schism. For such as we are to exult in their departure-to rejoice that so many of our brethren, some of them so far superior to ourselves in the highest Christian graces, should have fallen,-would exhibit in ourselves a spirit very little akin to that of the Master whom we serve. They have gone, and we yet remain let us not be high-minded, but fear.

But now that the fever has subsided, the new aspect under which the Church presents itself demands our careful attention.”—(pp. 3, 4.)

Here we have an earnest attempt, to treat the danger from apostasy to Rome as over. The next endeavour is, to establish a broad distinction between "the Romanizers who have left us," Thus, he says,

and "the Anglican body."

"Any attempt to mix up this school, which has become so widely spread in the English Church, with the Romanizers who have left us, would prove great ignorance of the real state of the question, or a deliberate intention of causing prejudice. True that, to a certain extent, and before the principles of each were fully understood, they have acted and sympathised together. Reverence for the Church was their bond of union. But now the difference is marked, and the separation defined for ever. They who, in their zeal for the Church, fixed their views on the Roman Pontiff, have withdrawn from us; those who remain look to the Church of England as their spiritual mother. Perhaps some Romanists in heart may yet be left behind; but to represent these as identified in principle with the Anglican body is an unfair and disingenuous manoeuvre, unworthy of an honest controversialist. The characteristic feature of the Anglican party is, a devoted attachment to their own Church -not as being faultless, far from it; but as being the branch of the Church in which the providence of God has placed them,-their spiritual Mother-their Nurse, who has fed them from their youth with spiritual food. To persist in saying that men influenced by such principles are Romanists in heart, is nothing less than a shameful calumny."-(pp. 5, 6.)

This is a bold attempt; but how utterly unfounded. Take the most prominent case,--that of Mr. Newman and Dr. Pusey. These two acted together, as one man, up to the very moment when the one crossed the separating line; while the other remained, close to that line, but on our own side of it. What, but a single step, separates them now, and who can tell how soon that step may be taken by he who now lingers among us? No condemnation of the act of secession has ever issued from Dr. Pusey's lips; on the contrary, he speaks of his brother as merely gone into" another part of the vineyard;" and imagines that God may have given him to the Papists "in answer to their prayers!" How untrue then, for Mr. Gresley to assure us, that "now the difference is marked, and the separation defined for ever." The fact is as opposite as possible, to this representation.

Having thus endeavoured to quiet apprehension on this score, Mr. Gresley proceeds with his main object,-the creating a diversion, by representing "the real danger of the Church" to lie in a totally different direction. He tells us, that-

"The principal evil is, the existence within the ministry of a body of active intriguing men, who are Dissenters at heart, and have no fellow-feeling with

their brethren in the Church; who dislike and impede our services, deny our fundamental doctrines, assail and undermine our ancient institutions. Such persons ought not to have the power of mischief which they possess.”—(p. 51.)

He then proceeds to describe the operations of these "Dissenters at heart,"in the establishment of the Church Missionary Society, the Pastoral Aid Society, the Church Extension Fund, &c., &c., and at last proceeds to propose his remedy, which is this:

"The bishops have ordained ministers, and licensed them to cures, who in the name and with the authority of the Church are carrying Dissenting principles into every part of the land. How can peace ever be restored while this system prevails? How can the bishops wonder at the strife that abounds? How can they feel themselves exempt from the charge that the mischief lies really at their own door? Let but our bishops declare plainly in their Charges, or in any other way they think proper, what the true doctrine of the Church really is; and let them "dare" to refuse ordination and license to those candidates whom, upon examination, they find to be manifestly unsound, and to hold dissenting doctrines, as they do now to those who hold Romish doctrines; then, and not till then, will one of the principal causes of strife be removed from the bosom of the Church, and well-meaning church-people will not be beguiled by their own ministers into being advocates of Dissent.

"But peace can never be thoroughly restored until some decided measures be taken with regard to those societies which are at present the principal organs of the Puritan party, and usurp or control the authority of the bishops; examining, appointing, and withdrawing ministers almost at their own discretion."-(p. 61.)

The whole purport, therefore, of Mr. Gresley's tract, may be described to consist of these propositions:

A Puritan sect or party exists within the Church.

Its distinguishing feature is, a denial of Baptismal Regeneration. It has instituted various " party Societies."

This sect, or faction, must be put down.

In order to this end, the bishops must refuse ordination to all candidates who will not profess their belief in Baptismal Rege

neration.

And "the societies which are the principal organs of the Puritan party," must "be put under the efficient control of our ecclesiastical rulers."-(p. 62.)

All this, if properly carried into effect, would lead, as Mr. Gresley admits, " to the secession of some thirty or forty leading Evangelicals to the ranks of Dissent." Doubtless he is thinking of clergymen only, not deeming the laity worth reckoning. But who will assure him, or us, that this "thirty or forty leading Evangelicals" might not turn out to be three or four hundred, or even thirteen or fourteen hundred? Who anticipated before-hand, that on a mere question of veto, above four hundred parish ministers of Scotland would have resigned their homes and their churches in one day? And, however Mr. Gresley may disregard that part of the case, will any reasonable man hold the tens of thousands

of English laymen who would accompany this secession, to be of no value in the account?

Let us, however, have a few serious words with Mr. Gresley, on the justice, and on the expediency, of his proposition. He would thrust what he calls "the Puritan party "" out of the Church: and he would do this, on the ground of their dissent from his view of baptismal regeneration. Now we want first to discuss with him the justice of making his view of a disputed doctrine the test of Churchmanship :-and then to propose to him some doubts as to the safety of the strong measures which he recommends.

