POSITION
OF THE 
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
WITH REFERENCE TO
Ether   rottstant   amninttimns. 
BY THE 
REV. WILLIAM H. LEWIS, D.D.,
RECTOR OF THE CHURCH OF THIE HOLY TRINITY, BROOLYN. 
NEW-YORK:
STANFORD & SWORDS, 187 B1iOADWAY.
1852.                      (
p~S         $ 0]$2 50 PER HUNDRED,




E-IT Orders for this Tract, addressed to JOHN
V. LEWIS, Brooklyn, L. I, inclosing payment at
the rate of $3 per hundred, will be supplied by
mail, with postage prepaid, to any part of tlhe
United States.




POSITION
OF THE
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
WITH REFERENCE TO
OTHER PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS.
BY THE
REV. WILLIAM H. LEWIS, D. D.,
RECTOR OF THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY, BROOKLYN.
NEW-YORK:
STANFORD & SWORDS, 137 BROADWAY.
M.DOC.LI.




ENTEED according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by
WILLIAM H. LEWIS,
in the Clerk's Offce of the District Court for the Southern District of New-York.




THE Protestant Episcopal Church in this country, from her distinctive principles, and the place she occupies among other Protestant bodies, is greatly liable to suffer from extreme views of
those within, and from unjust prejudices of those without her
pale. Peculiar institutions are ever in danger of misrepresentation from  friends and foes.  And it is with the hope of promoting charity and unity among all who " love our Lord Jesus
Christ in sincerity," that I propose to offer some brief considerations on the position of the Episcopal Church in reference to other
Protestant denominations.
I. The first point of inquiry is, Whether our distinctive principles lead to the unchurching of other denominations; whether
we regard any who do not retain Episcopacy, as within the visible fold of Christ, or look upon them as sharing with the heathen
only the uncovenanted mercies of God?
The inquiry is needful. A bishop of our church, supposed to
act as our representative in England, though not authorized so
to do, is said, in the public prints, nor has it yet been publicly
denied, to have made the assertion there, in a large assemblage,
"that all other associations (meaning such as are not Episcopal)
are not of God," putting forth the unchurching dogma in its
most obnoxious form. Eminent and excellent men in other
denominations, have been aggrieved by the assertion, as well as
by indications of a similar character, whether that specific one be
rightly or wrongly stated, which have lately been seen among
us; and multitudes of churchmen have also felt themselves
wronged and misrepresented thereby.  It is time for us to know
our true position. Was that bishop authorized in his startling
proposition? Is that the doctrine of our church! This subject
I would now consider.




4
1. Is the Episcopal Church exclusive in her claims?
We answer, first, that natural affection and Christian charity
would lead us to hope she is not.
We are so mingled with our brethren of other names by ties
of blood and friendship, in business and social relations, that there
are very few of us but that have endeared fiiends and relatives
among them.  Some of us have recently left their folds, and our
kindred are yet there; others were there baptized, and the graves
of sainted parents are with them. We meet the members of
their churches in all the pleasant intercourse of life; we admire
their seeming piety; and it would go greatly against our feelings
to be obliged to adopt a church system which should teach us to
regard them as aliens from the covenant of promise. The tearing of one of our States from the glorious Union where we are
bound together by so many links, would be but a faint emblem
of such a severing of Christian brotherhood.
And, certainly, gospel charity would incline us strongly against
any such exclusive doctrines. The spirit of a true Christian is, to
extend hope for others as far as God's Word will possibly allow,
and to err in receiving, rather than in cutting off, those who professedly belong to Christ's flock. Some, indeed, seem to find
their element in exclusiveness, and to delight in the cry, "No
salvation out of our pale."  They need the rebuke which the
Emperor Constantine gave to a harsh-judging bishop: " Set up a
ladder, Acesius, and climb up to heaven by yourself." The most
corrupt church deals most in anathemas, and has the largest list
of heretics.  True charity " believeth all things, hopeth all
things," delights not to take God's strange work of judgment
out of his hands, and loves to regard "all who profess and call
themselves Christians," as truly within Christ's Church, unless
compelled by the clearest decisions of God's Word, to judge
otherwise.
2. We answer, secondly, to the question, Is the Episcopal
Church exclusive in her claims? that it is to be presumed she is
not.
Ours is a Scriptural church, and since the Scriptures give
little warrant for any such exclusive dogmas, the presumption is,
that they are not incorporated into our system. Allowing Episcopacy to be of divine right, and believing in apostolic succession, there is still enough in God's Word to show that, holding
these, we may have a charitable hope that others who do not
hold them, may yet be in the visible Church of Christ. The
general scope of Scripture teaching is, that though the outward




5
forms of divine appointment are not to be lightly set aside, they
are little regarded by God himself compared with faith, charity,
and holiness of heart and life. Now, since no one can deny that
multitudes of our Protestant brethren are as eminent in piety as
any upon earth, since we see them zealous in all the charities of
the gospel, successful in reclaiming sinners, and blest with apostolic triumphs in their missions among the heathen, how dare we
say, that for lacking the one outward form of Episcopacy, they
are to be adjudged as out of the visible Church of Christ?  God
would have mercy and not sacrifice under the old dispensation,
though sacrifice was his own appointment. Our Lord teaches us
to judge men by their fruits, and it is observable that it is of
prophets that he is there speaking; and we do certainly know
that the fruits of a Brainard, or a Doddridge's labors, are good.
St. Paul appeals to the results of his preaching as the signs and
seals of his apostleship. Christ said, when a disciple forbade
one to work miracles who followed not outwardly with the
twelve, "Forbid him not, for there is no man which shall do a
miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he
that is not against us, is on our part." We well know, how our
Saviour ever warmly commended piety wherever seen, above
mere orthodoxy, pronouncing the faith of a Roman centurion,
who does not seem to have been even a proselyte, greater than any
he had seen in orthodox Israel. We know that Aquila and Priscilla, when they found Apollos teaching the way-of the Lord,
although he was very defective in his knowledge of the gospel,
and could hardly have had any true commission from Christ, did
not silence him at once, but expounded to him the way of God
more perfectly, and he afterwards mightily convinced the Jews
that Jesus was the Christ. We know, that when it was told
Moses, that Eldad and Medad did prophesy in the camp,
and he was asked to forbid them, because they did not come
up to receive the outward commission, he replied, "Would
God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord
would put his Spirit upon them;" and that St. Paul rejoiced that
Christ was preached in any way, even in contention and strife.
We know that the apostles continued to go up to the Temple,
where Jewish priests officiated, long after the Jewish priesthood,
which passed away at the death of Christ, had ceased to have
any valid claim to be a divine institution. We know that it is
a sound rule of exposition to interpret the doubtful by the plain,
and therefore, though we believe Episcopacy is sanctioned by
Scripture, yet as it is nowhere positively laid down as necessary




