S ft I i r

ep 1^ "Vo Mv.rWs ) X C|

v

SOME REPLY TO "REMARKS," &c.

PRINTED BY LEVEY, ROBSON, AND FRANKLYN,
(irent New Street , Feltsr Lane.

SOME REPLY

« REMARKS ON A PAMPHLET

ENTITLED

* €f)t <KeaI Banger of tfee Cfmrrl) of Cnglano,
By the Rev. W. GRESLEY, M.A.
PREBENDARY OF LICHFIELD. *
BY A CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND."

LONDON:
JAMES BURNS, 17 PORTMAN STREET*
BATH, POCOCK.
1846-

SOME REPLY, &c

REVEREND SIR,
During the later weeks of Lent the public
were informed by an advertisement in the papers, that
" Shortly after Easter" would '" appear (if God permit)
An Apology for the Evangelical Party ; being a Reply to
the Rev. W. Gresley's Pamphlet on ' The Real Danger of
the Church of England.' By the Rev. F. Close, A.M.,
Perpetual Curate of Cheltenham." The appearance of
this publication was doubtless awaited with much anx
iety. Every one who took an interest in the affairs of
the Church would naturally wish to see, from the pen of
one so eminent in his day as Mr. Close, an " Apology"
for his own party, and a " Reply" to accusations of the
dangerous tendency of their tenets, as urged by one of
the principal writers on the other side. Great, therefore,
was the disappointment which followed the appearance
of this pamphlet. Any thing answering to the terms
" Apology" or " Reply" was scarcely to be found in it.
He appears to admit, rather than to disprove, all the
charges brought against them. There never was a more
decided case of " Parturiunt monies," &c.
Your " Remarks," however, Rev. Sir, appear to me
B

better to deserve the title of "An Apology and Reply"
than do Mr. Close's. You have unquestionably endea
voured to meet some of the statements of Mr. Gresley,
and to exhibit a shew of argument in favour of some of the
tenets of your school. To these it is my purpose to reply,
convinced as I am of the shallowness of your reasoning
and of the unfairness of your analogies and comparisons.
I am desirous also of saying a word or two upon the
personalities of portions of your pamphlet, which Mr.
Gresley would not be very likely to answer in any reply
he may think well to make to the various opponents of
his views. Indeed, this was the first thing which struck
me as requiring your " Remarks" to be noticed by any
one excepting himself.
For those who are personally acquainted with Mr.
Gresley must feel perfectly assured how groundless is
your alarm when you say that " you should fear that he
is naturally of a morose temperament" (p. 4). I assure
you that, if you imagine this, you are under a great de
lusion. I only wish you could have heard the burst of
laughter with which this statement of yours was received
by some of his friends. Nor is the following less untrue
and ridiculous : " The pathetic lamb-like tones of Dr.
Hook's ' Call to Union' have died away in distant echoes,
and notliing is now heard but the roaring of the Lichfield
Lion. I suspect, however, that Mr. Gresley will seriously
damage his party by this exhibition of fury and fanati
cism. When a man writes in a passion, it is a sure sign
that he is breaking down in argument," &c. (p. 5.) Cer
tainly Mr. Gresley is about the very last man I should
expect to see " in a passion." You have, believe me,
quite mistaken his disposition and temperament ; and his
pamphlet, instead of " exhibiting fury and fanaticism,"
is, in the opinion of others, a calm, though strong and

decisive, statement of indisputable facts, such as neither
yourself nor his other opponents have at present been at
all able to gainsay.
" Nothing is now to be heard but the roaring of
the Lichfield lion !" But, as you justly say, " two
can play at that game" (p. 1). You will not let Mr. G.
have it all his own way: like Bottom the weaver, you
yourself are anxious to make a display.
" Bottom. Let me play the lion too : I will roar, that I will
do any man's heart good to hear me ; I will roar, that I will
make the duke say, ' Let him roar again, Let him roar again.' "
Be careful, my dear sir, what you are about. Listen
to the timely caution of the sagacious Quince :
" Quince. An you should do it too terribly, you would
fright the duchess and the ladies, that they would shriek ; and
that were enough to hang us all.
All. That would hang us, every mother's son.
Bottom. I grant you, friends, if that you should fright the
ladies out of their wits, they would have no more discretion but
to hang us : but I will aggravate my voice so, that I will roar
you as gently as any sucking dove ; I will roar you an 'twere
any nightingale."*
Let Mr. Gresley also be warned by your own prudent
reserve. Let him not endeavour to gain the notice of
Bishops by his earnest appeals, lest the ladies of Bath and
Cheltenham be thrown into hysterics, and he bring de
struction, instead of honour, upon himself and his party.
Further, Mr. Gresley " is out of humour even with the
Bishops themselves ; and, if the truth must be spoken,
he writes too much like a person who thinks that his
achievements have not been sufficiently appreciated by
the higher powers, and who feels the bitterness of disap-
* Midsummer-Night's Dream, act i. sc. 2.

pointment while he marks the bulwarks and looks up to
the pinnacles of the Church" (pp. 4, 5). Whether Mr.
Gresley thinks that he has been overlooked by those who
have had power to advance him to higher offices in the
Church, I cannot say. I certainly think so myself. I
am surprised that no " higher power" of the same way
of thinking as Mr. Gresley has ever availed himself of his
talents and energies. It is a matter of surprise even to
those who are most opposed to his views. But that he
" feels the bitterness of disappointment," I believe to
be quite an untruth. I believe that he and numbers of
conscientious High-Churchmen have long ago made up
their minds to rest contented in those stations in the
Church in which it has pleased God to place them, well
knowing that the tide of worldly favour is flowing the
other way; but that when God wills to make further use of
them, He will undoubtedly call them forth in due season.
But while such passages as these in your pamphlet
were received to the great entertainment of the friends
of Mr. Gresley, be assured, Rev. Sir, that there were
some who could not but feel sorry for him who had
penned them. It was a grief to remember those words
of St. Paul, " Charity . . . thinketh no evil."
There is also another sin with which you charge Mr.
Gresley, but of which his writings prove him quite inno
cent. " Before I conclude, I will take the liberty of
remarking, that Mr. Gresley is more indebted to the
Evangelical party than he is willing to acknowledge ; and
I am prepared to shew that the guilt of ingratitude lies at
his door" (p. 28). And then you proceed to compare
the first edition of Mr. Gresley's first publication, his
Ecclesiastes Anglicanus, a Treatise on Preaching, with
the last ; and because the last, "" though freckled here and

there with Oxford spots," is still the same work as the
first, and contains quotations from eminent Evangeli
cal writers, you conclude with the assertion, that " at
present Mr. Gresley occupies no enviable position. His
character for consistency is seriously compromised; and
until he makes up his mind to retract the opinions con
tained in his Ecclesiastes Anglicanus, or to suppress with
out delay the story-books and the pamphlet, it will be diffi
cult to determine to which party he really belongs" (p. 30).
Now, that Mr. Gresley has changed his opinion of the
Evangelicals is certain ; but he is only one of a thousand
who have done the same. That is not ingratitude. He
acknowledges most fully his change of sentiment in
Bernard Leslie .*
" I used once to respect the Evangelicals. Notwithstanding
the manifest deficiency of their scheme, I have been accustomed
to regard them with a certain respect, on account of their zeal,
and the partial good which they have doubtless been the instru
ments of effecting. And there are some for whom I still feel a
sincere regard — men whom I see quietly doing the Lord's work
according to their judgment. Zeal in a good cause is to be
admired, even though it be not according to knowledge. They
have also numbered amongst them many revered and excellent
men, who have devoted themselves sincerely to the cause of
what they considered truth. Indeed, it is for their sake mainly
that the party to which they belonged has gained its influence
and credit. But their popularity has spoiled them, as it has
done thousands before them. They have now stood forward
in a new light. They are no longer contending for the souls of
men, but struggling to maintain a waning popularity. * * *
Under these circumstances, my feeling with respect to this
party is changed. I no longer respect them as I used. They
have assumed the attitude not only of violent partisans of a
defective system, but they stand forth as opponents of those

10
who would raise the Church to her true position, and thus are
fast approaching the sin of Antichrist, and liable to the judg
ment of those who impede the truth." (Pp. 342, 7.)
Such being now Mr. Gresley's deliberate sentiments
respecting your party, and because he still continues the
publication of his Ecclesiastes Anglicanus, you accuse him
not only of ingratitude, but also of inconsistency. To
you his opinions seem of a " paradoxical character" (p.
29). Now there certainly is no inconsistency whatever
in the passages which you have selected from his writings
in order to exhibit him in the twofold characters of " an
Evangelical" and " a Tractarian."
First, " as an Evangelical," he recommends the lives
of eminently pious and devoted ministers, no matter of
what persuasion, in order to provoke emulation ; he re
fers to Dr. Gregory as testifying that Robert Hall pos
sessed " in the highest excellence the essential qualities
of delivery ;" he says that in one of Waugh's sermons
there is a true touch of eloquence ; and also that Mr.
Simeon's observations upon Claude's Essay are more
valuable than the essay itself.
Secondly, " as a Tractarian," he asserts that " the
ministers of the Church alone can shew that they have
received any authority to administer the sacraments which
are generally necessary to salvation ;" that, consequently,
there is no certainty that Dissenters and their children
have ever been baptised, or partaken of the Body and
Blood of Christ ; that the Bishops have ordained mini
sters who have spread dissenting principles ; that " when
Mr. Simeon set on foot his project of buying up Church
livings, no one dreamed that the character of the Church
of England would be so seriously affected by such an
affair of pounds, shillings, and pence."

