T

a

rtsie

7

)

I

GtS

A WORD OF REMONSTRANCE

THE EVANGELICALS.

ADDRESSED TO

THE REY. FRANCIS WILSON, M. A.,

IN BEPLY TO HIS PAMPHLET CALLED

"NO PEACE WITH TRACTARIANISM."

WILLIAM GRESLEY, M.A.,
III '
PK6«nSatB of «t5fiel».

7

i !&'"--

LONDON :
JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET,
AND NEW BOND STREET.
LICHFIELD:
THOMAS GEORGE LOMAX, "THE JOHNSON'S HEAD."
1850.

A WORD OF REMONSTRANCE,
&c.

Rev. Sir,
The allusions which you have made to me in your Letter
to the Archdeacon of Stafford might not have elicited any reply
on my part, but for the opportunity which they afford me of
addressing a few words of serious and not unfriendly remon
strance to the Evangelical party, of which you are a member. I
hope to gain the ear of respectable persons like yourself, who
are content in ordinary times to pursue a quiet inoffensive course
in the performance of your parochial duties, but have been led
by the excitement of the times to express somewhat harsh and
uncharitable sentiments with reference to a particular section of
your brethren in the Ministry, — manifestly, as it appears to me,
under a misapprehension of their real character and position.
As these pages may be read by some who were not present
on the occasion which gave rise to them, I may briefly mention
that several of the' Clergy of the Archdeaconry, having addressed
a requisition to the Archdeacon, a Meeting was summoned for
the purpose of protesting against the recent aggression of the
Pope. None were more forward in signing the requisition, or
taking part in the proceedings, than those who, like myself, hold
what we consider purely Anglican, or what others choose to term,
" Tractarian" views. We felt that the aggression of the Pope
was just as much opposed to our principles, as to yours. In
mo^'ing a resolution, at the request of the Archdeacon, I declared
my conviction that the Pope's proceeding was contrary to Holy
Scripture, in which our Lord forbids the Apostles to exercise
lordship one over another, and gives no official supremacy what
ever to S. Peter, — contrary to the Canons of the Church, which
prohibit one Bishop from " invading" the diocese of another, —
contrary to the Law of England, which gives Ecclesiastical supre-

4
macy, as well as civil, to the Sovereign — that is to say, recog
nizes her right to govern the Church, according to the laws of
the Church, as she governs the State, according the laws of the
State, — and consequently repudiates the notion that any foreign
potentate has the right to make a new division of our dioceses.
I believe that every High Churchman in the Archdeaconry gave
his cordial support to this protest. And we certainly did
entertain the hope that the readiness with which we came
forward would, at least for the time, have disarmed hostility,
and would have proved that the suspicion of our favouring
Popery was unfounded. It was, therefore, with no smaU regret
and surprise that we witnessed the attempt made by one of your
party, and clamourously countenanced by others, to convert a
meeting which had been summoned for the purpose of protesting
against the aggression of the Pope, into an occasion for attack
ing certain members of the English Church. It was stated,
indeed, that some observations made by myself gave rise to the
offensive amendment. But that this was incorrect is proved by
the simple fact, that the mover of the amendment brought it
with him to the meeting already prepared in his pocket. As
regards the introduction of such an amendment at such a time,
I will quote a passage from the recent speech of the Bishop of
Oxford, which expresses in strong language what I myself
endeavoured, however imperfectly, to urge. "Is it not a sin
against God," said he, " to introduce discord into a meeting such
as this ? . . . . Are we not met to stand up for the Truth ? Surely,
then, the introduction of anything which will cause discord on
such an occasion and at such a time must be sinful  If
there be amongst us a person so miserably dishonest as to wish
to thwart our object, what would be his best game? Would it
not be to endeavour to divide us — to throw some apple of dis
cord among us ? to profess some extraordinary zeal for Protestant
principles and prevent the possibility of our joining against
Rome, the common enemy ?" Fortunately for our Meeting, the
good sense and moderation of the Archdeacon prevented the
amendment being put to the vote ; which, had it been carried,
would have prevented one-half of the Meeting from signing the
Address. Your Letter to the Archdeacon is a sequel to this move
ment — a deliberate reiteration of what one would have fain
hoped was a mere ebullition of temporary excitement. You
declare deliberately that you will have "no peace" with your
fellow-churchmen — with men who have received the same ordi
nation with yourself, signed the same Articles of Faith, who use
the same worship, partake of the same Sacraments — against