6
to salvation, or to the existence of a church; while love for those
who bear the image of Christ, is a plain duty, and while faith
and holiness do clearly prove a man to be in Christ, this rule
would justify us in hoping, that those who are lacking in some
external points, may yet be regarded by the Saviour as within
his fold. It would seem, too, that if God had designed Episcopacy to be so essential to the existence of his church, and even
to salvation, he would have more clearly given that form of government in his word, even as Moses had a minute pattern of all
things showed him in the Mount; and that so much of the
argument in favor of our views, would not have been left to be
gathered from inference and from the fathers. No one can pretend that Episcopacy is revealed in the New Testament, with any
thing like the fulness or clearness with which faith, holiness and
charity are set forth; why then make it of equal importance?8
What minister, in standing by the bedside of the dying sinner,
would present the three orders of the ministry to him, as of
equal moment with faith in Christ? When we add to all this,
that " believing in Christ and holding the head " are ever mentioned as the great requisites of salvation; when few will go so
far as to deny that multitudes of other names do believe in
Christ, and will most certainly be saved; when we all allow that
they belong to Christ's Spiritual Church, and that we may hope
to meet them in heaven; it would seem as if we had enough to
restrain us from the harsh decision that they cannot be of Christ's
visible church, and to lead us to fear that our Master would not
thank us for unchurching and cutting off those whom he accepts,
and perhaps will exalt to thrones of glory, higher far than those
of such as judge them. At least in all these considerations,
and they are named as such rather than as extended arguments,
we have enough to lead us to presume, that the fathers and reformers who compiled our standards, and who meant to conform
them with the Scriptures, never intended to introduce into them
the exclusive dogma, against which we protest.
It may perhaps be urged, that the tendency of these appeals
to Scripture is to make it a matter of indifference whether we
hold to Episcopacy or no. It is not so. They are thrown out
as pleas for charity, and to lead us to refrain from condemning
where God's Word and our own distinctive views do not require
us to condemn.  Should they show that any body of our
Christian brethren not of our fold may be part of the Church of
Christ, though defective in some particulars, it should no more
lead us to think we have no advantage over them, than because




7
we prove that a man wanting one limb may be a man, it would
follow that it is no privilege to be perfect in every part. We
regard Episcopacy as essential to the perfectness of a church, but
not to its being, as all the limbs are to the perfectness of a man,
though not to his existence.
It is further to be presumed that the Episcopal Church is not
exclusive, because those who framed her standards were not so;
and it is hardly to be supposed they would infuse into them a
spirit which they did not feel, or teaching opposed to their
known opinions and practices. The fathers and reformers of the
Church of England, who had the chief hand in preparing our
formularies, are well known to have been on terms of Christian
fellowship with members and ministers of churches not retaining
Episcopacy, to have used their aid in compiling our standards,
and even in some instances to have allowed ministers not episcopally ordained, to hold livings and to officiate in the Church ot
England. In the revision of the Prayer Book in this country,
and the re-organization of our church, the venerated Bishop
White had the principal share. His opinions with regard to the
exclusive dogma are clear and decided. He says, " In connection
with a determination to sustain the Episcopacy, it is not impossible that in the different grounds on which it may be rested by
the different advocates of it, there may ensue a cause of disunion.
We shall be safe in this matter in proportion as we continue on
the ground taken by the English Reformers. They unequivocally affirmed the Apostolic origin of Episcopacy as a fact, and
then, as a suitable consequence, they ordained that there should
be no other ministry within their bounds. The same is the
limit in our church. If any should carry the subject further,
it is a private opinion, and cannot be acted upon in proceedings
regulated by the canons and rubrics, without hazarding the issue
intimated."  And again, he says of our form of government" There is not perceived the necessity of carrying it to the extreme of denouncing all communions destitute of Episcopacy, as
departing from the essentials of Christian faith, and as aliens
from the covenant of promise." It is evident from these quotations, that Bishop White did not deem it necessary to unchurch
other Protestant bodies for lacking Episcopal government-that
in his view the English fathers and reformers did not-and that
whoever should hold such an exclusive doctrine, must hold it as
a private opinion, in which he could not be sustained by rubric or
canon. Is it to be supposed, then, that our standards are exclusive, when their framers and compilers were not so in their




