jf^./j: 
 
 Srom f^e fetfirart of 
 
 in (glemotj? of 
 3ubge ^amuef (gtiffer QBrecfeinribge 
 
 ^teeenf eb fig 
 
 ^otmuef (gliffer QSrecfttnribge feong 
 
 to t^e feifirari? of 
 
 Qprtnceton ^^^eofogicaf ^eminctrj 
 
 BbX 5950 .B3763 1844 
 ^Barnes, Albert^ 1798-1870. 
 ^Reply to a review of the 
 tract on the position of 
 
REPLY 
 
 TO A REVIEW OF THE TRACT 
 
 ON 
 
 THE POSITION OF THE 
 
 EVANGELICAL PARTY 
 
 IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
 
 CONTAINED 
 
 IN THE EPISCOPAL RECORDER OF MARCH 16, 23, AND 30, 1844. 
 
 BY ALBERT BARNES. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 PERKINS & PURVES. 
 
 1844. 
 
 / 
 
M 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 Since this Reply was commenced, the articles in 
 the Episcopal Recorder to which it refers, have been 
 collected and published in a small pamphlet. To 
 the original articles, an appendix is added, designed 
 to contrast some opinions which I expressed two 
 years ago on the subject of Episcopacy, in two 
 articles in the Christian Spectator, with those ex- 
 pressed in the Tract on the " Position of the Evan- 
 gelical Party." I could show, I think, if it were 
 important, that there is no real contradiction between 
 the views expressed in those two articles ; but I am 
 free to confess that my views have changed — as I 
 suppose those of most persons have — about Epis- 
 copacy since the time when those articles were pub- 
 lished. I used expressions then, which a more inti- 
 mate acquaintance with the subject led me, on 
 republishing the articles from the Spectator a year 
 since, considerably to change ; and which I fear 
 there is still further occasion to modify. It is a 
 subject of sincere regret to me, that facts on which 
 no observer of passing events could close his eyes, 
 have made it necessary to change those views at 
 all. But who, ten years ago, could have anticipa- 
 ted the developements which have been made in the 
 Episcopal church since that time — developements 
 which have alarmed a large portion in that denom- 
 ination itself, as well as the whole Protestant com- 
 munity around it ? That my views, under these 
 circumstances, have been somewhat modified, I 
 
 (iii) 
 
IV ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 cannot deny, and am willing to acknowledge. He 
 must be a remarkable man whose opinions undergo 
 no change as he grows older, and a man singularly 
 confident in his earlier wisdom, who is unwilling to 
 confess it. But in one thing I have not changed — 
 in the language of respect and kindness with which 
 I design to speak of that church, and in my belief 
 that it is a part of the true church of the Redeemer, 
 and that there are many within it who are la- 
 boring as sincerely and as zealously as any others 
 in endeavouring to promote his cause. When will 
 Episcopalians so far modify their views as to be- 
 lieve there is any true church besides their own ? 
 
 There are several things of a personal character 
 in the review in the Recorder, which I have not 
 thought it proper to notice in this reply. My ne- 
 glecting to do so is not to be construed as an admis- 
 sion of their correctness, but of my conviction that 
 in a grave discussion, pertaining to an important 
 subject, they should not have been admitted at all. 
 The public have no interest in them, and they con- 
 tribute nothing to settle an inquiry after truth, or 
 to determine what is the true character and ten- 
 dency of Episcopacy. Of this nature is the follow- 
 ing assertion of the Editors : " Mr. Barnes feels 
 compelled to preach to his own congregation, in 
 reference to its errors, (those of Episcopacy,) for 
 the present book was first produced in this particu- 
 lar shape.''"' What is the foundation of this asser- 
 tion, I know not, but the editors are certainly mis- 
 informed. Of the seventy pages of my Tract, nine 
 were copied indeed from a sermon ; but in the 
 sermon there was no mention of Episcopacy what- 
 ever, and no particular reference to it. I have 
 never felt " compelled" in any way to preach about 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. V 
 
 Episcopacy, and have never mentioned it in my 
 preaching, but in the same respectful manner in 
 which I speak of Methodists, Baptists, and Presby- 
 terians. 
 
 Perhaps the following assertion deserves a more 
 serious notice. *' Has he (Mr. Barnes) forgotten 
 his own free expressions to a late friend of ours, 
 made about that time, (the time of the difficulties in 
 the Presbyterian church,) to the effect that a much 
 harder pressure would have led him to seek a min- 
 istry in the Episcopal church 1" There must be 
 some mistake in this. My memory furnishes me 
 with no recollection of any such conversation ; and 
 I am certain that I never intended what is here 
 said. That I have said that a harder pressure 
 might have induced me to leave the Presbyterian 
 church, is quite probable. But I never had any 
 intention of connecting myself with the Episcopal 
 church. Almost twenty- five years since, notwith- 
 standinn; some urgent efforts made at that time to 
 induce me to join the Episcopal church, I entered 
 the Presbyterian church — a church, which, during 
 that long time, observation and study have taught me 
 more and more to love, and to regard in its doc- 
 trines, and in its mode of government, as nearer to 
 the principles of the New Testament than any 
 other, 
 
 ALBERT BARNES. 
 
 Philadelphia, May 4, 1844. 
 
REPLY, &c. 
 
 The Episcopal Recorder contains a Review of 
 the Tract on " the Position of the Evangelical party 
 in the Episcopal church," extended through three 
 numbers of the paper, and under the responsibility 
 of the editorial department. This Review is of such 
 a character, as to demand from the author of the 
 Tract a reply. With me this reply shall be final on 
 the subject. The public shall have no occasion to 
 dread a protracted controversy between me and the 
 editors of the Recorder, and, unless something shall 
 appear from some other quarter which will give an 
 opportunity of further discussing the essential char- 
 acter and tendency of Episcopacy', the whole matter, 
 so far as I am concerned, will be submitted to the 
 calm judgment of the public. I have had an oppor- 
 tunity of expressing my views at length, and have 
 availed myself of a right, which I had in common 
 with all others, to examine the subject of Episco- 
 pacy as it is before the public in the best form in 
 which it has ever appeared — in the efforts made by 
 the Evangelical party. I have stated, neither with 
 unkindness, nor severity of language, what seemed 
 to me to be insuperable difficulties in their ' posi- 
 tion.' I have examined the Prayer Book^— a book 
 which Episcopalians are constantly commending to 
 the attention of the community, as if they were not 
 
 7 
 
8 
 
 unwilling that it should be examinnd with the 
 utmost freedom ; and I have compared the aims, 
 and plans, and efforts of the Evangelical party with 
 what I found in that Book. These views, the result 
 of all the attention which I have been able to .give 
 to the subject, I have submitted to the consideration 
 of others, as what seemed to me, to have an impor- 
 tant bearincr on religion. 
 
 The editors of the Recorder as the organs of the 
 Evangelical party, have done, what they had an 
 undoubted right to do, by expressing at length 
 their views of the Tract. They have had leisure 
 to examine its positions. They may be supposed, 
 without impropriety, to give utterance to the senti- 
 ments of that party in the Episcopal church. They 
 are familiar with the Prayer Book, and are abund- 
 antly qualified to do justice to the views, and to 
 vindicate the aims of the party with which they are 
 identified. They have ability to correct any mis- 
 apprehensions which may have existed in the mind 
 of the author of the Tract, and of those who think 
 with him, and the subject has been before them 
 from week to week in such a manner that it may 
 be presumed that the views which they have now 
 expressed are all which they deem it of importance 
 to submit to the public in reply to the Tract. 
 There is a propriety therefore, that with this no- 
 tice of their Review, ray participation in the dis- 
 cussion should cease, nor can it be presumed that 
 any thing which they will be disposed to say to this 
 reply, if they think it of importance to notice it at 
 all, will make it proper that the attention of the pub- 
 lic should be any farther solicited by me. 
 
 A few things seem necessary to be said on my 
 part to meet what they have advanced, and to place 
 
9 
 
 the whole argument in my Tract where I would 
 wish to leave it, after having been carefully exam- 
 ined by keen-sighted reviewers. Having done this, 
 the whole argument, so far as I am concerned, will 
 be submitted to the christian public, to be or not to 
 be, as that public shall judge, among the means of 
 forming an opinion of the essential tendency of 
 Episcopacy. 
 
 The Tract was prepared, as was stated in the com- 
 mencement of it (p. 5), " from no desire to intermed- 
 dle with the internal affairs of another denomination 
 of christians." The Episcopal church is prominent- 
 ly before the community. It has novv^, and indeed 
 always has had in this country, from causes which 
 could easily be stated, a prominence before the pub- 
 lic, which has not been by any means commensu- 
 rate with its numbers, its real strength, or its rela- 
 tive importance. I do not speak of it in derogation 
 of any excellence which it is entitled to, by saying 
 that its claims have been put forward with a bold- 
 ness and zeal which have been evinced by no 
 other denominations. Its friends might claim this 
 as one of its excellencies ; I am not now called on 
 to determine whether it is an excellency or an error 
 of the system. OC the fact no one will be disposed 
 to doubt, that the claims of Episcopacy have been 
 presented with a degree of confidence which has 
 never been evinced by the much more numerous 
 denominations of Baptists, Methodists, and Presby- 
 terians. 
 
 General reasons for examining Episcopacy at the 
 
 present time. 
 
 There are important reasons for examining these 
 claims, and it is difficult to see how blame can be 
 
10 
 
 attached to what has hitherto been conceded to be 
 proper, and, indeed, what has been, in some de- 
 gree at least, courted by EpiscopaUans themselves. 
 Among the reasons which seemed to me to make it 
 particularly proper to examine their claims at the 
 present time, were such as the following : — 
 
 (1.) The general attitude which the Episcopal 
 church has been understood to assume in reference 
 to other denominations of Christians. With a con- 
 siderable portion of the Episcopal church, embracing 
 all who are generally known as '• high churchmen,' 
 it has been understood that they do not recognize 
 any other churches than those which are Prelatical ; 
 and that they do not regard any as in any proper 
 sense ministers of the gospel, except those who have 
 been Episcopally ordained. On their part, there 
 has been the utmost frankness in their statements. 
 They have not, in general, been understood as de- 
 nying that others may possibly be saved ; but they 
 have spoken of them as being in substantially the 
 same condition, in regard to salvation, as those who 
 have never heard of the name of the Saviour. As 
 mere specimens of this claim, and of the manner in 
 which Episcopalians have allowed themselves to 
 speak on this subject, I will refer to the language 
 of two distinguished ministers of that church. The 
 first is Bishop Hobart. " Where the gospel is pro- 
 claimed, communion with the church, by participa- 
 tion of its ordinances, at the hands of a didj/ 
 authorized priesthood, is the indispensable condi- 
 tion of salvation.^'' — Companion for the Altar, p. 
 302. Bishop Ravenscroft says, that the " church, 
 the ministry, and the sacraments, are as distinctly 
 and truly the appointments of God, for the salva- 
 tion of sinners, as the faith of the gospel, and that 
 
11 
 
 it is only as these are united in the profession of 
 religion, can the hope, thereby given to a man, be 
 worthy of the name of assurance." — Doctrines of 
 the Church vindicated, pp. 31, 32. It has not been 
 uncommon for this portion of the Episcopal church 
 to speak of others as " left to the uncovenanted 
 mercies of God ;" to deny that they have a valid 
 ministry and valid sacraments, and to refuse to 
 recognize others as in any proper sense churches 
 of the Lord Jesus. Hence, they uniformly re-or- 
 dain, if one goes over to them from another Protes- 
 tant denomination, and though they do not always 
 re-baptise, it is not because they regard others as 
 authorized ministers of the gospel, but because they 
 admit the validity of lay baptism, in all the high 
 church movements in this country, there never has 
 been an act performed by them, it is believed, or 
 an expression of an opinion from any one of their 
 distinguished writers, by which there has been a 
 recognition of any other church, or by which others 
 are regarded as in any sense whatever, true 
 churches of the Lord Jesus. No one can fail to 
 admire the consistency and steadfastness with 
 which these views have been held, whatever may 
 be thought of the church within whose bosom they 
 are found. Whether these views are to be regarded 
 or not as of the nature of an " attack'''' on other 
 denominations, or whether they are mere defe?ice, 
 and have nothing aggressive, is a question on which 
 it is probable different persons would have quite dif- 
 ferent opinions. It may not be of the nature of an 
 attack on a man to say that he has no claims to the 
 rights of a citizen ; that his title-deeds to his prop- 
 erty are worthless ; that his marriage is void, and 
 that his children are illegitimate. If such asser- 
 
12 
 
 tions, however, are made, most plain persons would 
 consider that if they examined these charges, they 
 were not making an attack, but stood merely upon 
 a defence. Now whatever feelings other denomi- 
 nations might have in regard to this claim, whether 
 of sorrow, indignation, or contempt, there was no 
 ground of complaint in regard to the frankness and 
 clearness with which the opinion was avowed. 
 That matter was settled, and high church Episco- 
 palians and other denominations of Christians per- 
 fectly understood each other on the point. Episco- 
 pacy is now making a new struggle. Under the 
 better auspices of the low church party, it appears 
 in a new phase. It is putting forth new efforts, 
 and in a new direction. It seems to be attempting 
 to adapt itself to the large and liberal spirit of the 
 age, and to be disposed to fall in with the evangeli- 
 cal efforts which have been originated in, and 
 which characterise other denominations. It was 
 not an unnatural desire to know what modification 
 Episcopacy is susceptible of undergoing while still 
 retaining its essential features ; and it was not un- 
 natural or improper to ask, whether it could be so 
 moulded as to recognize other ministers, and to fall 
 into the great family of churches, as on a level with 
 others ; and it was not unnatural or improper to 
 ask of the leading advocates of the new efforts, what 
 are their views and aims in reference to this matter. 
 (2.) A second I'eason for examining the subject, 
 is, that the recent developements in the Episcopal 
 church, have forced the enquiry on the commu- 
 nity. It is impossible for even " a looker on in 
 V^enice" to close his eyes on the facts in regard to 
 those developements. The things which are com- 
 ing to pass in the Episcopal church in these days 
 
13 
 
 " are not done in a corner ;" and they are such that 
 other denominations besides the one more immedi- 
 ately interested, cannot but feel an interest in the 
 result. The subject pertains to our common Chris- 
 tianity. Not only have the growing dissensions 
 and strifes of that denomination been such as to 
 show that, with all the boasted proclamations of 
 " unity," there is no essential harmony, no oneness 
 whatever in the Episcopal sect ; that there exists 
 there all the elements, if not the form, of schism ; 
 that there is in fact a more vital and essential vari- 
 ance than there is between any two Protestant 
 denominations ; that the tree is split at the centre, 
 though the bark has not yet opened, or the sundered 
 parts gone off from each other ; but there have been 
 developements in one of the parties — and that by 
 far the largest in this country — which have alarmed 
 the Christian world. It is impossible but that other 
 Christians should know this. It cannot be wrong 
 to know it. It is not the spirit of intermeddling to 
 feel an interest in it. And it cannot be improper 
 for any one, either within or without the Episcopal 
 church, to inquire whether these developements are 
 in accordance with the essential tendency of the 
 system, and to express his convictions to the world. 
 One of the fair ways of judging of a system always 
 is, by its developements. " The tree is known by 
 its fruits." 
 
 (3.) A third reason for this examination is, that the 
 character, aims, and zeal of the party which is op- 
 posed to the Oxford developements, are such as in 
 themselves tend strongly to secure the sympathy of 
 all evangelical christians. That party is known 
 not to be numerous, and it has been supposed 
 that they constitute but a feeble minority in 
 
 2 
 
14 
 
 the Episcopal church. Yet their general aims are 
 distinct and detinite. They accord with the evan- 
 gelical denominations of christians in their main 
 efforts. They are the friends of spiritual religion ; 
 of the doctrines of the new birth, and of justification 
 by faith ; of Revivals, Sabbath schools, and of 
 Prayer meetings ; and they have manifested to some 
 extent, a warm sympathy with those who are en- 
 deavouring to distribute the word of life around the 
 world. With these aims others warmly sympa- 
 thize. Yet as a great question pertaining to our 
 common Christianity, it could not but occur to in- 
 quire, whether these aims are in accordance with 
 what has been for ages understood to be Episco- 
 pacy, and with Episcopacy as it is found in their 
 own standards. It is a question in which others 
 have a deep interest, and which from any thing that 
 has yet appeared, others have a right to examine, 
 whether these aims are practicable ; whether others 
 should be encouraged, as they have been in times 
 past, to throw in their influence with that party, 
 and whether the Episcopal church is destined to 
 take its place with the Evangelical denominations 
 of the christian world, wholly imbued, as the low 
 churchman wishes, with the spirit of evangelism. 
 From any thing that appears, other christians have 
 a right to ask whether the whole frame-work of 
 Episcopacy, and its whole spirit, be not against 
 them. At all events, whether these enquiries are 
 propounded to the public or not, they are passing 
 through the minds of thousands who love Zion, and 
 who are ready to hail any feasible effort for the 
 advancement of Evangelical religion. 
 
 (4.) There is another reason for the examination 
 of Episcopacy in every phase in which it may ap- 
 
15 
 
 pear. It is because the influence of Episcopacy in ' 
 the church has been at no time either negative or 
 unimportant. Taking the christian church at 
 large, it has done more to make it what it is at this 
 day, than any other cause whatever. Episcopa- 
 lians believe that the influence has been good ; 
 others doubt it, and at all events the results are 
 before the world. It is the boast of Episcopalians, 
 and is one of their favourite arguments for the di- 
 vine origin of Prelacy, that the forms of their 
 religion spread over about nineteen twentieths of 
 the christian world, and that for centuries almost 
 the whole church reposed under its umbrageous 
 shadow. It prevailed in the time of Constantine — 
 whatever may be said of the ages before him. The 
 whole Papal world has been Episcopal ' without 
 shadow of turning' throughout its entire history. 
 The Greek church has always been Prelatical in 
 its form. The Armenian, the Nestorian, and the 
 Coptic churches are wholly Episcopal in their 
 structure. Episcopacy has showed its features in 
 every clime, and among every people. It has been 
 seen in the place where our Lord was crucified ; 
 on the mount where he was transfigured, and the 
 mount from whence he ascended to heaven ; in the 
 neighbourhood of Lebanon and Olympus ; in 
 classic Greece, and in the eastern and western 
 capitals of the Roman v/orld ; in Egypt, and all 
 northern Africa ; in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, 
 Germany and England ; amidst the snows of 
 Scandinavia, and in the burning regions of the 
 tropics : it has been seen in Ireland, South America, 
 Mexico, Lower Canada and Cuba ; and having de- 
 veloped its nature in all these places and coun- 
 tries, it is now developing itself amidst the free insti- 
 
16 
 
 tutions of America. It is right to enquire what was its 
 influence on Europe and Asia, during the dark ages ; 
 it is right to enquire what has been and is its influ- 
 ence in Syria, Greece, Egypt, Italy, Spain, Portugal, 
 Russia, France, Ireland, Brazil, Mexico, Cuba and 
 Lower Canada ; and it is right to ask, judging 
 from the past and the present, what ivill be its in- 
 fluence in the United States. Of nothing in this 
 world has there been a fairer experiment made 
 than of the influence of Episcopacy, and nothing 
 caji be a fairer subject of investigation. It appears 
 here, indubitably in its best form. It seeks to 
 catch the spirit of this age. It would even ally 
 itself with the once rejected spirit of Puritanism, It 
 becomes the warm friend of Evangelical religion, 
 of Revivals, and Missions, and of efforts to train 
 the young in sabbath schools. It is 7'ight to enquire 
 what is the prospect of success in the new phase in 
 which it appears. It is right to ask of history 
 what it has 'been ; to look into the Prayer Book 
 and to see what it is there ; to contemplate the lu- 
 cubrations of the Oxford divines, and to ask whether 
 they are wholly mistaken in their understanding of 
 what Episcopacy is ; and to ask whether the Evan- 
 gelical party are or are not engaged in an imprac- 
 ticable undertaking, when they seek to blend Evan- 
 gelical religion with the Religion of Forms. It is 
 time to examine the essential nature of the system, 
 and it is proper to do it, even though the examina- 
 tion should lead us to doubt the infallibility of the 
 Prayer Book, and the wisdom of the Parliament of 
 1548, which enacted that it had been composed by 
 
 THE AID OF THE HoLY GhOST.* 
 
 * Wheatly on Common Prayer, p. 28. 
 
17 
 
 Particular reasons for inquiring into the position 
 OF the Evangelical party. 
 
 These are some of the reasons for an exami- 
 nation of the general claims and purposes of 
 Episcopacy at the present time. Some of the 
 more particular reasons for inquiring into the 
 " position of the Evangelical Party'''' in that 
 church, at the present time, are these : — 
 
 (1.) The claims of the high church party, so far as 
 other denominations are concerned, have not been 
 disavowed by them. There has been no general and 
 open remonstrance against those claims, and no 
 general attempt to show that they were contrary to 
 the genius of the Episcopal church. There has 
 been no recognition of other ministers and churches 
 among the low church Episcopalians, any more 
 than there has been by their high church brethren ; 
 and though they have been willing to co-operate with 
 them, on many subjects, yet it never has been with 
 them as with ministers and churches. In other denom- 
 inations of Christians, there is a mutual recognition. 
 No one ever doubts what are the views of Baptists, 
 Methodists, Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, Ger- 
 man Reformed, Lutherans, and Moravians, in re- 
 gard to each other. There is no concealment. 
 There is no withholding of mutual recognition. The 
 pulpits of the one denomination are never closed 
 against the other ; and the community understand 
 that they regard others as on the same level with 
 themselves. But neither from high or low church 
 Episcopalians is there any such general recognition, 
 and if occasionally an individual of the low church 
 party has expressed a belief of the validity of the 
 ordination of other ministers, it has been understood 
 to be an exception to the general faith of his party ; 
 2* 
 
18 
 
 and even he has felt himself restrained by his 
 "canons," from any act of public recognition. 
 
 (2.) The low church party are in the habit of 
 i*e-baptising the members received from other 
 churches. I do not say that this is always done ; 
 but if I am correctly informed, it is more frequently 
 done than it is by their high church brethren.* It 
 is not indeed always done ; but where it is not 
 done, the alleged reason why it is not, is of a na- 
 ture more fitted to give offence to other denomina- 
 tions of christians, than if it were done. It is not 
 omitted because they consider that other ministers 
 have had a valid ordination, and have a right to 
 administer the sacraments, but because they admit 
 the validity of lay baptism, and recognize such 
 a baptism just as they would that administered 
 by one who made no pretensions to the ministerial 
 character. This is the ground distinctly taken in 
 the late letters of Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont, who 
 is understood to act with the low church party. On 
 this subject he uses the following language : " The 
 first subject which I shall present is that of Lay 
 Baptism, inasmuch as the novel practice of re-bap- 
 tizing those who have received baptism at the hands 
 of our non-episcopal brethren, is openly defended, 
 and is on the increase.'''' p. 6. Against the practice 
 of re-baptizing, the Bishop then strenuously argues 
 through more than fifty pages ; and the ground 
 of his opposition to the practice is not, that non- 
 episcopal ministers have a valid ordination, or have 
 a right to administer the sacraments, but that their 
 baptism is to be recognized because lay baptism is 
 
 * This statement is made on the authority of an Episco- 
 pal clergyman. 
 
19 
 
 valid. Perhaps a more signal and public attempt 
 to show the invalidity of the ordination of their min- 
 isters, or one which is more adapted to give offence to 
 non-episcopalians, has never occurred than this. 
 Nothing could be so much fitted to give pain as an 
 extended argument of this kind, in which there is no 
 intimation that they are ordained, or that they are min- 
 isters of the g-ospel in any sense ; but that what they 
 do ill baptism should be recognized by Episcopa- 
 lians, because baptism by any man, or even woman,, 
 (p. 48,) is to be recognized by them ; because this 
 can be shown to have been the practice of the 
 *' P®.thers," the Papists, and by the founders of the 
 Episcopal church ; because m the time of Athana- 
 «ius^ the " baptism of hoys in play^^ was recognized 
 (pp.. 27, 28,)'; because Augustine held that those 
 *' who were separated from the unity of the church" 
 might baptise, (p. 35) ; because Pope Leo taught 
 that *' the baptism of heretics must iiot be repeated 
 (p. 39) ; and because the venerable Bede taught 
 that " Whether a heretic, or a schismatic, or any 
 wicked tvretch whatever, baptises in the confession 
 of the Holy Trinity, it avails not that he who is 
 (\\\is baptised should be re-baptised by good catho- 
 lics ; and that after it is once done, it can by no 
 means be repeated," (p. 47.) S-jch is the reason- 
 mg on which this lov/ church Prelate in the nine- 
 teenth century, and in Protestant America, endeav- 
 'ors to convince Episcopalians of both parties, that 
 they ought to recognize the baptism admioistered by 
 Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Metho- 
 dists, and the Dutch and German churches. 
 
 llov/ far such language and such a recognition 
 will contribute to remove the feelmgs with which 
 the claims of the high cliurch party are i-egarded 
 
20 
 
 by others, may admit of some diversity of opinion. 
 For one, the frank declaration of high church- 
 men, that I am in no sense to be regarded as a 
 minister of the gospel, is far more grateful to my 
 feelings than the admission that baptism adminis- 
 tered by me is valid, because I am a layman. 
 
 (3.) The same thing exists in regard to re-ordi- 
 nation. The low church party declare that " with- 
 in the last thirty years, about three hundred minis- 
 ters of other denominations have entered the minis- 
 try of the Episcopal church." See the Episcopal 
 Recorder of January 27, 1844. The statistics are 
 not furnished on which this statement is made, and 
 it is impossible for me to ascertain from what de- 
 nominations these accessions have been derived. 
 It may be presumed that a small portion of them have 
 come from the Roman Catholic church ; a few haves 
 gone from Presbyterians ; the great mass, it is sup- 
 posed, are Methodists. None of the Catholics have 
 been re-ordained ; all the rest undoubtedly have 
 been. No one, according to the Prayer Book, 
 (Preface to the Form and Manner of making, or- 
 daining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and 
 Deacons,) can be admitted to the clerical office irj 
 the Episcopal church in this country, " who hath 
 not had Episcopal consecration or ordination." On 
 the supposition, then, that fifty of the converts have 
 been from the Romanist communion, there have 
 been exhibited to this community, within the timo 
 specified, two hundred and fifty distinct cases in 
 which there has been a public refusal to recognize 
 the ministry of other denominations.. Some of 
 those who have been thus re-ordained, are now in 
 the ranks of the low church party ; having submit- 
 ted to the indignity of abjuring their ordination, and 
 
21 
 
 making by the act a public declaration that all those 
 from whom they separated, have no valid title to the 
 ministry. Some of those who have thus re-ordain- 
 ed others, are Prelates who are identified with the 
 low church party, bringing now in each and every 
 case, the weight of their private character and offi- 
 cial standing to proclaim through the whole extent 
 of their dioceses, and throughout the land, their be- 
 lief that all other ordination but Episcopal is invalid. 
 Meantime, from no organ of the low church, from 
 no pulpit, and from no press, have we heard the 
 slightest note of rebuke or dissent from these pub- 
 lic acts. So far as appears, without a solitary 
 exception, they have acquiesced in acts which pro- 
 claim that the Papacy is a true church, and that 
 all their Protestant brethren, except the Moravians, 
 are without a valid ministry. It may be assumed, 
 therefore, that there is not a low church Prelate, 
 Priest, or Deacon, in this land, wiio would recognize 
 a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a Methodist ordination ; 
 and that there is not a low church minister who would 
 feel himself called upon to utter a note of remon- 
 strance at the public indignity thus shown to the min- 
 isters of every other religious denomination. Wheth- 
 er it is wi'ong to ask our Episcopal brethren of the 
 !o\v church on what principles it is that they re- 
 gard an ordination in the Papal communion as en- 
 titling to higher public respect, and as better qualify- 
 ing for the true work of the ministry, than ordina- 
 tion in the Protestant churches, may be safely left 
 to the community to determine. 
 
