It
is evident he despises as well as dislikes them ; and the tone of this
pamphlet reminds me of a celebrated one on naval affairs by the Prince de
Joinville, who depicted in terrible colours the danger arising to France
from the amazing preponderance of the British navy — dangers which he
exaggerated only to arouse the jealousy of our rivals to a great naval effort !
So Mr. G. would alarm the Bishops, and put the " vis inertia" of the
Church in motion by the cry of the " real danger of the Church," the
Puritans : while he well knows that the ceaseless activity and devotedness
of the Anglicans are thus directed, as he describes, by " under-eurrents
and secret influences," to get hold of the mind and heart of the nation. —
" The Society-system" of the " Evangelicals" is a noisy, clumsy method of
warfare, compared with this of the Anglicans. It is to be hoped that this
somewhat injudicious exposure of the ingenious tactics of this indefatigable
party, may awaken vigilance and increase devotedness in all who love the
truly Protestant institutions in Church and State.
The partial developement of the future plans and policy of this party in
the last ten pages of this pamphlet, also deserve consideration. A vigorous
effort is to be made to induce the Elders to expel the Evangelicals from
the Church. He contemplates the result with apparent satisfaction. " If
active steps were taken at once to purify the Church from heresy, and
check these party strifes, it might lead to the secession of some thirty or
forty leading Evangelicals to the ranks of Dissent ; as the same number,
on the other side, have recently gone over to Rome !" (p. 63.) Mr. G.
here indulges a fallacious hope ; there is no chance whatever of such a
pleasing riddance of troublesome Puritans. The Tractarian tutors, teachers,
and scholars of Oxford have gone over to Rome . where are the Evange
lical deserters ? It must be some interference with the fundamental truths
embodied in the Thirty-nine Articles which we have signed in a natural,
honest, Old English sense — some repudiation of such a doctrine as that of
justification by faith only, which will drive us out of the bosom of that
Protestant Church in which we have been bred, and born, and nurtured,
and which we will not suffer to be un-Protestantised through indifference

32
or pusillanimity. Touch these, and " not thirty or forty leading Evangeli
cals," but some thousands of faithful clergy would rise up to protest,
defend, or depart !
Another favourite plan projected for the diffusion of Church principles
is the erection and endowment of churches, wherein the Church of Eng
land daily service may be properly performed ; or the establishment of
" the genuine service of the English Church," (p. 69) in existing churches.
We have an extended declamation upon the slovenly way in which our
beautiful service is performed in many churches ; a censure which is, I
fear, well deserved in some quarters. But if Mr. G. wishes to. hear the
reverent responses of the people and devout union of congregational wor
ship, he must venture into some of the churches occupied by Evangelical
divines. There will not be the ad captandum performance which he re
commends iu pages 68 and 69. These are the toys of the Anglicans, with
which they please men who are children in scriptural truths! — "A
handsome structure — no exclusive pews — no theatre-like galleries — a suffi
cient number of ministers," (how many we are not informed) — "a choir,
carefully trained" — daily prayers — "a careful distinction between fast,
and festival, and ordinary days, according to prescribed order :" for
which see Dr. Hook's " Church Dictionary ;" which will guide the devout
to all proper decorations for altars, and other ceremonies : — and Mr. G.,
directing his alumni to " a point to which some very good churchmen have
not sufficiently attended," adds — "let the preaching be plain and earnest."
" Most solemnly does he protest against the slander and falsehood of those,
if such there be, who shall dare to aver that the restoration of the genuine
service of the English Church is an approximation to Popery." "Such
an accusation is folly and falsehood!" Indeed it is ; and who would ever
be so weak as to say, " that the genuine service of the English Church is
an approximation to Popery?" But who is to determine what that
"genuine service is?" " We dare to aver" that many of the performances
of " Young England's divines" of late have been and are Popish. We do
not believe that fine singing, amTintoning the versicles, and manifold read
ings, turnings and bowings, are any necessary part of the genuine English
Reformed service ; they may be old English Popery ; and some of these
forms may have been left, for peace sake, unchanged at the time of the
Reformation ; and we think the revival of these obsolete rituals has a strong
tendency Romeward, and therefore we do not wonder at the zeal of the

08837 0946