8
opinions? We may, indeed, havemen among us who decry
Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Bishop White as no churchmen,
but they can hardly affirm that they were fools, or so weak as to
inweave into our church formularies, doctrines which they repudiated and condemned. They must allow, therefore, the presumption amounts almost to certainty, that the standards of our church
are not exclusive.
3. We are now prepared, thirdly, to reply to the question, Is
the Episcopal Church exclusive in her claims? Most decidedly
she is not.
We challenge investigation of the English Prayer Book and
formularies, and of our own, of our canons, and of the decisions
of our ecclesiastical authorities, for one word upon this point with
which a member of any Evangelical Protestant Church can find
fault. There is no condemnation of his ministry, sacraments, or
worship; but while every error of Rome is condemned in our
articles, and while a chief characteristic of the church is opposition to Rome, there is not one word reflecting upon our Protestant brethren.
In the standards of the Church of England, there is little, if
any reference to other Protestant bodies, because they were
framed before those bodies, in that country, were in existence;
but in our Prayer Book, remodelled while Christians.of other
names were all around us, so far as there is any allusion to them,
there is a distinct recognition of their claims.  In the preface to
the Prayer Book, those of other denominations are spoken of as
churches. Bishop White's well-known views enable us to determine what is meant by styling them churches, that it was
not an act of mere courtesy, or a use of popular language, but
an expression of doctrinal opinion. It is not to be expected that
any church will settle very fully in her standard the claims of
other churches. It is enough to establish her own. But as far
as there is any allusion to others, it is charitable, and not exclusive. We have a right to be judged by our authorized standards,
and they are remarkable for their liberality and freedom from all
bigotry and intolerance.
It is a remarkable fact, too, that among all the Primates of
the Church of England, with the exception of Laud, and also
among all the presiding bishops of the American Church, not
one can be found who has taken the obnoxious position towards
our Christian brethren which some suppose we take.
But it may be asked, Though the standards are right, is not
the general feeling of Episcopalians that of exclusiveness?  We




reply it is not. It is true there are some, not breathing thespirit
of the reformers, who seem  to rank Romanism and Dissent, as
they term it, as foes equally to be dreaded, or who say that if they
must choose either, they would prefer to go to Rome, and who
talk arrogantly of our church as the church, and of other Protestants as schismatics and heretics; but they are few in comparison with the mass of our people. They are like foam on the
ocean, ever uppermost and most visible, but small and empty
compared with the waters beneath.  They are most loud and
prominent, as the worst representatives of a church usually are.
And, to adopt Bishop Reynolds' metaphor, they are like the
single grasshopper in the field, which will make more noise than
twelve fat oxen quietly feeding. They are, in a majority of
cases, such as have come into our church from other denominations, but by a sad though common process, seem most bitter and
uncharitable towards the faith in which they have left parents
and kindred. Never are such intolerant denunciations against
our brethren of other folds heard from the lips of old churchmen,
as are uttered by those who have recently joined us from the
churches they anathematize. They abound chiefly in one or two
of our large cities, the places, as Jefferson says, " which are like
sores upon the body politic, where all the bad humors do congregate;" and, because.o prominent, are supposed to express
the sentiments of our whole community-which they do not. In
our country parishes, though there may be three or four, who
have picked up, by communication with our cities, some of the
new notions of churchmanship, the mass would be startled and
shocked at the idea of excluding their Protestant brethren from
the pale of the church; and the preacher who should preach
such a doctrine to them, would be requested to let other denominations alone. The general feeling in cities and in the country is
not that of bigoted exclusiveness.
But we may go one stepfurther, and assert, that our church
has in a measure, recognized other Evangelical Protestant bodies, as
a part of the visible and true Church of Christ. We receive their
communicants in all our churches to our communion, without
examination, or certificate, or rebaptizing, which is more than
some of them do among themselves. And moreover, we allow
their baptism.  No minister among us has positively refused to
admit its validity, though some ultraists are very happy to rebaptize. No bishop has ever hesitated to confirm those baptized
in other denominations, and of course if there were no baptism,
there could be no confirmation.  And baptism makes us mem1*




10
bers of the visible church, for we are therein, as our Catechism
says, made members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of
the kingdom of heaven.  Hence it follows, that all the baptized
in other folds, are members of Christ's visible church.  It
makes no difference in the argument, whether we say their ministry is a ministry, though defective, or their baptism is no better than lay-baptism; either way their people are baptized-that
is a ruled question; and they are, therefore, as much members
of the church, so far forth, as we are. It was proposed in our
General Convention, some years ago, to pronounce the baptism
of other denominations invalid; but this was rejected by a large
majority. How dare any, then, exclude from  the Church of
Christ those who have been baptized into  His body-not
only with the outward washing, but in many cases also with the
regeneration of the Holy Spirit?  Indeed, a bishop of our
church, of as high standing as any other, has been understood
to say, that unless we admit other denominations to be a part of
the Church of Christ, we overthrow our own church, because
many of our archbishops and bishops were baptized in churches
non-Episcopal; and if they were not truly baptized, they were
not in the church, and if not themselves in the church, of course
all their ordinations and other acts have been invalid. However
this may be, we allow their baptism, and by consequence allow
that they are a part of Christ's visible church, as we are sure
that they are also, in many cases, of that church which is spiritual
and invisible. 
Again, we may observe, that ultra-churchmen have no difficulty in recognizing the Church of Rome as a church, because
she retains Episcopacy, though corrupt in almost every other
point, but cannot receive Protestant bodies as churches, because
they are defective in the one point of Episcopacy, though right in
nearly every other. Now the question is, which would most invalidate a claim  to be a Church of God-all the abominable
idolatries and corruptions of Rome, or the one defect of a want
of Episcopacy? Which would our Lord judge to have the best
title to that name: those who worship Mary, blaspheme God, seal
up His Word, and deluge the earth with the blood of His
saints, but withal have the three orders in the ministry; or those
who have a valid baptism, an open Bible, soundness of faith on
all vital doctrines, holy living, and primitive zeal and success in
missions, but.have not the three orders of the ministry? They
can know but little of Christ, who can doubt for a moment that
He would find His home and Chur h among our Protestant




