Church of England to such a view? She entirely discountenances it. Instead of putting baptismal regeneration in this prominent and essential place, she, in describing the salvation of a Christian man, utterly omits all allusion to it. For instance, in her xviith Article, she thus describes the different steps of a sinner's salvation. "God "hath chosen in Christ" certain persons "to bring them by Christ "to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called "according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the "image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they "attain to everlasting felicity."

Here is the brief but full account of the several steps in a sinner's salvation. And, instead of placing regeneration in baptism in the foremost rank, it is never once alluded to! How entirely opposed, then, must be the views of Mr. Gresley to those of our Church!

Once more:-Mr. Gresley boldly, but, we think, indiscreetly, speaks of regeneration in baptism as a fact perceptible by evidence. He says,―

"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.

"If regenerate-a child of grace, a 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 on. ward always in a state of grace; so that as the awakening energies dawn, the rising tendencies of evil shall be kept under subjection, and every motion of the Spirit promoted and encouraged. Thus our whole efforts and prayers must be devoted to keep the child, by the grace of God, in the state of salvation' in which he was placed at baptism; so that 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." (p. 20.)

6

And this Mr. Gresley boldly assumes of all. He does not describe, with the Articles of the Church, "those who rightly receive baptism; "but he speaks of " the mass of our population," and says, that "the grace given them at baptism is never cherished or "called forth."-(p. 22.)

We assert, on the other hand, that this is neither consistent with our Church's Articles, nor with notorious facts. We should like Mr. Gresley to put the matter to the test. A score of chil

dren are baptized in Spitalfields church, or in Manchester church, every Sunday afternoon. Let him have one of these taken from its parent, at the usual age of one month; and let him also get the child of a Socialist, who cares nothing for baptism. Mingle the children, so that no one shall be able to distinguish them. The one is an unbaptized heathen,-upon the other, says Mr. Gresley," the Holy Spirit has lighted like a dove, in his regenerating grace." Yet we feel assured, that, let the children receive the like culture and education,- Mr. Gresley will not be able to tell, at two years of age, or at seven, or at fourteen,—which is the "regenerate" child, and which the unregenerate. Thus, as we have often before remarked, those who lay so great stress on a supposed "regeneration in baptism," do, in effect, assert a kind of regeneration which is utterly useless and without results.

But let Mr. Newman himself, in his days of loyalty to the Church, speak on this very point. He was then as strenuous a maintainer of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as Mr. Gresley is now. Yet he was obliged to make the following admissions:

"I say, then, we have these startling appearances :-Persons brought up without baptism may shew themselves just the same in character, temper, opinions, and conduct, with those who have been baptized; or when these differ from those, this difference may be sufficiently or exactly accounted for by their education.

"An unbaptized person may be brought up with baptized persons, and acquire their tone of thought, their mode of viewing things, and their principles and opinions, just as if he were baptized. He may suppose that he has been baptized, and others may think so; and on inquiry it may be found out that he has not been baptized.

"On the other hand, a baptized person may acquire the ways of going on, and the sentiments and modes of talking of those who despise baptism, and seem neither better nor worse than they, but just the same.

"An unbaptized person may in after-life be baptized; and if quiet and religious before, may remain so afterwards, with no change of any kind in his own consciousness about himself, or in the impression of others about him.

"Or, he may have had a formed character before baptism, and not a pleasing one; he may have been rude and irreverent, or worldly-minded. He may have improved; he may have had faith sufficiently to bring him to baptism, and, as far as we can judge, may have received it worthily; yet he may remain, improved indeed just so much as is implied in his having had faith to come to baptism, but apparently in no greater measure.

"Or, he may come to baptism and improve after it, but only in such a way as to all appearance he might have improved without having received it when he did; viz. from the intercourse of friends, from reading religious books, from study and thought, or from the trials of life.

"Again, he may come to baptism as a mere form, or from worldly motives, and yet in appearance be no worse than he was before. If he had a mixture of good and evil in him before, the same apparently remains.

"And again, whether he has received baptism or not, he is liable to the same changes of mind, to the same religious influences, nay, may run through the same spiritual course, may be gradually moulded on the same habits,-perhaps be affected in some remarkable way, so remarkable that it may be called a conversion, and what he himself may incorrectly call a regeneration,--which it cannot be, if we judge according to scripture, not appearance, since he either has been already regenerated in baptism, or has not yet been regenerated, being unbaptized. Yet the same religious experience (as it sometimes is called) may befal him, whether he has been baptized or not." 1

On the whole, then, we are obliged to conclude, that in asserting that "the mass of our population" "have grace given them at baptism," Mr. Gresley asserts what the Church has never declared, and what undeniable fact entirely refutes. Yet this doctrine, foisted by himself upon the Church, and equally unsupported by Scripture and by fact, he would fain persuade our bishops to erect into a term of communion; "refusing ordination and license to those whom they found unsound," according to this test!

The outrageous injustice of such a course is sufficiently clear. But we must now add a few words on its inexpediency.