 (4.) So far as the low church have expressed 
 themselves on the points at issue between the high 
 church and other Protestants, they have identified 
 themselves with the former. Thus Bishop McCos- 
 
22 
 
 kry, of Michigan, says, " It is only through this 
 ministry (that is, an Episcopally ordained ministry) 
 that pardon and acceptance with God can be made 
 known." " The apostles held the only ministry 
 which was held of Christ. Not only the power to 
 rule and govern the church, but also it must follow, 
 to continue the same power. If not, there has 
 never been any authorized ministry in the church, 
 and all who profess to be commissioned as ambas- 
 sadors of Christ, are gross impostors." Sermon, 
 Feb. 19, 1842. 
 
 Bishop Hopkins, also, while he reasons, in no 
 very conclusive manner, that the name ' church' 
 has been given, and should be given, by Episcopa- 
 Hans to other denominations, yet maintains that 
 they have " lost the apostolic order of the ministry /" 
 that is, if words have a natural signification, they 
 are without any regular and authorized ministry. 
 "Those portions of Christendom," says he, " which 
 retain the fundamental verities of the christian 
 faith, are entitled, for the faith's sake, to be called 
 churches, AiiTHouGH they have lost the apostolic 
 ORDER OF THE MINISTRY." " I bcg Icavc," says he, 
 " to be understood as distinctly maintaining that the 
 institution of the Episcopal church government is 
 DIVINE, because apostolic." " The completeness or 
 perfection of the church, requires both the apostolic 
 doctrine and government. The faith of the church, 
 and the ministry of the church should doubtless go 
 together. The first is the jewel ; the second is the 
 casket. But the loss of the one does not necessarily 
 involve the loss of the other ; even as the destruc- 
 tion of the body does not necessarily involve the de- 
 struction of the soul." The Novelties which dis- 
 turb our peace. Letter 2 pp. 8 — 9. So also oa 
 
23 
 
 pp, 51, 52, Bishop Hopkins holds the following 
 language. " Every consistent churchman is 
 OBLIGED to deny that the ministry of non-episcopal 
 churches is a regular apostolic ministry. For we 
 all, with a very few exceptions, maintain the apos- 
 tolic and divine institution of Episcopacy ; we all 
 maintain that the work of ordination belongs of 
 right, to none but Bishops, who as ordainers, and 
 governors in chief over the church, were appointed 
 to succeed the apostles. It results, of course, that 
 ive cannot regard the non-episcopal ministry as men 
 regularly ordained, but rather as laymen, exerci- 
 sing ministerial functions according to a ride of 
 human, instead of divine ; of modern, instead of 
 apostolic institution. Hence their baptisms arc lay 
 baptisms. They are also liable to the charge of 
 schism, and some are not fi-ec from the more griev- 
 ous infection of heresy." 
 
 Scarcely any work of these times has been more 
 heartily commended by the Episcopal Recorder 
 than this of Bishop Hopkins. How far it is satis- 
 factory to others to have their baptism regarded as 
 valid because that of laymen is valid, and to be 
 told that " they have lost the apostolic ministry," 
 and that they have " the jewel, but that the casket 
 is gone," and that they are to be recognized as 
 churches in the same sense that a soul v>dthout a bo- 
 dy is to be regarded as a man, it is not difficult to 
 imagine. How, with these views, other denomina- 
 tions can be recognized as churches, is a problem 
 of somewhat diihcult solution. At all events, since 
 other churches are thus disowned by the low churcii 
 party as well as the high ; since the views thus ex- 
 pressed are endorsed or sanctioned by every public 
 and official act ; and since when Uiere is any ap- 
 
24 
 
 pearance of recognition it is done in a manner so 
 little satisfactory to others, and in a way so inevi- 
 tably leading to the impression that an essential 
 thing is wanting in all non-episcopal churches, it 
 cannot be deemed improper to examine the nature 
 of these claims. 
 
 (5.) One other thing has been apparent also 
 among low churchmen. They have evinced great 
 and commendable zeal against the views of the Ox- 
 ford writers, and the aims of the high church party. 
 But on the signal injustice pubhcly done to a large 
 portion of the Protestant world, in denying that 
 they have a valid ministry and valid ordinances, 
 we have heard from them no note of remonstrance. 
 At these extraordinary claims, they express no 
 grief. When a Papist is admitted to their ministry 
 without being re-ordained, and a Presbyterian or 
 Methodist neophyte is on the same day ordained as 
 a deacon, after having exercised the office of the min- 
 istry for years, there is no expression of disapproba- 
 tion. Is it of the nature of an " attack ;" is it " perse- 
 cution" in these circumstances to examine the subject 
 of Episcopacy as it is actually before the public, even 
 in its best form '? Are other denominations to be re- 
 garded as aggressors when they kindly but firmly 
 lift up the voice of remonstrance against the posi- 
 tion which their professedly Protestant brethren 
 choose to take against them ] It may be a mere 
 logomachy to endeavour to ascertain from what 
 quarter the " attack" really comes, and it may be 
 safely left to the public to determine. Whether to 
 hold up all other ministers of the gospel as " impos- 
 tors ;" to re-baptise those who are proselytes from 
 other denominations, or to maintain that they are not 
 to be re-baptised because the baptism of " laymen," 
 
25 
 
 and " women," and " boys," and " heretics," or any 
 " wicked wretch whatever" is valid ; to re-ordain all 
 ministers from other denominations except Papists ; 
 to affirm that the ministers of other denominations 
 are all laymen, exercising their functions " accord- 
 ing to a human instead of a divine institution," be 
 or be not of the nature of an " attack," may not be 
 a matter worth contending about. The thing itself 
 has an importance which demands investigation, 
 whoever is the agressor. 
 
 It is for such reasons that I do not deem it im- 
 proper, to submit to the public my views of the aims 
 and efforts of the Evangelical party in the Episco- 
 pal church. It has been said that I have made an 
 unprovoked attack on another denomination. This 
 was to be expected, and though the examination 
 was conducted in the mildest and kindest manner 
 possible, it was probably not practicable to avoid 
 this charge. The charge seems to have been made 
 because our Episcopal brethren do not appreciate 
 the feelings of the religious community around 
 them, and because there is a diffierence of view be- 
 tween us as to what constitutes attack and defence. 
 
 But in reply to this charge of making an " attack," 
 and to all that is said of " persecution" by Episco- 
 palians, at present, I would make two other re- 
 marks. One is, that it is of the nature of Protest- 
 antism to consider it right to examine with the ut- 
 most freedom, every thing which comes before the 
 community affecting our common Christianity. 
 The church is one. The interests of truth pertain 
 to all, and any thing in the bosom of the christian 
 church, any where, which affects the common 
 cause ; any developements of Christianity ; or any 
 doctrines put forth, we rej^ard as a fair subject of 
 ^3 
 
26 
 
 investigation. Presbyterians do not think that they 
 have a right to complain if their church poh'ty 
 and order, or if their doctrinal articles of religion 
 are examined freely ; nor do Baptists construe it as 
 an " attack" or as " persecution" if we attempt to 
 show the propriety of household baptism, or that 
 their views of " close communion" are not in accor- 
 dance with the New Testament ; nor are Meth- 
 odists accustomed to complain if there is a free en- 
 quiry into the polity of their own church. In the 
 Presbyterian church, it has never been considered 
 impertinent, intrusive, or improper in any sense, for 
 other denominations to examine their general 
 ' position,' or the ' position' of any party in that 
 church, with the utmost freedom. During the late 
 contentions in that church, the aims, and purposes, 
 and theology of what has been called " the new 
 school party," were examined at great length in a 
 series of articles first published in the Christian 
 Advocate and Journal, the leading paper of the 
 Methodist denomination ; and subsequently collect- 
 ed and published in a volume entitled " An exami- 
 nation of the System of Nev/ Divinity, or New 
 School Theology," in 1839. No Presbyterian of 
 either party, as far as I know, either then or since, 
 has made complaint of this as an " attack," as " in- 
 termeddling," or as " persecution." We published, 
 our views to the wide world. We invited the world 
 to examine them as freely and as long as they 
 pleased. Believing that they were true, we were 
 desirous that they should be looked at. If offence 
 were to be taken because such an examination was 
 made, it would be very easy to show that that book 
 contained much more that was adapted to give of- 
 fence, than anything in my little pamphlet on Epis- 
 
27 
 
 copacy. It is quite difficult to see wliat -there is in 
 the Episcopal church which renders a similar ex- 
 amination improper, or why that which has been 
 regarded as proper elsewhere, should be construed 
 as an " attack," or as " persecution" there. It is 
 difficult to see that there is any church that can 
 claim an exception from this right to a free exami- 
 nation of its views — and least of all one which 
 claims to be the only true church now existing on 
 the earth. It is very certain that Episcopalians 
 have not usually been particularly restrained from 
 expressing their views, by any very delicate scru- 
 ples about the right of enquiring into the polity of 
 other chi^rches, and their claims to an equality 
 with themselves. 
 
 But there was another reason which led to the 
 statement of the thoughts suggested in the Tract on 
 " the position of the evangelical party in the Epis- 
 copal church." I v/rote the article, indeed, at the 
 suggestion of no one, and published it without sub- 
 mitting it to any others ; but the thoughts there ex- 
 pressed are by no means confined to the individual 
 who v/rote the Tract. They are inquiries in which 
 the religious community at large is interested. 
 Other churches are by no means uninterested spec- 
 tators of the " position" which the Evangelical 
 party now occupies, or of their aims and purposes. 
 While all their sympathies, as the friends of reli- 
 gion, are with the Evangelical party, they think 
 they see that those objects can never be secured in 
 connection with the Episcopal church, but that the 
 whole history of Prelacy has been at variance with 
 these efforts. They suppose that if those objects 
 are to be secured, it must be by a freer organization, 
 aiid that the Prayer Book, in its present form at 
 
28 
 
 least, is an insuperable barrier to the accomplish- 
 ment of their purposes. We do not wish to inter- 
 fere with their internal organization ; to attempt to 
 decide the questions which have sprung up among 
 themselves ; to throw any influence in favour of 
 one party or the other ; to give increased rancour 
 to the strife which has already so effectually de- 
 stroyed all appearance of the once boasted " unity'* 
 in the Episcopal church, and which make it doubt- 
 ful whether an allusion to that " unity" now is 
 designed to be serious or ironical ; or to exasperate 
 one of the parties against the other. We do not 
 suppose that we have a right to intermeddle with 
 an internal and domestic warfare, but we have a 
 right to inquire what Episcopacy has been in its 
 whole history from the days of Constantino ; what 
 has been its influence in the ages in which it has 
 engrossed all of Christianity to itself^ and what it is 
 in its best form — ^the form in which it is held by the 
 Evangelical party in that church. We are not 
 enemies who wish to thwart their plans ; we are not 
 foreigners who have come in to disturb the peace of 
 a neighbour ; we are brethren who have a right to 
 discuss the general aims and plans of our Christian 
 brethren, so far as they choose to put them forth 
 before the world ; and it will not be practicable for 
 the Episcopal church to make any " capital" out 
 of the assertion that they are a " persecuted" peo- 
 ple. The community is often credulous, but this 
 is probably the last thing which it will be disposed 
 to believe. 
 The manner in which it was to be presumed the 
 
 Inquiry would be met. 
 
 It was natural to have anticipated that if the ex- 
 amination of Episcopacy were conducted in a kind 
 
29 
 
 manner, it would be met with a kind spirit. If in 
 any denomination of christians there are what ap- 
 pears to otliers to be difficulties of a serious charac- 
 ter, it was natural to suppose that they would be 
 candidly explained ; if objections are made to doc- 
 trines or practices in any Christian church, there is 
 an obvious propriety that there should be the spirit 
 of kindness in the manner in which those objections 
 are removed. Nothing is gained in christian con- 
 troversy by harsh words ; by epithets which tend 
 only to wound the feelings ; by personal allusions, 
 or by an imputation of bad motives. Conscious 
 truth will seldom be provoked to such acts of con- 
 troversy, and the sincere lover of truth will learn to 
 check and restrain all such ebullitions. I had no 
 personal allusion or reference in penning the Tract 
 on the position of the Evangelical party. I made 
 mention of no npaip.e but in the kindest manner. I 
 used no uncourteous words in regard to th*^ party ; I 
 cast no reflection on their motives. It was reason- 
 able to suppose that. Vv'hatever examination might be 
 made of the Tract, it would be done in a kind spirit, 
 and with a corresponding freedom from personality. 
 There was a way in which the argument in that Tract 
 might have been so met as to have maintained the 
 feelings of brotherhood unimpaired ; and it was pos- 
 sible for the Evangelical party in the Episcopal church 
 to have secured the cordial sympathy of the whole 
 Christian community in their struggles against their 
 high church brethren. All that was needed in the 
 case was one of these things : — to show to the sat- 
 i-sfaetion of the community, that the spirit of Evan- 
 gelism is not inconsistent with Episcopacy, and may 
 live and flourish there ; to explain how it has been 
 th^t this never has occurred, and what new hopes 
 3 
 
30 
 
 they have of success when all efforts have hereto- 
 fore failed ; and if such be their belief, to recognise 
 cordially other ministers and churches as true por- 
 tions of the church of Christ. Or if, pressed by the 
 difficulties of their condition, and despairing of suc- 
 cess in a controversy where the odds are so much 
 against them, they should frankly acknowledge that 
 there are things in their Liturgy which are against 
 the spirit of this age ; that it was framed in a time 
 when the objects which they now seek were not 
 contemplated by the church ; that the Prayer Book 
 might be modified to advantage, and should they 
 imitate the Reformers, and the noble example of the 
 Free Church of Scotland, they would be certain to 
 carry the sympathy of the community with them. 
 They would be certain also to be a more flourishing- 
 church than they can now be. Tbey would breathe 
 the air of freedom. The Evangelical spirit would 
 no longer struggle in bonds. They would secure 
 all those in the community who have any affinities 
 for Episcopacy, and who prefer that mode of wor- 
 ship. The high church party would make few 
 converts from other denominations. The few who 
 might, from any cause, be disposed to become unit- 
 ed with them, would prefer at once to enter the Ro- 
 man Catholic communion. Tendimus in Latium 
 seems to be the appropriate motto of that party, and 
 it would be easier to persuade men to start on a 
 journey at once to Rome, than to persuade them to 
 leave their homes with an intention to end their 
 travels at any place without the walls of the Eternal 
 City. Indeed it is a fact about which there can be 
 no doubt, that the converts which have been made 
 of late years to the Episcopal church, have been 
 principally made by the zeal of the low church 
 
f\ 
 
 31 
 
 party. If that party wished to secure accessions 
 still from other denominations, it was incumbent on 
 them to furnish to the community some guarantee 
 that they who now enter the Episcopal church will 
 not be engaged in a hopeless warfare ; will not be 
 obliged to depart from the whole spirit of their 
 rubric and canons, and will not be in danger of 
 being overshadowed and crushed by Puseyism or 
 Romanism.* 
 
 In particular, I supposed I had a right to antici^ 
 pate that the argument in my Tract would be met 
 in a kind manner. When, ten years ago, I exam- 
 ined, with as much freedom as I have shown in this 
 inquiry, the Tract on " Episcopacy tested by Scrip- 
 ture," by the Right Rev. Dr. Onderdonk, the argu- 
 ment was met by him in a spirit and manner wholly 
 becoming the character of a christian and a gentle^ 
 man. There was not an unkind word uttered ; 
 there was no imputation of an improper motive ; 
 there was nothing to diminish my high respect for 
 him ; there was no charge of misrepresentation, or 
 of disregard for the truth. On his part, the argu- 
 ment was a model in tone and spirit of what an 
 argument conducted by a christian gentleman 
 should be ; and I meant, on my part, to reciprocate 
 his kind and gentlemanly treatment, 1 supposed 
 then, and believe still, that apart from the bearing 
 of the argument on truth, good was done by show- 
 ing on both sides, what has been so rarely seen in 
 
 *Seetheletter of Judge Jay, an eminent Episcopalian, giv- 
 ing reasons for declining to contribute to build an Episcopal 
 church in Westchester County, New York, because there was 
 reason to apprehend that it might yet be brought wholly un- 
 der the control of the Puseyite party in the Episcopal church. 
 This letter was recently published in the New York Com- 
 mercial Advertiser. 
 
32 
 
 debates on religion, that a controversy could be 
 conducted without in the least embittering the feel- 
 ings of those engaged in it, or diminishing mutual 
 respect. 
 
 1 had the strongest reasons to suppose that the 
 result would be the same in the examination of 
 another important question, pertaining to Episco- 
 pacy — the position of the Evangelical party in that 
 church. Some of that party I have had the happi- 
 ness to reckon among my personal friends, nor has 
 the fact of their preierence for Episcopacy above 
 what I have regarded as a better faith, made any 
 diminution in the affection which I have had for 
 them, nor so far as I could perceive, in their re- 
 spect for me. The Rev. John A. Clark, D. D., 
 late editor of the Recorder, was a personal friend 
 for more than twenty years, and all my intercourse 
 with the present editors has been uniformly of the 
 kindest character. Under these circumstances, and 
 not liaving any other reference to them in the re- 
 marks Vv'hich I ventured to publish on the position 
 of the party with which they are identified than 1 
 had to all others of that party, it was rational to 
 expect ihat, if my Tract was noticed at all, it 
 would be in the spirit of kindness to which I had 
 been accustomed, and which I had endeavoured my- 
 self to evince. 
 
 THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INQUIRY HAS BEEN ACTUAL- 
 LY MET. 
 
 To my friends and theirs, it has been a matter 
 of surprise to observe the method which the editors 
 have thought proper to adopt in their reply. The 
 controversy, so far as they are concerned, seems to 
 have become personal, and the attention is diverted 
 
from the argument to the man. There are two classes 
 of charges or epithets which they have seen proper 
 to employ. Of the former class, are such as these : 
 " Ignorance and misapprehension ;" " misrepresen- 
 tation of facts ;" " unjust assaults ;" " extreme mis- 
 representations ;" " hostile spirit ;" " virulence ;" 
 " rudeness ;" " the exceeding injustice and misrep- 
 resentation of the book :" " indelicacy and want of 
 GOOD BREEDING ;" «' vcry empty assertions ;" an " un- 
 provoked and unnecessary assault ;" " mis-state- 
 ments." The editors speak of themselves as " in- 
 suited,^'' (that is by this publication, and by the man- 
 ner in which it is received in the community), and 
 shut out of respectful and decorous reception 
 among those who are accustomed to meet on oc- 
 casions when christians meet for the purpose of 
 united efforts to spread the gospel." 
 
 The other charges are of a more serious char- 
 acter. They relate not to a deficiency of knowl- 
 edge, or to a necessity of instruction in the rules of 
 etiquette, but to the heart. They pertain to the moral 
 and religious character, and embody express ac- 
 cusations of a determined and wilful disregard of 
 the truth, and of a purpose even to invent and 
 falsify in order to vilify the Episcopal church. 
 The editors speak of " the peculiar exhibition 
 which he has made of ignorance of the facts in 
 the case, and unconcern for their existence ;" 
 they say that " Mr. Barnes could not revile the 
 Liturgy of the church adequately without voluntary 
 misrepresentations ;" that " these two sentences," 
 (quoted from p. 34 of the Tract,") contain nothing 
 less than two deliberate acts of injustice, deliberately 
 framed for the mere purpose of inventing increased 
 reproach ;" that " Mr. Barnes' determination for 
 
34 
 
 the result he desired of complete vilification of the 
 Prayer Book, would not have allowed him this 
 reference." In speaking of the argument which I 
 had submitted on confirmation, the editors indulge 
 themselves in the following language : " With what 
 honesty then can Mr. Barnes occupy eleven pages 
 of his book in the deliberate framing of a contrary 
 statement, when a simple reference to our known 
 laws would have exhibited to him the truth at once." 
 There is here exhibited, just as there is throughout 
 the whole book, the determination to vilify and destroy 
 not the party avowedly the object, but the church to 
 which they belong. There is no ' enquiry^ into 
 facts, from one end of the publication to the other, 
 but a succession of unfounded assertions, and im- 
 putations EQUALLY DESTITUTE OF TRUTH AND PROOF." 
 
 So again the editors say, " In- reply to such perfect- 
 ly unfounded statements, we hardly know what to 
 say — the charge seems so voluntarily untrue, 
 from a man who professes to have examined the 
 book." 
 
 These are certainly very grave charges against 
 a minister of the gospel, and should not have been 
 hastily made. The community will not expect me 
 to reply to them. I may be " ignorant," and if so, 
 it would have been very easy to show me wherein ; 
 I may have " misapprehended" some things, and it 
 would have been easy to have shown me the truth ; 
 but to " misrepresent voluntarily, for the purpose 
 of vilifying ;" " deliberately to frame that which is 
 designed to increase reproach ;" to " have no con- 
 cern for the existence of facts," and to make state- 
 ments which even seem to be " voluntarily untrue," 
 is not my character ; nor will the declaration of the 
 Editors of the Episcopal Recorder satisfy this 
 
35 
 
 community that it is. They will themselves regret 
 the use of this language on calm reflection, and 1 
 shall hasten to forget it as soon as possible. Such 
 language contributes nothing to the discovery of 
 truth, or to the value of an argument. I put these 
 unhappy expressions on record here not for the 
 purpose of replying to them, but to do all in my 
 power to prevent their use hereafter. They shall 
 not be remembered by me in the argument, or in 
 my private intercourse with Episcopalians. The 
 end of discussion is truth ; and that end will be best 
 reached by clear argument, kind words, and cour- 
 teous deportment. The atmosphere in which truth 
 resides is clear and serene, in a region elevated far 
 above the mists of prejudice and passion, and to be 
 reached only by a vigorous effort to rise above 
 them. " No pleasure," says Lord Bacon, " is 
 comparable to the standing upon the vantage-ground 
 of truth : (a hill not to be commanded, and where 
 the air is always clear and serene ;) and to see the 
 errors, and wanderings, and mists, and tempests in 
 the vale below : so always that this prospect be 
 with pity, and not with swelling or pride." I 
 used kind words, and I shall continue to do so. 
 Hitherto I have had no occasion to notice anything 
 else among those with whom I have had intercourse 
 in the Episcopal church, and I shall give occasion 
 for no other in anything that I have to say. So 
 far as personal intercourse is concerned between 
 me and Episcopalians, everything has been of the 
 kindest character ; and so far as I am concerned, 
 nothing shall provoke me to depart from what I 
 have adopted as the rule of my life in my inter- 
 course with all classes of men. Hitherto I have 
 experienced no want of this on the part of Episco- 
 
36 
 
 palians. As a minister, I have had no reason to 
 complain of any interference from them with me — 
 of any effort to draw away my people from my 
 ministry, or in any manner to injure my reputation, 
 or to embarrass me in my work. I have never 
 felt the slightest hesitation to dismiss any one of 
 my members who preferred that communion ; nor 
 have I supposed they have had any reluctance to 
 dismiss those to unite with my church who have 
 preferred the Presbyterian mode of worship. The 
 interchange of members, if the phrase may be em- 
 ployed, has been to me of a pleasant character. I 
 have honourable testimonials and recommendations 
 from the Episcopal church, in my possession ; and 
 in the passing from one church to another, there 
 has been no such disparity of numbers as to cause 
 on my part even momentary jealousy. I have 
 always supposed, that from numerous causes, there 
 are those in a community who would prefer the 
 Episcopal mode of worship to the Presbyterian, 
 and who, perhaps, would be more edified in such a 
 communion ; and on the other hand, I have sup- 
 posed that there were those who would prefer the 
 Presbyterian to the Episcopal, the Methodist, or the 
 Baptist. This is a land of freedom. Every man 
 has a right to select his mode of worship ; every 
 minister will find his proper level in the estima- 
 tion of the community ; every one who is worthy of 
 public confidence will find those who will be wil- 
 ling to sit under his ministy ; and thus far in life, 
 I for one at least, have had no reason to complain 
 that the public have not shown me all the respect 
 which is my due. 
 
 The public will excuse the reference to these 
 personal matters. They would not have been 
 
37 
 
 troubled with it, if the course of the Recorder had 
 not seemed to demand it. I shall make no further 
 allusion of this kind. 
 
 Correction of a Misapprehension. 
 
 Before proceeding to notice the main subjects of 
 the argument, there is one statement in my Tract, 
 in itself of little importance, which, having been 
 misapprehended, I could wish had been otherwise. 
 It occurs on p. 33, and is introduced by the Editors 
 in the following manner : — 
 
 " But could not Mr. Barnes revile the Liturgy of 
 the Church adequately, icithout voluntary misrep- 
 resentcdions ? — p. S3, he says, ' There is not even 
 permission given to the minister to select and read 
 a portion of Scripture that shall have any relation 
 to the subject of his discourse. If his text should 
 be ' God so loved the world that he gave his only- 
 begotten Son,' and the ' lesson' for that day should 
 happen to he that chapter of the Book of Chronicles 
 which commences thus, 'Adam, Sheth, Enosh, 
 Mahalaleel, .Tared, Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech,' 
 all that the minister is 1o do is to say, ' Here begin- 
 neth such a chapter,' and read on.' " 
 
 On this the editors are pleased to make the fol- 
 lowing remarks : — 
 
 " Mr. Barnes knew, for he professes to have ac- 
 curately examined this Prayer Book, that no such 
 lesson is appointed on any Sunday or week day 
 fhrovp;hoiit the lehole year. And yet he can allow 
 himself to make this deliberately false insinuation, 
 for the purpose of casting an invented reproach up- 
 on a book, against which he can find so few real 
 objections. The glory of the Prayer Book, is the 
 lionour which it gives to the word of God, — requir- 
 4 
 
38 
 
 ing no less than eight distinct portions of Holy- 
 Scripture to be read on every Sabbath and other 
 day of pubUc worship, selected with the most re- 
 markable wisdom, to teach continually the great 
 doctrines and truths of the Bible, — while Presbyte- 
 rian ministers, in many instances, read nothing of 
 it, and Presbyterian congregations hear nothing of 
 it, but the single text which has been selected as 
 the subject for preaching, — and in no instance, is 
 more than one single chapter or part of a chapter 
 read during any occasion of their public worship. 
 Which body will be found to have paid the most 
 honour to the word of God, this with other facts 
 may help to decide." 
 
 I would have avoided the occasion for these re- 
 flections, if I had supposed that such a construction 
 would have been put on what I said, or that it was 
 possible. But such an idea never occurred to me. 
 I never meant to be understood as saying that the 
 passage from Chronicles was among the "lessons" 
 that were appointed to be read, nor do I now see 
 that it is the fair construction of what I said. I de- 
 signed merely to show that the minister was not at 
 liberty, from the rules of the Prayer Book, to select 
 the portion of scripture to be read where his text 
 occurred, or to select one that would be pertinent to 
 his subject ; and all that I wished to say was, that 
 if his text was one that appertained to the richest 
 truths of the gospel, the " lesson" that was to be 
 read was prescribed, even though it might be as 
 remote as possible from the subject of his dis- 
 course. I regret the occasion given for the mis- 
 construction of the passage in my Tract the more, 
 because it was entirely unnecessary if I had de- 
 signed to refer to a " lesson" actually appointed to 
 
39 
 
 be read, which would have illustrated the point be- 
 fore me. 
 
 There are numerous parts of the prescribed 
 *' lessons" in the Prayer Book, which would have 
 been as pertinent to my purpose as the chapter 
 from Chronicles, and, among others, the follow- 
 ing, which is appointed to be read, would have 
 answered my design just as well — and my refer- 
 ence may be thus amended, ' There is not even 
 permission given to the minister to select and read 
 a portion of Scripture that shall have any relation 
 to the subject of discourse. If his text should be, 
 *' God so loved the world that he gave his only be- 
 gotten Son," and the " lesson" for that day should 
 happen to be that chapter of the Book of Nehe- 
 miah (x.) which commences thus, " Now those that 
 were sealed were, Nchemiah the Tirshatha, the son 
 of Hachaliah, and Zidkijah, Seraih, Azariah, Jer- 
 emiah, Pashur, Amariah, Malchijah, Hattush, She- 
 baniah, Malluch, Harim, Meremoth, Obadiah," all 
 that the minister is to do, is to say " here begin- 
 neth such a chapter," and read on. 
 