I1
brethren, and worship with them, if now upon earth, rather than
among the splendid abominations of Popery. And yet some of
our periodicals, in their statistics of churches, give those of Rome;
but pass over all Protestants out of our pale, as not worthy of
the name of churches.
We may remark further, that there are some things in our
church that give us an appearance of exclusiveness, which has
no reality. Our forms of prayer would hinder ministerial exchanges, if there were no other reason, for ministers of other denominations hardly could, if they would, conduct our worship;
and there could be no exchange but by making both churches
Presbyterian or Methodist in their mode of worship for the day,
which would he an unequal bargain;-although this is a difficulty
not insuperable. But, our conscientious views of the ministry
oblige us to receive none in our own church except such as have
been Episcopally ordained. We judge not the ministry of others,
but for ourselves we can receive none but such as are called in
what we deem  the divinely appointed way. There is no uncharitableness in such a maintenance of our own views.
A few quotations from  some of our divines, in addition to
those from Bishop White, may be given, in confirmation of the
positions now advanced. Bishop Andrews says, " Though Episcopal government be of Divine institution, yet it is not so absolutely
necessary as that there can be no church, nor sacraments, nor
salvation without it. He is blind that sees not many churches
flourishing without it." Archbishop Wake says, " Far from me
be such an obdurate heart, as that, because of this defect, (i. e.
of Episcopacy,) I should say to some that they are to be cut off
from our communion, or that I should pronounce, with overardent writers among us, that they have no valid sacraments,
and are scarcely Christian." Hooker, one of the greatest names
among us, allowed the churches on the continent to be churches,
although he deplored their lack of Episcopacy. Bishop Burnet,
some of whose writings are made text-books in our General Seminary, says, "A man might lawfully communicate with a church
that he thought had a worship and a doctrine uncorrupted, and
yet communicate more frequently, with a church that he thought
more perfect. I myself," said he, "had communicated with the
churches of Geneva and Holland, and yet at the same time communicated with the Church of England." Quotations of a similar
character from our standard writers, such as Cranmer, Jewell,
Whitgift, Hall, Tillotson, and Porteus, might be multiplied, but
enough have been given to show, that the view I have endeavored




to maintain, that Episcopacy is essential to the order and perfectness,
not to the being of a church, and that our church is not exclusive in her claims, is that of our formularies, and of our best
divines. No church on earth is more liberal in its standards, nor
are the members of any church, taken as a body, more free from
bigotry and intolerance, than our own.  Our constant prayers
are offered " for God's holy church universal, that all who profess
and call themselves Christians, not those merely whom we call so,
"may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity
of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life."
II. We now-go on to the second point, viz., the comparative
influence of the Episcopal Church in furthering holiness of heart
and life.
Our Protestant brethren, with the admission that there are
many excellent men among us, are very apt to insinuate that we
are, upon the whole, compared with other Protestant churches,
greatly wanting in piety.  Their habitual mode of speaking of
us, is, "Oh there are and have been some good Christians among
Episcopalians, such as Milnor," and one or two others that perhaps they may name, as if, when they had named these, they
had named all, and as if these were exceptions to the general
rule. But they assert that, taken as a body, there is very little
vital godliness among us; that the Episcopal Church is a church
for gentlemen,-a fashionable church,-a church in which there
are no revivals, no conversions, no belief in a change of heart,
with other slurs of a kindred character. They blame us for exclusiveness, because we consider them defective in the outward
form of the ministry; did it never occur to them, that there was
as much exclusiveness in denying us the inward spirit of religion?  The most ultra churchman says nothing against the personal piety of our Protestant brethren, but they make no scruple
in denying its existence among us. There is such a character as
an Evangelical, as well as a formal Pharisee, and it seems to us
at times, as if we beheld him, standing and praying thus, with
himself: " God, I thank thee that I am  not as other men are;
formalists, semi-papists, using crutches in prayer, or even as these
Episcopalians; I keep no fasts or saints-days, I believe in experimental religion and a change of heart, and I give largely of all
I possess to Bible and Tract Societies, and the great Evangelical
institutions of the day."  God forbid that we should make
any sweeping accusation of Pharisaism against our brethren as a
body; but it is fair to show them that there are two sides to the
picture, and how their exclusiveness strikes us, as they show us
how our exclusiveness appears to them.




Whether there be, comparatively, a low  standard of piety
among us, God alone can truly judge.*   " We have none to
boast of," was the  remark  of Bishop Griswold, when  told
that there was little vital religion among  Episcopalians.  We
know  not, however, why there should not be true godliness
among us.  We have more of the reading of Scripture in our
churches than in any other; our Liturgy is devout enough for
the holiest saint, all the doctrines of grace are clearly held by
us. The need of a new birth unto righteousness, is a prominent
article. And as to the preaching of Christ crucified, it has been
repeatedly acknowledged by visitors from other churches, that
they heard more of it in our pulpits than in their own. Whether
this be so or not, we will not dispute, but this we may say, that
our Liturgy compels us every year to follow Christ in all his
work and offices, from his incarnation, to his death, resurrection,
ascension, and gift of the Holy Spirit; and it is usual for our
clergy to adapt their preaching to the services, so that we may
be less likely to wander off to abolitionism and other semi-secular
subjects of the day, in the pulpit, than others. We might appeal again to the fact, that so large a portion of the standard theological works in every library and in every closet of devotion, were
written by Episcopalians, as proof that our system  is not unfavorable to piety. We might -appeal to the names of Hall and
Leighton, Richmond and Martyn, Scott and Newton, with a host
besides, and ask, if they found room enough for such attainments
*Dr. Baird, in his learned work entitled, "Religion in America," in
speaking of the sad consequences of the war of the Revolution upon
the Episcopal Church in Virginia, holds this remarkable language in reference to the present condition of the same church:
"I do not think it possible to find a body of ministers of equal number, in any denomination, who, in point of theological education, prudent
zeal, simple and effective eloquence, general usefulness, and the esteem
in whicb they are held by the people, can be regarded as superior to the
Episcopal clergy of the present day in Virginia."  p. 114.
The same learned author, in speaking of the church generally in reference to her recovery from the ruinous effects of the war of the Revolution, remarks: " Nor has the spiritual prosperity of the church been less
remarkable than its external.  t possesses a degree of life and energy
throughout all its extent, and an amount of vital piety in its ministers
and members such as it never had in its colonial days. It is blessed with
precious revivals, and flourishes like a tree planted by the rivers of waters"    -" The prospects of the Episcopal Church in the United States
are certainly very encouraging. The friend of a learned and able ministry, to form which she has founded colleges and theological institutions,
she sees, among her clergy, not a few men, of -the highest distinction for
talents, for learning, for eloquence, and for piety and zeaL" pp.:222, 223.