11
Now where is the " paradoxical character" of these
extracts ? Where is the inconsistency of thinking that
the asceticism and unwearied zeal of John Wesley (e. g.)
are worthy of all emulation, but that Richard Whatcoat
and Thomas Vasey, whom he ordained presbyters to ac
company Dr. Coke to America, had not the gift of the
Holy Ghost for the office and work of priests ? Where
is the inconsistency of acknowledging that Hall and
Waugh were gifted with eloquence, and at the same time
thinking that Bishops have ordained men who have taught
doctrines contrary to those of the Church? Where lies
the paradox in asserting that Mr. Simeon's remarks upon
Claude's Essay are more valuable than the essay itself,
and in accusing him of having deceived many by his simo-
niacal Trust ? Surely there is neither ingratitude nor in
consistency in praising a man for eloquence, or for giving
good advice about the composition of a sermon, while we
blame him for unsoundness of doctrine.
And this, perhaps, may be the best place for noticing
what I conceive to be a very unfair comparison in your
pamphlet, — I mean where you appeal to " the history of
our Church for the last sixty years" to shew the superior
power of " the evangelical system" to produce " piety of
the very highest order," " men * of whom the world was
not worthy,' and whose unwearied and self-denying la
bours would have done honour to the apostolic age itself"
(pp. 24, 25). Your limitation ofthe time to the last sixty
years shews that before that time, at any rate, you con
cede that the balance of eminent piety was on the other
side. I am not in the least disposed to question the holi
ness of the individuals whose names you mention. I re
joice to hear of really good men, be they of whatever
party they may; but I maintain that the circumstances

12
of the Church during the last sixty years afford no evi
dence of the superiority of " the evangelical system" over
the High-Church in forming holy men. For consider the
state of the Church previously to this period. Where,
during the greater portion of the last century, were the
men who had been brought up in the school of Andrewes,
Laud, Bramhall, Hammond, and their successors ? They
were, for the most part, among the Nonjurors ; and in
their place had succeeded, as, alas, is well known, an
Erastian and worldly-minded ministry, who were too fre
quently a very scandal to religion. And where was to
be found " the genuine spiritual religion of the gospel"
such as then existed ? Unquestionably very much in the
Wesleyan body. Yet even amid the darkness of "the
Georgian era" there were some few bright and shining
lights of the Catholic party. " Burning, indeed, and shin
ing, like the Baptist, in an evil time, Bishop Wilson
seemed as if a beacon lighted on his small island to shew
what his Lord and Saviour could do in spite of man ; —
how He could at will make for Himself a dwelling-place
upon the waves and a garden in the barren sea ; and when
a nation had fallen into His enemies' hands, could preach
to it even off its shores, and be nigh at hand when they
would fain leave Him 'not so much as to set His foot
on.' The English soil, indeed, had its own witnesses and
teachers at the time, but none at once so exalted in sta
tion and so saintly in character, so active and so tried in
his lifetime, and so influential in his works, as Bishop
Wilson."* Later in the century, Home, afterwards Bishop
of Norwich, exercised an influence in Oxford not unlike
that of the principal promoters of the recent movement
there, though less extensive. The writings and example of
Jones of Nayland were notunaccompanied by the blessing
* Preface to Bishop Wilson's Sacra Privata, Oxford edition.

13
of God. " A remnant" was indeed left. By and by the
doctrines of the Wesleyans on conversion, justification by
faith only, and the all-sufficiency of the Bible, were em
braced by a party in the Church, styled " Evangelical,"
from whose endeavours much holiness of life and know
ledge of the gospel no doubt resulted. People were un
satisfied with the bare statements of doctrine, the mere
moral essays, and the proofs ofthe reasonableness and
certainty of Christianity, which had formed too generally
the subject of the Church's teaching from the pulpit, to
counteract, as was supposed, the spread of infidelity.
They were overjoyed, as well they might be, to have
" before their eyes Jesus Christ evidently set forth, cru
cified among them.'^ From these circumstances it is
manifest why the end of the last century and the begin
ning of the present was a period most unlikely to exhibit
extensively the fruits of the High-Church school, which,
having been first forcibly ejected from places of influence
in the Church and afterwards carefully excluded, had be
come almost extinct amid the worldliness, profligacy, and
infidelity which succeeded. The first portion, therefore,
of the last sixty years may be allowed not to have been
an era most productive of men of eminent holiness among
High-Churchinen ; but of the last twenty, their oppo
nents bearing witness, this cannot be with truth asserted,
to say nothing of " the giants" of the seventeenth cen
tury, as good old King George used to call them.
It may seem invidious to mention names, but if we
sought for men who were not only themselves eminent
for self-denying zeal and personal holiness, but who have
also been the blessed instruments in the hands of Al
mighty God to spread through the Church the radiance
of tlieir virtue, we might safely challenge the " Evange
licals" to produce brighter examples than the pious writer

14
of The Christian Year, the author of The Baptistery, or
the humble-minded and holy man whose name has been
used, so much against his own will, to give a title to the
party which you, Rev. Sir, so much dislike. This, how
ever, is not a kind of argument I like to make use of in
order to prove the superiority of one system over another.
The mere citation of the names of holy men, either among
yourselves or us, would not convince a third party that
the truth lay on either side. Whatever temporary suc
cess the so-called Evangelical party may have met with,
the progress of events has proved that its shallow theo
logy and imperfect system are quite insufficient to form
any permanent barrier against the ungodliness of the age.
— I proceed to other portions of your pamphlet
Upon the vast importance of the doctrine of baptis
mal regeneration, Mr. Gresley thus writes :
" The whole character of the Christian religion depends
on this primary doctrine. The maintenance or denial of this
doctrine gives practically a completely different turn to the
treatment of a Christian soul. Is the child whom we have
to train for heaven regenerate or unregenerate ? Is he a
child of grace, or a child of wrath ? Is he in a state of sal
vation, or in a state of condemnation ? If regenerate — a child
of grace, an heir of salvation — then clearly the chief endeavour
of parents, sponsors, and ministers, must be directed to keep
him what he is ; so that what he is on the day of his baptism,
such he may be, as to his spiritual state, the next day, and the
next. We must train him onward always in a state of grace ;
so that as the wakening energies dawn, the rising tendencies of
evil shall be kept under subjection, and every motion of the
Spirit promoted and encouraged. All our efforts and prayers
must be devoted to keep the child, by the grace of God, in the
1 state of salvation' in which he was placed at baptism ; so that

15
he may perform those good works which God hath prepared for
him to walk in, continuing free from the dominion of sin, and
advancing ever in ripeness for the kingdom of heaven. On the
other hand, if the child is unregenerate, — a child of wrath —
in a state of condemnation, — our endeavours must be directed
to rescue him from this perilous state.
" What course does the Church herself pursue ? What
does she tell the child of himself ? Look only at the very first
words she puts into his mouth — the first words ofthe Church
Catechism: 'What is your name? N. or M. Who gave you
this name ? My godfathers and godmothers in my baptism,
wherein I was made a member qf Christ, a child of God, and
an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.'
" For ministers ofthe Church to teach these things to children
— to tell them they are members of Christ and children of God,
when they believe them never to have been really made so — is
to be paralleled only by the mockery of their thanking God
that each child is regenerate, when they altogether disbelieve
and deny it.
" Again : the rite of confirmation is absolutely changed in
character, if we deny the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
In the Church's view, it is the strengthening and forivarding
the child in the path in which he is already walking — the
continuation or enlargement of grace, whereby he may be
enabled to persevere in godliness. ' Almighty and everlasting
God' (thus the Bishop prays), ' who hast vouchsafed to re
generate these Thy servants, by water and the Holy Ghost, and
hast given them forgiveness of all their sins, strengthen them, we
beseech Thee, O Lord, with the Holy Ghost, the Comforter;
increase in them Thy manifold gifts of grace,' &c.
" The denier of baptismal regeneration, on the other hand,
looks on confirmation in the light of conversion — a favourable
time for the commencement of a religious life ; which, with the
true Churchman, was commenced at the time when, in the
sacrament of baptism, the heavenly Spirit first lighted like a
dove on the regenerated babe.

16
" Thus, in early life, the whole character of the treatment
of our children is altogether changed, accordingly as we receive
or deny the Church's doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Nay,
even in addressing the sinner in middle life, or the dying
penitent, the theory of, I might almost say, the two religions, is
quite different : the denier of baptismal regeneration treats him
as an unconverted heathen, while the minister of the Church
appeals to him as one who once had the grace of God, though
he has put it from him ; once was a member of Christ, though
now a son of perdition ; once a child of God, though now a
prodigal. It may well be doubted whether the greater part of
the nation's sin, the desperate wickedness of the mass of our
population, and the general worldliness of all classes, may not
be traced to this denial of baptismal regeneration. No care is
taken to train them as members of Christ and children of God ;
the grace given them at baptism is never cherished or called
forth ; their sinful nature is suffered to rise up and become pre
dominant ; thus the great vantage-ground of their Christian
calling is abandoned ; never, alas, to be regained. They grow
up practically without God in the world ; and if some few here
and there are brought to repentance and saved, the mass, it is
feared, never return from their wallowing with the swine —
they live and die ungodly. 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." — Real Danger,
&c, pp. 20-23, 4th ed.
" One would have thought it incredible that any set of
English clergymen should seriously deny the doctrine of bap
tismal regeneration, and yet continue to officiate in the baptism
of infants, instruct children in the catechism, and prepare them
for the rite of confirmation. The utter incompatibility of the
denial of baptismal regeneration with the profession and prac
tice of an English clergyman, is, I sa}', as self-evident a fact as
the maintenance of the supremacy of the pope, or any other
Romish doctrine. This is a point not rightly understood : un-

¦ 7
instructed persons look upon the question of baptismal re
generation to be merely one involving an allowable difference
of interpretation which opposing schools of theology adopt.
But the Baptismal Service in our Prayer-book does, in truth,
set forth the doctrine of spiritual regeneration in baptism in
words as positive as can possibly be used. Words have no
meaning in them, if the formularies of our Church do not con
tain the doctrine in question, and repudiate the contrary.
" For the sake of those amongst my readers, if any there be,
who may not be familiar with the subject, I will set down a few
short passages from the Baptismal Service.
" ' Dearly beloved,' it begins, ' forasmuch as all men are con
ceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ saith, None
can enter into the kingdom of God except he be regenerate and
born anew of water and of fhe Holy Ghost ; I beseech you
to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ,
that, of His bounteous mercy, He will grant to this child that
thing which by nature he cannot have ; that he may be bap
tised with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's
holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same.'
" The priest and people then pray on the child's behalf,
' Almighty and everlasting God, who . . . didst sanctify
water to the mystical washing away of sin ; we beseech Thee,
for Thine infinite mercies, that Thou wilt mercifully look upon
this child, wash him, and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost'
" Again : ' We call upon Thee for this infant, that he,
coming to Thy holy baptism, may receive remission of his sins
by spiritual regeneration.'
" Again : the priest says, • Sanctify this water to the mys
tical washing away of sin ; and grant that this child, now to be
baptised therein, may receive the fulness of Thy grace.'
" The child is then baptised, and the priest addresses the
congregation, * Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this
child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's
Church, let us give hearty thanks to Almighty God for these
benefits.'