 THE FIRST MAIN POSITION IN THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 In the argument which I maintained in the Tract, 
 the main points on which I insisted were three : 
 First, that it has never been possible permaneiUly 
 to connect the religion of forms with Evangelical 
 religion (p. 21.); Second, that the low church par- 
 ty are compeJled to use a liturgy which counteracts 
 the effect of their teaching, (p. 31); and Third, that 
 there are no arrangements or provisions in the lit- 
 urgy for promoting their peculiar and distinctive 
 efforts, or which contemplate such efforts, (p. 50.) 
 As these were the principal points which I designed 
 
40 
 
 to illustrate, and constituted in fact the substance 
 of the argument, I propose now to notice the 
 manner in which the considerations which I ad- 
 duced in their support have been met by the Recor- 
 der. I then supposed, as I still do, that if these 
 points were made out, the conclusion would be 
 reached, however painful it might be, that the 
 Evangelical party in the Episcopal church are aim- 
 ing at objects which can never be secured, at least 
 while the Liturgy remains as it is now, and that as 
 a party, in the conflicts which have grown up in 
 that church, they are destined to inevitable deleat ; 
 that they must either secede from the church, or 
 that the " unity" of the church can only be pre- 
 served by their showing that they prefer that unity 
 to the distinctive principles which they are aiming 
 to maintain as a party. 
 
 I did not charge them with " hypocrisy," as the 
 Editors of the Recorder affirm ; I did not say that 
 " these persons are just so much less honest, or less 
 conscientious than either the Puritans or the Meth- 
 odists, whose separation has been before commend- 
 ed, and whose disinterested sacrifices, for the truth's 
 sake, are held up as so exemplary ;" (Recorder^ 
 March 16 ;) but I meant to say that there arc dif- 
 ficulties in their way, which, so far as it strikes one 
 out of the Episcopal church, can never be over- 
 come ; that the high church party have manifestly 
 the advantage, from the fact that the Prayer Book 
 does not contemplate any such thing as the Evan- 
 gelical party are aiming to secure, and that if the 
 " unity" of the church is secured, it must be by their 
 abandoning their present "position." Whether 
 this will be done, or whether they will have inde- 
 pendence enough to assert the majesty and glory 
 
41 
 
 of the principles which they defend, and to imitate 
 the " Reformers, the Puritans, and the Methodists," 
 remains to be seen. Time will determine. I can 
 only say, that I meant to charge on them no lack 
 of firmness or honesty in the maintenance of the 
 Evangelical principles ; that I never suspected any 
 Jow-churchman of " hypocrisy ;" and that I have no 
 reason to doubt that they are perfectly honest and 
 sincere in their attachment to the Evangelical 
 views. 
 
 The Recorder is right when it says, (March 16,) 
 that the object of my remarks had reference to the 
 Episcopal church as such, and not exclusively to 
 the Evangelical party, I do not, indeed, see or 
 admit the Justice of the language employed, when 
 die Editors use the word " assault," and when they 
 say that my object was to " destroy, to disparage, 
 and to weaken the only portion of it which he 
 thinks calculated to give a delusively good charac- 
 ter to the whole," But 1 do admit, that my design 
 was to examine Episcopacy itself; to show its 
 •essential tendency and nature, and to prove that it 
 stands at variance with the principles and aims of 
 the Evangelical party. 1 chose to consider it in 
 tlie best form in which it has ever appeared, as held 
 by the Evangelical party in this country, I did not 
 doubt, and cannot now, that that party would en- 
 tirely coincide with me that Episcopacy, as devel- 
 oped in the high church and Oxford party, is anti- 
 evangelical in its character, for all the peculiar 
 aims and efforts of the low church party, &.s such 
 are based on that supposition, and they have never 
 been sparing in the expression of these views re- 
 specting their brethren. On that point, therefore, 
 it might be presumed that we are agreed, and if I 
 4* 
 
42 
 
 could show that the efforts oi' the low church party 
 are impracticable, and that those efforts are a de- 
 parture from what was contemplated in the Prayer 
 Book, the argument would be complete. It re- 
 mains, then, only to examine the manner in which 
 the positions which I laid down have been met. 
 
 The first was, that it has never been possible per- 
 manently to connect the religion of forms with Evan- 
 gelical religion. In support of this, I referred to 
 the fact that the Saviour, of design, and with great 
 care, separated his religion from the Jewish reli- 
 gion, which in his time had become a religion of 
 Ibrms ; and that he was at great pains to make his re- 
 ligion as simple as possible — prescribing no forms of 
 worship as essential — and selecting, as the rites 
 which he wished to have observed, only two in 
 number, and those of all conceivable, the least sus- 
 ceptible of abuse. I referred to the fact that Chris- 
 tianity at the time of Constantine, became a religion 
 of forms ; and then showed, that, as a matter of 
 historical fact, whenever, from any cause, the spirit 
 of Evangelism had sprung up in connection with 
 that religion, it had been impossible to blend them, 
 but that a separation had inevitably ensued. I 
 then referred to certain periods v/hen the Evangeli- 
 cal spirit had been revived in the church when the 
 religion of forms prevailed ; and showed that in 
 every instance the quickened and animated part 
 had been separated. I referred to the Waldenses, 
 to the Reformers, to the Puritans, and to the fol- 
 lowers of Wesley — embracing all the important 
 periods in which God had revived the Evangelical 
 spirit in Prelatical churches, and showing that the 
 result, up to the present effort of the Evangelical 
 party, has been uniform. 
 
43 
 
 The sense in which the phrase " the religion of 
 forms" was used. 
 
 I used the phrase " Religion of Forms" with no 
 invidious design, but as a matter of convenience. I 
 did not mean to say that the religion referred to was 
 mere formalism ; or that in connection with that 
 mode of worship there was no spirtuality ; or that, 
 in the language of the Recorder, " the worship of 
 the Episcopal church is mere form having no spir- 
 itual feeling in the worshipper connected with it." 
 I meant to characterise a mode of worship which 
 is distinguished from Puritan simplicity, or, as I 
 believe was the plain matter of fact, from the mode 
 of worship which prevailed in the Christian church in 
 the time of the apostles. 1 meant to use a term 
 which would be comprehensive enough to embrace 
 all churches which use a prescribed form of wor- 
 ship as distinguished from those which object to 
 such prescribed forms, and which suppose that the 
 modes of worship should be left substantially to the 
 discretion of the churches and the ministers. The 
 phrase is intelligible, and is sufficiently distinctive 
 for all practical purposes. Indeed, no one could well 
 mistake its meaning. Any one with a very slight 
 acquaintance with the history and present state of 
 Christianity, would run the line without danger of 
 material mistake. On the one side, he would 
 rank the Papal, the Greek, the Armenian, the Cop- 
 tic, and the Anglo and Anglo-American Episcopal 
 churches ; and on the other, the Reformed churches 
 of Geneva and France, the Lutheran, the Reformed 
 Dutch, the Presbyterian of Scotland and America, 
 the Congregationalist, the Baptist, and the Metho- 
 dist. To speak of one of these classes as " the Re- 
 ligion of Forms," is not to say that the worship is 
 
44 
 
 " formalism," or that there is no religion in con- 
 nection with them, but it is to speak of them as dis- 
 tinguished from another large portion of the chris- 
 tian world. After considering the remarks of the 
 Recorder of March 16, and April 6, I see no ob- 
 jection still to the use of the term, and meaning 
 nothing invidious by it, shall continue, for conve- 
 nience, still to employ it. 
 
 The Recorder has not called in question the truth 
 of the fads to which I referred respecting the 
 church in the time of the Saviour, the Waldenses, 
 the Reformers, the Puritans, and the Weslcys. 
 Those facts could not be denied, for they are set- 
 tled matters of history, and they may be allowed 
 to stand for what they are worth — as demonstrating 
 what 1 intended, that until the present effort of the 
 Episcopal party, it has never been possible perma- 
 nently to connect the Religion of Forms with Evan- 
 gelical Religion. 
 
 The reply of the Recorder to my main Position. 
 
 The only attempt on the part of the editors of 
 the Recorder to meet this argument, is in the fol- 
 lowing words : — 
 
 *' The author says p. 21 — that ' the attempt to 
 unite the religion of forms with the Gospel has been 
 often made.' He instances ' the Jewish religion in 
 the time of our Saviour as a religion of forms.' 
 But what outward reflection raised up a party of 
 spiritual worshippers then? Then Christianity it- 
 self from the time of Constantino became a religion 
 of forms. The Reformation was the result of the 
 evangelical party which finally grew up within it. 
 But what reflection was there from abroad ?' The 
 Church of England, immediately after the Reforms- 
 
45 
 
 tion was a religion of forms. And the Puritans to 
 the number of ' two thousand of the best men in the 
 English Church' left it in a single day. What out- 
 ward reflection raised up this party then ? Then 
 again, the Church of England became a religion of 
 forms, — until Wesley and Whitfield, &c., were 
 brought forth as another party of the same descrip- 
 tion. What outward reflection was then at 
 work with such amazing power ? If all these 
 growths have taken place in the body of a church, 
 which was at the same time a mere formal church, 
 how absurd becomes the position that the present 
 similar parly, as it is assumed to be, in the Episco- 
 pal Church, owes its existence wholly to the mere 
 reflection I'rom better churches, with which it is en- 
 compassed. The more rational conclusion would 
 be, from the author's own premises, that there was 
 something in the nature of that church which he 
 calls a mere religion of forms, adapted to produce 
 a result which has been so uniformly seen to flow 
 from it. Of course, the question whether this par- 
 ty should have separated from the church in which 
 it grew, is not now before us for consideration. 
 But all Mr. Barnes' adduced facts are directly in 
 hostility with the conclusion which he draws from 
 them ; laying down the principle that the spiritual 
 or evangelical principle, can only be united with 
 the religion of forms, by some outward influence, 
 and then illustrating it, by a succession of instances, 
 in which he is obliged to concede that there was no 
 such influence existing. We do not mean to enter 
 in this article into the merits of the important ques- 
 tions which arise in connection with these asser- 
 tions, — but merely to point out the loose and unsub- 
 
46 
 
 stantial assertions, which this author would have his 
 readers consider as correct reasoning." 
 
 The argument here is, that the spirit of Evangel- 
 ism has sprung vp, or has been originated in con- 
 nection with the rehgion of forms. This is a 
 different position from the one which I laid down, 
 and which the Editors have thought it not proper to 
 disturb — that it has not been possible permanently 
 to connect the two — but, nevertheless, it is worth 
 inquiry whether this is so. The position of the 
 Recorder is, that the spirit of Evangelism has often 
 sprung up in connection with the religion of forms, 
 or if the phrase is preferred, in the bosom of Prela- 
 tical churches. Let us inquire whether it is so. 
 That the spirit of evangelism has existed for a time 
 in such a connection, is implied by my argument, 
 and is undeniable. The efforts of the low church 
 party in this country prove it. The question is as 
 to its origin ; whether it is to be traced to Prelacy 
 — to the religion of forms — to the regular work- 
 ing of the Prayer Book — or to some foreign 
 influence. 
 
 In my Tract, I ventured to lay down the follow- 
 ing position : — 
 
 " It is well known that there have been, perhaps 
 from the commencement of its existence in this 
 country, two parties in the Episcopal church. These 
 parties are generally known by the names of the 
 high and the low church — or as the latter prefer, we 
 believe, to be called, the Evangelical party. These 
 parties have grown up, not from the nature of Pre- 
 lacy, or by any tendency in the Episcopal church to 
 foster the aims sought by the Evangelical party, but 
 from the contact of Episcopacy with the spirit of our 
 age, and with the free developements of Christianity 
 
47 
 
 among the other denominations with whom Episco- 
 paUans come necessarily in contact. It is possible 
 that the germs of these parties existed in the Episco- 
 pal church in its incipient state in this country, but 
 that which has now grown up into the evangelical 
 parly, we suppose would have been suppressed by 
 the overshadowing of the religion of forms, if it had 
 not been excited and kindled by the reflected influence 
 on the Episcopal church of the views and objects of 
 evangelical christians in other denominations. It 
 has been apparent that other denominations greatly 
 surpassed the Episcopal communion in zeal for those 
 things specially commended in the New Testament ; 
 that they sought a more spiritual religion than had 
 been common in the Episcopal communion ; that 
 they aimed more to convert and save the souls of 
 men ; and that they sought in methods that had the 
 undoubted sanction of the New Testament, to spread 
 the gospel around the globe. The question arose 
 whether these objects could not be grafted on Epis- 
 copacy, and whether without producing schism, and 
 with the maintenance of the highest respect for 
 Prelacy and for the forms of religion, it was not 
 possible to introduce the evangelical spirit into the 
 bosom of the Episcopal church, and to what was 
 regarded as the nobleness, venerableness, and autho- 
 rity of her ancient forms, add the life and vigour and 
 elastic energy, which reigns with such power in 
 other denominations. If so, it seems to have been 
 supposed, there might be urged in favour of Prelacy 
 all that is now urged from the necessity of the 
 ' apostolic succession ;' all the authority of the 
 Fathers ; all its boasted power to preserve the unity 
 of the church ; and all the advantage derived from 
 a staid and regular organization, united with all that 
 
48 
 
 commends evangelical religion to the hearts and 
 consciences of men.*' 
 
 The question now is, whether this sentiment is 
 correct, or whether the position of the Recorder is 
 the true one. It would have been, perhaps, more 
 satisfactory if the Recorder had " entered into tlie 
 merits of the important questions which arise in 
 connection with these assertions." As I regard the 
 point now before us as furnishing an opportunity of 
 making an advance in the inquiry into the essential 
 tendency of all " religions of forms," it is my 
 intention to enter, somewhat minutely, into the ex- 
 amination of these " important questions." It will 
 be convenient to take up the points referred to in 
 order, and if I am wrong in the position, it will be 
 very easy to show it. 
 
 The Argument from the Jeicish Community. 
 
 (1.) The first relates to the source of the evan- 
 gelical or spiritual influence in the Jewish commu- 
 nity. The Recorder asks with some appearance 
 of triumph, " what outward reflection raised up a 
 party of spiritual worshippers thenl" The answer 
 to this is easy, and it is a matter of surprise that it 
 should have escaped the notice of the Editors of the 
 Recorder. It was the "foreign" influence introduced 
 by the Son of God, sent from heaven. It never 
 originated in the bosom of the Jewish community ; 
 it was no part of the working of their system of 
 forms ; it was the result of none of the aims of the 
 Pharisees, the Sadducees, or the Essenes. It had 
 no connection with the religion of forms there, ex- 
 cept that the Saviour was born a Jew ; but was in 
 its spirit, its origin, its aims, wholly from abroad — 
 and the Saviour took good care that the spirit of 
 
49 
 
 evangelism which he originated should not be in 
 danger of being frozen in the germ by being con- 
 nected with the prevailing religion of forms, or 
 with any other. 
 
 If it should be said here, that God himself insti- 
 tuted the Jevv'ish religion as a religion of forms, and 
 that, therefore, the argument which I employed on 
 the subject, is a "sophism," I would reply, that it 
 is true that God instituted that religion, and that it 
 was, to a certain extent, a religion of forms. But 
 some other things are also true. (1.) It is true 
 that it had not some of the things that go to make 
 up the religion of forms under Chrisiianity. It had 
 no stereotyped liturgy in forms of prayer which 
 were always used in the temple service, or in the 
 synagogue. (2.) It became as formal a religion as 
 it could be. The experiment was fairly made, and 
 after a trial of some fifteen hundred years, its ten- 
 dency was seen ; all spirituality had ceased ; it was 
 declared to be a 'burden which could not be borne,' 
 and it gave way to a more spiritual mode of wor- 
 ship. There were important reasons which could 
 easily be stated, why religion should, at that time, 
 and among that people, have as much of form as 
 it had, and it was worth one well-tried experiment 
 to convince the world of the tendency of such a 
 religion, and to show the impracticability of blending 
 a religion of forms with evangelical or spiritual re- 
 ligion. Did it work well 1 Did it show that it was 
 well adapted to become the religion of the world 1 
 Did the Saviour show that he was disposed to per- 
 petuate and enlarge the experiment? See Heb. viii. 
 7, 10, 12.: "For if that first covenant had been 
 faultless, then should no place have been found for 
 the second." " This is the covenant which I will 
 5 
 
50 
 
 make with the house of Israel after those days, 
 saith the Lord, I will put my laws in their mind, 
 and write them in their hearts." "In that he saith, 
 A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now 
 that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to 
 vanish away." Heb. ix. 9, 10. " Which was a figure 
 for the time then present, in which were offered 
 both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him 
 that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the 
 conscience. Which stood only in meats and drinks, 
 and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, im- 
 posed on them until the time of reformation.'''' Such 
 is Paul's view of the ancient religion of forms. In- 
 deed, the whole design of the Epistle to the He- 
 brews is to win those whom the author addressed 
 from their attachment to that religion of forms ; to 
 prevent their return to it; to show them that Chris- 
 tianity had all that was truly great and divine 
 which there was in the ancient system, with none 
 of its disadvantages; and to show them, that though 
 it had no gorgeous rites and ceremonies such as 
 then were in the temple, it was far better fitted to 
 secure the salvation of the soul. If outward 
 forms were so well adapted to promote spiritual re- 
 ligion as Episcopalians seem to suppose, can they 
 well explain how it was that the Saviour did not 
 seek to retain what there was of form, and pomp, 
 and splendour, in the Jewish worship, and to in- 
 corporate it with his religion 1 Will they show 
 why it was that he so effectually separated his own 
 church from that religion, and instituted a mode of 
 worship with the fewest conceivable forms of devo- 
 tion 1 And will they explain hew it was, that the 
 constant tendency of that religion was to lose all 
 spirituality, and to degenerate into a cold and heart- 
 
51 
 
 less formalism, from which neither prophets nor 
 judgments could arouse its votaries ? Perhaps the 
 world has never since furnished a more striking 
 illustration of the inevitable tendency of the religion 
 of forms than the Jewish religion was in the time of 
 the Saviour. 
 
 The Argument from the Reformation. 
 
 (2.) The next point referred to by the Editors of 
 the Recorder, is the Reformation. There were at 
 that time in the bosom of the Papal church true 
 and spiritually minded christians, to whom the Re- 
 formation is to be traced. The Editors do not at- 
 tempt to deny my position in regard to them, that 
 they found it impracticable to remain in connection 
 with the Papacy, and that they were obliged to se- 
 parate from the religion of forms ; but they im- 
 pliedly affirm, that the piety of the Reformers was 
 the fruit of that reliojion, and that the revivinor 
 spirit of piety was to be traced to no foreign in- 
 fluence. " What reflection," say they, " was there 
 from abroad?" A very slight knowledge of history 
 will enable any one to answer this question, and 
 to determine whether the light which beamed on 
 the mind of Luther and Melancthon, on Farel, 
 Viret and Calvin, nay, on the mind of Erasmus, was 
 light reflected from Papal forms and ceremonies. 
 The light which Luther saw was that which beamed 
 from the pages of the vokuPiC of Scripture which he 
 had in his cell, and not from the gorgeous vestments, 
 processions, and imposing splendor of the Papal rit- 
 ual.' The observing of the Papal ceremonies at Rome, 
 confirmed his growing abhorrence of the rites of 
 that mode of worship, and impressed upon his soul, 
 
02 
 
 by contrast, in a manner which neither time, perse- 
 cution, nor obloquy could obliterate, the declara- 
 tion, " the just shall Kve by faith." But apart from 
 this, is any one ignorant that the growing light in 
 Europe which preceded the Reformation, and which 
 contributed to it, and which made it practicable at 
 all, was from a foreign influence 1 The reviving 
 literature of that age had not its origin in the Papal 
 communion ; the growing love of freedom, and the 
 large and liberal views which appeared in the north 
 of Germany, and which sustained the Reformation, 
 were not originated in the bosom of the Papal com- 
 munion, nor did the Papacy foster those views 
 when they came in from abroad. A century before 
 Luther appeared, Wickliffe, Huss, and Jerome of 
 Prague, had felt on their souls the impress of 
 truth originated by the Bible ; but the power oi' 
 that religion crushed the tender germ of piety, and 
 it was not until a foreign influence had moulded 
 Europe in an insensible manner for a century 
 longer, that the evangelical spirit of Luther was 
 saved from being crushed by the same religion of 
 forms. The VValdenses had been ejected, and were 
 crushed as far as the Papal power could crush 
 them ; Huss and Jerome were burned at the stake , 
 the bones of Wicklifle were dug up and burned ; 
 Luther was excommunicated and anathematized ; 
 the Inquisition was originated to crush and extin- 
 guish the grov/ing spirit of Evangelism in the Papal 
 church ; all the power of the Papacy was employed 
 to exclude that spirit, or to extinguish it in Italy 
 and Spain ; the Duke of Alva deluged the Low 
 Countries with the blood' of those who had ex- 
 changed a religion of forms for spiritual religion, 
 and from neither Pope, nor Cardinal, nor Archbish- 
 
53 
 
 op, nor Bishop, nor Priest, did the spirit of Evan- 
 gelism, as it appeared at the Reformation, iiiid a 
 patron. 
 
 The Argument from the Puritatis. 
 
 ('3.) The next reference of the Recorder is to 
 the Puritans in England. This reference is in the 
 following words, ' The Church of England, imme- 
 diately after the Reformation, was a religion of 
 Ibrms. And the Puritans, to the number of " two 
 thousand of the best men in the Elnglish church, 
 left it in a single day." What outward refection 
 raised up this party then V The idea of the Re- 
 corder seem.s to be, that the Puritan spirit was origi- 
 nated wholly in the bosom of the Episcopal church 
 in England, and was sustained by it ; that it was 
 to be traced to no foreign and reflected influence; 
 and that to the tbstering care of that kind and indul- 
 gent mother in the days of Elizabeth, James I., and 
 Charles I., under the auspices of Laud and his 
 meek fellow-labourers, this s[)irit had been so care- 
 fully nourished that " two thousand of the best men 
 in the church" were prepared to leave it. They 
 who are acquainted with the history of the Puritans, 
 will ask with some degree of interest, if not of sur- 
 prise, what there was in the Episcopal church of 
 those times which was so skilfully adapted to ori- 
 ginate and sustain the Puritan spirit. They will 
 wonder how it was that that spirit grew under the 
 administration of Laud, and what there was in the 
 Restoration of the amiable Charles II. that was so 
 favourable to its growth. To most readers of the 
 History of England, it has seemed that there was a 
 very marked diflerence between the aims of the Pu- 
 ritans, and those which prevailed in the established 
 5* 
 
5-1 
 
 church ; that there was little in that church, in the 
 times referred to, to foster their Evangelical spirit ; 
 that they met Avith some not unimportant obstruc- 
 tions in the maintenance of their views, from the 
 days of Elizabeth to those of Charles II. ; that they 
 had doubts about the propriety of many things in 
 the church which appeared to them to savor much 
 of the religion of ibrms ; and that their peculiar 
 views as Puritans grew up, not in virtue of any- 
 thing in the church, but in spite of every attempt to 
 crush them. 
 
 But still, the Recorder asks '' What outvvard re- 
 tlection raised up this party then ?" Was there any 
 foreign influence which had any agency in cherish- 
 ing and moulding the Puritan spirit? Was there 
 any reflection from a foreign church which contrib- 
 uted any thing to make the Puritan what he was ? 
 These questions I am able to answer in eloquent 
 words and thoughts. 1 copy from the speech of 
 the Hon. Rufus Choate before the New England 
 Society in New York, Dec. 1843. I make the ex- 
 tract on account of its own singular beauty and 
 value, as well as for its bearing on my argument. 
 It is long; but I shall be doing service by inducing 
 any one to read it who has not seen it before : 
 
 " Puritanism was planted in the region of storms, 
 and there it grew. Sv/ayed this way and that by 
 a whirlwind of blasts, all adverse, it sent down its 
 roots below frost, or drought, on the bed of the 
 avalanche. Its trunk went up erect, gnarled, 
 seamed, not riven by the bolt; the evergreen en- 
 folded its brandies, its blossom was like to that en- 
 sanguined flower, inscribed with woe. 
 
 " One influence there was, however, on the his- 
 tory of English Puritanism whose permanent and 
 
55 
 
 various effect on its doctrines, character and desti- 
 nies, is among the most striking things in the whole 
 history of opinion. I mean its contact with the 
 republican reforms of the Continent, and particular- 
 ly those of Geneva. In all its stages, all the disci- 
 ples of the Reformation, v/herever they lived, were, 
 in some sense, a single brotherhood, whom a diver- 
 sity of speech, hostility of governments, and remote- 
 ness of place, could hot wholly keep apart. Local 
 persecutions drew the tie the closer. In the reign 
 of Mary, from 1553 to 1558, a thousand learned 
 Englishmen fled from the stake, at home, to the 
 happier seats of Continental Protestantism. Of 
 tliem, great numbers, I know not how many, came 
 to Geneva. There they awaited the death of the 
 Queen ; and then, sooner or later, but in the time 
 of Elizabeth went back to England. I ascribe to 
 that five years in Geneva an inJI.uence that has 
 changed the history of the world. I seem to my- 
 self to trace to it, as an influence on the English 
 race, a new theology, a new politics, another tone 
 of character, the opening of another era of time and 
 of liberty. I seem to myself to trace to it, a portion, 
 at least, of the objects of tlie great civil war in Eng- 
 land, the Republican constitution framed in the cabin 
 of the i^Iay flower, the divinity of Jonathan Edwards, 
 the battle of Bunker Hill, and the Independence of 
 America. In that brief season, English Puritanism 
 was changed fundamentally and forever. Why 
 should we think this so extraordinary ? There are 
 times when whole years pass over the head of a 
 man, and work no change of mind at all. There 
 are others, again, when in an hour, old things pass 
 away, and all things become nev/. A verse of the 
 Bible, a glorious line of some old poet, dead a thou- 
 
56 
 
 sand years before, the new-made grave of a child, 
 a friend killed by a thunderbolt, as in the case of 
 Luther, some single more than tolerable pang of 
 ' despised love,' some single more intolerable act 
 of the ' oppressor's wrong and proud man's con- 
 tumely,' the gleam of rarer beauty on the lake or 
 in the sky, something higher than the fall of a leaf, 
 or a bird's song on the shore, draws tears from 
 him, in the twinkling of an eye. — When, before or 
 since, in the history of the world was the human 
 character subjected to an accumulation of agents, so 
 fitted to create it all anew, as those which encom- 
 passed the English exiles at Geneva ? 
 