these you vow eternal enmity. While you sympathize with Dis
senters from your Church of all denominations — with men who
desire nothing less than to pull the " Old Hag" down to the
ground, — while you, or at least some of your party, scruple not
to mix with Socinians, and Jews ; yes — and if we may judge
from the sentiments which some have uttered at public meet
ings — with even worse than them, — while you countenance the
violent and irreligious outcry which in too many cases has been
raised not only against the Pope, but against the Church of
God, — ^you will have no dealings, no intercourse, no peace with
members of your own communion ! This is very lamentable.
How can a Church expect to repel her enemies, when, in the very
face of her opponents, she exhibits her " unhappy divisions" ?
Let me proceed to analyse the terms which you employ.
" No peace with Rome," you paraphrase " No peace with Trac
tarianism." I confess I do not like the term " No peace" vrith
any one. It has a harsh, uncharitable sound. One would not
willingly use it even with respect to Heathens and Infidels, much
less in, speaking of Christians. If, indeed, you mean merely
that you will preach strenuously against the errors of Rome, and
endeavour to banish and drive them away from your parish, —
that you wUl encounter the Romanists in argument, and resist
their endeavours to gain proselytes ; nay, rather, do all you can
to win them over to the Truth, — then I heartily agree with you.
But why apply this form of expression so pointedly to Rome ? I,
for my part, would, in precisely the same manner, have " no
peace with Dissent." I would warn people against their false
doctrines and schismatical practices, just as I would against the
errors of Romanism. And I cannot but think that my position
is more cbnsistent, and more suitable to a Churchman than
yours. You have an intense hatred of Popery, and an evident
leaning to Dissent. / avow a firm and conscientious disapproval ;
of both. You detest " the mummery and incense of a Popish
mass-house ;" but have no great repugnance to go with Dissen
ters to " Sion or Ebenezer Chapel." I should equally avoid
both, because Holy Scripture commands us to avoid those that
"cause divisions." You will say, perhaps, that the Pope is
Antichrist. Every thing contrary to Christian doctrine and
practice, whether it be Dissent or Popery, is of course Antichrist.
But that the Pope is the Antichrist, " the man of sin" to be
revealed in the last days, I altogether deny. The Word of
Prophesy points rather to some dreadfal development of the
Atheistical and Revolutionary principle, of which there are too
many gathering tokens. However, if you suppose the Pope to
be the Antichrist, as most of your party, I believe, do, it only

adds to the harshness in applying the same expression to mem
bers of your own Church as you do anti-Christian Rome, and
declaring equal hostility against both.
Now let us seriously enquire. Who are these Tractarians
against whom you thus vow eternal enmity? The object of
your sharpest reprehension is one of the writers of the Tracts
for the Times, who has deserted his Church, and is now no
longer a Tractarian, but a Romanist. Of him you say, that,
" after having used expressions justly strong against the errors
of Rome, he afterwards recanted those expressions, alleging that
they had never been his real sentiments ; that finding them
used by a ' consensus' of our great divines, he wished to throw
himself into their system ; and that finally — for at last the truth
oozes from his Jesuitical pen — such views were necessary to his
position. Sir," (you exclaim indignantly) "I know not how
any one can contemplate, without a shudder, the baseness of the
spectacle here presented, the Jesuitical sophistry confessed, the
utter prostration of moral principle and incredible want of
decency in thus publishing his own shame. What should we
think of such conduct in the common transactions of life?
Would the perpetrator of it sustain for a moment the character
of a gentleman and a Christian ?" This is a harsh judgment, and
the language stronger than lay persons usually deem it prudent
to use in speaking of each other's conduct. You go out of
your way, as it appears to me, to put an invidious constnictlon
on his words. It is not my business to defend Mr. Newman.
No one can view with greater regret than I do the course which
he has taken. But I confess that it never occurred to me that
he had been guilty of any peculiar act of baseness. No persons,
probably, use more unreal language, or " throw yourselves more
into a system," than you Evangehcals. I should have a much
worse opinion of your own heart and understanding, if I did not
consider by far the greater part of the uncharitable language
which you have used in speaking of Tractarians as mere conven
tional abuse which you have adopted from your " great divines,"
Mr. Goode to wit, or your namesake of Islington ; and I am not
without hope that the time wiU come when j'ou will acknowledge
that it is so. However, it is clear that by Tractarians you can
not mean persons like Mr. Newman, who have left the Church.*
They are Romanists, not Tractarians. You evidently mention
the lamentable case of IMr. Newman only for the sake of giving
* I take the opportunity of correcting an erroneous statement which I made
afthe Archidiaconal Meeting, in saying, that about one hundred Clergy had left us
ibr Rome. A correspondent informs mo that the actual number, spread over nine
years, is sixty-seven, beginning with Mr. Waclterbarth, who seceded Dec. 2, 1841.