18
" [In the office for Private Baptism the words are even
more precise : • Seeing that this child is by baptism regenerate.']
" Then all kneeling say, ' We yield Thee hearty thanks,
most merciful Father, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate
this child with Thy Holy Spirit.'
" Often and often as these passages have been quoted in
recent controversy, I transcribe them once more ; and would
appeal to any man of common understanding, from the most
unlettered peasant to the ablest in the land ; or to any jury of
twelve honest men, be they Dissenters or be they Romanists ;
or the first twelve one might meet in the streets of London,
and submit to their judgment, whether it is possible for a
doctrine to be couched in plainer or more positive words —
whether there can be the shadow of doubt that the Church of
England holds the doctrine of baptismal regeneration ; whether
the denial of baptismal regeneration be not as clearly con
trary to the doctrine of the Church of England, as the main
tenance of transubstantiation, or the pope's supremacy ; and
whether it is not one of the most astounding facts in religious
controversy, that ministers of the Church of England should,
Sunday after Sunday, use this service ; should baptise infants
brought to them ; and then call on the congregation to join
with them in thanking God for that it hath pleased Him to
regenerate each child, and yet hold the opinion either that the
child has not been regenerated at all, or that his regeneration is
hypothetical !' " — Real Danger, &c, pp. 16-19.
Such are Mr. Gresley's statements concerning that
Article ofthe Christian faith, — " I acknowledge one bap
tism for the remission of sins." You meet them with no
refutation whatever; you do not deny the plain unequi
vocal words of the Church; but you endeavour, most
unsuccessfully as I shall shew, to put off the real question
by what Bishop Andrewes would call a " Tu quoque."
" Let me remind Mr. Gresley that he is treading on dan-

19
gerous ground, when he insists on a rigid interpretation of our
formularies according to the plain and literal meaning ofthe
words used. If all baptised infants are regenerated, we may
assert with equal confidence that all who are buried according
to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, be they
infants or adults, are infallibly saved. Whatever the character
of the deceased person may have been, the clergyman is re
quired to repeat the following words at his interment : ' Foras
much as it hath pleased Almighty God of His great mercy to
take unto Himself the soul of our dear brother here departed,
we therefore commit his body to the ground — in sure and
certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, through Jesus
Christ our Lord.' This declaration obviously means, that as it
has pleased God to remove the soul of the departed to a state
of happiness, the survivors commit his body to the ground in
the assured hope that he will be raised to eternal life at the last
day. In the concluding prayer the minister says, ' We give Thee
hearty thanks that it hath pleased Thee to deliver this our
brother out of the miseries of this sinful world.' Here, then (to
borrow Mr. Gresley's impassioned language), ' I would appeal
to any man of common understanding, or to any jury of twelve
honest men, and submit to their judgment, whether it is possible
for a declaration to be couched in plainer or more positive words ;
whether there can be the shadow of a doubt that the Church
of England proclaims eternal salvation to all (without excep
tion) who die in her communion ; and whether it is not one of
the most astounding facts in religious controversy that ministers
of the Church of England should, from time to time, use this
service, should bury the dead who are brought to them, and
then give 'hearty thanks' to Almighty God for having de
livered their departed brother out of the miseries of this sinful
world, and yet hold the opinion either that the deceased person
is not saved at all, or that his salvation is hypothetical !' Mr.
Gresley will doubtless say that the strong expressions in the
Burial Service must be used conditionally, and in the charitable
hope that the individual over whose remains they are repeated

20
complied with the terms of the Gospel covenant, and died in
the faith of Christ. In fact, this is the only ground on which
the indiscriminate use of the service can be justified at all.
The same principle of interpretation must be applied to the
Baptismal Service, in order to make it consistent with the other
formularies of our Church." — Remarks, &c, pp. 6-8.
Now, that there is no such analogy between these two
Services, as you, with much ingenuity, have endeavoured
to represent, is to me quite clear. The Church no where
asserts (excepting of infants) that the deceased person is
saved, as she asserts that the baptised child " is regene
rate." God, indeed, "takes unto Himself the soul" of
every sort of man that dies ; and we acknowledge that it
is " of His great mercy" that we are not " like the beasts
which perish." When "the silver cord is loosed," "then
shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit
shall return unto God who gave it" (Eccles. xii. J), to be
disposed of according to His righteous judgment; but of
that judgment the Church pronounces nothing. This is
so clearly expressed in the following extract, that I prefer
quoting it to using my own language :
" The truth seems to be, that in the generality of those
cases in which we may reasonably, and without presumption,
hope that we see the death of the righteous, neither perfect and
entire calm and peace, nor violent distress and terror are found,
but something somewhere between the two ; leaving on serious
and reverent minds a reasonable but pensive hope — a hope in
God's mercy, for our Saviour's sake, that those whom we have
lost out of our sight have entered for ever into His rest. To
cherish a stronger feeling than this — to be very positive about
the condition of the dead — savours a little of irreligious pre
sumption. It is much better to take the tone of the holy
Church in our Burial Service. She takes not on herself to pass
sentence either for or against any of the dead. Of the resur-

21
rection to eternal life, to be granted hereafter to all God's faith-
ful people, through our Lord Jesus Christ, she expresses ' a
sure and certain hope;' but she is far indeed from teaching
men to affirm, that the person who lies before them at any time
will be for his part partaker in that happiness. All that the
Church says tending that way is contained in the following
words : ' We meekly beseech Thee, O Father, to raise us from
the death of sin unto the life of righteousness : that when we
shall depart out of this life, we may rest in Christ, as our hope
is this our brother doth ;' appointed to be read at every Chris
tian's grave. The words, you see, are left on purpose very
general. We do not say, sure and certain hope, as we do in
speaking of the general resurrection of the dead ; we do not
say, confident, nor even 'comfortable,' hope; we only say, this
is our hope ; which may be said by every one who does not
absolutely despair of a thing. And who dares despair of a
brother's having repented, and finding mercy at last from God's
hand, considering what a deep secret every man's heart is to
every other man in the world ? We need not, then, be afraid,
with our wise and kind mother, the Church, to ' hope' more or
less for every person whom she buries — that is, not to pass
absolute sentence on them ; and to thank God, at any rate,
that their sufferings and temptation in this life are over ; that
He has delivered them from the miseries of this sinful world.
Thus much she charitably teaches us to say and feel concerning
every one whom she commits to the grave ; but, with equal
charity, she does not encourage us to say any thing more than
this, although in our hearts we must of course experience much
more lively hope in some cases than we do in others. But
whether on any such occasion we judge rightly or no, God
only can decide ; for He only can read both our hearts and the
hearts of the dead.
" Thus much, by the way, to guard men from supposing,
that when they read of 'the death of the righteous' in the text,
or, in the Burial Service, of their hope of their brethren's sal
vation, any thing peremptory and personal is meant. Neither

22
the Holy Spirit by the prophet, nor the Church in her prayers,
meant to encourage personal sentences and comparisons; but
their meaning was to make men earnestly desirous, each for
himself, to die the death of the righteous, whether his death
appear such to himself and others at the time or no." — {Plain
Sermons by Contributors to ihe Tracts for the Times, vol. iv.
pp. 64, 65.)
The same is also very clearly proved in the following
extract :
" All my power of aiding my late unhappy parishioner is
now at an end. I have only left me the solemn office of com
mitting his body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes,
dust to dust. Here the Church stops, and so must I. All our
sure and certain hope is not (if you will turn in your Prayer-
books to the Burial Service) of his or her resurrection whom
we bury (for foolish and presumptuous as some wretched
people dare to call our holy branch of the Catholic Church,
she never was guilty of such folly or presumption as this), but
only of the general resurrection to eternal life, which every
Christian believes there will be at the last and fearful day. It
is in sure and certain hope of this resurrection — pf this life
that will never end, that we bury all, both just and unjust.
And that the Church means no more than this, you may easily
prove by turning again to the burial of their dead at sea, where
you find it declared, ' We commit his body to the deep to be
turned into corruption ; looking for the resurrection of the
body, and the life of the world to come.' I particularly call
your attention to this point, because it is one of those weak
and paltry arguments so often brought forward against our
apostolic Church by ignorant persons within it, and prejudiced
enemies without it. It only needs turning to a Prayer-book
(a book which I suppose either such persons have not got, or
will not use) to shew how unjust it is to say, that when our
Church commits one of her children to the ground in sure
and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, it does so