14
in holiness in our church, whether it can be possible that its
natural tendency is to blight and dwarf the plants of grace, in
the believer's soul. The holiest of them would testify, that as
the result of his own experience, he could conceive of nothing
better adapted to further experimental godliness, than our Liturgy.  If there be not among us all that can be found elsewhere
to promote the great work of conversion and sanctification, we
should say of our church, with its bitterest foes, "Raze it, raze it
even to the ground."
As to scandals, from the sad lapse of ministers and members,
we shall, on neither side, be over-ready to cast the first stone;
knowing that each has enough such cases to bow our heads in
shame.  We believe, however, that we have the most effective discipline for the erring, strong enough to take the mitre from the most
powerful bishop when he offends, as well as to correct the humbler
backslider; and prompt to act, without any long vexatious delays.
III. A  third point of consideration, is, the efficiency of the
Episcopal Church in the missionary work compared with that of
other Protestant churches.
We are told that " we are doing comparatively very little, in
the Foreign or Domestic field."* We acknowledge our deficiencies; yet there are some things to be taken into consideration,
which will show that they are not so much the defects of our system, as of accidental circumstances. It will be acknowledged
that the strength of our brethren, in their missionary operations,
lies in New England, and among the descendants of the Puritans.
And it is also well known, that Puritan bigotry and intolerance
persecuted, and drove out Episcopalians from New England, and
that the results of the Revolutionary War were further disastrous to
the interests of our church there, so that the rich mine for benevolent operations in that region has been kept, and worked almost
exclusively by our brethren. Our churches have been few and
feeble, overtopped and shaded by that which was, for a long
time, in point of fact, the established church. We are now gaining ground there very rapidly, insomuch that our growth under
* Dr. Baird, in his able work entitled, "Religion in America," published in 1844, shows that the contributions of the Episcopal Church in the
United States to Foreign Missions, in proportion to the number of her
communicants, were as compared with other churches, setting aside decimals, as follows:
As compared with the Presbyterian, as one dollar and twenty cents to
one dollar; as compared with the Methodist, as ten dollars to one; as compared witn all others together, as two dollars to one.




15
these unfavorable auspices, is a matter of astonishment to ourselves. And we think that when our church, which in all parts
of the country has hitherto been struggling for its very existence,
and recovering from the effects of the Revolutionary contest, shall
have gained a footing, she will take her place among the foremost
in the missionary work. We have been retarded also by defects
in our missionary organization, which it is not necessary to explain, but which have kept back the wealth and zeal of multitudes, or turned them  into other channels.  We are doing
something, however, and it may be named, that in the deadliest
climate in the world-in Africa, we have two missionaries to one
from any other Protestant denomination. That there is nothing
unfavorable to missions in our system, may be seen in the mother
country, where Episcopalians have been as early, and as earnestly
in the field, as any of their brethren.  The oldest Protestant
Missionary Society in the world had its origin with churchmen.
And the first religious service and administration of the Lord's
Supper by a Protestant, or perhaps by any other, in North America, nearly one hundred years before the landing of the Pilgrims,
was by an Episcopal minister; the first Protestant church in the
limits of what is now the United States, was Episcopal, and the
first service in  New England was by an Episcopal minister.
We hope, that we who were the first to take possession of the
country, in the name of the King of kings, may be found doing
our part in retaining it for him, as well as in setting up his kingdom throughout the world.
IV. A fourth point of consideration is, our position compared
with other Protestant churches in regard to patriotism.
The old charge that in the Revolution, many of our clergy and
people were tories, taking the part of England against the cause of
liberty, is often urged against us; and it is asserted " that Episcopalians hlave never been pre-eminent in patriotic exertions for the welfare
of our glorious country." This is a charge, which among vulgar
railers answers a very good purpose in exciting popular prejudice,
but ought never to be advanced by the intelligent Christian opponent.  We furnished a Washington for the Revolutionary
struggle, but we did not, so far as I have ever heard, furnish an
Arnold. Nor was it the characteristic of churchmen tofight against
their country, but rather to remain passive in a war which
some of them did not approve, or else to withdraw to England or the
Provinces. The first prayer offered in Congress was by an Episcopalian, which shows that the feeling then among intelligent patriots,
could not have been very hostile towards us. We allow that




16
there were some of our church who took sides with England,
more perhaps than of any other denomination; but they were
generally conscientious men, who did not see how they could be
released from their oath of allegiance-a subject which has
troubled other consciences in similar cases-and whose after sufferings testified to their sincerity. There is that in the Episcopal
Church which makes her members not easily given to change,
and the same principle which led some of them to hold on, then,
and to sustain the dominion of the old country, may hereafter lead
others to cling to, and sustain republican institutions, when some
of our Protestant brethren may have become supporters of despotism. We claim for our church that she is more truly republican than any other in her mode of government, her legislation,
and her happy union of popular will with conservative checks.
Some allowance also should be made for the conduct of
a few of our church in the Revolutionary struggle, from another
consideration. It is natural for men to take the part of those
who show them most sympathy. If a despot should now make
war upon our liberties, it is not at all unlikely that the oppressed
would side with him, rather than with the upholders of republicanism; not because it would be right, but because they had
never met with kind treatment from the friends of liberty. Now,
the Episcopal Church, before the Revolution, was harshly treated
by other denominations. It amazes us in thee days of toleration
to read of persecution, fines, and imprisonment endured by members of our church, merely for seeking " freedom to worship God,"
from those who professedly fled to this country to gain the same
privilege. We blame not the Puritans. Intolerance was the
fault of the age. Whoever had the power, whether Churchmen
or Puritans, exercised it in persecuting supposed errorists, and
thought they were doing God service. But how natural it was
that Churchmen, ground down by such bigotry, should sympathize with Churchmen in England rather than with Puritans at
home. Had they been treated with tolerance, the very men who
left us might have been as patriotic as any others in the Revolutionary struggle. We do not urge this to justify their course, but
only to show that there were faults on both sides which led
to it.
That there is nothing in our church unfriendly to republicanism may be proved by recalling a few distinguished names, against
which patriotism will offer no exceptions. Washington and Jay,
of our church, among Revolutionary scenes,-Washington, Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, and Taylor, who were Episcopalians,