pungency to your argument. Condemnation heaped on one who
has left the Church cannot apply to those who abide in the
Church, and have no thought of deserting it. If you mean by
Tractarians persons who, in the garb of English Clergymen, are
in reality Papists, and retain their position, in order to beguile
others to the Romish Faith, — while I acknowledge that no
language can be too strong in condemnation of such hypocrisy, —
I sincerely hope and beheve that such monsters of iniquity exist
only in your own imagination.
But perhaps you mean by Tractarians, Ministers of the
English communion who use ceremonies and observances
contrary to the Church to which they belong, and tending to
Romanism. If these are the persons whom you mean by Trac
tarians, I quite agree with you in disapproving such practices,
and only wonder that our own Bishops allow them to do so.
But here, again, I am at a loss to know where to find such
persons. Where are they to be met with ? Can you mention
three churches in London, or ten in the whole of England,
where practices are adopted contrary to the spirit and instruc
tion of the Church of England, and in the direction of Rome?
I do not think you can name so many. At any rate, for every
one that you can point out where any ceremony or practice is
adopted of a Romish tendency, beyond what is authorized in
our Church, I will pledge myself to name one hundred where
the Rubricks and instructions of the Church are not acted up to.
I admit that you have a great "consensus" of authority in
speaking of such practices as being very prevalent. Scarcely
has there been a Meeting in which some orator has not secured
a round of applause by alluding to the Popish ceremonies which
disgrace our Church. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has
contributed to the popular feeling by his high authority. In
his reply to the Address of the Archdeacon and Clergy of the
Diocese of Canterbury, he says, " Certain of the Clergy profess
ing to follow up those principles (of which he had been
speaking), have proceeded onward from one Romish tenet to
another, and one Romish practice to another, till in some con
gregations, all that is distinctive in Protestant doctrine or Pro
testant worship has disappeared." I have read this sentence
many times and really cannot tell what his Grace means to
assert. Does he mean to say that there are churches in his
Diocese, or in his Province, where the whole of our Reformed
Service is not " said or sung," every Sunday, at least, according
to the order of the Church — and that he permits such neglect to
continue ? Has he not the power to insist on every one of his
Clergy using the Book of Common Prayer ? What, then, does

he mean by saying, that "in some congregations all Pro
testant worship has disappeared"? 1 do not wish to think
or say any thing disrespectful of his Grace. But surely it is
unworthy of his character and high office thus to swell the
popular clamour by making such an unwarrantable assertion.
What is manifestly incorrect in speaking of Protestant worship
is, I believe, equally so in speaking of Protestant doctrine;
though not of course so easily demonstrated.
The fact is, there are no churches, or next to none, where
any Romish practices whatever are adopted — if there were they
would not be tolerated. What, then, is the conclusion at which
we arrive ? Why just this : that in vowing eternal enmity
against Tractarians, you are not speaking of persons who have
really deviated from the doctrine and discipline of the Church
of England, but of those who are devotedly attached to their
Church, and desire nothing more than to live and die in her
communion. You are vowing eternal enmity against the most
consistent of your brethren. And, in writing the Pamphlet
which you have done, you have, I would wilhngly believe
without intending to act an ungenerous part, been endeavour
ing to avail yourself of the opportunity of this outcry againgst
Popery, to stigmatize a body of men far more zealously attached
than yourself to the true doctrine and discipline of the English
Church. Let me entreat you, and other Evangehcals, to consider
honestly and conscientiously what I have already said, and also
what T am about to say, in proof that you are acting wrongftdly.
I write to you as a conscientious man, and trust that you will
not put down your conviction.
One of the practices of those whom you call Tractarians is
to observe Saints' Days. I myself always make a point of
attending the Cathedral on such days. I advert to the subject
in family devotion ; if I had parochial duties, I should read the
prescribed service, and call attention in a sermon to the holy
servant of God whose deeds are on that day commemorated.
You, as it appears, contemn such observances. You speak in
derision of "the remediless state" of a parish "when fairly
saddled with a Clergyman who rejoices in the name of Anglo-
Catholic, and dates his letters from the Saints' Days." Nor is
it the mere practice of dating letters from these days that you
object to. It is with reluctance that I advert to personal cir.
cumstances, but I believe that I am correct in stating that,
notwithstanding the known wishes, and even formal request, of
some of your own parishioners, you persist in closing your own
church on the Saints' Days. At the time when the Tractarian