23
in sure and certain hope of any one person in particular. Re
member this, therefore, my brethren, I entreat you ; and when
ever you hear that most noble service for the burial of the dead
evil spoken of either by ignorant or wicked men, just open your
Prayer-books to the place, point out the stop before the words
which speak of the resurrection ; shew them that it is not his
or her resurrection which is sure and certain to be unto eternal
life, but only that it is sure and certain that such a resurrec
tion of all true believers there one day shall be ; and if, even
then, they will not hearken to you, turn to those forms of
prayer to be used at sea, and ask our adversaries if they think
it likely that the Church could mean that all who were buried
in the earth went to heaven, and that of all who were buried at
sea it was uncertain whether they did or did not ? Depend
upon it, my brethren, this will silence even the most obstinate
person, since the expressions are as plain as words can make
them. As, then, the Church leaves the dead, so now would
I, with mingled hope and mingled fear." — The Dregs of the
Drunkard's Cup, fyc. .- A Sermon, &c, by the Rev. F. M.
Knollis, Rector of Congerstone, &c. 1841.
It does not appear, then, that the " non-natural sense,"
assumed by the Evangelicals in their interpretation of the
positive assertions of the Church in the Service for Pub
lic Baptism, is at all required by Anglo-Catholics in
order to their conscientious use of the Service for the
Burial of the Dead ; but it does appear that the Evan
gelicals doubly force their conscience, in bringing them
selves to use services both of which they take in a sense
which the words of them do not bear.
You imagine that this " conditional" principle of
interpretation of yours must be necessarily " applied to
the Baptismal Service in order to make it consistent with
the other formularies of our Church" (p. 8) ; and you
refer to the 27th Article, and to the Homily for Whit-
Sunday, in the hope of proving your point. Burnet,

24
I grant, is with you in your creed respecting Baptism.
In his "Exposition" of that Article, he allows the dis
union of Baptism by water and by the Spirit. But his
work can never be one of much authority in the Church
of England, when we remember that it was censured by
the Lower House ofthe Convocation of Clergy in 1700,
as containing " many passages in the exposition of several
Articles which appear to us to be contrary to the true
meaning of them, and to other received doctrines of our
Church." I cannot grant that the 27th Article, even
considered apart from other articles and formularies, can
be properly understood in the sense in which you and
Bishop Burnet take it ; because it is expressly said that
the sign operates like "an instrument" — " tanquam per
instrumentum," i. e. is an effectual sign, " efficax signum,"
producing simultaneously that whereof it is a sign. Thus
the Article and the Baptismal Service are plainly quite
consistent with each other ; but in order to make them
tally with your own view, you must put quite a "non-
natural sense" upon the Article, and then, if you can,
assume the Service for Baptism to have been framed
under a charitable hypothesis, or rather to say exactly the
reverse of what it seems to say. To quote the words of
the Bishop of London's celebrated Charge of 1842 :
" I have already observed, that in the interpretation of the
Articles which relate more immediately to doctrine, our surest
guide is the Liturgy. It may safely be pronounced of any ex
planation of an Article which cannot be reconciled with the
plain language of the offices for public worship, that it is not
the doctrine of the Church. The opinion, for instance, which
denies baptismal regeneration might possibly, though not with
out great difficulty, be reconciled with the language of the
27th Article ; but by no stretch of ingenuity, nor latitude of
explanation, can it be brought to agree with the plain, un-

25
qualified language of the Offices for Baptism and Confirmation."
— A Charge, t}c, pp. 22, 23.
With regard to the Homily referred to, but not quoted,
by Mr. Faber, in the extract from his Treatise, &c,
which you approvingly reprint (without, perhaps, having
verified), does it apparently contradict, or even qualify, the
plain doctrine of the Prayer-book, so as to require your
principle of interpretation to be applied to it in order
to make the two consistent ? Not in the least. Mr.
Faber says :
" Since the Homilies are appointed to be read in all parish
churches, the officiating priests are thereby required to call
upon their congregations throughout England, on Whit-Sunday,
to examine themselves whether they be regenerate or unre-
generate. But every one of these members (of the Church)
thus called upon (with some very rare and accidental ex
ception of adults) was baptised in his infancy. Yet the Church,
by the very act of thus calling upon them, plainly intimates her
belief that many of them have not been spiritually regenerated,
though they have all duly received infant baptism. For if she
held and taught that all baptised infants were spiritually re
generated in baptism, she never would call upon them when
adults to examine themselves whether they were or were not
regenerated : since having determined them to be already
regenerate, she never could subsequently address them as if
it were a matter of considerable doubt whether many of them
might not still need regeneration. On the contrary, instead of
referring them to their fruits as a test of the regeneracy or
unregeneracy, she would rather have referred them to their
parochial minister ; that, learning from him whether they had
been regularly baptised or not, they might, from his authentic
certificate, safely and unerringly determine whether they were
regenerate or not. But as the Church in this Homily refers
her adult members entirely to their fruits, and not at all to the

26
certificate of their parochial minister, she doubtless maintains
that some baptised infants are unworthy recipients of the out
ward rite." — Remarks, &c, pp. 11, 12.
Now a reference to the first part of the Homily for
Whit-Sunday will shew that regeneration is not the sub
ject spoken of in the passages to which Mr. Faber evi
dently refers. The whole question turns upon this. The
Homily does not, as Mr. Faber says it does, " call upon
all congregations throughout England and Wales, on
Whit-Sunday, to examine themselves whether they be
regenerate or unregenerate." Having in the earlier part
of it asserted their regeneration to be the work of the
Spirit, it calls upon them at the close to examine them
selves whether they " have the Holy Ghost within them, or
the spirit of the flesh ;" not whether they have been re
generated or are still in their original sin. That was
done for them by the Holy Ghost in their Baptism, when
they were made " children of God," and were placed in
" a state of salvation." But have they " continued in
the same" state of salvation ? this is the question asked
in the Homily. Have they the Holy Ghost within them
now; or have they, as it were, returned to an unregen
erate state by sin after Baptism ? Of this they can be
satisfied by no " authentic certificate of their parochial
minister," but only the evidence of the "fruits of the
Spirit," — their good works. That such is the drift of the
Homily in question will be plain to any one who peruses
it, and even from the following extract from it; and if
Mr. Faber and yourself are prepared to deny this doc
trine of the Homily of the Church, you must deny also
that it is possible to " quench the Spirit :"
"Neither cloth He think it sufficient inwardly to -work the
spiritual and new birth of man unless He do also dwell and abide

27
in him. ' Know ye not,' saith St. Paul, ' that ye are the temple of
God, and that His Spirit dwelleth in you ? Know ye not that
your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost, which is within
you ?' Again he saith, ' You are not in the flesh, but in the
Spirit. For why ? The Spirit of God dwelleth in you.' To
this agreeth the doctrine of St. John, writing on this wise : ' The
anointing which ye have received (he meaneth the Holy Ghost)
dwelleth in you.' And the doctrine of St. Peter saith the same,
who hath these words : ' The Spirit of glory and of God resteth
upon you.' Oh, what a comfort is this to the heart of the true
Christian, to think that the Holy Ghost dwelleth within him!
' If God be with us,' as the apostle saith, ' who can be against
us ?' Oh, but how shall I know that the Holy Ghost is within
me ? some man will perchance say. Forsooth, ' as the tree is
known by his fruit, so is also the Holy Ghost.' The fruits of
the Holy Ghost (according to the mind of St. Paul) are these :
love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faithful
ness, meekness, temperance, &c. Contrariwise, the deeds of
the flesh are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, wan
tonness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, debate, emulation, wrath,
contention, sedition, heresy, envy, murder, drunkenness, glut
tony, and such like.
" Here is now that glass wherein thou must behold thyself,
and discern whether thou have the Holy Ghost within thee, or
the spirit of the flesh. If thou see that thy works be virtuous
and good, consonant to the prescript rule of God's word, savour
ing and tasting not of the flesh but of the Spirit, then assure
thyself that thou art endued with the Holy Ghost ; otherwise,
in thinking well of thyself, thou dost nothing else but deceive
thyself." The following passage from the Homily on the Re
surrection is so exactly to the purpose, that I cannot but
transcribe it :
" What a shame were it for us, being thus so clearly and
freely washed from our sin, to return to theflthiness thereof

28
again ! What a folly were it, thus endowed with righteousness,
to lose it again ! What madness were it to lose the inherit
ance that we be now set in, for the vile and transitory pleasure
of sin I And what an unkindness should it be, when our
Saviour Christ of His mercy is come to us, to dwell with us as
our guest, to drive Him from us, and to banish Him violently
out of our souls, and instead of Him in Whom is all grace and
virtue, to receive the ungracious spirit ofthe devil, the founder
of all naughtiness and mischief! How can we find in our
hearts to shew such extreme unkindness to Christ, which hath
now so gently called us to His mercy, and offered Himself unto
us, and He now entered within us ? Yea, how dare we be so
bold to renounce the presence ofthe Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost; (for where one is, there is God all whole in ma
jesty, together with all His power, wisdom, and goodness ;) and
fear not, I say, the danger and peril of so traitorous a defiance
and departure ?"
Moreover, you think that you can not only appeal to
the Articles and Homilies in order to vindicate your hy
pothetical reception of the Baptismal Service, but that
you can also retain the learned Richard Hooker as coun
sel for you. Be assured, Rev. Sir, that imperfect quota
tions will never avail either of us in our attempts to pro
mote the cause of God's truth. The following are the
passages at length from the 7th Book of the Ecclesiastical
Polity, ch. lvii. 4, 5, which you curtail at your pleasure.
That holy man appears herein to decide against you the
very point at issue between us. Your omissions are in
serted within brackets :
" All receive not the grace of God which receive the sacra
ments of His grace" (adults, e.g., who come in sin). " Neither
is it ordinarily His will to bestow the grace of sacraments on
any but by the sacraments ; which grace also they that receive
by sacraments or with sacraments receive it from Him, and not