17
as Presidents,-Taylor and Scott, as soldiers,-Webster and Clay,
as statesmen, both of whom  made their sacramental profession
of religion, it is believed, in the Episcopal Church; the latter his
only profession, and the former his first after years of neglect,Marshall and Kent, among jurists,-Irving, and Sigourney, and
Cooper, among popular writers,-are names that have reflected
honor upon our land, and enough, considering how small our
numbers have been, compared with those of other churches, to
wipe off the slander that "we have done nothing for the welfare
of our glorious country."* Some of these were late adherents
of the Episcopal Church; but their testimony is none the less
strong, for it proves that in their matured judgment there was
nothing in Episcopacy conflicting with patriotism, or unfavorable
to piety.  Great names in the political world are not indeed
usually worth much in the kingdom of Christ.  We give these
because they are worth as much as any other, and to repel an
aspersion.
It should be observed further, that until very recently, all
the leading schools and colleges of our country have been under
the control of our Protestant brethren. The Earl of Dartmouth
and Bishop Berkeley were early and liberal friends of our learned
institutions; of whose liberality, however, those out of our pale
have enjoyed the chief benefit.  We have now colleges of our
own, which are rising into notice, and will hereafter, we trust,
add our quota of men prominent in our literature and political
affairs.
* At.the period of the Revolution a very large proportion of the
Episcopal clergy were Englishmen by birth, and connected by strong
ties of duty and interest to the mother church, and in many cases dependent on her for support. It is not strange, therefore, that the war
should have caused a majority of the Episcopal clergy to return to the
land of their birth, and that this state of things should have caused great
suffering to the church. On this subject Dr. Baird remarks: "This was
no doubt counteracted so far by there being in the minority of the clergy
such staunch republicans and avowed partisans of the colonies as the Rev.
Dr. Madison, afterwards bishop of the state; Drs. Griffith and Brachen;
Messrs. Buchanan, Jarratt, and others. While, as regards the laity, no
men in all the colonies entered more warmly into the Revolution than
did the Episcopalians of Virginia." p. 113.
Among the distinguished laity of the Episcopal Church of Virginia
during the Revolution, may be named Washington, Patrick Henry, the
two Lees, Mason, Pendleton, Lyons, Carrington, Fleming, Grayson, the
Nelsons, Meades, Mercers, Harrisons, Randolphs, and hundreds of other
names dear to Virginia. The same remarks will hold true in relation to
the character of the church at that time in other States.




18
V. The next point is, our comparative position as an opponent
of Rome.
It has been asserted, that " where the Episcopal Church makes
one convert from Rome, other Protestant churches make ten, if
not ten times ten;" and it is often brought against us as a reproach, that "numbers have gone over from our church to the
errors of Popery." This will lead us to consider the comparative
advantages of our system and theirs, as an antagonist of that
common enemy.
We appeal first to the facts that all England, the home of
their ancestry and ours, was converted from Rome by Episcopalians-that the English Reformation was won and sealed with
the labors and blood of Episcopal bishops and martyrs aloneand that almost the only countries where pure Protestantism
prevails, received their religious inheritance of a reformed faith
through our church. Surely our brethren should not speak
slightingly of Episcopacy as an antagonist of Popery, when under her banners the first great victory, and that which has made
all other victories easy and bloodless, was gained. We appeal
to history, from the days of the Armada, when Popery rose
in wrath against one church of England Queen, down to the
days of Pius IX. and Cardinal Wiseman, when its efforts were
renewed against another church of England Queen, to show
that Rome has ever regarded that church as the great bulwark
of Protestantism.  We appeal to what is now going on in Ireland, where a single diocese, with a bishop and clergy as evangelical as any in the world, numbers its converts from Popery
by tens of thousands, to disprove the assertion that where we
make one convert other Protestants make ten, or ten times tenfor where can they point to like success? We appeal to our
thirty-nine articles, more than half of them protesting against the
errors of Rome. And we might also tell of successes in the
warfare with her in this country. We are not in the habit of
publishing the names and all the circumstances of the conversion
of Romanists, as is done by colporteurs and others. We doubt
the expediency of it, as much as we should of the physician's
giving the details of every cure in every private family to the
public. But we can assure our brethren, that every minister of
any experience among us knows what it is to meet with converts
from Popery, and to number them  among our communicants,
and that not a few of us have had the satisfaction of aiding
Romish priests to enter upon our own ministry. We can assure
them also, that multitudes in leaving the corruptions of Popery,




find in our church a more congenial home than among those,
who, in their abhorrence of Rome, have gone to the other extreme of bareness and baldness in the worship of God. Our
church compared with other churches has been, is, and is best
fitted to be the successful antagonist of Rome.
But we are accused of having had many perverts to Rome
from our ranks. True, the army nearest the conflict will suffer
most by desertion, as we have seen that ours also has by bloodshed in the actual battle. We regard that which is now witnessed in the world as the last struggle of the beast, and expect
to suffer. We expect that in this sifting season, when God calls
his people to come out of Babylon, and they obey by thousands, that a few hundred may go in and be partakers of her
plagues.  Such is the law, of affinities in the kingdom  of
Christ.
But further: in a large majority of cases, those who have
gone over from us to Rome, have been educated among our
Protestant brethren. We think there is something in theirl
system which unsettled these perverts, and prepared them forI
change. We are sure that there is nothing in our church calculated to unsettle. Rarely indeed does one educated among
us leave his faith. The fixedness of the liturgy imparts itself to
those who worship with it. This is proved by the fact that
only one Episcopal church, and that not truly an exception,
ever went over in this country, or in England, to Unitarianism,
while lapses of this character may be reckoned among our brethren by hundreds. The same remark is true with reference to
Universalism and the sect called Christians. Our church has
not been their reservoir. Our people are not given to change.
Such a thing as a pervert to Popery, twenty years ago, would
have electrified our whole community. But there was a day
when our church began to stand very high among our brethren
in this country. They looked towards it as a peaceful home.
They flocked into it by hundreds and thousands. Prosperity
elated us, and we needed a chastisement. Those who came
among us were prepared by their previous education for further
change, and passed on to Rome after doing us immense injury.
And so we account for many of these perversions. And thus
we received our chastisement-a chastisement which leads us to
sigh for the days when our accessions were smaller, innovations
in our services fewer, and perverts almost unknown. This, we
say to aged ministers and Christians of other churches now ago
nizing over sons who have passed through ours to officiate at