Clergy, in strict accordance with the order of their Church, are
celebrating the holy lives of Saints and Martyrs, and from their
example encouraging their flocks to Christian deeds and suffer
ings, no beU in your parish summons your parishioners to
worship. Anxiously as they long for it, they are debarred from
the solemn celebration which their own Church promises them.
I beseech you to let your conscience have fair play. Are you
the person to reproach your fellow Ministers, and declare that
you will have no peace with them, when it is yourself, not
they, that are disobeying the Church's orders. Which are the
" unworthy sons of the Church" — they who scoff at her ordi
nances, or they who reverently use them ? You call the Trac
tarians Papists and Romanizers, because they obey their Church.
Are not you in fact a Dissenter?
A few lines further in the same page of your Pamphlet you
advert to another subject, on the ground of which, in agreement
with Lord John Russell, you impute blame to the Tractarian
Clergy. You speak in terms of blame of Christians " confessing
themselves" to their brethren. Do you not know that Holy
Scripture expressly commands that " we confess our faults one
to another."* Do you not know that the Church to which you
belong, directs her Ministers in the Service of the Visitation of
the Sick, "to move the sick man to make special confession of
his sins if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty
matter ;" and must we not all at times feel that " the bm'den of
our sins is intolerable :" especially at the hour of death, may it
not be that offences before thought lightly of will press heavily
and sadly on our souls ? And not in the case of the sick only,
but are you not aware that in the exhortation to communicate,
the Church of England directs her Ministers to invite persons
who have an unquiet conscience, to go " to some discreet Minister
of God's Word and open their griefs, that by the ministry of
God's Holy Word they may receive the benefit of absolution,
together with ghostly counsel and advice." I verily believe that
there is no means of grace which, when rightly used, is more
surely blessed to the conversion of souls than that of Confession.
Some souls are converted in one way, some in others. None, I
believe, is more efficacous than this, — to preach the doctrine of
the necessity of partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ our
Lord, in order to salvation, and, at the same time, the awful
danger of partaking unworthily. Then, when hearts are softened,
to Invite the anxious sinner to open his grief to some discreet
Minister, in order that he may receive ghostly counsel and
advice, together with the benefit of Absolution. I believe, that
James v. 16.

