perstition, in your sex, oftener, perhaps, than in ours; yet, with all these dangers and inconveniences, I believe, that if christianity should be compelled to flee from the mansions of the great, the academies of the philosophers, the halls of the legislators, or the throng of busy men, we should find her last and purest retreat with woman at the fireside; her last altar would be the female heart; her last audience would be the children gathered round the knees of a mother; her sacrifice, the secret prayer escaping in silence from her lips, and heard, perhaps, only at the throne of God."* I will conclude this letter with one or two observations on the Festivals and Fasts of the episcopal church. In Nelson's book on this subject, it is said, "these are of ecclesiastical institution, and consonant to the practice of the primitive church." In the same book are enumerated, besides the sabbath, forty-seven days of public worship, to which are attached the names of saints, angels, and other titles of to very obvious import. Let me ask what authority there is in the Bible for commemorating saints and angels, and especially for incorporating forms of such a commemoration into a church service, and connecting them with the worship of God? You can find neither precept nor example in the word of God, in which the vestige of such a practice appears. What is meant by its being an "ecclesiastical institution?" It originated in the strong inclination of the Gentile converts to adopt the *Buckminster's Sermons, first edition, p. 388 forms of christian worship to the rites and ceremonies, to which they had been accustomed when heathens. Saints and martyrs were substituted for hea then gods. This has been fully shown by Causobon, Whiston, and especially Mr. Mede, in his "Apostacy of the Latter Times." He cites a striking passage from Theodoret. "Our Lord God hath brought his dead (martyrs) into the room and place of your gods, whom he hath sent off, and given their honour to his martyrs. For instead of the feasts of Jupiter and Bacchus, are now celebrated the festivals of Peter and Paul, and Thomas, and Sergius, and other holy martyrs."* Since this is the origin of these festivals, it would seem the duty of the church rather to abolish, than perpetuate them. There is no evidence in history of any saints' days being observed, till after the second century; and yet we are told "this institution is consonant to the practice of the primitive church." Such broad assertions without proof will satisfy those, and those only, who think credulity a christian virtue; free inquiry, a crime; and submission to the authority of the church, a compliance with a divine command.† I have thus pointed out some of the particulars in the forms of the episcopal church, which distinguish *See Peirce's Vindication, Part Third, c. xi. †The celebration of saints' days is taken entirely from the church of Rome. In speaking of Burnet's account of the views of the church of England on this subject, Bossuet observes, "he every where, and in all things, justifies us; and they, who object to us that we follow the commandments of men, may bring the same objection against the English church. This church will vindicate us." Hist. des Var. liv. vii. § 91. it from most other Protestant churches, and some of which I do not find warranted in scripture. It would have been gratifying to see these explained and vindicated in your discourse. It will be a difficult thing for any of your readers to tell why they are "Protestant Episcopal Churchmen," till they can see removed the formidable objections, which rest against these parts of the church service, and be convinced from clear evidence, that the whole is built on the simple truths of the gospel. LETTER II. REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, I PROPOSE next to consider that part of the twentieth article, which asserts, that "the church hath authority in controversies of faith." This you pass over entirely; yet, if I am not mistaken, there is no one thing in which the episcopal church differs more essentially from Protestant churches in general. Few churches, I believe, assume, as a fundamental doctrine, the right and authority of deciding in matters of faith. Some of your readers, I am sure, would have thanked you, if you had have told them, whence the church derives this authority. To the present episcopal church it must have been communicated by the "archbishops and bishops of both provinces, and the whole clergy," assembled in convocation in the reign of king Edward the Sixth. But from whom did they receive this unusual power? From the king and parliament on the one hand, and the church of Rome on the other. What authority had the king and parliament over the faith, and conscience, and spiritual concerns of men? None at all. What au thority had the church of Rome? One of the articles framed by this same "convocation" declares, “the church of Rome hath erred, not only in her living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." You would not be willing to allow, that any authority to decide in controversies of faith could be derived from a church, which had already departed from the faith, and which you say, in your discourse, had adopted "ceremonies and doctrines neither taught in scripture, nor consistent with its purity." Although you have attempted to prove, that the true order of the ministry descended through this church, which had so far receded from the scriptures, you will scarcely speak with equal confidence concerning rules of faith. The episcopal church has derived no authority, then, either from kings, parliaments, or any civil institutions, or from any other church. Let us go to the scriptures. Where has our Saviour, or his apostles, given authority to any man, or any number of men, to prescribe articles of belief, and judge men for their opinions? Why should it have been a command of our Lord to "search the scriptures," to "hear and understand," if others are to search and understand for us? If he intended the task of examining, thinking, deciding, and judging, should be confined to a few favoured persons, who should fix on themselves the name of the church, why has he given no intimations of such an intention? This would have secured much peace and comfort to many anxious inquirers, who have thought it their duty to search with prayerful earnestness for the true meaning of the scriptures, and to adopt from knowledge and conviction the principles of their faith. |