20
Romish altars, or remain in ours to raise semi-papal altars,-this
is our version of the matter. We accuse your system as partly
in fault. We point to the known principle, that minds once unsettled are apt to change often, and to go to extremes. We feel
that the last great battle with Popery is going on, and expect to
suffer as the foremost ever do. We acknowledge our need of
chastening for pride and vainglory; but we do not allow that
our church is comparatively a feebler antagonist of Rome than
yours.
We have thus taken up and considered in several points of
view our position as Episcopalians, in reference to other Protestant
churches. It will be seen that the argument has been put forth in
self-defence. And now in conclusion, it will also be seen that
there has been much that is wrong on both sides, and that both
have much to learn in the way of charity and forbearance. And
so it has ever been in the contest between us and our Protestant
brethren. If they suffered from Laud and the Stuarts, several
thousand ministers of the church of England ejected from their
livings, testify that they could inflict suffering, when in power.
If they fled from England to find religious liberty, their treatment
of Episcopalians and Quakers shows that they could not grant it
to others. If they declaimed against the deadness and formalism
of the English clergy, they sunk down at one time in favored
New England, into a state as dead and formal. If they have well-_
founded complaints against us now, we have also against them.
Would it not be most desirable if all these errors of the past
could be forgiven and forgotten, and the mutual recriminations built upon them could cease, and that better time arrive,
when " Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex
Ephraim?"  If that period shall ever come when all shall be one
in Christ, a day for which our Lord and every true follower of his
prays-a day which must come before the millennial glory shall
begin, its advent will be heralded by a disposition among Christians to see how nearly they can agree, rather than how many
grounds of disagreement they can find; how much there is in each
other's systems to love and hold in common, rather than how
much to censure and separate upon. And to further that spirit,
let us by way of inference from all that has been advanced, notice
finally, what we have a right to expect from our Protestant
brethren, and then what we owe to them, and to ourselves in
reference to them.
1. We have a right to expect that they should candidly consider our views of the ministry.




21
They blame us for our exclusiveness and grieve at our position;
why do they not help us out of it, when they can do it without
any sacrifice of conscience? We conscientiously believe in Episcopal ordination. They all allow its validity. Why then, if they
love peace, and desire unity so much, do they not receive Episcopal
ordination? They can do it without any sacrifice of conscience.
We cannot yield without the sacrifice; and if ever the church is
to be united, it must be by concessions in things not held as matters of conscience. Suppose they are not fully prepared to receive
Episcopacy as of divine right, as many members of our own
church and more of the English church are not, still, why do they
not say, we will yield up this point to the scruples or the weaknesses, if they please, of our Episcopal brethren-we have no
objection against their ministry, therefore, for the sake of that
unity which all ought to desire and which Christ enjoins, we will
be Episcopally ordained.* To talk of a love of union, and to lash
us for our exclusive position while we cannot get out of it, and
they, with no vigence to conscience, can help us out, seems unreasonable. We prize our Liturgy, but none of us hold to it as of
divine right, and therefore if all churches were'Episcopal in their
ordination, we could easily unite with our brethren, though some
might retain a worship without forms. It is the ministry which
proves the great cause of separation. It is well known that many
a distinguished aged minister among them  has said, that if he
were to live his life over again he would enter the Episcopal ministry; that many have actually made the change; and that there
are few prominent men among them, but that have at times had
serious thoughts of such a step.'While then there is so much in
our claims as to stagger the minds of some of their ablest men
and learned professors, have we not a right to expect as a matter
of concession, if not of conviction, that they should take this
great, and perhaps only bar of union out of the way? We do
not ask our brethren, if they come among us, to adopt the errors
of our ultraists, but rather to help repress them; but we do ask
whether, with a moderate Episcopacy, they can find aught in our
church to justify their longer separation from us. How desirable,
even to them, in the work of missions among the corrupt churches
of the old world which yet retain Episcopacy, would it be to go
among them with an Episcopal form of government I How de* The argument for Episcopacy would be foreign to the purpose of
this Tract. It may be found in our Standard Divines, and especially in
Bishop Onderdonk's " Episcopacy tested by Scripture," in connection with
Dr. Barnes's reply.




22
sirable such union for the honor of our common Christianity and
Protestantism, now the scoff of Infidel and Papist because of our
dissensions-for the success of the Gospel among the heathen,
for our own comfort, and for the glory of our Lord! At the first
hearty movement towards such union, Satan would leap affrighted
from his throne, and "great voices would be heard in heaven,
saying! The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of
our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and
ever."
To those who do come among us from other folds, we say,
beware of going to extremes. We have suffered so much from
the over-strained zeal of proselytes, that we would ever urge this
caution. You will find a home among us, a Liturgy, a doctrine,
a ministry, that will fully satisfy you, and the more perfectly the
more you know them; but do not magnify, out of all proportion, what is true, because it is new to you,-be moderate churchmen,-remember that piety of heart is the saein all churches,
and justify your choice of ours by increased h ohess.
Or if any cannot conscientiously unite with us, let us ask their
forbearance. They may not fully understand us. We may be
doing God's work. We may have more of vital godliness-amid
our forms than they suppose. "Let us not, therefore, judge one
another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."
2. And finally, we, as Episcopalians, have also need of gtater
charity. No wonder that our brethren of other churches' have
become soured towards us, when they have been assailed by misguided zealots and bigots in such terms as I have quoted. There
is no warrant, as has been shown, for denouncing them as "heretics and schismatics," or as "communities not of God."  They
who have done so have gone beyond our standards and standard
divines. Modesty and humility should have taught them a better
lesson. And it becomes all who love our church to rebuke such
a spirit, and the utterance'of such sentiments. Let the faity set
their faces against arrogant claims and exclusiveness in bishops,
presbyters, and, where it is more commonly found, in unfledged
deacons.  We have reason to recall again and again the counsel of
Bishop White, that we shall be safe so long as we keep upon the
moderate ground taken by the English Reformers. It is a poor
way to expect to make converts to our church by assailing others.
Our best evidence of apostolic character will be found in apostolic holiness, labors, and success. As a general rule, it will be
seen that those ministers who are ever harping upon our claims,