10
few means have been found by experience more succesful than
this, to convince men of sin and bring them to Christ. And
yet, you and others of your school condemn this practice which
is so solemnly enjoined on you by our Church ! The Bishop of
Worcester, I understand, has resolved to " put down" Confession
in his Diocese. What an awful fact ! The Church expressly
appoints a means of grace strictly in accordance with Holy
Scripture. A Bishop dares to forbid it ! May God forgive him,
and not lay this sin to his charge ! may he not have to answer
at the Day of Judgment for souls lost through his prohibition of
a most solemn and saving ordinance ! But, I would ask again^
is it for those who neglect an ordinance of the Church, an or
dinance most plainly and positively enjoined, to taunt their fellow
Ministers who conscientiously and obediently use it, and to charge
them with Popery ? Dear Sir, I am unwilling to judge harshly
of your conduct, or of that of the Bishop of Worcester, or any
one else. I do not believe you to be so bad as you appear.
You do not really mean to commit so awful a sin. The fact is,
you have done just what Mr. Newman did. You have "thrown
yourself in the (Evangelical) system" without due thought ; you
use a set of phrases which you find employed " by a consensus of
your great (Evangelical) divines" ; you find a great deal of loose
talking about the iniquity of "auricular Confession", and
"priestly Absolution," and "Popish Saints"; and hence, because,
unquestionably, these practices are abused in the Church of
Rome, you have been led thoughtlessly to blame those of your
Brother Ministers who, eschewing Popish corruptions as much
as you do, practice what is prescribed for them in the formularies
of their own Church. But it is a serious thing even carelessly
to condemn godly Ministers of Christ, and to despise the Holy
Ordinances of the Chm-ch. Think seriously of it. The time
will come — if you are, as I would fain believe, a conscientious
man — when you will repent of those harsh thoughts, and recant
the expressions which you have used.
I am not writing a set answer to your Pamphlet, and there
fore you must pardon a little excui'siveness. The present oppor
tunity will serve, as well as any other, to explain and justify the
course which I took at the Archidiaconal Meeting. It appeared
to me of little use to go there merely for the purpose of declaim
ing against the Pope. I expressed myself, as indeed I felt, most
strongly on the unlawfulness of his intrusion, and cited Holy
Scripture, as well as the Canons of the Ancient Church, in proof
of my views. But I considered that the chief practical object of
our meeting was, to consider how his aggression might he met.
Now if we can remove the causes which led to the unhappy seces-

11
sion of those who have left us, we should obviously he taking the
best means to prevent secession in future, perhaps gain back the
seceders, and so frustrate the object of the Romanist movement.
What, then, has been the cause of secession to Rome? what
induces some still to waver in their attachment to their Church ?
Was it that the seceders became enamoured of the doctrines and
practices of the Romish Church ? On the contrary, I believe
that there are many things in the Romish Church which they
can with the greatest difficulty bring themselves to acquiesce in :
such especially as the adoration paid to the Blessed Virgin and
the Saints, and the denial of the Cup to the Laity — as well as
points of doctrine. No; the cause of secession has been, in
most cases, not so much admiration of Rome, nor even any dis
like of the doctrines or formularies of their own Church; but
dissatisfaction at abuses which have been introduced into the
English communion. Amongst the causes which / know have
made converts to Rome, are some which I shrunk from naming
at the public meeting, not wishing to disturb the harmony of the
assembly ; but I have not the same scruple in naming them now,
particularly as your own letter leads me to do so. / know that
there have been those who were sincerely attached to the Church
of England, and have been driven from it because their parish
Clergyman has refused them the consolations which that Church
professed to afford. There have been men of tender conscience
who have desired to " open their griefs" to their Minister, as the
Church directs, in order that they might "receive the benefit of
absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice ;" and when
their Minister discouraged their confidence, and told them that
such practices were Popish, have been led to turn their eyes
elsewhere for the consolation denied them in their own Church.
Others, on the contrary, to my knowledge, have been kept in
the bosom of their own Church, and probably saved eternally,
by receiving from those whom you so much blame that spiritual
aid which their souls yearned for. There have been, also, devout
persons who would have willingly lived and died in the Church
of their Baptism, if their cravings for spiritual food had been
satisfied ; but have been offended and disheartened because their
parish church was closed from Sunday to Sunday, — not even the
Services provided for the commemoration of the Saints allowed
them. To one who has so strong a feeling against Rome as you
have, it would surely be a bitter thought for your whole life, if
you should have been yourself the cause of driving any of those
committed to your care into that communion by your own
inconsiderate neglect of the ordinances which you have solemnly
promised to observe. Others have been driven to Rome by hear-