First, then, as to the justice of elevating his own view of the effects of baptism, into a fundamental doctrine of the Church.

It is, of course, very easy for Mr. Gresley to select the usual passages from the Baptismal Service and the Catechism, and then to break forth in the following confident strain.

"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 a doubt that the Church of England holds the doctrine of baptismal regeneration—whether the denial of baptismal regeneration be not as clearly contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, as the maintenance 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 baptize 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!!'”—(pp. 18, 19.)

Yet Mr. G., as a man who has seen something of controversy, should have had the candour and fairness to eschew this customary device. He must have seen, frequently enough, how, by a clever selection of passages, all of one colour, either side of any controversy may be maintained. In this manner, the ultra-Calvinist selects his set of texts,-(" Is there evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?"-" For this cause have I raised thee up: "-" Being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed," &c. &c. &c.) and then is ready "to appeal to any man of common understanding, whether there can be the shadow of a doubt," that the Bible teaches the doctrine of reprobation. With the same onesided adroitness, the Arminian culls his little selection of passages, -("Why will ye die, O house of Israel?" "If the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness; "-" How often would I have gathered thy children, but ye would not !")—and is astonished, in

his turn, that " any man of common understanding' can have the least doubt, touching the self-determining power of every human being. But while the mere party controversialist is sure to fly to this device, the searcher after truth, -he who wishes, not to carry his point, but to learn, and to shew, what the real sense of the Scripture, or of the Church, is,—will carefully compare and weigh different passages, especially those which are apparently discordant; and thus will draw, from a really honest consideration of the whole evidence, a just and moderate conclusion.

Mr. Gresley declines to enter upon the scriptural proof. What he is content to maintain, is, "that it is the undoubted doctrine of the English Church." (p. 19). And this he shews, as we have said, by carefully selecting all the passages in the Prayer-Book which have that aspect; and quietly omitting all which exhibit a different tendency!

Thus, for instance, he finds the Church saying, in the Office for Baptism," We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, "that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this child with thy Holy "Spirit." And he immediately asks, "Is it not one of the most "astounding facts in religious controversy," that ministers should use this service," and yet hold the opinion either that the child "has not been regenerated at all, or that his regeneration is hypothetical!""

But Mr. Gresley forgets to turn to the service for the other sacrament, where he would find the Church similarly giving thanks, "that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these "holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious body "and blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and dost assure us "thereby "-" that we are very members incorporate in the mystical "body of thy Son." Here is language quite as strong as that in the Baptismal Service. Yet Mr. Gresley must know, that no twenty persons ever partake of this service in the Church, without there being among them, some covetous man, who is an idolator," or some "lover of pleasure more than lover of God." And all such, -aye, and all who "be void of a lively faith,"-are declared by the Church, in her xxixth Article, to be "in no wise partakers of Christ."

66

Clearly, then, the thanksgiving in the latter case, though put into the mouth of all,-is hypothetical. And why should it be astounding" for any man to suppose, that since hypothetical language is used in one case,-it may also be used in the other?

Mr. Gresley is very ready to express his astonishment at the want of honesty and straightforwardness shewn by those Churchmen who do not regard every baptized infant as spiritually regenerated.

But what can be more straightforward or more frank than the following view of the case, given by Merle d'Aubigné, and to which, we doubt not, all our readers will readily subscribe :—

"I do not hesitate to say, that I look upon, as regenerated, "every human being, whatever his age may be, who has answered, "with truth and reality, the several questions put in your Baptismal "Service.-(1.) The minister says, Wilt thou be baptized in this "faith?" The answer is, That is my desire,' &c.-(2.) If the "infant expresses truly and really the desire to be baptized in the "faith that has been confessed, he is truly and really regenerated. "-(3.) But if the infant has not really made this confession, -"then neither has he really received this grace.-(4) If the answer of the infant, in the middle of the service, is an hypothesis, "his regeneration, declared at the end of the service, is also hypo"thetical.-(5.) The godfather confesses the faith which the infant " is to hold, the minister declares the grace he is to receive. These "two things are simultaneous: they refer to the same time. To "admit that one of them (the declaration on the part of the "infant) is a thing future, and to pretend that the other (the regeneration of the infant) is a thing present-is not only opposed to the word of God, and contrary to theology, but is also "opposed to philosophy, and contrary to grammar." i

Mr. Gresley, however, not only makes that positive which is clearly hypothetical; but having done this, he elevates his own theory into a fundamental doctrine,-a vital point, a standard of faith, from which any deflection is quite inadmissible. He says,-"The whole character of the Christian religion depends on this "primary doctrine."-(p. 20.)

"It may well be doubted whether the greater part of the "nation's sin, the desperate wickedness of the mass of our popu"lation, and the general worldliness of all classes, may not be "traced to this denial of baptismal regeneration."--(p. 22.)

"Thousands who were once made members of Christ and chil"dren of God are thus eternally lost, mainly in consequence of "this great heresy, whereby our country, and even our Church, is "overrun."-(p. 22.)

"Is it possible that the Church can go on much longer with "such a mass of heresy within it."—(p. 26.)

"The question now is, with regard to the denial of a vital doc"trine, a doctrine of the Bible,-a doctrine of the Church,-a "doctrine which forms the commencement and basis of the "Christian life.”—(p. 27.)

This is certainly assuming a great deal. But what says the

1 The Record, May 15, 1843.