29
from them. [For of sacraments the very same is true which
Solomon's Wisdom observeth in the brazen serpent : ' He that
turned towards it was not healed by the thing he saw, but by
Thee, O Saviour of all.'
" This is, therefore, the necessity of sacraments. That sav
ing grace which Christ originally is or hath for the general
good of His whole Church, by sacraments He severally deriveth
into every member thereof] Sacraments [serve as the instru
ments of God to that end and purpose,] moral instruments, the
use whereof is in our hands, the effect in His : for the use
we have His express commandment, for the effect His condi
tional promise : [so that, without our obedience to the one,"
(i. e. without the use of the sacrament,) " there is of the other"
(i. e. the effect,) " no apparent assurance ; as, contrariwise,
where the signs and sacraments of His grace are not either
through contempt unreceived, or received wilh contempt," (and
no infant could contemn his Baptism,) " we are not to doubt
but that they really give what they promise, and are what they
signify. For we take not Baptism nor the Eucharist for bare
resemblances or memorials of things absent, neither for naked
signs and testimonies assuring us of grace received before, but
(as they are in deed and in verity) for means effectual, whereby
God, when we take the sacraments, delivereth into our hands
that grace available unto eternal life, which grace the sacra
ments represent and signify." — Works, ed. Keble, vol. ii.
p. 329. I will not refrain from expressing my aversion of such
garbling of the words of another as you here seem to be
guilty of, — I trust through your want of perception. It
appears so very like bearing false witness against one's
neighbour ; so like the men who accused our Lord of in
tending to destroy the temple and to rebuild it in three
days. What Hooker says in the above with regard to
the sacraments generally, he applies afterwards to Bap
tism in particular :

30
" Unless as the Spirit is a necessary inward course, so water
were a necessary outward mean to our regeneration, what con
struction should we give unto those words wherein we are said
to be new-born, and that it, vSaroe, even of water ? Why are
we taught that with water God doth purify and cleanse His
Church ? (Eph. v. 26.) Wherefore do the Apostles of Christ
term baptism a bath of regeneration ? (Tit. iii. S.) What
purpose had they in giving men advice to receive outward
baptism, and in persuading them it did avail to remission of
sins ? (Acts ii. 38.) If outward baptism were a cause in itself
possessed of that power, either natural or supernatural, without
the present operation whereof no such effect could possibly
grow, it must then follow, that seeing effects do never prevent"
[i. e. precede] " the necessary causes out of which they spring,
no man could ever receive grace before baptism : which being
apparently both known and also confessed to be otherwise in
many particulars, although in the rest we make not baptism a
cause of grace, yet the grace which is given them with their
baptism doth so far forth depend on the very outward sacra
ment, that God will have it embraced not only as a sign or
token what we receive, but also an instrument or mean whereby
we receive grace ; because baptism is a sacrament which God
hath instituted in His Church to the end that they which receive
the same might thereby be incorporated into Christ, and so,
through His most precious merit, obtain as well that saving
grace of imputation which taketh away all former guiltiness,
as also that infused divine virtue ofthe Holy Ghost which giveth
to the powers of the soul their first disposition towards future
newness of life." — Book v. Ix.
Lastly, upon this subject, I refer to your interpretation
of those passages of Holy Scripture which you either
deny to refer to baptismal regeneration, or affirm to lower
rather than exalt its importance.
And, first, of Hebrews vi. 2, of which you say, "I
confidently deny that any allusion is made in it to baptis-

31
mal regeneration" (p. 13). The following are the words of
Holy Scripture, with Hammond's paraphrase upon them :
" Therefore leaving the principles ofthe doctrine of Christ,
let us go on unto perfection ; not laying again the foundation
of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God. —
And that we may discourse at large of this high point of
Christ's Melchizedek-priesthood, ch. v. 10, it is necessary
(though some men's stupid ignorance and impenitent lives, or
relapses to their former unchristian sins after their receiving of
Christianity, would tempt one to return and plant again the
first principles among them ; see ch. v. note d) to pass over
those rudiments of Christian religion, in opposition to perfec
tion here, and the word of righteousness, ch. v. 13, or those
things which we read of in the Gospel ; see note on Rom. iii. d.
" Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands,
and of resurrection ofthe dead, and of eternal judgment. — And
these are referred to six heads, as so many stones in the foun
dation : 1st, Repentance, or change of mind, a resolute for
saking of all sinful works ; 2dly, Faith on Christ, or embracing
the Gospel ; 3dly, The doctrine of baptism, now among Chris
tians, as before among the Jews, the ceremony to receive pro
selytes into the Church ; 4thly, Imposition of hands for those
that had fallen after baptism, after the example of Christ, who
laid His hands on the sick when He healed them, to which
absolution is answerable (the cure of the sick being the loosing
from that band, Luke xiii. 16, see note on 1 Tim. v.f.) ; 5thly,
Resurrection from the dead ; and 6thly, Eternal judgment.
" And this will we do, if God permit. — Of which, if God
see fit, I may have another season to instruct others catechisti-
cally that stand in need of it; but at this time I shall not do it,
but ascend to higher parts of Christian knowledge, the under
standing of the figures and types of the Old Testament appli
cable to Christ under the Gospel, the danger being so great to
them that do not understand them aright, and order themselves
accordingly.

32
" For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened,
and have tasted ofthe heavenly gift, and were made partakers
ofthe Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and
the powers ofthe world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew
them again unto repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves
the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame. — For as
to those that have been received into the Church by Baptism,
and so by oath obliged themselves to continue in the true faith
and Christian practice to their lives' end ; and having done so,
have from time to time enjoyed the privileges of Christians,
pardon of sin and peace of conscience, a consequence of the
mercy sealed in Baptism ; and yet farther have had some
of those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost poured out
upon them (see note on Acts, chap, vi.), and, by their con
tinuance in the Church for some space, have had experience
of the promises of Christ, and the wonderful works of mercy
wrought for us by Him under the Gospel (Eph. i. 19); if those,
I say, shall, through the Gnostic infusions, apostatise from the
faith, after all these engagements to continue in it, they must
never be received to peace with the Church again, and those
consequent advantages and privileges from which they are
fallen, being guilty of the same sin the Jews were, in denying
and crucifying of Christ, and making an impostor of Him :
(for thus did all they that fell off to the Gnostic heresy, in
which Judaism and denying of Christ was a special ingredient).''
My reason for referring to Hammond's exposition of
Holy Scripture, in preference to that of, perhaps, Scott
and Henry, or your own, is because he says that his care
in writing it was, "to reap the benefits of the excellent
labours of others, whether of the ancients, St. Chrysostom,
and the Greek scholiasts, or of the many later writers
on the subject," rather than to transcribe their observa
tions at length ; still less than to exercise his own private
judgment upon the Bible, and "confidently deny" this
or that against the voice of all Christendom.

33
Again you exclaim, " If baptismal regeneration be of
such vast importance, is it not surprising that in the
whole of this comprehensive and wonderful epistle to the
Hebrews, we should find no allusion to it?" (p. 13.)
But is this so ? Has no one ever seen any allusion to it
in chapter x. 19-22, as well as in chapter vi. ?
" Having, then (1-^pvreo), freedom to enter into the holiest
through the blood of Christ, by a new and living way, which
He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh,
and having an High-priest over the house of God, let us draw
near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having had our
hearts sprinkled (i^avriapivoi) from an evil conscience, and
the body washed (\e\ov/j.evoi) with pure water." — Heb. x.
19-22. " St. Paul has been contrasting at length the realities of the
Gospel with the shadows of the law. 'He had shewn,' says
St. Chrysostom, ' the utter difference between high-priest, and
sacrifices, and tabernacle, and promise, the one being temporal,
the other eternal ; the one ready to vanish away, the other
abiding ; the one weak, the other perfect ; the one types, the
other the truth; — the one new, and having remission of sins,
the other having nothing such ; the one made with hands, the
other made without hands ; the one having the blood of goats,
the other of the Lord ; the one a priest standing, the other
sitting. All these things being inferior in the one, superior in
the other, therefore he says, ' Having, then, freedom.' ' In this
close contrast, then, of realities and figures, it is plainly required
to look for some corresponding reality to the 'sprinklings' and
'ablutions' of the law, which St. Paul says Christians had re
ceived ; and this reality plainly had an outward part, since he
says, their ' bodies had been washed with pure water,' and an
inward, in that their ' hearts had been sprinkled from an evil
conscience.' This 'sprinkling' also, and 'washing,' had taken
place in time past, although their effects endured ; they ' had
been washed,' ' had been sprinkled.' Holy baptism could, then,

34
hardly be more plainly pointed out, as the reality correspond
ing to these temporary figures, as giving us access to our holy
of holies, into which nothing profane or defiled may enter ; and
the relation between the law and the Gospel is thus preserved,
in that the law, by its ' divers washings,' continually shadowed
forth the purity necessary for the worshipper of the Holy God ;
the Gospel gives it ; and as the One Sacrifice was portrayed in
the many sacrifices, ' which could never make the comers there
unto perfect ;' so the one application of that sacrifice through
the ' one baptism for the remission of sins,' by the many bap
tisms or washings, whieh taught the Jew to long earnestly to
be ' washed throughly from his wickedness, and cleansed from
his sins.' It might seem also that the two modes of administer
ing baptism, sprinkling and immersion, were here authorised.
The letter also of Scripture is, in this way, carefully regarded,
no other exposition accounting for the mention of the washing
of the body at all, or for St. Paul's referring to a past washing.
Were inward purification, without the intervention of any out
ward means, alone intended, the mention of the body at all
is unaccounted for. Accordingly, Christian antiquity* saw
undoubtingly that St. Paul did here speak of our baptism.
' They,' paraphrases St. Chrysostom, ' were sprinkled as to the
body, we as to the conscience ; so that now also we may be
sprinkled, but by the very virtue and power itself ; ' and
having had our bodies washed with pure water;' he here
speaks of the bath, which is a cleanser, not [as among the
Jews] of bodies, but ofthe soul.' ' He hath placed these things
again as parallels,' says Theodoret; ' for they used 'sprinklings'
in the law also, and washed the body continually. But they
who live after the new covenant are purified as to the soul by
all-holy baptism, and make the conscience free from its former
* " 'Pure water,' the water of Baptism; for of it, Chrysostom, Theo
doret, Theophylact, CEcumenius, Ambrose, explain this passage ; it ' so
toucheth the body' as, in Augustine's words, ' to wash the heart.' There is,
then, no reason to depart from the common sentiment of the Fathers. Jus
tinian ad toe. — Calvin admits ' most understand this of Baptism,' ad loc."