Would Mr. Gresley hold any course advisable and expedient for the Church, which led inevitably to its destruction?. We apprehend not-yet does he warmly urge, in these days of great and augmenting danger to the Church, the forcible expulsion of a vast body of her most valuable members!

He speaks of a "Puritan or Dissenting party" in the Church, and this is the advice he gives to the heads of the Church, with respect to this party :

"The question is come to a direct issue: the Church cannot contain both doctrines; the advocates of one or other must give way."-(p. 27.)

"" It must be firmly met, and that soon, unless it is to be allowed to domineer over the whole Church: and every year that is suffered to elapse before it is put down, so much the more likely will it be to establish itself permanently and carry all before it."-(p. 38.) 1

Newman's Sermons on Subjects of the Day, 1843, pp. 77-79.

In short, the "Puritan party" or "Evangelical party" must be "put down," or thrust out of the Church. And this, Mr. Gresley seriously urges, in order to "increase the efficiency and restore the beauty and dignity of our beloved Church." (p. 72.) In reply to which, we tell him, with the greatest seriousness and certainty, that this "Puritan or Evangelical party" is the very lifeblood of the Church, viewed as a national and human institution; and that, could he only have his wish, and expel Evangelical truth and Evangelical men from the Church,-that institution would not survive even a brief seven years!

Of course we cannot expect Mr. Gresley to take our word for this. We shall therefore mention to him a few facts, with which he ought to be well acquainted, and which will confirm our view.

Mr. Gresley desires to see the "Puritan party" put down, or forced to secede. This wish has been entertained by other persons, once or twice since the Reformation, and it was on one occasion fully carried into effect.

On the restoration of monarchy and episcopacy under Charles II. the then-existing Church of England did unquestionably contain a large "Puritan party." It was the object of some of Charles's advisers (as of Mr. Gresley now) to put down, or thrust out, this party. Bishop Short says, "If the saying attributed to Sheldon "(Bishop of London) be true, we need not trouble ourselves with "such minutiæ, or question as to the object, which they who "managed the affairs in the Church had in view. When Lord "Manchester told the king, while the act of uniformity was under "debate, that he was afraid the terms of it were so rigid that many of the ministers would not comply with it, Sheldon replied, "I am afraid they will!" Nay, 'tis credibly reported he should say, "Now we know their minds, we'll make them knaves "if they conform." Doubtless Sheldon might deem this line of policy, of ejecting all the nonconformists, to be the wisest for "the Church; but the events which have since occurred must "convince every man who can judge of such questions, that into"lerance is but another name for selfishness, and will generally "defeat its own ends." 1

tr

The object, however, was obtained. The Puritan party was harried out of the Church. Two thousand ministers resigned their preferments. Thus, exactly what Mr. Gresley desires to see done now, was thoroughly effected in 1662. And the important question next to be asked is, What was the effect of this measure on the Church?

Bishop Short's History of the Church of England, p. 511.

That effect was, precisely what might have been foretold. The life-blood of the Church being suddenly expelled, a state of atrophy or palsy ensued. Mr. Gresley talks of getting rid of "the Puritan party," in order to restore the efficiency of the Church. But when the Puritan party was expelled, in 1662, there came on, immediately, and as a natural consequence, a period of the greatest possible inefficiency, languor, and corruption.

No one, in modern times, has more fully depicted this than Mr. Gladstone. He, indeed, ascribes the decay of religion to another cause, the Revolution. But the operation of a political change like that, must have been quite insignificant upon the Church, compared with the infinitely more important event of the expulsion of 2000 earnest preachers of the gospel from her pale.

The fact, however, as stated by Mr. Gladstone, is indisputable. He describes it as "A rapid and great declension in the tone of all the doctrines of religion, a great increase of glaring abuse, and a miserable debasement of the entire religious action of the Church." He adduces the following proofs:

"And now to proceed to the proofs of a contemporaneous decline in doctrine and in practice. The facts of the case are indeed so generally acknowledged, that it might seem almost unnecessary to attest the declension of religion during the last century by particular citations, calculated to show that doctrine in general partook of the blight which had smitten the old and acknowledged principles of our Church polity. But the circumstances are too grievous, the danger of false witnesses too serious, the bearing upon the present argument too important, to admit of their being allowed to remain in doubt.

"Bishop Burnet writes in 1712: 'I cannot look on without the deepest concern, when I see the imminent ruin hanging over this Church, and by consequence over the whole Reformation. The outward state of things is black enough, God knows; but that which heightens my fears rises chiefly from the inward state into which we are unhappily fallen.' And he proceeds to describe the extreme ignorance and carelessness of the clergy in general.

"Bishop Gibson complains, in 1728: That profaneness and impiety are grown bold and open.' " 1

"Bishop Butler writes, in 1736: It is come, I know not how, to be taken for granted by many persons, that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that it is now at length discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat it as if, in the present age, this were an agreed point among all people of dis

1 Gladstone's Church Principles, pp. 452, 453.