23
and are most arrogant in urging our distinctive principles, are
men who do us little credit by their piety, and are best known
by their success in running down and destroying the churches
where they may officiate. They seek to make up in boasting
of externals, what they lack in the internal spirit of religion, as
the Jews cried, " the temple of the Lord are these," to cover
their want of piety.
But on the other hand, we are not called upon, while liberal
and tolerant to other denominations, to give up our own distinc-.
tive principles. We need not imitate the examples of some ultra
low Churchmen, who seem to court popular favor by ever declaiming, before those of other denominations, against the corruptions of their own church,-seerning, like children, to find
every thing better elsewhere, than what they get at home, and
in heart more Presbyterians or Methodists than true Churchmen.
Such men should either leave us, as some to our relief have done,
or be more in sp   with us. If we have the evils against which
they declaim, we lk them where can they go that they will not
find evils as great? We are in a strong position; let us maintain it, without intolerance towards our brethren, and without
lowering those claims which we believe to be of scriptural authority.  We are in a church that offers all that we need for
personal holiness, or for the advancement of Christ's cause.
Let us hold' our principles with firmness, and yet with charity,
ani let us seek to carry out the mission of our beloved church
on earth, by a purity and zeal corresponding with the high
pretensions we make for her, as primitive and apostolic in
her ministry, devout in her worship, and scriptural in all her
doctrines.  Could we stand upon that moderate ground which
the fathers and reformers intended we should occupy,-could
we cease to vaunt our claims in words, and establish them
rather by our holiness and by our success in turning sinners to
Christ,-could we stand before the world, commended to the
love of all by eminence in piety equal to our soundness of faith,
and the primitiveness of our ministry and worship, —we should
scarcely need any other argument in favor of our church, and all
around would say, "We will go with you, for God is with you
of a truth."
THE END.












S TAFORD & SWORDS, 
NO. 18 BROADWAY, NEW-YORK,' 
Have in prest and will sortl publisk, a second edition of nrmonsf
Chiristian Yar, by the Rev. Wtn, H. Lewi, D. D., 445 p., ovo, canta
D  ng a Discoursef orevety Sunday and principal holiday throughos   the ye
designed for Lay Reading and famiy use. Price $1 25.
The Right Rev. CARLTON CHASE, D. D., Bishop of New Hampshir
whom, as acting Diocesan, at the publication of the first edition, the vo
was- submitted for approval for Lay Reading, says of the Sermons"
letter received from him, " They are precisely such compositions as I
with pleasure and confidence placeaii the hands of Lay Readers in oer
oanntpariShes. For such a purpose I can truly say I know of nothing bet
i  he fottoivg brief extracts from notices of the volume in our var'!pers and revws are also ade.'.:
" The merits of the volume we cheerfully acknowledge. It is, thri
out, an earnest, cogent, clear exhibition of practical Christianity. It d
not avoid doctrinal statements, which are often very distinctly made,
happily illustrated, but still its main scope is practical. For reading in
cant parishes or in families, this volume has claims beyond most that we
seen. The discourses are short, simple, clear,  d earnest. And the W
toneof the book is Churchly and loyal.-Cal j r..'  
They are plain and practical) calculated ti     iI to the souls of 
They breathe the spirit of a minister anxiou   proml the best inpt
of those who hear him, and will be found a valu         id to lay r
heads of families, or to travellers by landpor sea.". l fopal Recorder,
" Written in a plain, earnest style, such    ^ i  be expected fro
zealous pastor of twenty-five yers' experience.~ Jour. of: Cenrmrce. 
" We have read a number O the Discourses in tis volume withiln
edification. The style of Dr. Lewis is plain, direct, and forciblil
pretension to aty great polish or beauty. His illu$tations are stri
well calculated to produce a lasting impression, aii allowing that lib
others which we claim to oursel, we regard thi  neo of doctrine a
cept as sound and Churchman-like." —Churchman.  
"Of type and paper grateful to the eye, and executed altog
style in which We should like to see all sermons published tha
publishing, which these certainly are.  They are plain, stra
instructive, and by no means dry.,The writer is unaffecedly; 3ii
continuing his discourse because he has something to  ay, and stb
when he is done."-Evangelical Catholic.
" Their most marked features are great simplicity oI arrangeml
the earnestness and directness with Wilch the preacher ever addressself to the spiritual wants of his hearers. The Sermons are sixt
number, covering a complete Christian year. They embrace a^I
of subjects and are all short. In style, they have the    araaof i
been written to be preached for the alone object of dcing good. The
almost nothing in them of doctrinal polemics, but everywhere is seen
preacher's great object to reach the hearts and influence the livea:J
hearers. The circulation of these Sermons cannot but tend to p
what the Church mainly needs, a living, earnest piety; the noblest!
which the Christian minister's ambition can possibly aim."-~Chuircl&'
" A volume of Sermons, the genuine fruit of faithful pastoral la
full of impressive practical views of Christian life and duty. ThBlk
tended primarily for Episcopalians, it is adapted to the spiritual i
Christians of all communions."-Christian (Baptist) Review. 
EO B NTLY PUBLISlHED.
CONFESSION OF CHRIST.
By the same antbot. STANFOR & SWORDS, 187 Broadway. Price 87T eta.
as a Manual of preparation for candidates or Baptism, Confirmaton, and tht:
Supper.;':?.............:.....;....                      w....i~......../,.l