35
stains. He calls divine baptism, then, 'sprinkling' and 'pure
water,' but ' the confession of our hope ' belief in the good
things to come.'
"It was, then, as having been hallowed by baptism (and
that, as connected with the incarnation of our Lord, ' through
the veil, that is to say, His flesh'), that St. Paul taught, that
we might venture to draw near towards those heavens, where
our ascended Lord now is, and which He had 'opened to all
believers.' " — Tracts for the Times, No. 67, pp. 183-6.
In 1 Cor. i. 14-17, you think that St. Paul "speaks
indeed of baptism, but in language which might well
startle some modern divines :"
" I thank God that I baptised none of you, but Crispus and
Gaius ; lest any should say that I had baptised in mine own
name. And I baptised also the household of Stephanus : be
sides, I know not whether I baptised any other. For Christ
sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel."
Upon this you thus comment :
" I am far from insinuating that he made light of the sacra
ment of baptism ; but it is clear that he considered it of much
less importance than some other subjects which he had brought
under the notice of the Corinthians : and I am well persuaded
that no persons holding Tractarian opinions would have ex
pressed themselves in reference to it as he does in the passage
just quoted. If his principles had been identical with those
which are now maintained by the Oxford school, is it con
ceivable that he would have thanked God, and congratulated
himself and the Christians at Corinth, that he had not been the
means of conveying spiritual regeneration to their souls ? It
was a source of heartfelt satisfaction to him that Christ had
sent him not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel. And what
was the effect of his preaching the Gospel to the Corinthians ?
He tells them in the 4th chapter of this same epistle, ' Though
ve have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not

36
many fathers : for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you
through the gospel.' While, then, he boasts that he had
been sent not to baptise, he is most anxious to remind them
that he had been the means of imparting to them the highest
blessings of Christianity. He had become their spiritual father
in Christ through the gospel. They had been baptised by
some of the ' instructors' to whom he refers ; but their baptism
was only the visible sign and seal of blessings which they had al
ready received through his ministry."* — Remarks, pp. 14, 15.
I should much like to transfer to these pages a part
of the Homily of St. Chrysostom upon this portion of St.
Paul's address to the Corinthians ; but it is too long. On
the particular point in question, however, it appears so
well compressed in the following words, that I shall quote
them ; although, alas, the writer is no longer with us :
" St. Paul says of himself, that he was not sent to baptise,
but to preach the Gospel. He did not baptise, because so great
a gift was baptism, that the Apostles wished to avoid the chance
of seeming to baptise in their own name, and of seeming to be
setting up themselves for the meritorious means through which
men are saved. St. Paul says, then, ' I thank my God that I
baptised none of you,' except one or two whom he mentions,
' lest any should say that I had baptised in my own name.' As
water is a feeble element, so the minister chosen was the
feeblest vessel in the Church, to shew that all was of God.
Accordingly, the Apostle generally had with him some friend,
who, while a companion and comfort to him, administered those
offices which he did not take upon him. Philip was a deacon,
and baptised : St. Paul was an apostle, and did not baptise." —
Newman's Parochial Sermons, vol. vi. pp. 183, 4.
St. Chrysostom understood St. Paul's words as ex-
* Your view of the use of Baptism in the instance of these Corinthians
is the very one rejected by Hooker in the words which follow the passages
you have selected from him to shew his agreement with you. See p. 29.

37
pressing the very reverse of what you have stated. The
writings of the Fathers, if they would study them, " might
well startle some modern divines."
" The language of St. Paul on this subject," you say,
"is in perfect agreement with that ofthe other Apostles."
It is impossible it could be otherwise, considering who He
was Who spoke by them all. You refer to St. James i.
18, and 1 St. Peter i. 23; and there is a verse, Ephe
sians v. 26, which is often referred to as confirming your
doctrine, when in reality its sense is very different.
" Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
Church, and gave Himself for it ; that He might sanctify and
cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. — In that he
says, ' with the washing of water by the word,' he means (as
appears both by the force of the term, and the authority of
the ancient Church) the Divine word, which renders the element
of water efficacious to our regeneration, namely, our blessed Sa
viour's 'word' of consecration. 'By what word?' 'In the Name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' says St.
Chrysostom ; and so Theodoret, ' That saying, having cleansed
in the~ washing of water by the word, stands for, ' In the Name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' The
original word, moreover, here employed (py^a) is used of the
' command' of God (Matt. iv. 4 ; Heb. i. 3 ; xi. 3 ; Rom. x. 8),
or of His promise (Heb. vi. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 25), or of a specific
revelation, ' the word of the Lord came to ;' but not in the
sense which would be required by the modern interpretation
of revelation, written or unwritten, not of the word preached or
written. For this there is used the plural prifiara, (John v. 47 ;
vi. 63, 68 ; viii. 20, 47, &c.) or \dyos : and so, as elsewhere, the
observation of the peculiarity of Scripture language, and the
authority of the ancient Church, coincide in their results." —
Tracts for the Times, No. 67, p. 198.
Thus much, then, upon the passages of Holy Scrip-

38
ture to which you appeal in proof of the unscriptural
importance which, in your opinion, Anglo-Catholics at
tach to the holy sacrament of Baptism. I think I have
produced evidence to shew that they tell the other way.
If you object to the commentators to whom I have re
ferred, I can only add, that I have done so upon the
principle of that injunction of the Convocation of the
Church which, in 1571, required our subscription to the
Thirty-nine Articles :
" Clergy shall be careful never to teach any thing from the
pulpit, to be religiously held and believed by the people, but
what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testa
ment ; and collected out of the same doctrine" — not by Luther
or Zuingle, not by Calvin, Scott, or Henry, not by Close, Faber,
or Davies, but — "by the catholic fathers and ancient
bishops." You are desirous to fasten upon Anglo- Catholics a
charge of denying and suppressing the doctrine of the
Church of England upon predestination and election.
You ask, " ' Whether it is not one of the most astounding
facts in religious controversy' that clergymen should pro
fess to subscribe ex animo to the 17th Article, — should
do so again and again, declaring their ' unfeigned assent
and consent' to it, — and yet should denounce the doc
trine of which it gives so elaborate an exposition as re
pugnant to reason, to Scripture, and to all our notions of
the justice and holiness of God" (pp. 15, 16). You assert
that if they have not " fully declared this part of the
counsel of God, as set forth in the Article and in various
passages of Holy Scripture, * * * they are charge
able with having suppressed a doctrine which was in
tended to be a source of inexpressible consolation to every
true and consistent believer in the gospel" (p. 16).

39
I can only answer, that for myself I must altogether
deny the charge. I fully accept the scriptural wording
of the Article, and do not hesitate to preach the doctrine.
But I do not admit the application of it to this individual
or that, as I imagine you do ; still less do I allow that
individuals who are predestinated to life eternal are cer
tainly aware of it themselves. I hold, as I believe, the
predestination of St. Augustine ; I reject its corrupt de
velopment in the school of Calvin.
You continue : " I am far from saying that the doc
trine of election should hold a uniformly prominent place
in our public ministrations" (p. 16). Here, again, I
differ from you. The doctrine of our election is put
"prominently" forward in the Catechism, which is " to
be learned" uniformly " of every person before he be
brought to be confirmed by the Bishop," — " I believe in
God the Holy Ghost, Who sanctifieth me and all the elect
people of God." I hold it, therefore, to be of the first
importance to impress upon the young the eternal inter
ests they have at stake ; that having received in baptism
the seal of their election, and having been called by Al
mighty God to " a state of salvation," they may give all
diligence to make that calling and election sure.* The
hope that, having been certainly elected, they may also
be among the predestinated, is " full of sweet, pleasant,
and unspeakable comfort to godly persons," and one
which I should be sorry to suppress, although I grant, in
your own words, that " it is a subject which ought to be
* This doctrine of the Church is dwelt upon by St. Paul in his Epistle to
the Colossians, ch. iii. As far as ver. 11 he reminds them ofthe blessed change
wrought in them in their baptism, of which he had been speaking in the pre
ceding chapter, and exhorts them to lay aside all wickedness, as unworthy of
those who were now renewed after the image of God. And then he persuades
them to good works, ver. 11 : " Put on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy
and beloved, bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind," and the rest.