 " I do not make much account in this of the 
 material grandeur and beauty which burst on their 
 astonished senses, as around the solitudes of Patmos. 
 It is of the moral agents of change of which I 
 would speak. Passing over the theology which 
 they learned there, consider the politics they learned 
 there. Consider that the asylum into which they 
 had been admitted, the city which had opened its 
 arms to pious and learned men, banished by an 
 English throne, and an English hierarchy, was a 
 republic. In the giant hands of guardian moun- 
 tains, ascending from their ' silent sea of pines,' 
 above the thunder clouds, and reposing there, 
 calmly, amidst their encircling stars, while the 
 storm raved by, below ; before which forests, and the 
 cathedral-tombs of kings went down ; on the banks 
 of a contrasted lake, lovelier than a dream of fairy- 
 land, in a valley which might have been hollowed out 
 to enclose the last home of liberty, there smiled an 
 independent, peaceful, law abiding, and prosperous 
 commonwealth. There was a state without king 
 or nobles, there was a church without a bishop; 
 
there was a people, governed by laws of their own 
 making, and by rules of their own choosing. And 
 to the eye of these exiles, bruised and pierced 
 through, by the accumulated oppressions of a civil 
 and spiritual tyranny, to whom there were coming 
 tidings, every day, out of England, that another 
 victim had been struck down, on whose dear still 
 home in the sea there fell, every day, a gloomier 
 shadow from the frowning turrets of power ; was 
 not that republic the brightest image in the whole 
 transcendent scene? Do you doubt that they turned 
 from Alpine beauty and Alpine grandeur, to look, 
 with a loftier emotion, for the first time in their 
 lives, on the serene, unveiled statue of Classical 
 Liberty ? Do you not think that this spectacle, in 
 their circumstances, and in their moods, prompted 
 pregnant doubts, daring hopes, new ideas, ' thoughts 
 that wake to perish never,' doubts, hopes, ideas, 
 and thoughts, of which a new age is born? Was 
 it not then and there that the dream of Republican 
 Liberty, a dream to be realized somewhere, per- 
 haps in England, perhaps in some region of the 
 western sun, first mingled itself with the general 
 impulses and the general hopes of the Reformation? 
 Was that dream ever let go, down to the morning 
 of that day. when the Pilgrim Fathers met in the 
 cabin of their shattered bark, and then, as she rose 
 and fell on the stern New England sea, and the 
 voices of the November forests rang through her 
 torn topmast rigging, subscribed the first republican 
 constitution of the New World ? I confess myself 
 to be of the opinion of those who trace to that spot 
 ;ind to that time the Republicanism of the Puritans. 
 I confess, too, that I love to trace the pedigree of 
 our trans-Atlantic liberty, thus backwards, through 
 
58 
 
 Switzerland, to its native land of Greece. I think 
 this is the true line of succession, down which it 
 has descended. I agree with Swifl, and Dryden, 
 and Bishop Burnet, in that hypothesis. There was 
 a liberty, no doubt, which the Puritans found, and 
 kept, and improved, in England. They would 
 have changed it, but were not able. But that was 
 a kind of liberty, which admitted and demanded an 
 inequality of man, an insubordination of ranks, a 
 favoured eldest son, the ascending orders of a 
 hierarchy^ the vast and constant pressure of a 
 superincumbent crown. It was the liberty of Feu- 
 dalism. It was the liberty of a united monarchy, 
 overhung and shaded by the imposing architecture 
 of great antagonist elements of the state. Such was 
 not the form of liberty which our fathers brought 
 with them. Allowing, of course, for that anoma- 
 lous relation to the English crown three thousand 
 miles off, it was republican freedom as perfect the 
 moment they stepped on the rock as it is to-day. 
 It had not all been born in the woods of Germany ; 
 or between the Elbe and the Ider, or on the level 
 of Runnymede. It was the child of other climes 
 and other days. It sprang to life in Greece. It 
 gilded, next, the early and the middle age of Italy. 
 It then reposed in the hollow breast of the Alps. It 
 descended, at length, on the iron-bound coast of 
 New England, ' and set the stars of glory there.' 
 At every stage of its course, in every new re- 
 appearance, it was guarded by some new security ; 
 it was embodied in some new element of order ; it 
 was fertile of some larger good ; it glowed with a 
 more exceeding beauty. Speed its way, and per- 
 fect its nature ! 
 
59 
 
 •' ' Take, freedom I lake thy radiant round, 
 When dimmed, revive, when lost return! 
 Till not a shrine on earth be found, 
 On which thy glory shall not burn I' " 
 
 One question may be asked here. Who can 
 tell how much this foreign influence, thus derived 
 from Geneva^ has contributed to make the Episco- 
 pal church what it has been in its best days in 
 England and America ? The Episcopal church, 
 in its articles, and in the best spirit which has 
 reigned in it, owes a debt to Peter Martyr, Martin 
 Bucer, and John Calvin, which it has not yet fully 
 acknowledged. 
 
 The Argument from the Methodist Secession, 
 
 (4.) The next allusion in the argument of the 
 Editors, is to Wesley and Whitetield. 'Then 
 again the church of England became a religion of 
 forms, until Wesley and Whitefield, &c., were 
 brought forth as another party of the same descrip- 
 tion. " What outward ?'eJIection,''^ say they, " ivas 
 then at work with such amazing power V ' To this 
 I reply : Wesley, and Whitetield, and Fletcher, 
 and the little band with whom Methodism origi- 
 nated, were indeed born in the Episcopal church, 
 and were reared in it. God breathed on their 
 Iiearts, and they gave themselves in the University 
 to the study of the Bible, and not to the study of 
 the Prayer Book. In the church of England at 
 that time, as all know who have ever read the his- 
 tory of Methodism, there was nothing either to 
 originate or foster the spirit of piety which God had 
 implanted in their youthful hearts. It was over the 
 coldness, and formality, and deadness of that same 
 Episcopal church, that they wept, and fasted, and 
 
60 
 
 prayed. Do the Editors of the Recorder mean to 
 be understood as saying, that at that time there was 
 anything in the prevailing spirit of piety in Oxford, 
 or in the established church anywhere, that origi- 
 nated the feelings which warmed the hearts of John 
 and Charles Wesley] Do they mean to say that 
 that spirit was fostered and patronised by the Epis- 
 copal church at that time 1 In the Heads of the 
 Universities ; in the Archbishops and Bishops of 
 the land ; in the great body of the ministers, and in 
 the prevailing spirit in the members of the church, 
 did they find a response to the warm and elevated as- 
 pirations of religion which animated their souls 1 Can 
 these Editors have been ignorant — one of whom was 
 once connected with that persuasion himself — in 
 what way the zeal of the Wesleys was met in the 
 University ; in what way the very name " Metho- 
 dist" was originated, and how the labors of White- 
 field and the Wesleys were regarded by the estab- 
 lishment 1 The established church patronised them 
 very much as it did the Puritans ; and after years 
 of toil, and prayer, and tears, in as honest an 
 effort as was ever made for anything, to blend the 
 religion of forms and the Evanoelical soirit of 
 " Methodism ;" the followers of Wesley bade fare- 
 well forever to the church of their fathers, and 
 breathed the pure air of freedom in a separate or- 
 ganisation. Between them and the religion of the 
 Episcopal church, there was no beating of heart 
 against heart ; no response of affection ; and no 
 kindling sympathy of soul. What has the Metho- 
 dist church ever owed to Episcopacy, except the 
 privilege of withdrawing from it 1 And how has the 
 fostering care of that establishment ever contributed 
 anything to promote its growth, except as our 
 
61 
 
 mother country contributed to freedom in the United 
 States, by making a total separation necessary ? If 
 there was ever an honest effort made to infuse into 
 a rehgion of forms a pure Evangelical spirit, it was 
 that which was made by the Wesleys to breathe it 
 into the established church of England. If ever 
 there was a spirit of foreign growth, it was the 
 spirit of Methodism springing up in the Episcopal 
 church ; if ever there was any experiment that was 
 conclusively settled to be impracticable, it was the 
 honest attempt then made to mfuse the Evangelical 
 spirit of the Wesleys into the established church of 
 England. 
 
 How will the Editors of the Recorder explain the 
 fact that they were constrained, as the Puritans had 
 been before them, to separate forever from the 
 church of their fathers ? If the evangelical spirit is 
 congenial with the religion of forms, why did they 
 not remain there? Why were they not fostered 
 and patronised ? Why did not the Heads of the 
 Universities, and the prelates and priests of the 
 land, press them to their bosom as fellow laborers 1 
 They did not separate on account of doctrines — for 
 their doctrines would have been tolerated then, as 
 they are now. They were not ejected for want of 
 talent or learning, for England had few better scho- 
 lars, and no men of higher talent for a great work, 
 than John Wesley. " The church" did not refuse 
 its fostering care because they were not good men — 
 for England had no better men than they were ; and 
 until some better solution shall be proposed, I am 
 constrained to abide by the view which I before ex- 
 pressed, that the separation of the Wesleys and of 
 Whitefield was just one illustration of my main po- 
 6 
 
62 
 
 sition of the " impossibility of permanently blending 
 evangelical religion with the religion of forms." 
 
 The argument from Episcopacy in our own country. 
 
 (5.) The next illustration of this subject is de- 
 rived from our own country. I had said in my 
 Tract (p. 9), ' that these parties have grown up, not 
 from the nature of prelacy, or by any tendency in 
 the Episcopal church to foster the aims sought by 
 the Evangelical party, but from the contact of 
 Episcopacy with the spirit of our age, and with the 
 free developements of Christianity among the other 
 denominations with whom Episcopalians come ne- 
 cessarily in contact.' To this the editors say in 
 reply, " If all these growths have taken place in the 
 body of a church which was at the same time a for- 
 mal church — how absurd becomes the position that 
 the present similar party, as it is assumed to be, in 
 the Episcopal church, owes its existence wholly to 
 the reflection from better churches with whom it is 
 encompassed. The more rational conclusion would 
 be, from the author's own premises, that there was 
 something in the nature of that church which he 
 calls a mere religion of forms" (a thing, by the 
 way, which I have not done) " adapted to produce 
 a result which has been seen so uniformly to have 
 flowed from it." Whether the result has been " uni- 
 form'^ that the religion of forms has originated an 
 evangelical spirit, is not the point now before us. 
 The only " uniformity," so far as appears, has 
 been, that whenever that spirit has been originated 
 in such a connection, it has been impossible to blend 
 them, and there has been a certain separation — as 
 in the case of the Waldenses, at the Reformation, 
 among the Puritans, and in the case of the Wesleys. 
 
63 
 
 The question now is, whether the evangelical spirit 
 in the Episcopal church in this land has been origi- 
 nated " by something in the nature of that church,^^ 
 and has been " fostered" by it ? Or is it to be 
 traced to a foreign influence — to the " reflection" 
 from the better churches with which it is encom- 
 passed ? 
 
 This is an enquiry into a fact. It would be 
 very natural then to ask at what time the Evangel- 
 ical party in the Episcopal church had its origin 1 
 It would be obvious to enquire what was the gene- 
 ral character of the Episcopal church in Virginia, 
 in the Carolinas, and elsewhere in the colonies, be- 
 fore the American Revolution? How many of 
 them opened their pulpits to the labors of White- 
 field ? How many embraced John Wesley when he 
 even still professed to belong to the establishment ? 
 How many participated in the revival of religion in 
 the time of the " great awakening ?" And it is na- 
 tural also to ask what classes of men compose the 
 present Evangelical party in the church, and what 
 influences have been made to bear on them in their 
 early training ] On this subject, I am in possession 
 of some facts which have much influenced my mind, 
 of a private character, and which I do not think it 
 proper to introduce into an argument before the pub- 
 lic. To the present standing and usefulness of those 
 referred to they would be by no means dishonorable 
 but they would show that that party is not a little 
 indebted to " a reflected influence from other de- 
 nominations." — I deem it proper, in an argument 
 of this kind, to refer only to things of a public na- 
 ture. From the Episcopal Recorder of January 27, 
 1844, I take the following statement : — 
 
 " Of the American bishops who have joined the 
 
64 
 
 church from other denominations, are the follow- 
 ing : Jarvis, Provoost, Bass, Chase, Brownell, Ra- 
 venscroft. Smith, Otey, and Lee. Of two hundred 
 and eighty-five persons ordained by Bishop Gris- 
 wold, two hundred and seven came into the minis- 
 try of the Episcopal church from other denomina- 
 tions. At least two-thirds of the clergy of the 
 churches in this country were not educated Episco- 
 palians. And within the last thirty years, about 
 three hundred ministers of other denominations 
 have entered the ministry of the Episcopal church." 
 
 So also in the paper of February 3, 1844, the 
 Editors say — 
 
 " The real cause of all the hostility (to the Epis- 
 copal church) is the remarkable increase of the 
 Episcopal church by additions from other denomi- 
 nations of christians y 
 
 Of the correctness of these statements, I have no 
 means of judging, but have no disposition to call 
 them in question. Nor have I any of determining 
 from what " other denominations^'''' (not churches, I 
 presume.) the " two hundred and seven persons or- 
 dained by Bishop Griswold," nor the " three hun- 
 dred ' ministers of other denominations' " who have 
 been transferred into " clergy men^^ of the " church^^ 
 came, but it may be presumed that most of them 
 came from Evangelical " denominations." A few 
 have been received from the Roman Catholic 
 church, but it is not probable that they are included 
 here, as it would not be necessary to " ordain" 
 them ; and there is a bare possibility that a kw 
 may have gone into the Episcopal church from the 
 Unitarians, or Friends. The mass, probably, have 
 been Methodists ; and a small portion of them, we 
 know, have been Presbyterians. If these state- 
 
65 
 
 ments are true, is it unnatural to ask the Editors of 
 that paper whether there is not some reason to be- 
 lieve, that, in accordance with the statement which 
 I made, the evangelical influence in that communion 
 may be somehow connected with " the reflected in- 
 fluence on the Episcopal church of the views and 
 objects of Evangelical christians in other denomi- 
 nations ?" 
 
 No one can be blind to the fact that the very 
 leaders of the Evangelical party in the Episcopal 
 church are themselves men who may possibly owe 
 something to this foreign influence, and do some- 
 thing 10 show that there is no very direct tendency 
 in Episcopacy to originate the spirit of Evangelism. 
 The " Bishop of Michigan," and the assistant 
 Bishop of Virginia, were trained in the bosom of 
 the Presbyterian church ; the " Bishop of Ohio" 
 may possibly owe something to the fact that he re- 
 ceived his theological training at Princeton, after 
 the views of the " straitest sect" in the Presbyterian 
 church ; and not a few of the present members of 
 the Evangelical party, if I am correct in what 1 
 suppose to be truQ, have been somewhat indebted to 
 Princeton, to Andover, and to New Haven. It is 
 natural to ask whether, whatever Evangelical efforts 
 may have resulted from the labors of " Bishops 
 Jarvis, Provoost, Bass, Chase, Brownell, Ravens- 
 croft, Smith, Otey, and Lee," may not be regarded 
 as somehow connected with a foreign influence, in- 
 troduced into the Episcopal church ? And if it be 
 true that " two-thirds of the clergy" are from 
 abroad, am I wrong in supposing that the Evangel- 
 ical spirit may have grown up from the " contact 
 of Episcopacy with other denominations ?" I refer 
 to these facts not at all to the disparagement or the 
 6* 
 
66 
 
 disadvantage of that portion of. the Episcopal 
 church, for I regard their early training as a thing 
 for which they should unfeignedly thank God, and 
 believe that their uncommon usefulness in " the 
 church" has been in no small degree owing to this 
 fact. I cannot doubt that they would have all been 
 more useful if they had not left the churches of their 
 fathers, and that they are doomed to be cramped in 
 their efforts to do good as long as they are connect- 
 ed with a religion of forms. Had they continued 
 to breathe the Puritan air of freedom, they would 
 have escaped the evils into which they have now 
 fallen, in an impracticable and hopeless attempt to 
 infuse the Evangelical spirit into the Episcopal 
 church. Will they regard the remark as invidious, 
 that if the Evangelical portion of these accessions 
 had continued to breathe that pure air, the Episco- 
 pal church would have been now saved from the 
 dreaded apprehension of schism, and would have 
 remained calmly and coldly "one?" 
 
 But what has been the fact about the " fostering 
 care" of the Episcopal church for the Evangelical 
 spirit as it now exists in her bosom ? 1 have en- 
 deavoured to show that till now that spirit has 
 never found a cordial reception or a permanent 
 home in the Episcopal church. I had ventured to 
 say in my Tract, (p. 9,) that the existence of that 
 party has not been owing to ' any tendency in the 
 Episcopal church to foster the aims of that party.' 
 I have referred to the manner in which, in former 
 times, the Waldenses, WicklifFe, Huss, Jerome, 
 Luther, the Puritans, and the Methodists, have been 
 met in their attempts to infuse the Evangelical spirit 
 into the religion of forms. What now is the truth 
 about the present efforts of the Evangelical party ? 
 
67 
 
 Are they met with a kind and cordial response from 
 their brethren? Are they- pressed with fraternal 
 affection to their bosoms, and are their peculiar 
 plans and aims welcomed in the Episcopal church 1 
 Do the " Bishops and other clergy" regard their 
 efforts as being in entire accordance with the spirit 
 of their canons and articles ? Do they consider 
 the objects which, as a party, they are endeavoring 
 to promote, as in entire accordance with the Prayer 
 Book ? Does the Evangelical church party find a 
 cordial co-operation from their brethren in their 
 -efforts to promote revivals ; in their prayer meet- 
 ings ; in <' associations" or "protracted meetings," 
 and in their readiness to mingle with other denom- 
 inations in societies for distributing the Bible and 
 Tracts ? And have the low church party never felt 
 that they were engaged in a struggle of some kind 
 with a large and very influential majority in their 
 own church ? To ask these questions is to answer 
 them. There is no concealment of their opinions 
 •on the part of the high church portion of the church, 
 and if we may judge from their published views, and 
 their open acts, there is among them about the same 
 disposition to "foster" the efforts of the low church 
 which there was in the time of James and Charles I. 
 to patronise the Puritans, or of George of Hanover, 
 to give countenance to the Wesley s. Whether I 
 mn right or wrong in the vievv^ which I have taken, 
 of one thing I am morally certain, that I accord 
 with some twenty or more of the prelates of the 
 Episcopal church ; with the great majority of their 
 -clergy ; and with some of their leading papers, in 
 the opini(m that the evangelical influence is of 
 foreign origin, and is to be repressed as soon as 
 possible. 
 
68 
 
 Tlie Evangelical Spirit has neve?' been originated 
 
 by the Religion of Forms. 
 
 (6.) There remains but one other point to settle 
 tl>e inquiry, whether it is the tendency of the reli- 
 gion of forms to originate or foster the evangelical 
 spirit, or whether, if it ever exists, it is a foreign 
 ingredient. This is a simple appeal to fact, and to 
 the efforts of evangelical Episcopalians themselves. 
 The Papal communion has stood, substantially un- 
 changed, longer by far than any civil kingdom has 
 done. It has been throuo;hout a relidon of fo-rms. 
 Has it ever originated or " fostered" a spirit of 
 evangelism 1 The Greek church is also a religion 
 of forms ; was blended long with the church of 
 Rome ; in the growing dissensions which ultimately 
 led to a separation, it adherred still to the same 
 forms, and now for some eight hundred years has 
 illustrated, by independent action, and on the fair 
 fields, too, where religion once flourished in its 
 purity, the tendency of the religion of forms. Has 
 the evangelical spirit ever been originated and fos- 
 tered in her bosom 1 The Armenian, the Nesto» 
 rian, and the Coptic churches, have throughout 
 their history, been known substantially as religions 
 of form. They, too, through many centuries, and 
 in different climes, have had every opportunity for 
 illustrating the tendency of their systems, and with 
 the same result. Have the purposes and aims 
 which the Evangelical Party are seeking to secure 
 in the Episcopal church in this countryy ever been 
 originated among those churches ? Is it not true 
 that whatever evangelical influence there is noiu 
 either in the Armenian or the Nestorian churches, 
 has been by a foreign agency, and chiefly from 
 other churches than Episcopal 1 And is it not true. 
 
69 
 
 that the attempt to revive those churches, and to 
 breathe into them the pure spirit of the gospel, has 
 encountered greater obstructions from the over- 
 shadowing of the reHgion of forms, than have been 
 met with from the degraded natives of Ceylon, or 
 the wretched savages of the Sandwich Islands ?* 
 
 * The manner in which Episcopalians in this country 
 regard the comparative value of forms, orders, and the evan- 
 gelical spirit among- those churches, may be learned from 
 the following rather caustic letter of the Nestorian bishop, 
 Mar Yohannan, 
 *' My brethren of the Episcopalians : 
 
 What evil or wicked thing have I wrought in relation to 
 you, that some of you should write about me in your News- 
 papers, and scatter them through all America ? I am a poor 
 man, and ray nation is poor. I came to thank Christians in 
 this country for having helped us, and to ask them to help 
 us more, for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are 
 
 members one of another. Well ; if you had desired our 
 
 good, would you not sometimes have inquired of me thus : 
 What is the condition of your people in that land of heathens? 
 Is there a church there ? Are there good men ? Are there 
 tokens of the influence of the Holy Spirit ? What is the 
 state of knowledge and instruction? What are the morals? 
 But from very few of you have I heard one of these ques- 
 tions. You ask, Jiow many orders have you 1 My friends, 
 forms are nothing. " Neither is circumcision anything, nor 
 
 uncircumcision, but a new creature." Shall we place our 
 
 confidence in name, or forms ? No ; but in the Lamb of 
 God, who descended from liis throne on high to save that 
 which was lost. Observe and behold. The Creator of the 
 heights and the depths did not demean himself so loflily as 
 some denominations, who say, We are ; there is no other 
 
 true church, Your church came out from the church of 
 
 the Pope. Is there not some leaven of the Pope still re- 
 
 maining in many of you? What are those pictures in some 
 
 of your churches ? This is a mark of the Pope. Mark 
 
 that second commandment, — Thou shalt not make unto thee 
 any likeness of anything in heaven above, nor in the earth 
 beneath, nor in the waters under the earth. Anotlier com- 
 
 ^. 4IL 
 
70 
 
 And is it not true, moreover, that the Episcopalians 
 of this country have themselves so little confidence 
 that a religion of forms will ever originate or foster 
 an evangelical spirit, that their principal efforts 
 in the cause of foreign missions are exhausted in 
 those very churches, and that their hopes of success 
 
 mandment of God is, Love your neighbours as yourselves. — 
 But you say, our church is great. Very well. Your 
 church has become great, has it ? Why ? That it may 
 despise small churches ? Our Lord says, — whoever will be 
 greatest, let him be servant of all. This haughtiness is 
 another mark of the Pope^ who teaches that none will be 
 
 saved who are out of his church. Come let us see ; has 
 
 our Lord pronounced blessings on the proud, or on the 
 
 meek? 1 do not say your way [church polity] is not a 
 
 good one, — very good, if you properly follow it; not in ex- 
 clusiveness and ostentation, saying we are the only true 
 
 church ; nor in hypocrisy. 1 love Episcopalians, and 
 
 Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, and Dutchmen, and 
 Lutherans, and Methodists, and Baptists, — all, as brethren 
 
 in Cltrist. We open our churches to their Priests, and 
 
 receive them as the Priests of God. Our Lord said — who- 
 soever receiveth a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, shali 
 
 receive a Prophet's reward. ^Thus have we learned from 
 
 our Lord. 
 
 You are displeased with me, are you, because I have asso- 
 ciated with the Presbyterians and Congregationahsts ? 
 
 I do not practise partiality. Is it very strange, that I asso- 
 ciate most with Presbyterians and Congregationahsts ? No. 
 They are equally our brethren; and they have come and 
 helped us in books and teachers, and have done a great and 
 
 good work for our nation. Ought I to abandon them ? 
 
 It would be a black reproach and a great sin for us thus to 
 abuse the good they have done for us. God v/ould be dis- 
 pleased with us for such — ingratitude. But we will never 
 
 be unmindful of their beneficence. Shall we abuse the 
 
 good work which they have done for us? Never. We 
 
 must obey God ratlier than man. We all have one Lord, 
 
 one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who is over all and in all ; over us, over you. 
 
71 
 
 in foreign lands are dependent, more or less, on 
 their availing themselves of the labors of Congrega- 
 tional and Presbyterian missionaries in infusing an 
 Evangelical spirit into those very communions ? 
 What hope do even Episcopalians themselves enter- 
 tain that the Evangelical spirit will ever revive or 
 live in the Armenian, the Greek, the Nestorian, 
 and the Coptic churches without foreign aid? 
 
 I have now stated all that seems necessary to 
 urge in the defence and illustration of my first posi- 
 tion, that it has never been possible permanently to 
 connect the religion of forms with evangelical reli- 
 gion, and having noticed all that the Editors of the 
 Recorder have deemed it of importance to say in re- 
 ply, I am quite willing to leave the point for the calm 
 consideration of the public. Probably the public 
 will judge that something more is necessary to in- 
 validate the position than has yet been advanced. 
 
 The second general position in the argument. 
 
 I proceed, therefore, to notice the reply which 
 has been given to the second general position 
 which is laid down in my Tract. It is, that the 
 low church party " are compelled to use a liturgij 
 which counteracts the effect of their teaching.^'' In 
 support of this, I assumed that they are the friends 
 of revivals, of sabbath schools, of missions and of 
 efforts for the immediate conversion of sinners. I 
 
 and over them, and will judge us all at the last day ; and if 
 found at his rigl)t hand, will raise us all to the same heaven. 
 We shall dwell in peace together there. May the grace of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father, and the 
 communion of the Holy Spirit be with us all forever. Amen. 
 Your — unworthy Christian brother, 
 
 Mar Yohannan." 
 Novernher, 1842. 
 
7'2 
 
 took it for granted that they did not believe or teach 
 the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, or the opus 
 operatum of the sacraments in any way ; that they 
 hold and teach as sincerely as others do the great 
 doctrines of the Reformation, and are warm friends 
 of the methods which have in general been adopted 
 by all christians of the present time, to promote spi- 
 ritual reUgion. I judged that I was only doing 
 them simple justice by supposing that these were 
 their aims, and in these things I supposed they were 
 particularly distinguished from the high church 
 party. The Prayer Book, however, I regarded as 
 adapted to a different age, and as not contemplating 
 such efforts as these. It was, for the most part, 
 composed, arranged and published more than two 
 hundred years ago. The state of the world was 
 then very different from what it now is, and the 
 Book has never been so modified as to be adapted 
 to these times, and to contemplate the objects aimed 
 at by the low church party. I supposed that the 
 Prayer Book, however valuable it may have been, 
 or may be now, was adapted to the times of Ed- 
 ward VI., of Elizabeth, and of James I., when it re- 
 ceived substantially the form which it now has, and 
 that the efforts which the low church party are now 
 making, in contradistinction from their high church 
 brethren, were not quite the same which were 
 sought to be promoted by the Episcopal ministry 
 under those reigns. I specified the following things : 
 that preaching, as contemplated by the Liturgy, is 
 a thing of secondary importance — the main thing 
 designed in the service being prayer and praise ; 
 that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is the 
 clear doctrine of the Prayer Book ; that there is an 
 obligation on the ministry to present those for con- 
 
73 
 
 firmation who can " say the creed, the Lord's 
 Prayer, the ten commandments, and the parts of 
 the church catechism set forth for that purpose," 
 and that the Prayer Book does not contemplate 
 christian missions, revivals of religion, prayer 
 meetings, sabbath schools, or union with other de- 
 nominations in promoting the great objects of chris- 
 tian benevolence. These are objects distinctly 
 sought by the low church party, in most of which 
 they are understood to differ from their high church 
 brethren, and I endeavored to show that they are 
 neither contemplated nor fostered by the Prayer 
 Book. 
 
 In prosecuting this argument, I had no book be- 
 fore me but the Prayer Book. I wished to look at 
 it uninfluenced by the views of either party in the 
 Episcopal church. I was aware that the low 
 church party were as zealous in commending it to 
 the attention of the world as high churchmen ; and 
 1 had no reason to believe that those whom I had 
 known were inefficient or inactive members of the 
 " Bishop White Prayer Book Society." It seemed 
 to me to be fair to look at the Book itself, and to 
 enquire whether its circulation would tend to pro- 
 mote the common aims of all evangelical christians. 
 
 Sense in ivJiich the iDord " compellecV was used. 
 
 I used the word " compelled," when I spoke of 
 the use of the Book by the low church party. On 
 this, the Editors have been pleased to make the fol- 
 lowing remarks : — 
 
 " The absurdity of talking about this compvJsion, 
 upon those whom he has already declared so earn- 
 estly attached to this liturgy that they would rather 
 sacrifice all they have of evangelical truth, than 
 7 
 
74 
 
 give it up, is very manifest ; — and so also is the 
 equal absurdity of speaking of men as compelled, to 
 this or any course, which has been the matter of 
 their own personal, free choice ;— and that in man3/ 
 instances, after having had a full experience, of 
 what Mr. Barnes considers the greater freedom and 
 spirituality of Presbyterianism. 
 
