its condition. The people of such a community have a right to institute such a form of ecclesiastical government, and appoint such officers, as they shall deem expedient.

The government of the primitive church at Jerusalem, was essentially a government of the people. If we are to follow example, we certainly can have none of higher authority than this. It was a church to which the apostles themselves belonged. If such was the example of the apostles, we cannot be in an error, if we make such our practice. As the church was governed by the people then, why should it not be governed in the same way now? Let the people adopt such a form of government as they choose; but still, let it be understood as resting with them, and not be considered as imposed by any pretensions to divine authority. If they are pleased with the episcopal form, let them quietly enjoy it. If they prefer to be governed by associations, assemblies, synods, councils, or consociations, let them have the liberty of making this choice. If they think it more consonant to the usages of the first christians, and more consistent with the principles of religious freedom, to unite in separate societies, and form such regulations as are suited to their circumstances, let them not be disturbed, or called schismatics, because they think this a preferable mode.

Civil governments, and the conditions of society, will no doubt, in some degree, affect ecclesiastical institutions. The form of church government, which is best in one country, may not always be the best in another; yet in no country, and under no circumstances, can any number of christians justly be prohibited

from uniting to worship God after such a form as they think best, provided they do not disturb the peace of society, or encroach on the civil power.

All ministers appointed by the consent and approbation of the people, whom they are to teach, are regularly appointed; all ministers ordained according to such forms, as the people shall think consistent with the general instructions and tenor of the scriptures, and best calculated to give interest and solemnity to the occasion, are regularly ordained And such persons have as high a commission to administer the ordinances of the christian religion, and to discharge all the duties of the ministerial office, as they could receive from any authority residing in the archbishop of Canterbury, or the incumbent of the Holy See at Rome.

LETTER II.

Reverend And Dear sir,

THE present letter I shall devote to a consider

ation of some of the ceremonies and forms contained in the RITUAL of the episcopal church. You profess it to be the principal object of your discourse, to let your hearers know, "why they are Protestant Episcopalians," in distinction from other denominations of christians. In discharging this duty, however well you may have succeeded in convincing your hearers of the true grounds of their faith, and of the propriety of the forms which they adopt in religious services, you have passed over many things, which, I am inclined to think, the public in general, to whom you have submitted your discourse, will not readily understand, or receive, without a further explanation.

You have omitted entirely the ritual of the church, which, by many, is thought to contain things not altogether conformable to scripture, or calculated to ensure a holy practice. Good men, and pious christians, have seen in some of the ceremonies of the church a strange leaning to the practices of darker times, when infallibility, papal supremacy, and the

decrees of councils, were among the first articles of the believer's creed. They have seen an unaccountable departure from the simplicity of the gospel, and the usages of the first christians.

Two positive ordinances only are enjoined in the scriptures, namely, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. It is to be observed, that in neither of these, are any particular forms prescribed, in which it is required they shall be administered. We are to baptize with water; to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Christ. We have no other directions. Nothing is said about time, place, or manner. As these ordinances were to be perpetual, and were intended for all the followers of Christ, it was necessary they should be such, as could be complied with in every age and country, and in every condition of civil society. But had any specific forms been pointed out, there might be circumstances under which they could not be followed. Whenever baptism is administered with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and whenever the communion of the Lord's Supper is partaken with sincerity, in remembrance of Christ, the command of our Saviour will be obeyed, and these ordinances will be valid, whatever external forms it may be found expedient to adopt in their administration.

One of the mysteries in the ritual of the episcopal church, which needs explaining to my understanding, and probably to that of most of your readers, is the form of baptism. In this ceremony, by what authority, except the superstition of the dark ages, is the minister required to make, on the forehead of the person baptized, "the sign of the cross?" This relic of

ancient superstition is not sanctioned by a single text of scripture, and why should it still be preserved? Bishop Burnet says, in speaking of the origin of this practice, "with the use of it, the devil was adjured to go out of the person baptized;" and Lactantius, "nor can the devils approach to them, on whom they see this heavenly mark; nor can they hurt those, whom this heavenly sign, as an impregnable fortress, defends."* Whether such is the present belief of the church I cannot say, but it is certain, there is nothing in the Bible, which can warrant this singular appendage to the ceremony of baptism, and the only effect, which so unscriptural a practice can produce, is to perpetuate error and superstition.

Another singular part of this ceremony in the bap. tism of infants, is, that persons, who are not the parents of the child, are allowed, and indeed, by a canon of the English church, such are required to become sureties or sponsors for the child.† The American convention improved upon this canon, and agreed that "parents shall be admitted as sponsors, if it be desired." But when there are parents, let it be seriously asked, why should any other persons be allowed to take upon themselves this important charge?

* Lact. Instit. lib. iv. c. xxvii. and Peirce's Vindication, p. 157. It was formerly the custom for the priest to exorcise the persons to be baptized, "by laying his hands on their heads, and breathing in their faces, to expel the devil, and inspire them with the Holy Spirit." See Edinb. Encyc. Art. Baptism.

+ Canon xxix. "No parent shall be admitted to answer as godfather for his own child."