40
discreetly and reverentially handled." Your statement,
therefore, that " the Tractarians represent the sacraments
as the only legitimate sources of peace and consolation,"
is not true. Nor, indeed, is this true in many respects.
They dwell, in due proportion, on all the comforts of
the gospel, — on the certainty of God's promises, on
meditation upon Holy Scripture, on the comfort of
divine worship, and of holy living, and of confession ;
and to mention no more, you cannot but be aware that
Dr. Pusey has lately published two sermons entitled
" Comfort for the Penitent in Absolution and the Holy
Eucharist." In the paragraph which follows this part of your pam
phlet, you thus refer, in a sarcastic tone, to Mr. Gresley's
language respecting the Bishops of our Church : — " In
any other person I should have said that" it " amounted
to something like impertinence ; but as it proceeds from
'a strict Anglican,' we may conclude that 'the practice
of purest antiquity' can be brought forward in its de
fence" (p. 19).
Now I firmly believe that this very style of writing,
for which Mr. Gresley meets with so much reproach from
his opponents, and of which even some of his friends
scarcely know how to approve, is the one most cal
culated to work the good he desires. As you say, " the
primitive Tractarians taught us to regard our ecclesias
tical rulers with feelings little short of reverence; but
times are changed, and it has become necessary to pursue
a different line of policy" (p. 5). It is unquestionably to
the Oxford divines that the Bishops of the Church owe
that high esteem in which they are now held for their
office-sake, so different from what was the case fifteen
years ago : since that time the extensive reception of the

41
Oxford theology, the extreme views of some of its pro
fessors, the injudicious conduct of others, the zeal and
energy of almost all, and the opposition they have con
sequently met with from the world, have brought out
more clearly the true character of our Episcopate. This
Mr. Gresley describes as follows :
" The Evangelical party, through their organ the Record,
say plainly, that the Bishops of the English Church ' dare not'
refuse ordination to those candidates who deny baptismal re
generation. I do not believe that the rulers of our Church are
restrained by so pusillanimous a feeling as fear. But they may
be unconsciously influenced by feelings of a somewhat ana
logous character, and so deterred from taking that high line of
duty which the present necessity of the Church requires. Our
Bishops are men of the world, taken from amongst the most
eminent ecclesiastics of the nineteenth century, and imbued
with its character. The present age is as far as possible re
moved from the spirit of martyrdom or chivalry. Men in
authority are little disposed to take the part of the weaker, or
oppose themselves to the spirit of persecution, or run a tilt with
public opinion. Public opinion is a formidable power, espe
cially the public opinion of men of the world. It assumes to be
the arbiter of right and wrong ; and those who would despise
the attacks of the Record as insignificant, might mistrust their
position if they found themselves opposed to the Times, or the
Quarterly or Edinburgh Review, or were looked on as en
thusiasts by the men of the world with whom they associate.
Public opinion — that is, the opinion of practical worldly men
— sets its face against strong measures and religious agitation.
Our Bishops are, to a certain extent, biased by the world in
which they live ; they are men of discretion rather than valour,
of moderation rather than zeal, courtesy rather than consist
ency. They are men of refinement too. They dislike a stir.
They do not wish to be forced to act or to decide. They per
suade themselves that it is their duty to keep things quiet as

42
long as is possible. More evil, they think, will come of causing
strife, than good from maintaining principle. They forget
that while it may be the duty of statesmen to yield to public
opinion in mere matters of political expediency, it can never
be consistent with the office of the rulers of the Church to
sacrifice one iota of God's eternal truth. Again : public men,
especially of liberal and latitudinarian views, are inclined to
think little of 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 the many, rather than lead them
in the right path ; and this even though they sacrifice men
unjustly assailed. Witness the recent Charges ofthe Bishops
of Worcester and Llandaff. The Bishop of Chichester has
generously taken the opposite side, and lent his protection to
those against whom the tide of calumny had set. Again :
many of our rulers seem to have fallen into the popular no
tion, which surely is most untenable, that Churchmen and
Evangelicals are two parties in the Church ; fixtures which
must remain for ever. They have not realised the fact, that
the present Evangelicals, or at least many of them, have de
parted from the views of our reformers, and symbolise almost
entirely with the Nonconformists and modern Dissenters, whose
essential feature is hostility to the leading principles of the
English Church. 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, and extending their sanction,
or at least toleration, towards a party whose principles they
evidently dislike." — The Real Danger, pp. 58-60.
This being the case, " is there not a cause" for some
one to speak plainly, and draw attention to the root of
the evil? "How can the Bishops wonder at the strife
that abounds ? How can they feel exempt from the
charge, that the mischief lies really at their own door ?"

43
{The Real Danger, &c, p. 63.) Who will say that Law,
while a priest, was justified in protesting against the
Socinianism of Bishop Hoadley, although his superior
in the Church, and call Mr. Gresley irregular or "im
pertinent" for pointing out with much plainness the tem
porising disposition and undue partiality of our present
Episcopate, by which he believes the existence of our
Church to be imminently endangered ? The question of
propriety or impropriety depends on whether there is not
a cause. If Mr. Gresley's facts and arguments are true
(and no one yet has refuted them), it is scarcely pos
sible to use language too strong in speaking of tbe pre
sent danger of the Church.
There remains one subject more in your "Remarks"
upon which I wish to speak, and that is your objection
to the term " Puritan." Your pamphlet opens at once
upon this point :
" It has been said that soft words and hard arguments are
the best weapons for a controversialist. In Mr. Gresley's pam
phlet on The Real Danger ofthe Church of England, the old
rule is inverted. While his arguments are soft and harmless,
his words are sharp and piercing as a sword. Thinking that a
good nickname would be of material service to him in his cru
sade against ' Evangelicalism,' he has revived a term of re
proach which, though not quite so venerable for antiquity as
' Lollard' or ' Wickliffite,' is yet associated in his mind with the
palmy days of Anglicanism, when ' the great Archbishop Laud'
was in the ascendant, and ' the Evangelicals' were consigned
to the tender mercies of the Star-chamber. It is amusing to
observe with what complacency and steadiness of purpose Mr.
Gresley repeats the ominous words ' Puritan' and ' Puritanism,'
as if he had hit upon an expedient which must utterly confound
his opponents, and bring the controversy to an immediate close.

44
He seems to forget that two can play at that game. The
English language possesses great force, copiousness, and flexi
bility ; and were I disposed to fight him with his own weapons,
the columns of the Times newspaper would furnish me with an
abundant supply of the requisite epithets, such as," &c. ; " but
as I have always disapproved of such missiles, I shall carefully
abstain from the use of them on the present occasion." [Why,
then, quote them from the Times ?] " Mr. Gresley's own
advice to young clergymen is excellent, and I cannot resist the
temptation of inserting it here : ' There is an old French pro
verb, that a drop of honey will catch more flies than a pint of
vinegar  You may say much more severe things, if
such be your wish, in a temperate and gradual way, and with
infinitely more effect, than if you assume the tone of anger, and
place no restraint on your tongue.' He further assures us that
one of ' the means of softening the asperity of rebuke is to use
friendly appellations* to those whom we address.' — (See
Gresley's Ecclesiastes Anglicanus, Letter vi.)
" ' Thou, therefore, that teachest another, teachest thou not
thyself?' It must be confessed that Mr. Gresley's theory and
practice are strangely at variance with each other," &c. — Re
marks, &c, pp. 1, 2.
No form of speech is perhaps less convincing than
that of retort ; and none, I think, so ungracious in con
troversy. But I am, in a manner, compelled to it in the
present instance. You accuse Mr. Gresley of the con
temptible expedient of resorting to the invention of "a
good nickname" in the hope of thereby " utterly con
founding his opponents, and bringing the controversy to
an immediate close." And then you speak a good word
for yourself, — " but as / have always disapproved of such
missiles, I shall carefully abstain from the use of them on
the present occasion."
* That is, in order to convince one's hearers in preaching ,• but Mr.
Gresley's Pamphlet is not at all to convince Evangelicals, but others.

45
" ' Thou, therefore, which teachest another, teachest
thou not thyself ?' It must be confessed that your theory
and practice are strangely at variance." Are the terms
"Puritan" and "Puritanism" malicious nicknames, but not
so " Tractarian" and " Tractarianism ?" You say, — " Mr.
Gresley's hatred of ' the Puritan party' knows no bounds ;
and if he had them in his power, I should tremble for
their fate. He is most anxious that their character and
'manoeuvres' should be thoroughly understood. Acting
on the rule, that repetition judiciously managed is often
of great use to an orator (Whateley's Rhetoric), he clothes
the same idea in many different forms of expression, each
in itself brief, but altogether affording such an expansion
of the sense to be conveyed, that it would be almost im
possible ... to mistake his meaning" (p. 19). And have
not you resorted to the same expedient ? Have you not
" clothed the idea of Tractarianism in many different
forms of expression, each in itself brief," &c. Do I not
find scattered throughout your Remarks the following
rhetorical " manoeuvres ?" " the Tractarians" (p. 16) ;
" the primitive Tractarians" (p. 5) ; " the peaceful reign
of Tractarianism" (p. 21) ; " a Tractarian dogma" (p. 12) ;
" Tractarian opinions" (p. 14), or " Oxford spots" (p. 28) ;
" the Tractarian school" (p. 16), or " Newmanite planta
tion" (p. 25); "Tractarian theology" (p. 17) 5 "Tract
arian writers" (p. 24) ; " the Tractarian giants" (p. 25) ;
" a Tractarian exposition of the Scriptures" (p. 17) ; " a
volume of Tractarian sermons" (p. 17).
Now I quite acquit you of any intentional wickedness
in thus stigmatising Mr. Gresley's party and their opi
nions. I believe that you took up without reflection the
current epithet of the day. Is it not possible that Mr.
Gresley did the same ? Why, then, do you accuse him
of having had recourse to a despicable artifice ? There

46
is, however, this difference between you ; — the term
" Tractarian" is at present a " nickname" and no more;
it has not yet become a matter of history, as the term
" Puritan" has, nor of antiquity, such as you ascribe to
the "Lollard" and " Wickliffite."
You quote the following extracts from Mr. Gresley's
pamphlet at p. 19 of your own :
" 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," &c.
" They are enemies within the very walls of the sanctuary,
and, under the garb of Churchmen, are corrupting her doc
trine, impairing her discipline, impeding her improvement, and
spreading disunion and strife in every corner of the land."
" Their zeal is exerted in the promulgation of a radically er
roneous system — a system which, if the doctrine of the Church
of England is true, must be very little short of heresy."
" Already has unsound, or even heretical, doctrine spread
with rapid though stealthy steps."
Upon these passages you proceed to comment as
follows :
" There is a good deal of malignity in some of the insinua
tions which he throws out against those whom he brands as
' the modern Puritans' and ' the Puritan faction.' He wishes
it to be believed that the same spirit of fanaticism which broke
out in the reign of Charles the First is now at work in our
Church, and that unless something is done to put it down, the
consequences will be disastrous." — P. 20.
It is very remarkable how you here^ unconsciously as
it would seem, throw yourself back into the language of
your old friends " the Puritans," and retort upon Mr.
Gresley the very epithet by which you would have en-