 " The whole of tliis statement about compulsory 
 Avorship as peculiar to them, is a mere misrepresen- 
 tation of facts. The public worship in each in- 
 stance is fixed. But the Episcopal clergymen have 
 a liberty conceded and secured to them, and univer- 
 sally practised by them, upon all other occasions, 
 of which the Presbyterian minister is perfectly des- 
 titute. And no one feeling is more prominent in 
 the minds of those Presbyterians who have come 
 into our ministry, than the new experience which 
 they find of secure and permanent freedom under 
 the dominion of our calm, equal, and just laws." 
 
 I used the word " compelled," not as meaning 
 that they are forced against their will, or as imply- 
 ing that there is any restraint on them v/hatever, 
 for I have no reason to doubt their honest preference 
 for that mode of v/orship above all others, and I 
 am not ignorant how sincerely Episcopalians be- 
 come attached to their forms ; but I meant to be 
 understood as saying that the entire routine of ser- 
 vice is prescribed ; that the Prayer Book does not 
 contemplate any deviation from that which is laid 
 down ; that the prayers are specified, the selections 
 of Scripture to be read are mentioned, the form of 
 service at baptism, and in the burial of the dead, 
 is all prescribed ; and that while the minister who 
 officiates, remains connected with that church, he is 
 expected to use all these forms. I meant to say, 
 
75 
 
 that, on the supposition that a minister in that 
 church should disbelieve the doctrine of baptismal 
 regeneration, and should openly and constantly 
 teach the necessity of another kind of new birth, he 
 would be " compelled," in the sense of yielding 
 obedience to his ordination vows, to use that form 
 of baptism which does teach the doctrine of baptis- 
 mal regeneration ; that he would not be at liberty 
 to omit it and use another form ; and that this is 
 one o^ the things " v/hich counteracts the effects of 
 their teaching." And is it not so? /s a minister 
 of the Episcopal church at liberty to omit the form 
 prescribed for " the private baptism of infants," or 
 the form for " the ministration of baptism to such 
 as are of riper years," and to substitute a form of 
 his own? If so, the permission to do it is not 
 laid down in the Prayer Book. Is it ever done hy 
 a low cliurchman 1 Would he feel himself at " lib- 
 erty" to omit it ? If not, how far was I wrong in 
 using the word " compelled ?" 
 
 How to understand the latter part of this decla- 
 ration, that "^the Episcopal clergymen have a lib- 
 erty conceded and secured to them, and universally 
 practised by them, of which the Presbyterian min- 
 ister is wholly destitute," I wot not. There is but 
 one sense in which it seems possible to understand 
 it, and that is, that they have a liberty of being 
 Calvinists or Armenians, or embracing any inter- 
 mediate shades of belief, " conceded and secured to 
 them, and universally practised by them," of which 
 '' Presbyterians are deprived ;" v/hich I understand 
 jrom Bishop Burnet and others, to be the case. 
 Others differ from Episcopalians about the value of 
 this kind of " liberty" in a church. Of the fact that 
 Jhere is considerable latitude of this kind in the 
 
76 
 
 Episcopal church, we are all well aware ; yet pre- 
 cisely where it is " conceded and secured" in the 
 Prayer Book itself, or the canons of the church, 
 does not appear to those who are uninitiated in the 
 mysteries of Episcopacy. As to any greater freedom 
 in the mode of public worship, it cannot be possible 
 that the Editors could have meant that ; and what is 
 the exact ground of triumph and exultation of those 
 " Presbyterians who have come into our ministry," 
 and the " new experience which they have found 
 of secure and permanent freedom," is not yet re- 
 vealed to us. I would not misunderstand this pas- 
 sage, and put a gloss on it which the Editors did 
 not intend ; but can it be true in any other sense 
 than that the Episcopal church, as actually admin- 
 istered, affords very large latitude in doctrinal 
 views to those who minister at her altars ; and that 
 they are not encumbered with any such trammels 
 on their liberty, as an enquiry into their views of 
 the doctrines of religion would be? 
 
 The question now is, whether, on the points 
 which I specified, the low church party are " com- 
 pelled to use a liturgy which counteracts the effects 
 of their teaching ?" 
 
 The doctrine of baptismal regeneration tends to 
 counteract the teachings of the low church parti/. 
 
 I specified, first, the doctrme of baptismal regen- 
 eration, and endeavoured to show that this is the 
 undoubted teaching of the Prayer Book. This was 
 done by a careful examination of the Book itself; 
 and the argument at length, which it would not 
 be proper to repeat here, and which cannot well 
 be condensed, may be seen in my Tract, pp. 
 .35—43. 
 
77 
 
 The answer of the Recorder to this extended ar- 
 gument, is in the words following : 
 
 " Upon this subject we do not mean to enter into 
 any long explanation or defence, which Mr. Barnes 
 would undoubtedly shut out from all consideration 
 with the same freedom, and indifference to its trutii, 
 that he has done here all explanations which have 
 heretofore been given, as not seeming ' to have tlie 
 least degree of plausibility.' (p. 35.) That bap- 
 tismal regeneration in some sense is the doctrine of 
 our church, and of every minister in the church, 
 we do not deny. The Prayer Book undoubtedly 
 teaches it ; and the Bible undoubtedly teaches it 
 also. That either or any of these, however, teach 
 it in the sense which Mr. Barnes means to affirm, 
 that is, spiritual regeneration always, without re- 
 spect to character or qualifications attending bap- 
 tism, a reference to the language of our 25th Article 
 upon the Sacraments, which declares that ' in suck 
 only as worthily receive the same they have a 
 wholesome effect and operation, — but they that re- 
 ceive them unworthily, purchase to themselves 
 damnation, as St. Paul saith ;' — and to the 27th 
 Article on Baptism, which declares that ' baptism is 
 n sign of regeneration, or nevv"- birth, whereby, as 
 by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly^ 
 are grafted into the church ;' &c., would have been 
 sufficient to contradict." 
 
 In connection with this, and apparently consti- 
 tuting a part of their argument on which much re- 
 liance is placed, the Editors appeal to the authority 
 of Dr. Alexander, to the *' Liturgy of the Dutch 
 church of the Netherlands," to the " Hymns au- 
 thorised to be used in public worship by the Pres- 
 byt-erians," to tlie " Dutch Presbyterian Catechism," 
 
78 
 
 to the " Saybrook Platform," to " Dr. Moshiem, in 
 behalf of the Lutheran church ;" to "Dr. Clarke, a 
 Methodist divine," and to Calvin. Exactly how 
 this teaches us whether the doctrine of baptismal 
 regeneration is, or is not in the Prayer Book, and 
 whether the low churchman is compelled to use a 
 Liturgy which counteracts the effect of his preaching, 
 does not appear. That was the point which I laid 
 down ; and from that point it is not my intention to 
 be diverted. I have no doubt that Dr. Alexander 
 is abundantly competent to defend the sentiment 
 M^hich he expressed ; and the public will not expect 
 me to be drawn into an amateur argument now 
 about the *' Liturgy of the Dutch church of the 
 Netherlands," or the " Dutch Presbyterian Cate- 
 chism," or the " Saybrook Platform." The point 
 is about the Liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal 
 church in the United States of America, and no 
 other. 
 
 There is no attempt to meet the argument which 
 I thought proper to urge; and if my Episcopal 
 friends will " receive it," this is a point on which 
 it becomes them to lay out more strength than has 
 been thought necessary by the Recorder. It is the 
 very point, above all others, on which Episcopacy 
 fails, and falters, and labors, and is offensive in the 
 view of the community. That community is be- 
 coming more and more deeply impressed with the 
 belief that this is the doctrine of the Prayer Book, 
 and more and more firm in the conviction that it is 
 not the doctrine of the Bible, and that it is a doc- 
 trine most dangerous in its tendency. A frank ad- 
 mission of their difficulties on this subject, and the 
 expression of a wish which we know many of them 
 have cherished, that that feature of the Prayer Book 
 
79 
 
 might be modified by the General Convention, would 
 secure the sympathy of those out of the Episcopal 
 church, and do more than perhaps any thing else, 
 in the present state of things, to satisfy that com- 
 munity that the triumph of evangeUsm might yet 
 be secured in the Episcopal church. Instead of 
 that, in reply to an argument which was framed 
 with care, and ivhich was drawn directly from the 
 Prayer Book, we have this meagre response — an 
 avowal of the doctrine, and yet an utter refusal to 
 enter into any " explanation or defence" which 
 would let us know how the doctrine is held. 
 
 It is now, however, avowed by the Editors of the 
 Recorder, that baptismal regeneration is " in some 
 sense," a doctrine held by the low church party in 
 common with their high church brethren — and it is 
 a point of much interest and importance to have ob- 
 tained this avowal. " That baptismal regeneration 
 in some sense is the doctrine of our church and of 
 
 EVERY MINISTER IN THE CHURCH, 106 do not deny. 
 
 The Prayer Book undoubtedly teaches it ; and the 
 Bible undoubtedly teaches it also.^^ From any thing 
 that appears in this argument of the Editors of the 
 Recorder, this doctrine is held in the plain and ob- 
 vious sense in which it is set forth in the Prayer 
 Book. 
 
 The exact " sense" however, in which it is held 
 by the Editors of the Episcopal Recorder, and by 
 the party of which they are the organs, they have 
 not designed to inform us. We have no difficulty 
 in ascertaining in what sense it is believed by the 
 Oxford writers, or by high churchmen generally, 
 but the particular point of interest now is, in what 
 sense it is maintained by the low church party. — 
 The doctrine of baptismal regeneration can be held, 
 
80 
 
 it seems to me, only in one of the following senses, 
 (1.) That "baptism containeth the remission of 
 sins, and hath the germ of eternal life," (Dr. 
 Pusey's Sermon before the University of Oxford, 
 p. 5 ;) that it is " founded on the very notion that 
 the partaking of the incarnation, and the Christian 
 relation of sonship to God is imparted through bap- 
 tism, and is not imparted without it," (Tracts for 
 the Times, vol. ii. p. 31 ;) that " the pardon of sins 
 is the direct provision in baptism, and that baptism 
 gives life," (Dr. Pusey's Sermon, p. 6 ;) that " in 
 baptism the old man is laid aside, the new taken ; 
 he entereth a sinner, he ariseth justified," (Tracts, 
 vol. ii. p. 47 ;) and that " hence we are justified, or 
 both accounted and made righteous," (Tracts, 
 vol. ii. p. 24.) This is the doctrine held at Oxford, 
 and which the writers of the " Tracts for the 
 Times" contend with so much zeal and plausi- 
 bility to be the doctrine of the Prayer Book. See 
 also, the " Churchman," for November 18, 1843. 
 (2.) That the sacrament of baptism produces its 
 effect by an opus operatum, or by an efhciency of its 
 own, always securing something of the nature of 
 a physical effect on the soul, when properly admin- 
 istered, washing away sin, and rendering the soul 
 pure. This, if I understand it, is the doctrine of 
 the Papists. (3.) That, though the soul is renewed 
 by the direct agency of the Holy Ghost, yet it is, 
 by divine appointment, an agency always attending 
 the right administration of the ordinance, and 
 making the subject a member of Christ, and an 
 heir of eternal life, or implanting grace in the soul, 
 which in all cases needs only to be cultivated to 
 secure salvation. (4.) That baptism is of divino 
 appointment, and that the agency of the Holy 
 
81 
 
 Spirit may in some cases renew the heart where it 
 is administered. This, if I understand him, is the 
 view of Dr. Alexander, in the passage quoted by 
 the Editors of the Recorder, and I presume would 
 be found to be the doctrine taught in the " Liturgy 
 of the Dutch church of the Netherlands." It may 
 be presumed to be the doctrine held also by Pedo- 
 baptists generally, and in fact by all who hold to 
 the doctrine of baptism at all. (5.) That the " re- 
 generation" effected in baptism is not a spiritual 
 renovation, or properly a change of heart, but only 
 a change of state ; an introduction into the church, 
 or a mere recognition of the relation to the church 
 in which the child was born, but without supposing 
 that there is necessarily or certainly any agency 
 exerted on the heart by the Holy Ghost. The sub- 
 ject of baptism, according to this view, is to be re- 
 garded and treated as sustaining an interesting re- 
 lation to the church, but as unconverted until he 
 gives evidence of regeneration by the appropriate 
 proofs of piety. Then, and not before, he is to be 
 recognised as a member of the church in the proper 
 sense, and entitled to all its privileges. 
 
 Now, as the Editors of the Recorder have not 
 told us in which of these senses "baptismal regen- 
 eration is the doctrine of our church and of every 
 minister in the church," there may be some danger 
 of doing injustice to them by attributing any one 
 of these opinions to them. That the views of the 
 Tractarians are not theirs, we may safely infer 
 from their uniform opposition to Oxfordism. As 
 certainly may we infer that they do not hold to 
 the opus operatum of the Papists. In the Prayer 
 Book, however, which, in the sense above explained, 
 they are " compelled" to use, there is no ambiguity 
 
82 
 
 in regard to the doctrine there taught. The doc- 
 trines of the Prayer Book are these : 
 
 (1.) That the change which is wrought at baptism 
 is hy the Holy Ghost, It is not a mere recognition 
 of a state ah'eady existing ; it is not that the water 
 of baptism has an intrinsic efficacy to produce the 
 purifying of the heart by an opus operatum ; it is 
 that whatever change then wrought is by the agen- 
 cy of the Holy Spirit. " Dearly beloved, none can 
 enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regen- 
 erated, and born anew of water and of the Holy 
 Ghost" " We beseech thee, for thine infinite mer- 
 cies, that thou wilt mercifully look upon this child, 
 wash him, and sanctif}^ him ivith the Holy Ghost." 
 " Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant, that he may 
 be born again, and made an heir of everlasting sal- 
 vation." " We yield the hearty thanks, most mer- 
 ciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate 
 this infant ivith thy Holy Spirit" The " ministra- 
 tion for the Private and Public Baptism of Infants, 
 to be used in the church," pp. 143 — 148. No doc- 
 trine could be plainer than that ivhatever change is 
 wrought at baptism, it is hy 'the Holy Ghost, 
 
 (2.) This is a change, according to the Prayer 
 Book, which always occurs when baptism is prop- 
 erly administered. It is not the doctrine as " taught 
 by Dr. Alexander," and as it may be found in " the 
 Liturgy of the Dutch church of the Netherlands," 
 and in the " Dutch Presbyterian catechism," that 
 this change inay occur, but that it always does 
 occur. Dr. Alexander teaches, in the passage quoted 
 by the Recorder, that a child may be renewed when 
 the ordinance of baptism is administered, and that 
 parents, " when about to dedicate their children to 
 God in holy baptism, should earnestly pray that 
 
83 
 
 they may be baptised with the Holy Ghost ; that 
 while their bodies are washed in the emblematical 
 laver of regeneration, their souls may experience 
 the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and the sprinkling 
 of the blood of Jesus ;" the Episcopal Prayer Book 
 teaches that this always occurs. There is no mere 
 expression of a belief that it may be done. There 
 is no exception made in regard to any who are bap- 
 tised. In each and every case, there is precisely 
 the same prayer offered before baptism, that God 
 would give his Holy Spirit to the infant, " that he 
 may be born again, and be made an heir of ever- 
 lasting salvation ;" and in each and every case after 
 bajptism, the same thanks are returned " that it hath 
 pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy 
 Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adop- 
 tion, and to incorporate him into thy holy church." 
 If the directions of the Prayer Book have been 
 attended to, this same form of prayer and thanks- 
 giving has been used in relation to every child that 
 has been baptised since the book was adopted ; and 
 has been used, and must be used, by every Episco- 
 pal minister in this land, be he a high or a low 
 churchman. Whatever the book teaches, then, about 
 the change which it calls " regeneration," it is a 
 change which always occurs. This is held, I 
 presume, by low churchmen, as well as by their 
 high church brethren. It is impossible not to hold 
 it, and maintain a belief in the Prayer Book. 
 
 (3.) It is not a mere change of s/^a^e which is im- 
 plied in this change, according to the Prayer Book. 
 It is not a mere transition from the world to the 
 visible church. It is not a mere profession of reli- 
 gion. It cannot be said, in order to meet the diffi- 
 culty which low churchman are " compelled" to 
 
84 
 
 meet with, that the word "regeneration" has 
 changed its signification since the book was made ; 
 or that they who framed the book meant merely to 
 designate a change of state. There is no evidence 
 of any such change of the meaning of the language 
 which has yet been adduced, and it is apparent on 
 the face of the hook itself, that no such change has 
 occurred. The book being the interpreter, there is 
 implied all that is ever implied by the word regene- 
 ration in the Bible or in common usage. — This is 
 clear from the following considerations : — (a.) The 
 very term " spiritual regeneration" is used as be- 
 ing that which is prayed for and expected in bap- 
 tism. " We call upon thee for this Infant, that he, 
 coming to thy holy Baptism, may receive remission 
 of sins,* BY SPIRITUAL REGENERATION." What then 
 is the exact meaning of the Editors of the Recor- 
 der when they deny that the Prayer Book teach- 
 es the " doctrine of baptismal regeneration in the 
 sense which Mr. Barnes means to athrm, that is spi- 
 ritual regeneration^^ -the very term used in the Prayer 
 Book '.' (6) The Prayer Book teaches that every thing 
 which is commonly supposed to denote a change of 
 heart, or a spiritual renovation, is imparted at bap- 
 tism. It is not a mere change of state, or a trans- 
 ition from the world to the visible church ; but the 
 infant is by baptism " made a member of Christ, a 
 child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of 
 heaven." Catechism. Thanks are returned that he 
 is made " a child of God by adoption,'''' and prayer 
 
 * How much does this differ from Oxfbrdism? " Baptism 
 containeth the remission of sins, and hath the germ of spiri- 
 tual Ufa." " The pardon of sins is the direct provision of 
 baptism." «' Baptism gives hfe." Dr. Pusey. See " The 
 mysteries opened," by Rev. John S. Stone, D. D. pp. 82, 83. 
 
85 
 
 is offered, not that he may he converted afterwards, 
 but that he " being dead unto sin, and living unto 
 righteousness, and being buried with Christ in his 
 death, may utterly abolish the whole body of sin ; 
 and that as he is made Partaker of the death of thy 
 Son he may also be Partaker of his Resurrection."* 
 The "Ministration of the private baptism of chil- 
 dren." Now these are the very terms which are 
 used in the scriptures, and adopted by the great 
 mass of christians jTrom the scriptures, to denote the 
 spiritual change wrought in the heart by the Holy 
 Ghost at the new birth, and neither in the scrip- 
 tures, nor in the common usages of christians, nor 
 in the systematic writings of theologians, are there 
 any other terms which more clearly express the 
 idea. 
 
 For reasons such as these, it seems quite clear to 
 those out of the church, that the Prayer Book has 
 " defined its own position" on this subject with a 
 distinctness which cannot be mistaken, and that the 
 framers of the " incomparable Liturgy" meant to 
 teach that the change effected by baptism is a 
 change produced by the Holy Ghost ; is a change 
 which is always effected, and is a change of a spi- 
 ritual character. — It is remarkable that the Editors 
 of the Recorder should not have attempted to set 
 
 *How much does f^is differ from Oxfordism ? "This ex- 
 position" (that which makes John i. 12, 13, refer to baptism 
 as the instrument of the birth there mentioned,) "is founded 
 on the very notion that the partaking of the incarnation, and 
 the christian relation of sonship to God, is imparted through 
 baptism." Baptism is " that mystery whereby we are made 
 2)artakers of the incarnation, being baptised into one body, 
 the body of our incarnate Lord." Tracts for the Times, vol. 
 ii. 31.44. 
 
 8 
 
86 
 
 aside the argument in the Tract under their review 
 by which some of the reasons for this opinion were 
 set forth. The public will probably demand that 
 the views of low churchmen on this vital point 
 should be stated more explicitly, and that it should 
 be shown that the reasoning which seems so obvious 
 about the meaning of the Prayer Book may be set 
 aside. 
 
 I by no means charge low churchmen with 
 teaching in their public ministrations, the doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration. I do not believe that 
 they do. I do not deny that the teaching of many, 
 or for aught I know to the contrary, all in that par- 
 ty may be as thorough on the subject of the neces- 
 sity of the new birth, and the agency of the Holy 
 Spirit in producing it, as can be found in other dc- 
 nominatioms. There is an impropriety in referring 
 in public discussions to living men, and I will, 
 therefore refer only to the dead. A near neigh- 
 bour, and a frequent hearer, of the late Drs. Bedell 
 and John A. Clark, and long a personal friend of 
 the latter, I esteem it a privilege to bear my testi- 
 mony to the unshrinking fidelity, the great clearness, 
 the unwavering steadiness of argument, and 
 the fervor of affectionate appeal, with which they 
 urged on their hearers the doctrine of depravity, the 
 danger of the sinner, the impossibility of being 
 saved by any outward works or forms, and the in- 
 dispensible necessity of being born again. I have 
 no doubt that others in this city and elsewhere 
 evince the same fidelity, and were it proper I would 
 refer to living men here and abroad whose names 
 will be treasured up with the same fond remem- 
 brance, and for the same thing, when they are re- 
 moved to heaven. Serus in coelum redeant. 
 
87 
 
 None of the difficulties which I have ventured to 
 suggest in regard to Episcopacy, relate to this point. 
 The difficulty pertains to another matter. It is in 
 reference to the consistency of the doctrine of bap- 
 tismal regeneration as, to use the language of the 
 Recorder, " the Prayer Book undoubtedly teaches 
 it," with this kind of preaching. I presume that 
 low churchmen see some way of explaining this, 
 which others do not. I have not charged one of 
 them with " hypocrisy," as the Recorder alleges.* 
 I have not accused one of them, living or dead, 
 with insincerity. I have certainly no more reason 
 to doubt that they are sincere and honest men, than 
 I have to doubt that I am myself; and I doubt not 
 that they are as conscientiously attached to their 
 own church, as I am to what I esteem — ah imo 
 pectore — as a better faith. But if it would not be 
 interpreted as charging them with insincerity, I 
 would respectfully ask a conscientious low church- 
 man who believes in the necessity of the new birth, 
 how he can continue to use a form of baptism 
 framed as that is in the Prayer Book ? I would ask 
 again, what must be the practical effect of the use 
 of that form on his public teaching 1 Let him not 
 take it unkindly, and let not the community judge 
 it harshly — for it is fair to enquire what Episco- 
 ])acy is, and this is just the point in debate — if I 
 ask, how one who believes that by baptism there is 
 
 * "For t'/ie cXexgy themselves, we need say nothing. Mr. 
 jJarnes has in so viany other instances in this book proclaimed 
 their absolute iiypocrisy, that this .idditional instance with 
 which he charg'es tliem, of consenting to use a Liturgy 
 which is directly opposed to all their preaching, and yet pro- 
 cessing to love and admire it at the same time, can hardly 
 jtaake their case worse iu his representation." 
 
not, as the Recorder teaches, " spiritual regenera- 
 tion always ;" who teaches that there is a neces- 
 sity of a renovation of heart by the Holy Ghost, 
 and that no certain dependence can be placed on 
 baptism however administered to secure this, 
 can, on the same day, and on all occasions 
 when an infant is baptised, use this language; 
 " We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful 
 Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate 
 this infant with thy Holy Spirit 1" Another ques- 
 tion here. The Recorder teaches us, on the sub- 
 ject of confirmation, that " the universal practice 
 of the church is, to leave in the hands of the min- 
 ister of the parish, the sole power of judgment of 
 the characters of the persons to be confirmed," 
 and so far as I can understand the Editors, they 
 claim that the minister of the parish is at liberty 
 not to present a candidate, even though he has been 
 taught to " say the creed, the Lord's prayer, the 
 ten commandments, and such parts of the church 
 catechism as are set forth for that purpose," and 
 that he has a right to insist on the evidence of a 
 renovated heart as a qualification. The low 
 churchman would demand, I presume, substantially 
 the same evidence which would be required by a 
 Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a Methodist. He would 
 require evidence of a " spiritual regeneration ;" 
 that is, something different from what is implied 
 in " baptismal regeneration" as he understands it ; 
 something which is not necessarily secured by bap- 
 tism. He goes through a long course of counsel 
 to prepare the candidate for confirmation, with this 
 view. The nature of regeneration as a distinct 
 thing from baptism is set forth, and the usual evi- 
 dences of piety are insisted on. Having done this, 
 
89 
 
 as a part of the preparation for confirmation, (See 
 "the form for the baptism of children,") it is neces- 
 sary still to ascertain whether he can " say the 
 creed, the Lord's prayer, and the ten command- 
 ments, and is sufficiently instructed in the other 
 parts of the church Catechism set forth for that pur- 
 pose." In that church Catechism, the following 
 questions and answers occur. " Qvestioii. — What is 
 your name 1 Answer. — N., or M. Question. — 
 Who gave you this name ? A7isiver. — My sponsors 
 in baptism, ivherein I was made a member of Christ, 
 the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom 
 of heaven. ^'' I charge no low churchman, I repeat, 
 with hypocrisy. I believe they have some way of 
 explaining this which I do not understand. But is 
 the question an unfair one to ask how can a man 
 teach this, who does not believe that in any proper 
 sense, baptism confers " spiritual regeneration," 
 and all the tendency of whose preaching and teach- 
 ing has been, that something more is necessary in 
 order to be " regenerated by the Holy Ghost," to 
 " be made a member of Christ, a child of God, and 
 an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven?" There 
 may be a way in which all these things may be 
 wholly consistent, but that way has not yet been 
 explained. To the Editors of the Recorder it may 
 be a matter of little importance to tell a Presbyte- 
 rian hoiD. 
 
 The requirements in regard to Confirmation coun- 
 teract the teaching of the low church party. 
 
 I specified, as a second difficulty in reference to 
 the etforts of the Evangelical party, the prescrip- 
 tions of the Prayer Book respecting confirmation, 
 and endeavored to demonstrate from that book, that 
 
90 
 
 It contemplated that a child which had been pro- 
 perly baptised, shall be " brought to the bishop to 
 be confirmed by him so soon as he can say the 
 creed, the Lord's prayer, and the ten command- 
 ments, and is sufficiently instructed in the other 
 parts of the church catechism for that purpose." 
 The argument which 1 instituted was designed to 
 show that, according to the Prayer Book, it is sup- 
 posed that the child is " regenerated by the Holy 
 Ghost," is " made a child of God," and is " incor- 
 porated into the holy church" by baptism ; that 
 grace is always implanted in connection with that 
 ordinance, and that if that grace is properly culti- 
 vated, he is to be brought, at the proper age, to the 
 bishop to take upon himself the vows made by his 
 " sponsors" at baptism. I endeavored to show that 
 this is a consequent of the doctrine of baptismal 
 regeneration, or is in the line of the arrangements 
 by which it is supposed in the Prayer Book that 
 the child is to be saved. I am confirmed in this 
 view by the statement made by the Rt. Rev. Alex. 
 V. Griswold, D. D., the late venerable prelate of 
 the Episcopal church in New England, (Sermons, 
 1830,) and by the Treatise, " What is Christianity, 
 by Thomas Vowler Short, Bishop of Sodor and 
 Man," men who would be regarded by the low 
 church party as proper expounders of the meaning 
 of the Liturgy. I referred, in proof of the position 
 which I laid down, to a train of reasoning from a 
 similar case, pursued by the Rev. Dr. Tyng, in re- 
 ference to the ordination of Mr. Carey, showing 
 that the Bishop was bound by something of the 
 nature of a compact to ordain one who had com- 
 plied with all the outward requisitions of the canons. 
 This reasoning of Dr. Tyng seemed to me to prove 
 
91 
 
 %vith equal clearness, that the " minister of the 
 })arish" is bound to present for confirmation those 
 who have complied with the direction to be able to 
 say the creed, &c. I admitted that the low church 
 party do in fact pursue a different course, and that 
 they demand evidence of conversion in order to 
 confirmation, as really as the evangelical ministers 
 of other denominations require such evidence in 
 order to an admission to the privileges of the Lord's 
 supper, and I said also, " we are willing to admit 
 that there must be some discretion allowed to the 
 officiating minister or rector of a parish in regard 
 to those who are to be presented, for the fair rules 
 of interpretation seem to demand that he shall not 
 be required to present those who are open infidels, 
 or who are grossly immoral." pp. 44, 45. 
 