13
ing from the pulpit doctrines palpably opposed to the language
of the Prayer Book, and despairing of a remedy for such incon
sistency. All these things I might have mentioned at the
meeting, and they would have been most apposite to the
enquiry, how we might meet the Papal Aggression. But I
, abstained from doing so for the sake of peace.
There was, however, another class of topics unconnected with
party difference as to doctrine, to which it appeared to me that
I might profitably advert without offence ; namely, the relation
of the Church to the State. We know that this i§ the grievance
by which those who have recently left us, and some, I fear, who
are still with us, have been mainly scandalized. It has appeared
to them that the present position of the Church of England, in
respect to the State, is such as to destroy its vitality, and mar its
character as a Church. To a certain extent I feel strongly with
them. The worthy Chairman of the Lay Meeting at Lichfield
declared that his Protestant blood boiled within him at the
insolence of the Pope, in daring to appoint Romish Bishops, and
interfere with the Dioceses of the Enghsh Church. Just so a
Churchman's blood boils within him to think the appointment
of the Bishops of the English Church, and the arrangement of
our Dioceses, should be in the irresponsible power of the Prime
Minister for the time being — the nominee and creature of a
House of Commons, consisting of all the multifarious denomi
nations into which our unhappy nation is divided. Our indig
nation is greatly increased when we see our Church in the
clutches of such a man as the present Premier. To think that
a man who is so utterly ignorant of Church principles, so devoid
of enlightened reverence for the Church of God, so destitute
even of respect for the Established Religion of his country as to
frequent notoriously a Dissenting place of worship ; that such a
man should have the power to appropriate to himself the Queen's
prerogative, and appoint our Bishops, — not to mention Deans
and other dignitaries, — that he should be able to insult the
Church by selecting men on whom the Church has set her mark
of disapproval ; that he should dare to refuse all inquiry into the
orthodoxy of his nominees when the law afforded the opportunity,
and when the majority of the English Bishops respectfully re
quested that an enquiry might be made ; that the same man, or
his supporters, should be able to abolish bishopricks at tlieir
discretion, and limit their increase, and tie us down to the num
ber which sufficed for a quadruple population, thus crippling the
Church in the free exercise of its functions ; that the same man,
or his party, should unceremoniously reject a bill brought in by
consent of the whole bench of Bishops for providing a fit tribunal

13
for the trial of disputed doctrine, and insist in retaining the
absurd anomaly of submitting the doctrines of the Church to a
Lay tribunal, thus holding up the Church of England as an
object of ridicule to the common jester, and of triumph to the
euemies which surround us ; — all this, and more that might be
mentioned, has proved too much for the allegiance of some of
the Church's most devoted sons. It is useless to tell them that
much of this is contrary to the spirit of the law, ai;d mere usur
pation of power,^-that the law by which the trial of spiritual
causes was given to the Privy Council has not been recognized by
Convocation, — that the confirmation^ of a Bishop without enquiry
into objections made against him was only carried by a judicial
manoeuvre. In spite of what you can urge, all these facts are
before their eyes; and many have chosen to join even the corrupted
Church of Rome rather than remain in one which they con
sider enslaved and dishonoured. For myself, while I sympathise
with these persons in their indignation at the tyranny of the
Government, I entirely disapprove of the step which they have
taken. Nothing would ever induce me to join the corrupt
Church of Rome. Under no conceivable circumstances will I
leave the Church of my country. My mind is fully made up.
And I believe I speak the sentiments of a very large number of
the Clergy. We have solemnly engaged at our ordination to
administer the rites of the Church in the way prescribed in the
Book of Common Prayer. We acknowledge no power in the
Pope or Bishops, or in the Prime Minister, or in the Parliament
or Sovereign, to absolve us from that engagement. If the
Services are altered in any essential particular, it is our dehberate
intention to continue to administer them in the manner in which
we have engaged to do. Meanwhile, we shall use every legal
means to obtain redress. We think our cause so good, and the
grievances under which we labour so palpable, that the common
justice of the Enghsh people will, ere long, afford us redress.
We expect, in your own phrase, to have "the entire Protestant
Laity at our back," — those, at least, who are members of the
Church. They have no interest, any more than we, in maintain
ing the intolerable tyranny exercised by a Whig Minister. Why
should Laymen of the English Church submit to see their
Church crippled in its offices, saddled with heterodox rulers, its
doctrine interpreted by mere politicians, itself held up to the
ridicule of Dissenters and Romanists? We fully expect that
they will soon help us to free ourselves — nay, rather themselves, I
should say — from these insufferable grievances, and place their
Church at least on a footing with Dissenters, who have the free
management of their own affairs. Nay, we do not despair that

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 0599