47
deavoured to traduce him, had you and he been antago
nists two centuries ago. " Malignants," says Lord
Clarendon, in his History of the Rebellion and Civil
Wars, " was the term they imposed upon all those they
meant to render odious to the people." " Malig
nant," says Dr. Johnson, " was a word used of the
defenders of the Church and monarchy by the rebel
sectaries in the civil wars." No wonder, then, that you
think " there is a good deal of malignity in some of the
insinuations which Mr. Gresley throws out against those
whom he brands as ' the modern Puritans' and ' the Pu
ritan faction.' " Might I not adapt your own words to
yourself ? " Your clamour about the sharp and piercing
words of Mr. Gresley must only be regarded as evidence
of gross perversity of mind in exaggerating the faults of
your neighbours, and overlooking your own" {Remarks,
&c, p. 18).
Until I read Mr. Close's pamphlet and your Remarks,
I was not at all aware that your party felt themselves ag
grieved by the appellation of " Puritan." I had always
imagined you to be so closely assimilated to them, that
you could be no more annoyed by that term than we
should be by being called "Laudians" or " Straffor-
dians ;"* so far, that is, as those epithets merely express
our opinions, and do not subject us to the rebuke of the
Apostle, 1 Cor. iii. 3, 4. But such, I perceive, is not the
case with you : you are evidently nettled by being termed
"Puritans;" you feel that the appellation is justly ap
plied to you, but you dislike the odium which deservedly
accompanies it. You do not deny the similitude between
yourselves and the old "Puritans;" you try to put off
that question. " The question is not," you say, " what
were the opinions of the old Puritans, or of any other
* See Clarendon's History, vol. i. p. 407.

48
sect that ever existed; but are the vital truths of the
Gospel to be found in the formularies of the Church of
England, when fairly interpreted according to ' the ana
logy of faith ? ' Mr. Gresley's object is to bring into con
tempt the great doctrines of the Reformation;" and so
on {Remarks, p. 20).
It would lengthen this Letter too much were I to
proceed to draw out a view of analogous circumstances
between the present state of parties in the Church and
those of the times of Archbishop Laud ; but I would
refer you to an able article in the Christian Remembrancer
of January, 1843, which has since been published se
parately by Mr. Burns.* There you will find proved, if
you doubt it, the truth of what Mr. Gresley thus states :
" What I hope to do is, to draw the timely attention of those
who have power and authority to the existing state of things,
which appears, in many respects, very much the same as that
which existed in this country previously to the breaking out of
the Puritan rebellion. There was the same dislike of esta
blished ordinances, the same schismatical temper, the same run
ning after popular preachers, the same slovenliness of Church
service, disputes about vestments, disparagement of sacraments,
the same calumnies cast abroad ; and even in the mode of pro
ceeding a remarkable similarity, as, especially, in the buying up
of Church preferment, for the purpose of establishing partisan
preachers in populous and important places. This last device
was mainly instrumental in corrupting the minds of the people
of our towns in the 17th century, and is making rapid strides in
the same direction now." — The Real Danger, &c, p. 51.
The only point on which you can be said to differ
from your predecessors of the 17th century is, that just at
the present moment it happens to suit your purpose to
* " Modern Puritanism : a Review ofthe present and prospective Results
of the Lord Bishop of London's late Charge," &c.

49
appear very respectful to the Episcopal Bench. I hope
that you may long continue in that mind. I pray that
you may ever hold " Episcopacy by Divine right," and
not as a mere advantageous ecclesiastical arrangement.
Yet there are symptoms, and those not slight ones, of the
contrary. The Bishops, as a body, are just now, either
tacitly or in reality, on your side. Should the Spirit of
God excite them to greater firmness of principle and
action, I fear for your allegiance. Grieved should I be
if this evil were to come upon you. I trust that a spirit
of obedience and order might be granted to you, that
you cast not yourselves into the abyss of Schism.
The slight hold which I fear " Episcopacy by Divine
right " might have upon you, makes me think rather with
yourself than with Mr. Gresley, that more than " thirty
or forty of these clergymen would join the ranks of Dis
sent," if "remedial measures" were taken against their
injurious influence.
"Were the whole Puritan faction annihilated," {Re
marks, &c, p. 22), I do not think that the restoration
of the Church to her vigour would be so hopeless as you
imagine. You ask, how Mr. Gresley would then " dis
pose of such men as the late Dr. Arnold of Rugby, who
avowed himself the enemy of all existing parties in
the Church, whether f High-and-dry,' ' Newmanites,' or
Evangelicals?'" (p. 22.) But such men dispose of them
selves, as Dr. Arnold has done. The following is from
a masterly sketch of his opinions and character in the
Christian Remembrancer, September 1844 :
" Arnold's sudden death, in the midst of his philosophical
and religious career, makes it unfair to draw any result as to
his natural intrinsic influence, his inherent effectiveness as a
philosopher, from the matter-of-fact event. One who has not
had his whole time to work in should not be judged as if

50
he had ; or be expected to have created his world, and es
tablished his system. At the same time, we do not see any
tendencies in Arnold's course in this direction, or signs of an
evidence and spread which only wanted time. As a prose-
lytiser, a spreader of certain views, we do not see him so much
advancing as receding ; and his religious career seems to grow
more and more solitary." (P. 594.)
" Triumphant at Rugby, his exhibition in the world was
a failure. His Church- reform pamphlet was a leap into a
sphere for which he was unfit : and it let out a secret, which
the world might not have discovered else, viz. that he was not
a great man. A great man manages a department like Rugby
with one hand, and has another as good for another. A cor
ner of his mind is in the professional sphere, while he has the
rest for the open field of life. But Arnold did not manage
Rugby with a corner of his mind, or any thing like it," &c.
" Upon the open world, accordingly, even the creations of
his Rugby begin to be independent of him, and to slip out of
his philosophical hands. When they cease to be passive re
ceptacles, the main hold over them, we perceive, is gone ; the
mind that impregnated their intellectual infancy cannot deal
with their intellectual strength ; and as they advance to be
equals, they feel thoughts arising which the quondam master
does not answer or pacify, nor indeed understand enough to
cope with. The mass have ' diverged more and more widely'
from him. He has formed no school ; he has produced no
race of his religious opinions to perpetuate and multiply the
parent stock. He has given a cast and a complexion, indeed, to
the minds that were directed under his care ; and he has scat
tered about historical tastes and classical theories ; and he has
left a delightful remembrance of himself in his pupils' hearts :
but he has not made them think what he did ; and the instincts
which he put into them, the love of the real and genuine, do
not go in his direction for the object of it. Arnold, in short,
as his career advances, becomes more and more religiously
alone in the world, and finds himself to be either a premature

51
or an eccentric philosopher. His favourite theories are almost
confined to his own breast ; his Church and State ideal lives in
himself ; he must send his petition to parliament alone : ' I
want to take my stand on my favourite principle, that the
world is made up of Christians and non -Christians ; with all
the former we should be one ; with none of the latter ....
I want to petition against the Jew Bill ; but I believe I must
petition alone ; for you would not sign my preamble, nor would
many others, who will petition doubtless against the measure.'
He fails in Christianising the Useful Knowledge Society, and
withdraws. The combination of rejecting and being rejected,
of seeing faults in all schools which prevented him joining
any, and being dissented from by all schools because his par
ticular mixture was not theirs, has a melancholy effect on the
reader as he advances through this book. [Stanley's Life of
Arnold.] He took, he told, he fascinated himself; but his
system fell dead. He was admired, and what he said was
admired ; and the motive and the spirit were praised ; and the
idea was thought his own shape of some truth ; but the idea,
as he thought it, was not taken. The highest admirer subtly
evaded the task of the disciple ; and the teacher sat alone in
the porch, while the man was surrounded." (Pp. 596, 7.)
" Arnold's career of self-development was attended by the
natural accompaniment to himself of isolation. No keen trials
had won him the field of experience and sympathy, freshness
and enlargement ; and the concomitant of such a basis of mind
was, that it had no domain and empire. As a religionist, he
stretched along his own line, and covered his own ground only ;
and we, on our side, are bound to think that it was fortunate
that it was so." (P. 598.)
But, to revert, in conclusion, to what preceded this
extract. There does not appear, Rev. Sir, to be much
probability of the forcible ejection of your party from
the English Church ; yet I believe that eventually one or
other of us will predominate more than at present. We,

52
certainly, have none to look to but Him who knows the
righteousness of our cause ; thus reversing, in part, the
state of the Church in " the palmy days of Anglican
ism, when the great Archbishop Laud was in the ascend
ant." Then we had the patronage and support of the
noble and the great, upon whom, perhaps, we leaned
overmuch. The pile was indeed lighted, but at the top ;
it blazed for a moment. There were martyrs in the
Church ; and when they had done their work, and saved
Her, the blaze subsided. Now how different, yet how
more certain ! The embers glow beneath, shewing evi
dent signs that the flame is not extinct. May the
Holy Spirit of God breathe upon them, and they will
rekindle the pile ; and then, peradventure, (to adopt the
simile of Bishop Ridley the martyr), they will light such
a beacon in England as, I trust, shall never again be put
out. Believe me,
Reverend Sir,
&c. &c.

THE END.

LONDON :
PRINTED BY J.EVEY, KOBSON, AND FJIANKLYN,
Great New street, Fetter Lane.