 The Editors have not thought it of importance 
 to notice my reasoning from the Prayer Book, from 
 the argument of Dr. Tyng, or the admission which 
 I made in regard to the discretionary power of the 
 " minister of the parish," and I shall, therefore, 
 allow the reasoning which I offered in the case to 
 pass for what it is worth. If it had any strength 
 when I urged it, it has the same now, and whatever 
 may be the practice in the Episcopal church, it may 
 serve somewhat to show what the theory is as it is 
 laid down in the Prayer Book. 
 
 The only reply of the Editors is in the following 
 words : " We would respectfully refer him to the 
 rubric in the Prayer Book, which he professes to 
 have read, at the end of the Catechism, which says, 
 'whenever the Bishop shall give knowledge for 
 children to be brought unto him for their confirma- 
 tion, the minister of every parish, shall either bring 
 or send in writing with his hand subscribed there- 
 
92 
 
 unto, the names of all such persons within Ins 
 parish, as he shall think Jit to be presented to the 
 Bishop to be confirmed.'^ We would also refer him 
 to Canon 26, which enacts, ' It shall be the duty of 
 ministers to pre})are young persons and others for 
 the Holy Ordinance of Coniirmation. And he shall 
 be ready to present for confirmation such persons 
 as he shall think properly qualified ; and shall de- 
 liver to the Bishop a list of the names of those con- 
 firmed.' Under these laws the universal practice 
 of the Church, is to leave in the hands of the 
 minister of the parish, the sole power of judgment 
 of the character of persons to be confirmed, or to 
 be admitted to the Lord's Table. No Bishop in the 
 Church would attempt the confirmation of an indi- 
 vidual, thus judged and rejected by pastoral au- 
 thority, unless manifest and extreme injustice had 
 been done. And hov/ could this right or respon- 
 sibility in other pastors, be more accurately defined 
 or secured V 
 
 On the argument which I constructed on this 
 subject, which was presented in no unkind spi- 
 rit or words, and which could have been easily 
 met if it were unsound, the Editors are pleased 
 to indulge themselves in the following singular re- 
 marks : — 
 
 " With what honesty then can Mr. Barnes occu- 
 py eleven pages of his book, in the deliberate fram- 
 ing of a contrary statement, when a simple refer- 
 ence to our known laws would have exhibited to 
 him the truth at oncel There is here exhibited just 
 as there is through the whole book, the determina- 
 tion to vilify and destroy, not the party avowedly 
 the object, but the Church to which they belong. 
 There is no ' inquiry' into facts, from one end of 
 
93 
 
 the publication to the other, hut a succession of un- 
 founded assertions, and impidations equally desti- 
 tute of truth and proofs 
 
 To this, of course, 1 shall not be expected to reply. 
 The argument of the Editors in the case is, " that 
 the minister of the parish shall present such per- 
 sons as he shall think fit to he presented to the 
 Bishop to be confirmed.''^ " He shall be ready to 
 present for confirmation such persons as he shall 
 think j)roperly qualified.'^'' The question then is, 
 what is the " fitness" which the minister of the pa- 
 rish, according to the Prayer Book, is allowed to 
 require? What is the limit of the "proper qualifica- 
 tions" for that rite 1 It is not what is proper ac- 
 cording to the New Testament ; or what the min- 
 ister himself might judge ; but what is it according 
 to the published standards of the Episcopal church, 
 what did the framers of the Prayer Book contem- 
 plate ? Is the minister of the parish to be allowed 
 absolute discretion in the case 1 Has the candidate 
 no rights, as is contended by Dr. Tyng respecting 
 the candidate for ordination 1 Is the minister of the 
 parish at liberty to adopt any thing which he may 
 choose as constituting the ^'-fitness''"' for confirma- 
 tion '/ Suppose he were to be a " Calvinist of the 
 highest order," and were to insist, as a necessary 
 qualification, that the candidate should assent to all 
 the articles of that faith. Suppose he were to em- 
 brace some fanatical views of conversion of the 
 wildest kind, and should insist that tho§e constitu- 
 ted the " fitness" for confirmation. Suppose he 
 were to insist on his joining a temperance society, 
 or his expressing his abhorrence of slavery ; would 
 tbese be proper things for him to demand as 
 qualifications for confirmation? Suppose it should 
 
94 
 
 happen to occur to him to demand assent to all the 
 articles of belief contained in the " Liturgy of the 
 Dutch church of the Netherlands," would he have 
 a right to require this ? — Why not, just as much as 
 to insist on compliance with his own views of re- 
 generation, if those views were not what is laid 
 down in the Prayer Book ? Where will he lind in 
 that book that he has a right to demand the one 
 more than the other ? Probably most persons would 
 answer these questions in one way, and by precisely 
 the same rule. It would be by turning at once to 
 the Prayer Book, and by asking whether these 
 things are laid down as constituting the " fitness" 
 for the rite, and by ascertaining whether " discre- 
 tion," is given to the " minister of the parish" to 
 make these the conditions of confirmation. 
 
 The low church minister claims that he has the 
 right to withhold one from confirmation who does not 
 give him satisfactory evidence that he is converted 
 according to his views of conversion. This being 
 his own rule of judging of what is piety in the case, 
 in the exercise of the " liberty which Episcopal 
 clergymen have conceded and secured to them," he 
 claims the right to withhold any one, and every one 
 under his ministry, from confirmation, who does not 
 give him evidence that he has experienced some- 
 thino; more than is understood by his high church 
 brethren to be secured by baptismal regeneration. 
 In this . he is undoubtedly right so far as the New 
 Testament is concerned, but is thia Episcopacy as 
 it is in the Prayer Book? Has he any more right 
 to insist on this, in opposition to the views and prac- 
 tices of his high church brethren, than he would 
 have to demand assent to the higher articles of Gal- 
 vanism, or to a subscription to a temperance pledge '? 
 
95 
 
 The answer to all this seems still to be plain. We 
 turn at once to the Prayer Book, and there is nothing 
 of it there. No such liberty is conceded to him, and 
 as far as the uninitiated can understand language, 
 it is not contemplated by the Prayer Book. I'hc 
 successive steps in the process, according to the 
 Prayer Book are these : — 
 
 1. The unconscious child, through his sponsors, 
 by what in the legal profession would be called a 
 fiction of law, " renounces the devil and his works, 
 the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all 
 covetous desires of the same ;" professes to " believe 
 all the articles of the christian faith as contained in 
 the apostles creed," promises " obediently to keep 
 God's holy will and commandments, and walk in 
 the same all the days of his life." This is a prom- 
 ise supposed to be made h\j the child as if then a 
 moral ao;ent and a believer in the truth of religion. 
 
 2. 0\\ the ground of this faith the infant is bap- 
 tised, and is made " regenerate by the Holy Ghost, 
 and a member of Christ, the child of God, an inher- 
 itor of the kingdom of heaven, and is incorporated 
 into the holy church." 
 
 3. The sponsors, not the parents, are to " take 
 care that this child be brought to the bishop to be 
 confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the creed, 
 the Lord's prayer, and the ten commandments, and 
 is sufficiently instructed in the other parts of the 
 church catechism set forth for that purpose." This 
 is all the counsel which theij receive as to the " fit- 
 ness" or " qualifications" for confirmation. 
 
 4. At a suitable time, the child is brought to the 
 Bishop, presented by the " minister of the parish," 
 to take upon himself the vows which were made in 
 his name at baptism, and then the sponsors are 
 
96 
 
 supposed to be released. " Then shall the Bishop 
 say, Do ye here in the presence of God, and of 
 this congregation, renew the solemn promise and 
 vow that ye made, or that was made in your name 
 at your baptism, ratifying and confirming the same; 
 and acknowledging yourselves bound to believe and 
 do all those things which ye then undertook, or 
 which your sponsors then undertook for you ? And 
 every one shall audibly answer, I do.'''' Here is no 
 new thing ; no profession of any change of heart ; 
 of having undergone any spiritual change since the 
 baptism, nor is any evidence required of a new birth 
 further than was supposed to occur at baptism. All 
 that is done is to confirm and ratify what, by an 
 unauthorized fiction, the child was understood then 
 to believe and to profess, and the delay has been, 
 not that he might be converted, but that he might 
 be " instructed," and might come to suitable age to 
 take these vows upon himself. 
 
 5. In all this, there is no discretion allowed by 
 the Prayer Book to the " minister of the parish" to 
 interpose any thing new. There is no " freedom 
 conceded and secured" by the book, whatever there 
 may be in practice, to insist on any new test or 
 qualification, or any evidence of " conversion" ac- 
 cording to the peculiar views which he may have. 
 
 If this view of the process by which one born in 
 the Episcopal church is to be " confirmed" is erro- 
 neous, it would be very easy to show it. I admit 
 that this is not the course pursued by the low 
 church party. I admit that, in general, they de- 
 mand evidence of conversion as really as any Pres- 
 byterian or Methodist would — and herein lies my 
 argument, that their practice is not sanctioned by 
 
97 
 
 the Prayer Book, and is not, on fair rules of inter- 
 preting language, what that book contemplated. 
 
 The Burial Service counteracts the teaching of the 
 Evangelical party. 
 
 These were the points to which I referred in 
 my Tract as counteracting the efforts of low 
 churchmen in the necessary use of the Prayer 
 Book. To these I now add, in order to a complete 
 statement of the entire effect of the system in the 
 Prayer Book, the necessity of using the service ap- 
 pointed for the burial of the dead. I am not in- 
 sensible to the beauty of that service, nor to its 
 general appropriateness, for the burial of true 
 Christians. It is only as a part of a system ; as 
 connected with the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
 tion, and as identified with the views of confirma- 
 tion laid down in the Liturgy, that it is proper here 
 to examine it. The argument is, simply, that if it 
 be the doctrine of the Prayer Book, that those who 
 are baptised are regenerated by the Holy Ghost, 
 and are to be confirmed in the manner laid down, 
 and it be true that, according to the Prayer Book, 
 those who are thus baptised and who do not lead 
 scandalous lives, are to be buried with the assured 
 prospect of a glorious resurrection, it is a constant 
 influence operating in the church to counteract the 
 effects of the teaching of the Evangelical party. It 
 tends to beget and cherish false hopes ; to per- 
 petuate views of the nature of religion abhorrent 
 alike to the New Testament and to the teachings of 
 the Evangelical party. In regard to this service, 
 which is so much praised, and in the main so de- 
 servedly admired and valued by Episcopalians, I 
 would observe, 
 
 9 
 
98 
 
 . (1.) That the low church party, in common 
 with high churchmen, are " compelled" to use it 
 on all occasions except the three which will be 
 soon specified. Thus the direction in the rubric 
 is as positive respecting this, as it is in respect to 
 the other services required in the Prayer Book. No 
 " discretion" is allowed as to its omission, or the 
 omission of any part of it, except in the choice be- 
 tween two short prayers at the close of the service, 
 in which there is no ground for preference as to 
 the point now before us. Thus it is directed, " The 
 minister meeting the corpse at the entrance of the 
 church yard, shall say, or sing ;" " After they are 
 come into the church, shall be said or sung the fol- 
 lowing anthem :" "Then shall follow the lesson ;" 
 " Then, while the earth shall be cast upon the body 
 by some standing by, the minister shall say." It 
 is also true, as far as I have any knowledge, that 
 the low churchman never has any reluctance to use 
 this whole form at funerals. 
 
 (2.) The service is framed on the supposition of 
 the salvation of all those over whom it is to be 
 read. This is evident because, (a) those only are 
 excluded from it of whom there can be no reason- 
 able hope of salvation ; the " unbaptised, those who 
 die excommunicate, and those who have laid vio- 
 lent hands on themselves ;" and, (h) the expres- 
 sions which are to be used on the occasion are such 
 as obviously and naturally imply this belief, and, 
 indeed, are so couched as to leave no doubt that 
 such is the meaning. Thus in every case, it is 
 said that the " minister," while " the earth shall be 
 cast upon the body," " shall say," " Forasmuch as 
 it hath pleased Almighty God, in his wise Provi- 
 dence, to take out of this world the soul of our de- 
 
99 
 
 ceased brother, we therefore commit his body to the 
 ground ; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to 
 dust ; looking for the general resurrection in the 
 last day, and the life of the world to co?ne, through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ.'''' Then immediately " shall 
 be said or sung" " I heard a voice from heaven 
 saying unto me, Write, from henceforth blessed arc 
 the dead who die in the Lord." {c) That this is 
 the true interpretation is apparent, because it is for- 
 bidden to read this service over the unbaptised, 
 the excommunicated, and suicides. If the expres- 
 sions here used were of a general character, and 
 were designed only to speak of the resurrection in 
 general, and of the hope of the life to come, without 
 any reference to the one who is buried, it would 
 be as proper to use them at the funeral of an unbap- 
 tised person, or a suicide, as any other person. It 
 is only because they are supposed to be appropriate 
 to the individual, and they are directed in his case 
 to be used, and are forbidden in the case of others. 
 (3.) The effect of this service is to lead all to 
 suppose that zy they are baptised, and are not ex- 
 communicated, and do not commit suicide, they are 
 safe. They may then have this service appropri- 
 ately read over their graves, and lie down in the 
 hope of heaven. They have been " regenerated by 
 the Holy Ghost" at baptism ; they have never been 
 " excommunicated" from the true church ; and they 
 have committed no such crime as to exclude from 
 the hope of heaven ; and they will be permitted 
 to sleep in consecrated ground. They are grouped 
 with those who are to be saved, and having been 
 baptised, confirmed, and kept in the church, and 
 appropriately buried, they are now united with 
 others " looking for the life of the world to come." 
 
100 
 
 (4.) It is worthy of remark, who are grouped 
 together as unv.'orthy of christian burial, and .the 
 reason why they are so. This service is not to be 
 used for any unbaptised person, nor for the excom- 
 municated^ nor for suicides. These three crimes or 
 offences are grouped together as being, in the matter 
 under consideration, on a level ; equally excluding 
 from the hope of heaven, and from the privileges 
 of christian burial ; and they are the only offences 
 that are regarded as of sufficient importance to 
 exclude from such a burial. The " unbaptised" 
 and suicides are to He side by side, without the 
 limits of a christian burial-place ; and over neither 
 the one nor the other is the minister of the Lord 
 Jesus, if he has been Episcopally ordained, to per- 
 form any religious service whatever, according to 
 the Prayer Book. The only reason for this must 
 be that this service considers all whom it consigns 
 to the grave, as regenerate persons ; and that ac- 
 cording to its judgment, the unbaptised person is 
 as certainly unregenerate as the excommunicated, 
 or the suicide. " No matter of what crimes a man 
 may have been guilty, if he has not committed 
 suicide, if he has not been excommuuicated, if he 
 has been only Episcopally baptised ; though he 
 may have lived a drunkard's life, and may fill a 
 drunkard's grave ; though he may have wronged 
 t e widow and the fatherless ; though he may have 
 plotted treason, and imbrued his hands in blood, 
 still he is thus to be buried, ' looking for the Hfe 
 of the world to come,' "* because in infancy he was 
 baptised, and has neither been excommunicated, 
 nor laid violent hands on himself. Nor does it 
 appear that the minister has any discretionary 
 * New Englander, vol. ii. p. 277. 
 
101 
 
 power in extreme cases. The corpse may be that 
 of a professed Atheist, or of as profane and profli- 
 gate a man as ever died without repentance ; still, 
 if the baptism of the deceased be recorded, and there 
 is no record of excommunication, the " minister, 
 meeting the corpse at the entrance of the church- 
 yard, and going before it either into the church, or 
 towards the grave, shall say or sing" the burial 
 service, as if he were a Baxter or a Leighton.* 
 
 (5.) The practical operation of this service must 
 be to " counteract the effect of the teaching" of the 
 low church party. It is an appropriate sequel of 
 
 * The exact practical effect of this ordinance will be better 
 understood, if it be remembered that, according to one of the 
 most able historians of the Episcopal church in this country, 
 and one of its most eminent divines, there is no power of 
 " excommunication" now residing in the church. I refer to 
 the authority of the Rev. Dr. Hawks. Thus he says : — 
 
 " Who ever heard of the excommunication of a layman by 
 our branch of the Apostolic church ? Neither the General 
 Convention, nor any State Convention, have ever provided 
 any ' rules or process' for excommunication. There is not 
 a clergyman in the church, who, if he were desirous to ex- 
 communicate an offender, would know how to take the very 
 first step in the process. It certainly is not to be done ac- 
 cording to his mere whim ; and if it were so done, it is as 
 certainly invalid. Shall then the Presbyter alone do it, or 
 shall it be done by his Bishop, or by a conclave of Bishops, 
 or of Bishops and Presbyters, or by a State Convention includ- 
 ing the laity, or by the General Convention including the 
 laity again ? No man can answer it, for there is no rule 
 on the subject." " There are very few of the dioceses in 
 which any provision is made by canon for investigating or 
 trying the case of a Zayman."-i-Constitution and Canons of 
 the Protestant Episcopal church in the United States, pp. 
 359, 360. 362. The practical effect of the rule then must 
 be, that only the " unbaptised," and those *' who lay violent 
 hands on themselves," are excluded from the privilege of 
 christian burial in the Protestant Episcopal church. 
 
 9* 
 
102 
 
 the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and of the 
 rules for confirmation ; and, despite all the teaching 
 to the contrary, it is 'a constant force' operating 
 to keep up the impression that they who are thus 
 baptised and honorably buried, who have neither 
 been excommunicated, and who are not self-murder- 
 ers, are safe. This effect is candidly admitted by 
 Archbishop Whately, a man, who, from his rank, 
 talents, and candor, has by his concessions, given 
 more trouble to " churchmen" than all those who, 
 out of the limits of " the church" have presumed 
 to examine its institutions. Thus he says, "I have 
 known a person, in speaking of a deceased neigh- 
 bor, whose character had been irreligious and pro- 
 fligate, remark, how great a comfort it was to hear 
 the words of the funeral service read over her, 
 ' because, poor woman, she had been such a bad 
 liver.' I have heard of an instance again of a 
 superstition, probably before unsuspected, being ac- 
 cidentally brought to light, by the minister's having 
 forbidden a particular corpse to be brought into the 
 church, because the person had never frequented it 
 when alive ; the consequence of which was, that 
 many old people began immediately to frequent the 
 church, who had before been in the habit of absent- 
 ing themselves." — Essays on Romanism, ch. i. § 9. v. 
 As a simple but very important question, it might 
 be asked of every conscientious low churchman, 
 whether he never feels any difficulty or any doubt 
 about the propriety of reading this whole service 
 over those over whom by the rubric he is required 
 to " say or sing" it ? 
 
 In my Tract, having shown that there were 
 things in the Prayer Book which low churchmen 
 as well as the high churchmen were required to 
 
103 
 
 use, the tendency of which was to " counteract 
 the effect of their teaching," I proceeded to a third 
 general consideration, which was, that there " are 
 no arrangements or provisions in the Liturgy for 
 promoting their pecuhar and distinctive efforts, or 
 which contemplate such efforts." 
 
 The third general position in the argument : 
 3Iissions. 
 
 The first thing which I specified in which there 
 are no arrangements or provisions in the Liturgy 
 for promoting the j:)eculiar and distinctive efforts of 
 the low church party, was that Christian missions 
 to the heathen are not contemplated by the Prayer 
 Book, pp. 50, 51. The argument was, that the use 
 of the Liturgy is unfavorable to the work of mis- 
 sions — requiring responses, and changes of pos- 
 ture and of vestments, and is adapted rather to an 
 already organized congregation than to the work 
 of collecting such a congregation from among the 
 heathen ; that there arc no references to such 
 efforts in the Prayer Book, no prayers for the suc- 
 cess of missions, no allusions to churches gathered 
 ■among the heathen, and no petitions that the mis- 
 sionary in heathen lands may be sustained in his 
 trials, and encouraged in his work, I then went 
 into an extensive e.xamination of the prayers and 
 collects appointed to be used, and found in all 
 the Prayer Book, besides the incessant repeating of 
 the Lord's prayer, but one single petition to be 
 offered in the ordinary public service of this kind, 
 to wit, " We humbly beseech thee for all sorts and 
 conditions of men, that thou wouldst be pleased to 
 make thy ways known unto them, thy saving health 
 unto all nations," Besides this, there is in the 
 
104 
 
 Prayer Book, a solitary petition, to be used once in 
 a year, that God would " have mercy upon all 
 Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics." This com- 
 prehensive petition, to be offered in the Episcopal 
 churches, not on the Sabbath, but on " Good Fri- 
 day," is the solitary prayer which the Fathers of 
 the Episcopal church have thought it of importance 
 to have offered that the Saviour's last command 
 may be carried into effect by the church. To this 
 argument, the Editors have been pleased to furnish 
 the following brief reply : 
 
 " Upon the character of the Prayer Book itself 
 in this relation, it is hardly necessary for us to 
 speak. Episcopalians are perfectly informed, that 
 they can never meet in worship according to their 
 Liturgy, without uniting in many prayers for the 
 universal extension of the Gospel throughout the 
 world. And perhaps there is no feature in the 
 Prayer Book more distinct and evident than the 
 very great proportion of its intercessory language, 
 and especially for spiritual benefits to mankind." 
 
 How easy and how courteous it would have been 
 for them to have referred to some at least of those 
 " many prayers for the universal extension of the 
 Gospel throughout the world," which Episcopalians 
 are so " perfectly informed" are found in their 
 " Liturgy." If there are such prayers, they are 
 not apparent to non-episcopal eyes. — The Editoi's 
 then make the following remarks on the general 
 subject of Episcopal missions : — 
 
 " The whole testimony of facts as they are be- 
 fore the view of the Christian world, are directly 
 against him. What are all the missions of the Mo- 
 ravian Churches, but a complete and thorough tes- 
 timony to the adaptation of Episcopacy and a 
 
105 
 
 Liturgy to the extension of the Gospel among the 
 heathen ? And as Mr. Barnes' whole argument is 
 founded upon the abstract principles of Episcopacy 
 and a Form of Prayer, they constitute just as com- 
 plete a reply as any facts in our own church par- 
 ticularly. But we will not rest upon these. Does 
 not Mr. Barnes know that the Church of England 
 was engaged in missions to the heathen more than 
 one hundred years before the Church of Scotland 
 started in the work 1 The Society for promoting 
 Christian knowledge was established in 1690. The 
 Scottish Missionary Society in 1796. Is Mr. Barnes 
 ignorant that the most successful of all modern mis- 
 sions have thus far been under Episcopal minis- 
 trations l Does he know nothing of the eminent 
 spread of the Gospel in the last century in the Pen- 
 insula and islands of Southern India under the 
 Christian Knowledge Society of the Church of Eng- 
 land ? In the year 1750 the converts from hea- 
 thenism in the single station of Tranquebar alone 
 amounted to eight thousand. The Society for pro- 
 pagating the Gospel in foreign parts was formed in 
 1701, and its labors were successfully directed 
 to the Indians of North America. The Church 
 Missionary Society which was established in 1801, 
 has been perhaps the most successful instrument of 
 establishing the Gospel among the heathen of all in 
 modern eiforts. Does Mr. Barnes know nothing 
 of Africa, of Regentstown ; of India, of Chunar, 
 and Krishnaghur ] Has he no knowledge of Bu- 
 chanan, of Martyn, of lieber, of Johnson, of Bowley, 
 of Wilson ? Plave his ov/n people never been roused 
 or melted by the sweet hymn of one of these de- 
 spised Episcopalians. How could a man who holds 
 his station in the community, and has his opportu- 
 
106 
 
 nities of information, so blind himself with preju- 
 dice, as to say, p. 54, in the face of an army of 
 facts like these which were familiar to the least in- 
 formed of modern Christians, that, ' a missionary 
 society or missionary effort, whether in connec- 
 tion with other Christians^ or by themselves, is a 
 thing unknown to the constitution of the Episcopal- 
 Church V " 
 
 To the general truth of these statements respect- 
 ing the missions of Episcopalians, I have no disposi- 
 tion to reply. I would not detract in the least de- 
 gree from any claim which they may derive from self- 
 denying efforts, to the gratitude of mankind. Some 
 of the names here referred to are embalmed in the 
 affectionate remembrance of mankind, and will be 
 loved and honored as long as piety and holy zeal 
 are respected among men. There has been no con- 
 queror at whose grave I should feel so deep emo- 
 tions as at the grave of Martyn, and perhaps no 
 man has lived since the time of Paul who has 
 earned for himself a brighter or more imperishable 
 crown. — I might doubt, indeed, if this statement 
 were examined with carefulness, whether the " most 
 successful of all modern missions, thus far, have been 
 under Episcopal ministrations." I might ask for 
 the precise specifications to show where Episcopal 
 missions have been more " successful" than the 
 missions of the American Board in the Sandwich 
 Islands, or in Ceylon, of the Baptist in Burmah, or 
 of the London Missionary Society in the South Sea 
 Islands. I might ask whether these very "success- 
 ful missions" under " Episcopal ministrations" refer 
 to those which have been conducted by the " Prot- 
 estant Episcopal church" or to the " Moravians," 
 and whether, therefore, they prove any thing ia 
 
107 
 
 reference to the tendency of the Prayer Book to 
 foster and sustain missions ? And perhaps I might 
 ask, without impropriety, how it happens that in 
 this enumeration the reference is solely to missions 
 conducted by those across the waters, and not to 
 the Episcopal church in the United States '.' But ail 
 this would be aside from my argument, from which 
 I do not intend to be diverted.* 
 
 The question is, what has all this to do with the 
 position which I laid down ? How does it prove 
 that " missions to the heathen are contemplated by 
 the Prayer Book '?" How does it demonstrate that 
 " a Missionary Society, or a missionary effort, 
 whether in connection with other christians, or by 
 themselves, is a thing contemplated by the constitu- 
 tion of the Episcopal church V How does it prove 
 that there are references to such efforts in the 
 Prayer Book ; that there are prayers for the suc- 
 
 * The sjnrit and aims with which Episcopal missions arc 
 conducted, and the entire unwilling-ncss of Episcopahans to 
 be understood as co-operating with other denominations, 
 may be understood from tlie following extract from the Re- 
 port of the Medical Missionary Society of China. Macao, 
 1843. The Rev. P. Parker, M. D., in his report of his 
 efforts made during- Jiis visit to America, England, and 
 France, at page 33, says, " It was indeed my special aim, 
 during great part of my visit in London, to secure, in the 
 first instance, the interests and patronage of that class (nobil- 
 ity and Bishops) which may readily be induced to lead in a 
 good cause, but will hardly be willing to follow. An objec- 
 tion however, exists, in the separation of the established 
 Church of England from those not included within its pale, 
 which it was found difficult to obviate, and indeed the bishop 
 of London very* frankly, yet with much courtes}'-, remarked 
 that ' much as he approved of the object, and the means used 
 to attain it, he could not in any way co-operate in such la- 
 bors with those who dissent from the established church.' " 
 
108 
 
 cess of missions ; that there are allusions to 
 churches gathered among the heathen ; and that 
 there are petitions that the m.issionary in heathen 
 lands may be sustained in his toils, and encouraged 
 in his work I How does all this prove that the Lit- 
 urgy accords with the spirit of this age, or with the 
 aims of the Evangelical party? I will ask one 
 other question here, whatever interpretation may 
 be put upon it. Does the Prayer Book, in this 
 respect, meet the aspirations and desires of the truly 
 pious members of the Episcopal church, in regard 
 to missions 1 Do they find there all that they wish 
 to express before the altars of their God and Sa- 
 viour, in reference to the salvation of the world ] 
 Have they no other wishes for the success of the 
 gospel among the heathen, than those which find a 
 response in the service appointed in the Liturgy ? 
 Do they never offer proportionably more frequent, 
 more fervent, and more prolonged prayei^ for these 
 great objects in their closets, and in prayer meet- 
 ings, than they find there 1 And if there were 
 more frequent petitions of this kind in the Liturgy, 
 would they not meet a want of their souls which is 
 now sadly felt by multitudes in the Episcopal 
 churches ? 
 
 I find no fault here with the Liturgy itself, and 
 cast no blame on its framers. It is, in this respect, 
 such as was adapted to the age in which it was 
 framed ; and is such as Calvin, and Beza, and Me- 
 lancthon, and Knox, and Bucer would have made, 
 but it is not adapted to this age. Those men were 
 engaged in another work to which God then called 
 them, besides sending missions to the heathen ; and 
 they did their work well. But why should their 
 plans and aims be supposed to be all that would be 
 
109 
 
 required in another age, and when God calls his 
 churches to another work ? How could any " pet- 
 rified wisdom" of that age, whether at Geneva, at 
 Canterbury, or in Edinburgh, be precisely what 
 would be needed when the church and the world 
 had moved on some three hundred years l The 
 Editors of the Recorder have made a frank confes- 
 sion in relation to another point, which I have been 
 greatly surprised was not as frankly made on this. 
 It is found under No. 14 of their specifications of 
 *' inconsistencies and contradictions" in my Tract. 
 They say of the Liturgy, " The blessed martyrs 
 and divines who compiled it were not gifted with 
 prophecy." The remark is applied by them to 
 show that they could not have " conceived in ad- 
 vance, the multiplied and multiform sects into 
 which the then nascent Presbyterianism was to rend 
 and divide the professed body of Christ." How 
 obvious, and how kind to their memory it would 
 have been, to have conceded that they could not 
 foresee the glorious efforts which would be called 
 forth in the nineteenth century, to spread the gospel 
 around the world ; and that, therefore, it might be 
 " expedient," as Bishop Griswold has said on 
 another subject, so to alter the book as to adapt it 
 to this age ? Can any one believe that if Matthew 
 Parker, Richard Cox, Dr. May, Dr. Bill, James 
 Pilkington, Thomas Smith, David Whitehead, and 
 Edmund Grindell, who were appointed by Eliza- 
 beth to revise king Edward's Liturgies, lived in 
 these times, and partook of the spirit of the low 
 church party in this country, there would have been 
 as few references to missionary operations, and as 
 entire a want of any arrangement for missions 
 among the heathen, as we now find in that book 1 
 10 
 
110 
 
 The sum of my rem?crks on this part of the Prayer 
 Book is, that the references to the spread of the 
 gospel, in the devotional parts of the book, are not 
 such as the piety of this age should breathe forth 
 for the salvation of the world. 
 
 Revivals of Religion are not contemplated by the 
 Prayer Book. 
 
 I specified as a second thing in which there are 
 " no arrangements or provisions in the Liturgy for 
 promoting their peculiar and distinctive efforts," 
 that revivals of religion are not contemplated by 
 the Prayer Book. p. 54. I assumed that the low 
 church party are, in general, friendly to what are 
 commonly called " revivals of religion," though I 
 know not that they would prefer to use that term. 
 To the thing itself, referring to the extraordinary 
 influences of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of 
 souls, when many under the means of grace are 
 called simultaneously or in a brief period into the 
 kingdom of Christ, I believed them, as I still be- 
 lieve them, to be friendly. I had known not a few 
 of them who labored with a zeal and fidelity for so 
 glorious an effect of the gospel, quite equal to any 
 who are connected with other denominations, and I 
 doubt not that their zeal is as pure. But the ques- 
 tion is, whether the peculiar efforts which are ne- 
 cessary in such a work are contemplated by the 
 Prayer Book ; whether the use of that Book is well 
 adapted to such a scene ; whether the framers of 
 the Liturgy contemplated such scenes or had them 
 in their eye ; and whether in the regular use of that 
 Book, with no other method of devotion, such scenes 
 would be likely to occur. With this view, I ex- 
 amined the Book, and endeavored to show that 
 
Ill 
 
 Uierc is nothing tlierc which is adapted to the thrill- 
 ing scenes of such a work of grace. I found no 
 prayers that careless sinners may be awakened, 
 and that inquirers may be guided to Christ, which 
 would express the warm feelings of a church at 
 such a time. I supposed, also, that it was a com- 
 mon practice for low churchmen at such times to 
 have " prayer meetings," where extemporary 
 prayers are offered, and to adopt other measures 
 such as have been found useful among other Chris- 
 tians, which are not specified in the Prayer Book, 
 and the natural interpretation put on these facts out 
 of " the church" is, that they are resorted to be- 
 cause the arrangements in the Prayer Book are not 
 all which are demanded to promote revivals of re- 
 ligion. The interpretation which, I believe, is put 
 upon these facts by the high church party is, that 
 the peculiar efforts of the low church party in pro- 
 moting revivals are not contemplated by the 
 Liturgy, and that they are striving to imitate other 
 denominations rather than to carry out the objects 
 contemplated by " the church." In this interpre- 
 tation, it seemed to me, the high church were un- 
 doubtedly right. 
 
 In reply to the reasoning which I pursued on 
 this point, the Editors of the Recorder, make the 
 following remarks : 
 
 " In reply to such perfectly unfounded statements^ 
 we hardly know what to say, — the charge seems 
 so VOLUNTARILY UNTRUE from a man who professes 
 to have examined this book. We should feel com- 
 pelled to say, that the excellencies of the Prayer 
 Book were in the very facts which Mr. Barnes de- 
 nies. It is filled with the very petitions which he 
 asserts are not to be found there. He elsewhere 
 
112 
 
 says, p. 33, of the * extemporary prayers' of Epis- 
 copalians which he has heard, that ♦ their prayers 
 are models of a simple, pure, and holy worship.' 
 They may well be so, for they are uniformly framed 
 of the very expressions, and conveyed in tlie very 
 ideas which have been acquired from the Liturgy. 
 As for the adaptation of this Liturgy to revivals of 
 religion, we have seen it used day after day, for 
 weeks and months, in just such works of grace, 
 and every day the interest in it became deeper, and 
 the love of it the more intense. The peculiar ap- 
 plication of it to such awakened feeling is very re- 
 markable. The single prayer of the Litany, * O 
 Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the 
 world, have mercy upon us, grant us thy peace,' 
 seems in itself to outweigh in worth, all the Ibrmal, 
 theoretical, discursive prayers, we have ever heard 
 from Presbyterians." 
 
 They then refer to works of grace which have 
 occurred in this city, and ask, " in what congrega- 
 tions has religion flourished more" than in those 
 where the Liturgy is used ? " Where have larger 
 additions been annually made to the Lord's flock?" 
 To all that can be said on the point on which these 
 questions bear, I accord my humble testimony that 
 it is true, and I shall go into no comparison in this 
 respect, between the Evangelical Episcopal churches 
 and those of other denominations. I trust I shall 
 ever rejoice in all the success with which God shall 
 ever crown the preaching of the gospel, by whom- 
 soever dispensed. But the point before us is, what 
 is the relation between such works of grace as are 
 called " revivals of religion" and the Prayer Book? 
 On this point, a few questions will embrace all I 
 desire to say. 
 
113 
 
 (1.) Is such a thing as a " prayer meeting" con- 
 tem plated at all in the Prayer Book 1 Is there any 
 service contemplated except what is to occur on the 
 Sabbath, or on a saints' day, or some other of the holy 
 days ? Is there such a thing referred to as a volun- 
 tary meeting together of Christians, v/ith or with- 
 out a clergyman, when the service of the church is 
 not to be usedl If there is, it would be easy to 
 specify the place. I have not been so happy as to 
 find it, and have not been referred to it by the 
 Editors of the Recorder. I believe high church 
 Episcopalians who, it seems to me, are quite as 
 thorough students of the Prayer Book as their 
 brethren, with great uniformity, deny that any such 
 meetings are designed by the book. 
 
 (2.) Do those who attend prayer meetings in 
 the low church party, never introduce anything 
 which is not in the Prayer Book 1 Do they 
 pray for no other objects than are there specitied, 
 or use no other language than that which is written 
 down ? If they do, what is the authority for it in 
 the Prayer Book ? That they do, is certainly the 
 impression of those non-episcopalians who occasion- 
 ally attend those meetings, notwithstanding the 
 Editors say so positively that these " extemporary" 
 prayers are " uniformly framed of the very expres- 
 sions, and conveyed in the very ideas which have 
 been acquired from the Liturgy." 
 
 (3.) Would the Prayer Book be all that is needed 
 or proper in a revival of religion 1 Would its ex- 
 clusive use be the best thing to promote such a 
 work of grace ? Are the prayers such as a minis- 
 ter of the gospel instinctively wishes to offer in such 
 a time for those who are enquiring the way to life, 
 for the awakening, and conviction, and conversion 
 10* 
 
114 
 
 of sinners ? If so, why is it not always used t 
 Why do low churchman ever resort to extemporary 
 prayers ? 
 
 (4.) Were revivals of religion, as the term is now 
 used, in fact contemplated by the framers of the 
 Liturgy ? Nothing can be plainer than that they 
 were not. Revivals of religion, as the term is now 
 used, were not known in that time. There are 
 features about such works of grace, as they occur 
 in this land and in this age, which were unknown 
 in England in the days of Edward VI., of Elizabeth, 
 and of James I. The framers of the Liturgy were, 
 doubtless, good and wise men ; but it cannot be 
 supposed that they could foresee all the phases 
 which religion would assume in the course of two 
 or three hundred years ; and whatever might have 
 been their aims, and however much they may have 
 desired the promotion of religion, it cannot be pre- 
 tended that they were acquainted with revivals, as 
 they have occurred in this age, or that they formed 
 the Liturgy with reference to such works of grace. 
 The high church party, it is believed, in their inter- 
 pretation of the Prayer Book, find no allusion to 
 such phenomena, and would maintain, I presume, 
 quite as stoutly as I have done, that there is no 
 such reference in the book. 
 
 (5.) The Editors of the Recorder, in commenting 
 on my remarks on revivals of religion, and speak- 
 ing of what they have witnessed in the Episcopal 
 churches in " twenty-five years," say, " These 
 things are known ; they have been uniformly and 
 always the legitimate fruits of this very Liturgy." 
 But how has it happened that these "legitimate 
 fruits of the Liturgy" never spring up under the 
 auspices of the high church party ? Are they less 
 
115 
 
 assiduous and faithful in the use of this Liturgy 
 than the low church party ? Do they make a less 
 exclusive employment of it in the public service 
 than their low church brethren ? The common 
 impression in this city, I presume, have been, that 
 the " revivals" of religion in the Episcopal church- 
 es, under the care of low churchmen, has been 
 somehow specially connected with the kind of 
 preaching with which the church of St. Andrew's 
 and kindred churches have been favored, and that 
 the effects there witnessed have not " always" been 
 merely " the legitimate fruits of this very Liturgy." 
 It will be somewhat difficult for the public to un- 
 derstand how " this very Liturgy" has produced 
 such different effects on the two classes of churches. 
 " Doth a fountain send forth at the same place 
 sweet water and bitter ? Can the fig-tree bear olive 
 berries ? Either a vine, figs 'I So can no fountain 
 both yield salt water and fresh." 
 
 There are no Arrangements in the Prayer Book 
 for the promotion of Sunday Schools, or for the 
 proper religious training of the young. 
 
 I specified as a third thing in which there were 
 no arrangements in the Liturgy for promoting the 
 peculiar objects aimed at by the Evangelical party, 
 that there are no provisions for the promotion of 
 religion among the young in Sunday Schools, 
 whether as a sectarian matter, or in connection with 
 other denominations. In reference to this, I ob- 
 served, that the Sabbath School is an institution 
 which has grown up since the Prayer Book was 
 arranged for the use of the Anglican church, and 
 that it has never been modified so as to meet these 
 peculiar efforts for the young. I quoted Archbishop 
 
116 
 
 Whately, who admits and laments tliis defect in the 
 system, and who candidly confesses that a revision 
 of the Prayer Book, so as to adapt it it to the effort^ 
 to train up the young, would be no small improve- 
 ment. I had reason to suppose that all low church- 
 men would admit the same thing without hesitation. 
 I knew of their zeal in so good a cause, and that 
 some of them were associated with ministers and 
 churches of other denominations in the promotion of 
 the object, and indeed that they were prominent in the 
 attempt to promote the " union" of different churches 
 for this purpose. Instead, however, of this admis- 
 sion, or of any intimation that there is the slightest 
 defect in the Liturgy on this point, the Editors of 
 the Recorder are pleased to indulge in the following 
 Strain of remark : — 
 
 " Really our patience begins to fail. By whom 
 were Sabbath schools devised ? Who was this ' Ro- 
 bert Raikes,' upon whose ' efforts God has set the 
 undoubted seal of his blessing 1' Who have been 
 always prominent in this city as elsewhere, for this 
 very care and instruction of children, which Mr. 
 Barnes denies ? We are ready to leave these ques- 
 tions to the Sunday School Union, — to the children, 
 — we had almost said to Presbyterians themselves. 
 Episcopalians have taken the lead in the whole in 
 every case ; and nothing is more remarkable among 
 us, than the affection which our children instinc- 
 tively acquire for this very Liturgy. But we have 
 said enough upon all these points. To go farther 
 into an examination of such statements in this 
 work, though we have omitted not a few, is unne- 
 cessary." 
 
 Now, I am not in the least degree disposed to 
 call in question the substantial truth of these re- 
 
117 
 
 marks. It was by no means my intention to ques- 
 tion the zeal of Episcopalians in this matter, or to 
 disparage ' Robert Raikes.' But how does this 
 prove that my declaration was unfounded, or that 
 there was any propriety in the Editors' allowing 
 their " patience to begin to fail ?" How does it de- 
 monstrate that there are in the Liturgy any special 
 arrangements for the promotion of religion among 
 the young ? How does it show that any such insti- 
 stution was contemplated by the Prayer Book as 
 sabbath schools '\ How does it make it clear that 
 according to that book, it is proper for Episcopa- 
 lians to unite with other denominations in endea- 
 voring to promote Sunday schools ? I said nothing 
 implying that such efforts were not made, or were 
 in themselves improper. I have been disposed to 
 rejoice in all such evidences of a disposition to unite 
 with others in the promotion of any good object. I 
 am very well aware that the Sunday School Union 
 of this city owes much to the zealous co-operation 
 of Episcopalians. But I am also aware, that there 
 is a very large party in the Episcopal church who 
 doubt the propriety of all such attempts at union with 
 others, and who steadfastly maintain that it is not 
 in accordance with the Liturgy, and is a departure 
 from the real spirit of the Episcopal church. They 
 find nothing of all this in the Prayer Book ; they 
 regard their own church as called on to conduct all 
 these enterprises without connection with others, 
 and they steadfastly stand aloof from all attempts 
 to induce them to act in union with other denomi- 
 nations. The question is, whether their inter- 
 pretation of their own book is correct, and on this 
 point the remarks of the Recorder about what ' Ro- 
 bert Raikes' did, and what Episcopalians in this city 
 
118 
 
 have in fact done, cast no light whatever. They 
 contribute nothing to show that they are acting in 
 accordance with the rules and arrangements in their 
 own book, or that their high church brethren are 
 wrong in the stand which they have taken in this 
 matter. For one, I still believe that the views of 
 the high church party in reference to all such 
 union with other denominations are wholly right so 
 far as the Prayer Book is concerned, and wholly 
 wrong so far as the New Testament is concerned ; 
 and that in reference to the Sunday school effort, 
 both high church and low are engaged in what the 
 Liturgy does not contemplate. The simple matter 
 of fact is, that the Sunday school is an institution 
 which has grown up since the Liturgy was framed, 
 and even since it was revised to adapt it to the 
 American churches, and it is one of the faults of 
 the system that it does not readily adapt itself to 
 the progress of events. The " petrified wisdom of 
 the age of Elizabeth," is not all that is needed in 
 the Christian church of the nineteenth century. 
 
 I have now passed over all the points to which 1 
 referred in order to show that there are no arrange- 
 ments or provisions in the Liturgy for promoting 
 the peculiar and distinctive efforts of the low church 
 party except two — prayer meetings, and union on 
 rehgious subjects with other denominations. Under 
 another head, I have said all that I wish in respect 
 to the former, and in the close I shall have an op- 
 portunity of referring to the latter. I dismiss, there- 
 ibre, this part of the argument. 
 
 Points established by the discussion. 
 I shall now notice in conclusion, some points 
 which have been established by the discussion, and 
 
119 
 
 which it is of importance the churches should un- 
 derstand in reference to the present aspect of Epis- 
 copacy. 
 
 The doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. 
 
 1. It is now settled, so far as the authority of the 
 Editors of the Recorder goes, that the doctrine of 
 baptismal regeneration is " in some sense the doc- 
 trine of the church, and of every minister in the 
 church." In what sense, exactly, this is held, the 
 Editors have not, indeed, informed us, but that it is 
 held in any sense will probably surprise and grieve 
 those of other denominations who have sympathised 
 with the Evangelical party. I have shown in 
 what senses only it can be held, and that it is held 
 in any one of these senses is a most alarming fact 
 in reference to the state of religion in the Episcopal 
 church. I have also shown in what sense it is to 
 be held according to the fair interpretation of the 
 Prayer Book, and, until this is disavowed, it is fair 
 to regard the entire Episcopal church as exerting 
 its influence to keep this doctrine before the com- 
 munity, and to commend it to universal belief. 
 
 The Evangelical party is anti-Calvinistic, 
 
 2. A second point which is settled by the discus- 
 sion is, that according to the Recorder, the low 
 church party is anti-Calvinistic. On this point, the 
 language of the Editors is without ambiguity. In 
 my Tract, intending no reproach, but meaning it 
 as an expression of sincere respect and kindness, I 
 used the following language : " The low church- 
 man is in general a Calvinist, and frequently of the 
 highest order. He preaches the humbling doctrines 
 of the cross, and advocates the lofty themes of 
 
120 
 
 divine sovereignty in the salvation of men." p. 9. 
 I thought I had good reasons for using this lan- 
 guage, and never supposed for one moment that it 
 would be regarded as injurious, or that its truth 
 would be called in question. Scarcely any lan- 
 guage which I used, however, appears to have 
 wounded the Editors of the Recorder more, and 
 they reply to it in the following decisive manner : 
 " Of this assertion, we have simply to say, that 
 
 WE ARE UNACQUAINTED WITH A SINGLE CLERGYMAN OF 
 
 THE Episcopal church who is a Calvinist; or who 
 
 does not reject some of the very peculiar doctrines 
 of Calvinism, such as the limited character of the 
 atonement, and the reprobation of the ungodly, 
 with abhorrence, as in no sense, the teachings of 
 the word of God. These doctrines we leave to 
 Presbyterian maintenance as, we believe, they 
 originated in Presbyterian invention." 
 
 Probably no remark made by the Editors of the 
 Recorder in their review, has produced more sur- 
 prise in the community than this ; and if they are 
 to be regarded, as I know not why they should not 
 be, as proper witnesses of the prevalent belief of 
 the Evangelical party, the declaration has revealed 
 a state of things in the Episcopal church that was not 
 even suspected. The Editors have uncommon ad- 
 vantages for testifying on this point. They are 
 identified with that party, and are regarded as 
 among its leaders. They conduct a paper which 
 is known as the organ of the party. They may be 
 presumed to be intimately acquainted with the views 
 of their brethren. Almost two months, moreover, 
 have now passed away since the declaration was 
 made, and so far as appears, it has been received 
 with silent acquiescence by all their brethren as 
 
131 
 
 expressing their views. If their brethren had dis- 
 sented from it, it would be fair to presume that they 
 would not suffer a statement of so serious a cha- 
 racter respecting their doctrinal belief to have 
 passed unnoticed. 
 
 It is not my intention to go into a defence of Cal- 
 vinism, or to show that once it was not deemed dis- 
 honorable in the Episcopal church to hold the 
 system of doctrines known by that name. The 
 declaration before us as a statement of a fact, its 
 exact meaning, and its importance in understanding 
 the " position of the Evangelical party," are all that 
 the purpose of my argument requires me to notice. 
 I might show that the doctrine of limited atonement 
 is no part of Calvinism, as the Editors suppose, for 
 Calvin taught that Christ died for the whole human 
 race — totum humanum genus ; and might show that 
 the doctrine of limited atonement has not been held 
 by the great body of those who have held that sys- 
 tem of faith. I might show, with great ease, that 
 the Calvinistic doctrines were not " originated in 
 Presbyterian invention ;" a declaration which evin- 
 ces singular want of deliberation in him who penned 
 it. But these are not the points before us. They 
 are, what is the fair interpretation to be put on this 
 language of the Recorder ? What does it disclose 
 as to the ' position' of the party with which they are 
 identified? Perhaps it might be said that they 
 mean only to disclaim the belief of these two points 
 which they have specified, the doctrine of ' limited 
 atonement,' and the ' reprobation of the ungodly ;' 
 and that they meant to extend their denial no fur- 
 ther. But then, it would have been very easy to 
 have said so, while the general belief in the system 
 would have been conceded. But the fair interpre- 
 11 
 
♦ 122 
 
 tation of their language does not admit of this con- 
 struction. There is a warmth, an ardor, an ear- 
 nestness about the language applied to Calvinism 
 as a whole, which shows that there was no desire 
 to be identified with it in any way whatever. It 
 is such language of revulsion and abhorrence as 
 a passionate Athanasian might be supposed to use 
 of Arianism ; or as a heated follower of Augus- 
 tine would use of the views of Pelagius. There 
 is the express declaration, " We are unacquainted 
 with a single clergyman of the Episcopal church 
 who is a Calvinist." There is the lanouao;e of 
 strong " abhorrence^'''' used of one of the doctrines 
 commonly regarded as peculiar to the system. 
 " We are unacquainted with a single clergyman 
 who does not reject the doctrine of the reprobation 
 of the ungodly iDith abhorrence.^^ There is the 
 strong and positive assertion that these doctrines 
 " originated in Presbyterian invention ;" and that 
 the Editors are disposed to " leave them to Presby- 
 terian maintenance," as if an Episcopalian could 
 have nothing to do with them. 
 
 From these expressions, it is fair to infer that the 
 Editors do not wish to be understood as holding to 
 the Calvinistic system, and that as far as their 
 knowledge extends, the Evangelical party, in com- 
 mon with high churchmen, ar^ unanimous in the 
 rejection of the system. 
 
 It is by no means my intention to go into a de- 
 fence of Calvinism, or to attempt to prove that Cal- 
 vinism is taught in the articles of the Episcopal 
 church. The whole object of my enquiry is accom- 
 plished if the '■'• position,'''' actually occupied by the 
 low church party is ascertained. If I had charged 
 on that party a denial of the doctrines of Calvin- 
 
123 
 
 ism, 1 should have supposed that I was doing them 
 manifest injustice, for I supposed that quite gener- 
 ally they regarded the Calvinistic doctrine as be- 
 ing that of the articles of their church. There 
 are two or three remarks which it seems proper 
 however, to make here as illustrative of this feature 
 in the " position" of the Evangelical party. 
 
 (1.) One is, that this horror of Galvanism has 
 not always been felt by the Fathers or friends of 
 the Episcopal church. It was not so regarded in 
 the time of king Edward, whose Catechism which 
 was subscribed by Ridley and Cranmer, contains 
 the following sentiment: — 
 
 " As many as are in this faith steadfast^ were 
 fore chosen, predestinated and appointed to ever- 
 lasting life, before the world was made. Witness 
 hereof, they have within in their hearts the Spirit 
 of Christ, the author, earnest, and unfailable pledge 
 of this faith ; which faith only is able to perceive 
 the mysteries of God ; only brings peace unto the 
 heart, only taketh hold on the righteousness which 
 
 is in Christ Jesus 
 
 . . The first, principal, and most proper cause of 
 our justification and salvation, is the goodness and 
 love of God, whereby he choose us for his before he 
 made the world. . . . Finally, to say all in sum ; 
 whatever is in us or may be done of us, honest, pure, 
 true, and good ; it altogether springeth out of this 
 most pleasant rock, from this most plentiful foun- 
 tain, the goodness, love, choice, and unchangeable 
 purpose of God. He is the cause ; the rest are the 
 
 fruits and effects 
 
 - . . The Holy Ghost is called holy, not only for 
 his own holiness, but because the elect of God are 
 made holy by him. The Church is the company. 
 
124 
 
 of those who are called to eternal life by the Holy 
 Ghost, by whom she is guided, governed, &c. " 
 
 This horror of Calvinism was not felt in the 
 days of Toplady, of Bradford, of Latimer, of Hooper, 
 of Philpot, and of Jewell, among the holiest men 
 that the church has ever produced, all of whom 
 were Calvinists, and most of whom, under the in- 
 fluence and sustaining power of the Calvinistic 
 faith, sealed their faith with their blood.* This hor- 
 ror was not felt by Horsley, nor was it felt in the 
 days of John Newton, of Cowper, of Thomas Scott ; 
 nor is it felt by the conductors of the Christian 
 Observer in England, or by many of the most ex- 
 cellent and eminent living ministers in that church. 
 
 (2.) This horror of Calvinism is not easily recon- 
 cilable with a belief in the articles of the Episcopal 
 church. The Calvinistic character of those articles, 
 at least to all those who are out of the Episcopal 
 church, is apparent, and there can be to none but 
 an Episcopalian any considerable doubt as to their 
 Calvinistic origin and meaning The well known 
 17th article is in the following words : — 
 
 Art. XVII. " Predestination to life is the ever- 
 lasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foun- 
 dations of the world were laid) he hath constantly 
 decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from 
 curse and damnation, those whom he hath chosen 
 in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by 
 Christ, to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to 
 honor," &c. &c. Its conclusion is, " Further- 
 more we must receive God's promises in such' wise 
 as they be generally set forth to us in holy "Scrip- 
 
 * See the proof that they were Calvinists in the quotations 
 from their writings in the Presbyterian for April, 13, 1844. 
 
125 
 
 ture : And in our doings, that will of God is to be 
 followed, which we have expressly declared unto us 
 in the Word of God." 
 
 It is often said by Episcopalians that the quali- 
 fying clause at the end of this article, is decisive 
 proof of a design to contradict and exclude the Cal- 
 vinistic doctrine of Predestination. Now this clause 
 is nearly, copied from Calvin's Institutes, and the 
 latter part of it is a literal transalation of this Re- 
 former's caution, against the abuse of this very doc- 
 trine. Let the two be placed in parellel columns. 
 
 Article xvii. Calvin's Institutes. 
 
 " Furthermore we must re. " Quando suis promission- 
 ceive God's promises in such ihus (Deus) vult nos esse con- 
 wise as they be generally set tentos, neque alibi quaerere 
 forth to us in Holy Scrip- an futurus sit nobis exorabi- 
 ture." lis." Lib. iii. Cap. xxiv. § 5. 
 
 The remainder is a literal translation. It is as 
 follows : — 
 
 " And in our doings, that " Proinde in rehus agen- 
 
 will of God is to be followed, dis eaest nobis perspicienda 
 
 which we have expressly de- Dei voluntas, quam verho 
 
 clared unto us in the Word suo declarat" Lib. i. Cap. 
 
 of God." xvii. § 5. 
 
 Even the Armenian Bishop Burnet was obliged 
 to confess, in regard to this article, that "It is 
 very probable that those who penned this article 
 ■meant that the decree was absolute.''^ And again 
 he says : — 
 
 " But the Calvinists have less occasion for scru- 
 ple, since the article does seem more plainly to 
 favor them ;" and again, " It is not to be denied 
 but that the article seems to be framed according 
 to St. Augustin's doctrine ;" and again, " In Eng- 
 land the first Reformers were generally in the sub. 
 iapsarian hypothesis," &c. &c. &;c. 
 IP 
 
126 
 
 I have said that the Calvinistic character of the 
 Episcopal articles to those out of " the church," is 
 apparent. On this point, there are two facts which 
 are of some importance in arriving at the meaning 
 of these articles. The first is, that the XVllth 
 Article, in its plain sense, has always been en- 
 tirely satisfactory to all Calvinists. They have 
 never had but one understanding of its meaning, 
 and with all the tenacity and scrupulosity with 
 which they hold the Calvinistic views, they would 
 regard the XVI Ith Article as a fair expression of 
 their opinions. It is undoubtedly true that there 
 never has been a Calvinist out of the Episcopal 
 church, learned or unlearned, who has had any 
 other opinion of that article than that it is Calvinis- 
 tic. The other fact is, that the Methodist denomi- 
 nation, who are avowedly Armenians, have been so 
 thoroughly satisfied of the Calvinism of this article, 
 that they have wholly omitted it in their own arti- 
 cles ; judging it to be honest that, as they did not 
 hold to the doctrine, they should not retain it in 
 their formularies of faith. Of all the Methodists 
 who have lived, and who still live, in this land or 
 in England, from Wesley and Coke down to the 
 very obscurest local preacher, it is probable that 
 there has never been one who has not fully believed 
 that that article is Calvinistic, and who would not 
 have rejected it from their articles of faith with 
 more than the " abhorrence" with which the Edit- 
 ors of the Recorder spoke of Calvinism. 
 
 (3.) There is reason to believe still, that notwith- 
 standing the disclaimer of the Editors of the Re- 
 corder, there are those in the Evangelical party 
 who are Calvinists ; though it may be true, as a 
 party, that they are less favourably inclined to that 
 
127 
 
 faith than the religious commimity have commonly 
 supposed. It would not be difficult to collect from the 
 Recorder itself, in years that are past, sentiments that 
 are of a highly Calvinistic tendency, and commenda- 
 tions of books that are of the most thorough-going Cal- 
 vinistic character. It vi^ould be easy to collect from 
 living men expressions of sentiments that strongly 
 favor Calvinism, Even since the Review in the Re- 
 corder appeared, the following extract from the writ- 
 ings of one of the Bishops of the Episcopal church 
 has been published by an Episcopalian who shows that 
 he is no stranger to what is held in his own church. 
 " Did our Reformers," writes the catholic-minded 
 Bishop Meade, (himself a Calvinist,) " protest 
 against Calvinism, or Armenianism? — or against 
 too high or too low views of church polity ? Was 
 it on any of these accounts that our church was 
 denominated Protestant ? In opposition to this it 
 -should be remembered that those who are engaged 
 in drawing up, and from time to time reviewing 
 and sitting in judgment upon our Articles and 
 services, were loithout distinction Cahinists and 
 Armenians, high and low churchmen." — The No- 
 velties which disturb our Unity, p. 51. Are the 
 Editors of the Recorder entire strangers to " the 
 catholic-minded Bishop Meade?" How, then, are 
 we to understand their remarkable declaration 
 about Calvinism ? The churches of other deno- 
 minations will probably wait with some interest to 
 obtain farther light on this point. Is it the pur- 
 pose of the low church party to reject and re- 
 nounce Calvinism " with abhorrence ]" Do they 
 wish to be identified with Armenians wholly, and 
 t"o be understood to be Armenians ? If so, this is 
 a developement of Episcopacy which was not an- 
 
128 
 
 ticipated, and which will give a new view to this 
 whole question. The well known remark of Lord 
 Chatham, when speaking of the established church 
 in England, it is probable, will never be forgotten : 
 " We have a Popish Liturgy, Calvinistic articles, 
 and an Armenian clergy." Of the truth of the two 
 former of these assertions, the community at large, 
 out of the Episcopal church, has little doubt. It 
 was to have been hoped that the whole tendency of 
 the efforts of the Evangelical party in the church 
 would have been to disprove the latter assertion so 
 far as their influence could go. The tendency of 
 the testimony of the Recorder is to prove that all 
 his Lordship's sweeping declaration is well founded. 
 
 No other church is to be recognised by the Evan- 
 gelical party. 
 
 3. A third point settled by this discussion, it 
 would seem, is, that no other churches are to be 
 recognised by the low church party than those 
 under Episcopal government. In my Tract, in 
 view of certain things which seemed to me to be 
 irreconcilable in the treatment of other denomina- 
 tions by low church Episcopalians, I submitted the 
 following questions : 
 
 ' Do the Evangelical party regard the ministers 
 of other denominations as in any sense authorised 
 ministers of the gospel, and their churches as true 
 churches ? If they do — (which we do not believe 
 to be the case) — then we ask of them, why they 
 are never in any proper way so recognised'? Why 
 do they not come out and openly say so ? Why 
 do they never admit them to their pulpits ? Why 
 do they never protest against their being re-ordained 
 when one of their number leaves the church of his 
 
129 
 
 fathers, and enters the service of the Episcopal de- 
 nomination? Why do they submit to the gross 
 public indignity offered to the Protestant churches 
 by the uniform acts of the Episcopal church, ad^ 
 mitting a Catholic priest at once to officiate at her 
 altars without re-ordination ; demanding that every 
 other minister shall be ordained V 
 
 The object of these questions was, if any of that 
 party thought them of sufficient importance to be 
 answered, to obtain an explicit statement on a point 
 of great moment to the Christian community at 
 large. It was to learn exactly where the low 
 church party stood on this subject, and whether 
 they wish to be regarded as identified with their 
 high church brethren in their exclusive views re- 
 specting other churches. It was to be presumed 
 that there would be entire frankness on this point, 
 and it was supposed that the churches had a right 
 to be informed on this point. It was not, indeed, 
 supposed that the opinions of low church Episco- 
 palians would do any thing in determining the ques- 
 tion whether the churches of other denominations 
 are, in fact, true churches ; but intermingled as we 
 are and with the efforts which Episcopalians are 
 constantly making to increase their numbers, it 
 was considered as desirable to understand in what 
 light they regarded others — whether as true 
 churches, or as left to the " uncovenanted mercies 
 of God." It is from no invidious intention that 
 there is a wish in the community to be informed on 
 this point, but it is of importance to understand it 
 as among the developemehts of Episcopacy, and as 
 illustrating its real tendency. The Editors of the 
 Recorder could not, indeed, be regarded as bound 
 to answer these questions, but they have felt them- 
 
130 
 
 selves called upon to notice the inquiry in their 
 own way, and 1 purpose now to submit a few re- 
 marks on their answer. 
 
 (1.) It would have been perfectly easy, if the 
 questions were noticed at all, to have given an ex- 
 plicit answer; an answer without hesitation, and 
 without ambiguity. This, too, it was not unrea- 
 sonable to expect ; but this has not been done. 
 There is no distinct and open statement, whether 
 they do, or do not recognise other churches as true 
 churches. In Bishop Hobart's writings, in Bishop 
 Hopkins's recent letters, in the "Banner of the 
 Cross," and in the " Churchman," we have state- 
 ments of which no one can complain for any want 
 of explicitness. Such a direct answer will not be 
 found, as yet, in the Episcopal Recorder. 
 
 (2.) In the answer itself, it is not difficult to de- 
 termine the true opinion of the Low church party, 
 as expounded by the Editors. Their real opinions 
 may be gathered from the following particulars in 
 their review, (a) " Certainly the recognition of 
 another church than the Episcopal, or of other min- 
 isters of the gospel than the Episcopal, is a thing 
 unknown to the Prayer Book." The Editors give 
 indeed as a reason for this, that no other churches 
 were known at the time when the Prayer Book was 
 composed, and this remark is made in that connec- 
 tion. It, however, admits the main fact that in the 
 Prayer Book no other church is recognised but the 
 Episcopal. The reason assigned, I shall have oc- 
 casion to examine in another place, (b) The re- 
 marks of the Editors seem to imply that it would 
 not be proper or right to have had a prayer inserted 
 in the Prayer Book for other churches. The ten- 
 dency of such prayers would be only to ^^ justify 
 
131 
 
 schisni'^ — a thing of which an Episcopalian seems 
 to have more horror than of anything else. Thus 
 they say : — 
 
 " Whether it would be right to justify such 
 schisms by praying for them, is a question which 
 we may well leave the Presbyterian church to an- 
 swer. Do the Old School ministers pray habitually 
 for the success of the men of the New School, who 
 have divided from them l Does Mr. Barnes pray 
 for the success of those who have gone out from 
 him 1 Or do they both only, as the Liturgy does, 
 pray that God would ' bring into the way of truth, 
 all such as have erred and are deceived V " 
 
 As to the questions asked here, they can be an- 
 swered in a word. " Old School ministers," and 
 " New School ministers," never have any hesitancy 
 in praying for each other. I have heard, by far, 
 more prayers offered for tlie " Old School" party 
 in the Presbyterian church by " New School" min- 
 isters, than I have for any or all other denomina- 
 tions by name ; and I know that there is no hesi- 
 tancy about offering such prayers, and that those 
 who offer them never pause to ponder the miser- 
 able interrogatory, whether this would be "to jus- 
 tify schism." But it may be fairly i?f erred from this 
 assertion of the Editors of the Recorder, that they 
 would not deem it " right" to pray for any other 
 churches or denominations of christians than their 
 own ; and if so, it is not unfair to infer that they 
 do not regard them as true churches. They can 
 have no hesitation in supposing that it is " right" 
 that a prayer for the true church should be found 
 in the Prayer Book, and should be habitually used, 
 (c) The same thing is apparent from the quotation 
 from the Liturgy with which their remarks about 
 
132 
 
 other churches are closed, when they say that the 
 " Liturgy" " prays" that God would " bring into 
 the way of truth all such as have erred and are 
 deceived. '''' That is, it is "right" to pray for other 
 churches only under one of the categories of " hav- 
 ing erred,'''' or being " deceived.'''' To which of 
 these categories, or whether to both, they are to be 
 surrendered, the Editors have not informed us, and 
 it is not material. Either will sufficiently indicate 
 the light in which they are to be regarded, and 
 show that, in their apprehension, to pray for them 
 otherwise than as " erring"' or as " being deceived," 
 would be to "justify schism." As those who " have 
 erred" or are " deceived," moreover will include 
 all " Turks, heretics, and infidels," it would seem 
 that the Liturgy contemplates all, so far at least 
 as prayer for them is concerned, as lying on the 
 same level. Now this is not the way in which 
 other denominations besides Episcopalians- pray. 
 They pray for all who love the Lord Jesus ; for all 
 churches ; for all ministers of the gospel ; nor is it 
 a common thing, so far as I have the means of 
 knowing, to make any distinction between those of 
 their own and other denominations. I may add, 
 
 (3.) That the views here expressed by the Re- 
 corder about prayer for other churches accord in 
 the main, with all the open acts of the low, as well 
 as the high church party. They never recognise 
 other churches as such. If they recognise their 
 baptism it is, as we have seen, only as lay baptism. 
 They submit, without a note of remonstrance to the 
 public indignity shown to all other denominations, 
 except the Roman Catholics, when the ministers 
 of other churches are required to be re-ordained on 
 being admitted to " orders" in the Episcopal church. 
 
133 
 
 The Bishops of that party, so far as appears, are as 
 prompt to re-ordain as any Puseyite Bishop in 
 the land, and would no more admit a Presbyterian, 
 a Baptist, a Methodist, a German Lutheran, or a 
 Dutch Reformed minister to orders without this cere- 
 mony than would a Bishop with the highest views of 
 the Tractarians. It is, therefore, entirely consistent 
 for the Editors of the Episcopal Recorder to say, 
 that " the recognition of another church than the 
 Episcopal, or of other ministers of the Gospel than 
 the Episcopal, is a thing unknown to the Prayer 
 Book." 
 
 For this, however, the Editors assign a reason, 
 which it is of some importance to advert to for a 
 moment. This is not done, say they, because 
 " when the Prayer Book was formed, there were no 
 others [no other churches] in existence ; and it would 
 have required something indeed, beyond' the petrified 
 wisdom of the age of Elizabeth,' p. 56, to have con- 
 ceived in advance, the multiplied and multiformed 
 sects, into which the then nascent Presbyterianism 
 was to rend and divide the professed body of Christ ; 
 because the blessed martyrs and divines who com- 
 piled it, were not gifted with prophecy ; and it stands 
 forth to witness from generation to generation, of a 
 time and state, when the church was one in consti- 
 tution, and to show thus incidentally, but unan- 
 swerably, that all the schisms which now distract 
 and deform the aspect of Christianity, are of mere 
 modern growth, ' but of yesterday.' " 
 
 Now even if this were so, it would not be easy to 
 understand why, when the Liturgy was revised 
 after the American Revolution, some recognition of 
 other churches was not introduced into the book, 
 though the " blessed martyrs who compiled it were 
 
134 
 
 not gifted with prophecy ;" and could not forsee that 
 there ever would he any other sect in the Christian 
 church except the Episcopalian. But the Editors 
 undertake to account for the fact that no such 
 prayers were inserted by " these blessed martyrs 
 and divines" because " when the Prayer Book 
 was formed there were no other churches in 
 existence," and the Prayer Book " stands forth to 
 witness, from generation to generation, of a time 
 and state when the church was one in constitution." 
 The first act in England, after the Reformation, re- 
 specting the Prayer Book was in 1537, when there 
 was composed and published " The godly and pious 
 institution of a Christian man ; containing a decla- 
 ration of the Lord's prayer, the Ave Maria, the creed, 
 the ten commandments, the Seven Sacraments,^^ 
 &c. This was republished in 1540, and 1543, with 
 corrections and alterations, and " set forth by the 
 king, with the advice of his clergy." In 1540, 
 Henry VIII. appointed a committee of Bishops and 
 divines, to " reform the rituals and offices of the 
 church," and to the other things introduced in 
 1537, there were added the Venite, Te Deum, and 
 some hymns and collects in English. — This whole 
 Avork was revised in the time of Edward VI. in 
 1547, and the Liturgy was drawn up substantially 
 as we have it, with the " public offices for Sundays 
 and Holidays, for Baptism, Confirmation, Matri- 
 mony, burial of the dead, and other special occa- 
 sions." At the head of the committee which en- 
 gaged in this revision, was Archbishop Cranmer, 
 and it was of this book that the Parliament of 1548 
 ordained that it had been set forth by the aid of 
 the Holy Ghost. 
 
 The book was again revised and amended with 
 
135 
 
 the aid of Martin Buccr and Peter Martyr, of Ger- 
 many, and of Alesse, a Scotch divine, and thus re- 
 vised and amended, was confirmed by the Parlia- 
 ment of 1551. In the reign of Elizabeth it under- 
 went another revision by a committee, of which 
 Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, was 
 the chairman, and was adopted and approved by 
 Elizabeth. In the time of James I., it underwent 
 another revision, and again in the time of Charles II. 
 in 1661, another still. See Wheatley on the Book 
 of Common Prayer, pp. 24 — 32. The same book 
 was again revised in this country, in 1792, and 
 " established" in the form in which we now have it. 
 In view of these facts, it is natural to ask what is 
 the precise thing which was meant by the Editors 
 of the Episcopal Recorder, when they say with 
 such confidence, that " the church was then one in 
 constitution," and that "when the Prayer Book was 
 formed there were no others in existence." Of the 
 facts referred to respecting their own much-lauded 
 Liturgy, it cannot be reasonably supposed they 
 are ignorant. But were there then no other Pro- 
 testant churches on the face of the earth than the 
 one in England ? Did the Reformation begin in 
 England ? Was there neither in the time of Henry 
 VIII,, Edward VI., Elizabeth, James, or Charles II., 
 no other church " in existence" but the Episcopal 
 church in England 1 Martin Bucer, and Peter 
 Martyr, and Alesse — certainly not exactly Epis- 
 copalians — assisted in one revision of the Prayer 
 Book, and where during all this time were the 
 churches of Germany, of Switzerland, of France, 
 and of Scotland? In 1792, were there no other 
 churches in the United States in behalf of whom a 
 prayer might have been inserted in the Prayer Book, 
 
136 
 
 besides that one that "God would bring into the way 
 of truth all such as have erred and are deceived]" 
 The assertion that there were no other churches at 
 that time, bears at least the marks of singular haste, 
 and it is difficult to account for the fact that a learned 
 Episcopalian should have ventured such a remark 
 in any circumstances whatever. Probably most 
 persons acquainted with the history of the Refor- 
 mation, will not consider it quite satisfactory to 
 account for the entire want of all reference to 
 other churches in the Prayer Book, to say " that 
 when the Prayer Book was formed there were no 
 others in existence ; and it would have required 
 something, indeed, beyond the ' petrified wisdom 
 of the age of Elizabeth' to have conceived, in ad- 
 vance^ the multiplied and multiformed sects into 
 which the then nascent Presbyterianism was to rend 
 and divide the professed body of Christ." 
 
 No other ministers are to he recognised hut 
 Episcopal. 
 
 4. A fourth thing which seems to be settled by 
 the review in the Recorder is, that no other min- 
 isters are to be recognised but those which are 
 Episcopally ordained. Whether any such ministers 
 were to be recognised, was one of the questions 
 proposed in the Tract to which the Editors of the 
 Recorder have undertaken to reply. The question 
 was, (p. 63,) whether " the Evangelical party re- 
 gard the ministers of other denominations as in 
 any sense authorised ministers of the gospel ?" A 
 categorical answer to this would have been one of 
 the easiest things imaginable, and if they were re- 
 garded as such, it is to be presumed that the Editors 
 would have found pleasure in saying so. It would 
 
137 
 
 have been so in accordance with charity and justice, 
 and would have so tended to promote good feehng 
 in the churches, to say nothing of its influence in 
 commending Episcopacy to the favor of the com- 
 munity, that every consideration would have 
 prompted to a distinct and definite admission that 
 others were to be regarded as true ministers of the 
 gospel. In the absence, however, of any such dis- 
 tinct recognition, we are to ascertain the opinions 
 of the Editors from the incidental hints which they 
 have thought proper to submit to the public. 
 
 Perhaps the very absence itself of any such re- 
 cognition, in the circumstances, will be regarded by 
 most persons as sufficient proof that they do not 
 design any such recognition. But they have used 
 expressions which cannot be reconciled with any 
 such recognition, and which cannot be mistaken as 
 " defining the position" which they wish to be un- 
 derstood as occupying. In order to give the Editors 
 all the benefit which can be derived from their reply 
 to the question proposed, I will insert their answer 
 at length. 
 
 " There must be some line and limit of admission 
 into the pulpit, and our church, to discuss no rela- 
 tive questions of comparative schism, has wisely 
 made it around the simple body of her own minis- 
 ters. Presbyterians have a line equally exclusive 
 and arbitrary. Why do they not invite the preach- 
 ers of the Society of Friends to officiate for them ? 
 Why do they thus unchurch a christian denomina- 
 tion as respectable in personal character as them- 
 selves 1 What Presbyterian pulpits were opened to 
 Joseph John Gurney, in his ministry in this coun- 
 try, acknowledged by all to be one of the best and 
 greatest of living christian teachers and writers ? 
 12* 
 
138 
 
 How empty seems the complaint that the Episcopal 
 church denies the claims of other bodies to the char- 
 acter and title of churches, from those who can 
 write and publish such books as ' Quakerism not 
 Christianity,' by one of Mr. Barnes' particular and 
 eminent friends '? When or where have we affirmed 
 that Presbyterianism was not Christianity ] How 
 absurd comes euch a complaint again from a man 
 who deliberately excludes our whole body from the 
 pale of christianit}^, and can say, p. 68, ' There 
 has been a feeling, the correctness of which no one 
 seemed to regard it as proper to doubt, that the 
 Episcopal sect was to be numbered in the family of 
 Evangelical churches.' Is this the man to complain 
 that we do not acknowledge his ministry, or invite 
 his labors among our churches 1 He affirms of us, 
 what we have never ventured to affirm of his body ; 
 with how much injustice, — nay, conscious injustice, 
 we shall not trust ourselves to say. And then he 
 asks, why he is not invited into our pulpits, to 
 preach his doctrines to our own people. But if we 
 should invite Mr. Barnes, how could he conscien- 
 tiously agree to read a liturgy, the entire hostility 
 of which to all Evangelical truth and teaching, he 
 has here so repeatedly and plainly proclaimed? 
 How could he submit to our Popish vestments, and 
 postures, and forms 1 Or how could he ask the 
 omission of a Liturgy, which he says, we ' are 
 compelled to use?' We do not feel in any degree 
 called upon to consider the abstract question of the 
 validity or regularity of Mr. Barnes' ministry in 
 this connection. There are sufficient reasons to be 
 given for not inviting him ' to preach and administer 
 the sacraments' to our people, without entering 
 upon this. The readers of the Recorder need no 
 
139 
 
 information of the stand which we have uniformly 
 taken upon this question." 
 
 In noticing this answer of the Recorder to the 
 distinct question proposed to the Evangelical party, 
 whether ' they regard the ministers of other denom- 
 inations as in any sense authorised ministers of the 
 gospel,' I would observe, that the question is not, 
 why " Presbyterians do not invite the preachers of 
 the Society of Friends to officiate for them," or 
 whether the " Presbyterian pulpits were opened to 
 Joseph John Gurney in his ministry in this coun- 
 try," or whether the book called " Quakerism not 
 Christianity," be or be not well written, or whether 
 " Mr. Barnes could conscientiously use the Litur- 
 gy," or " submit to Popish vestments, postures, and 
 forms," but whether the Evangelical party do or do 
 not regard the ministers of other denominations as 
 in any sense authorised ministers of the gospel 1 
 I should have no hesitation whatever, in expressing 
 an opinion on all the collateral subjects thus noticed 
 by the Recorder ; but it is difficult to see how an 
 answer to these questions would throw any light on 
 the enquiry how the Evangelical party regard the 
 ministers of other denominations ? It is also some- 
 what difficult to know the precise reason why the 
 attention of the readers of the Recorder is turned 
 from the simple question proposed, to these collat- 
 eral and quite irrelevant subjects. They are, doubt- 
 less of importance in their place, but they contribute 
 little to the elucidation of the only enquiry which 
 was made on this subject. Is it the proper inter- 
 pretation of this method of meeting the question, 
 that the Editors were from some cause reluctant to 
 answer the enquiry proposed ? 
 
 Yet it is not difficult to ascertain what the 
 
140 
 
 answer would have been, if one had been explicitly 
 given. For (1.) It is assumed that Presbyterians 
 have a line which is " exclusive and arbitrary ;" 
 (2.) It is implied that it is proper that Episcopa- 
 lians should " hav^e a line" equally " exclusive and 
 arbitrary" as it is supposed Presbyterians have ; 
 that is, one that is as " exclusive" of the ministersv 
 of all other denominations as it is supposed the rule 
 of Presbyterians is of Friends ; and (3.) this " ex- 
 clusive" position of the Evangelical Party is stated 
 in terms which cannot be misunderstood. Thus the 
 Editors say, "There must be some line and limit of 
 admission into the pulpit, and our church, to discuss 
 no relative questions of comparative schism" 
 [schism being in the view of all genuine Episcopa- 
 lians the sin of greatest magnitude.] " has wisely 
 made it around the simple body of her ctvn minis- 
 try. ^^ That is, the ministers of no other denomina- 
 tion whatever are to be admitted into an Episcopal 
 pulpit. The " line and limit" of admission into 
 the pulpit is " made around" the Episcopal "body" 
 of ministers only, and includes no others. But the 
 " pulpit" is the appropriate place v/here ministers 
 of the Gospel are to be recognised. They may be 
 met in a Board of Trustees in a University or 
 Academy, but there men meet together only as 
 Trustees ; they may be met as managers of a 
 Tract or Bible Society, but they meet there only as 
 managers and not as ministers of the Gospel ; they 
 may be met on a platform advocating the cause of 
 temperance, but there they meet only as the friends 
 of temperance. In these places they are no more re- 
 cognised as ministers than brokers are recognised 
 there as brokers, or lawyers as lawyers, or physicians 
 as physicians. They meet as the guardians of char- 
 
141 
 
 tered interests ; as friends of science ; as patrons of 
 literature ; as advocates of the Bible or of tempe- 
 rance. To know who are recognised as brokers, 
 we must look to the Board of brokers, and ask what 
 is " the line and limit of admisssion" into their order; 
 to know who are recognised as lawyers, we must ask 
 what is " the line and limit of admission" prescribed 
 by the courts ; to know who are recognised as physi- 
 cians, we must ask what is " the line and limit of 
 admission" prescribed by the medical societies. 
 There " must be some line and limit of admission" 
 into each of these professions and callings, and each 
 one " has wisely made it around the simple body 
 of" its own members. On the same principle, it is 
 presumed, the Evangelical party in common with 
 their high church brethren, however courteous they 
 may be in other places ; however they may regard 
 the ministers of other denominations as good and 
 well-meaning gentlemen, and however ready they 
 may be to co-operate with them in the spread of 
 the Bible, and in the promotion of temperance, 
 science, literature, or liberty, yet " wisely makes 
 the line and limit in regard to the ministry around 
 the simple body" of the Episcopal clergy. 
 
 This interpretation accords with all those facts 
 in the case to which I have already adverted. They 
 never invite the ministers of other denominations 
 into their pulpits ; they never speak of them as 
 " clergymen ;" they never ask them to participate 
 in administering the communion ; so far as any 
 public testimony goes, they regard their baptism 
 only as lay baptism ; they quietly acquiesce when 
 Papal priests are admitted to the ministry in the 
 Episcopal church without being re-ordained, while 
 all Protestants, except Moravians, are excluded; 
 
142 
 
 and lliey never lift a note of remonstrance when 
 the public indignity is shown to all other Protestant 
 churches by demanding that their'ministers, if they 
 become Episcopalians, no matter how aged, vener- 
 able, learned, or holy they may be, shall be re- 
 ceived according to the '■'■ form and manner of 
 making deacons" before they shall be allowed to 
 exercise their ministry in the Protestant Episcopal 
 church in the United States. And this is in entire 
 accordance with the directions in the Prayer Book, 
 which has drawn the " line and limit" of admission 
 into the pulpit around the ' simple body' of the 
 Episcopal ministry, as closely as any churchman 
 could desire. " No man," says the Prayer Book, 
 " shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, 
 priest, or deacon, in this church, or suffered to ex- 
 ecute the said functions, except he be called, tried, 
 examined, and admitted thereunto according to the 
 form hereafter following, or hath had Episcojjal 
 consecration or ordination.'''' — Preface to the Form 
 and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecra- 
 ting Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. How a low 
 churchman could regard the ministers of any other 
 denomination as authorised ministers of the gospel, 
 it is impossible to conceive. The Prayer Book never 
 designed to recognise any other ministry than that 
 which has been Episcopally ordained. These con- 
 siderations lead to the inevitable conclusion that the 
 Evangelical party, if the Editors of the Recorder 
 are fair expounders of their views, mean to be un- 
 derstood as recognising none as ministers who have 
 not been prelatically ordained. 
 
 These views, on an important subject now 
 agitating the Christian churches, and destined to 
 agitate them still more, are now submitted to the 
 
143 
 
 public. The motives with which I have written, 
 arc my own, and of them but one Being has a right 
 to judge. ■ Whether the argument has been con- 
 ducted with a proper temper ; whether I have used 
 such words as became a Christian ; and whether 
 the considerations which I have suggested have the 
 weight which they seem to me to have, are points 
 which the public are well qualified to decide. " I 
 have spoken freely, but not in anger." I have 
 meant to " extenuate nothing," nor have I 
 
 " set down aught in malice." 
 
 THE END. 
 
 1 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 IMM A ^ 
 
 1 1991 
 
 
 
 Jun J '^ 
 
 
 
 
 JUN 
 
 1 Dly.;. 
 
 
 
 JUN 
 
 1 1) 1994 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JU 
 
 N 1 ^ 1^'^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 '' •* <> ?J^ 
 
 iJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HIGHSMITH # 45220 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01030 0756