Philadelphia, Nov. 15, 1848.
Messrs. Editors:ー
Having in my last communication endeavored to show the unkindness and absurdity of the charge of "hostility to the Anti-Slavery movement," preferred against certain colored churches in this city, I shall proceed now to fulfil the promise, then partially made, of exposing some of the erroneous views upon which I conceive the charge to be founded. I shall confine my remarks exclusively to what has been said respecting St. Thomas' Church.
In the attempt to show that church to be "hostile," it has been affirmed, in the most unqualified terms, that "its doors are barred against the cause of the slave, and to its pulpit are welcomed Episcopalian slaveholders, and slavery defenders." This, truly, is a very grave charge: it places the church in the attitude of active hostility againt the cause of freedomーshe is not even allowed the consolatory plea of neutrality, but is represented as performing her servile task with all that findelity and zeal that characterizes the pampered menial; not content with "bolting," but must see to it that her "doors are also barred against the cause of the slave;" while, on the other hand, "Episcopal slaveholders and slavery defenders" are, with the most profound obsequiousness, "welcomed to her pulpit." Now, assertions like these ought not to have been made without being accompanied with something to support them. But they have been made without the least shadow of proof, which we most peremptorily demand. These assertions are in perfect keeping with the general charge itself, which is founded on assumption. It is assumed, in the first place, that the P. E. Church in the United States is hostile to the Anti-Slavery movement, and that St. Thomas' Church is connected with her in that hostility; hence, the illegitimate conclusion that St. Thomas' Church is hostile. But has it been shown that the Episcopal Church, either in her general or Diocesan Conventions, has ever declared herself hostile to Anti-Slavery? This must be done first, and after that is done, the particular link must be pointed out which holds St. Thomas' Church in the same hostile position. All this must be shown before anything like a strong case can be made out. We shall wait patiently until an attempt of this kind is witnessed. It cannot be expected of us to disprove mere assertions. In candor, we must nevertheless acknowledge, that in the endeavor to expose our "superstitious notions" concerning the church, and the absurdity of excluding from the pulpit all except regularly ordained ministers, we think something of the form, if we do not feel the force of argument, and it may not be amiss to pay due respect to it. "Colored Episcopalians, as well as white ones, excuse themselves for not opening their churches to anti-slavery meetings, on the ground that those churches are dedicated to the worship of God, and that it would therefore be using the house improperly to throw it open for such purposes." This is pronounced a "superstitious doctrine." And to prove beyond all doubt that it is a superstitious doctrine, we are told that "the Jewish religion sanctified times and places, and set them apart for certain forms and ceremonies, Christ found them all in existence and left them destroyed." Quite a new discovery! But I beg leave, with due deference, to submit the following queries: Was not the feast of Pentecost one of the "sanctified times?" and did not the Temple of Jerusalem occupy one of the "sanctified places?" Futhermore, did not Christ, ten days after his ascension, send down the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles and brethren on that very day, while they were all with one accord in one place? How then does this historical fact agree with the assertion that Christ found them all in existence and left them destroyed? It clearly appears, that we have in this instance, at least, one of the sanctified times of the Jewish religion, impressively marked by the Divine Author of Christianity himself.ーFor it must be borne in mind that the Pentecost alluded to, happened to be on the first day of the week, the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday.
Having taken a view of the awful wreck and wide-spread desolation of the "sanctified times and places" that "Christ left," I shall pursue my course in search of additional light on "superstitious doctrines." To show that consecrated churches were never contemplated by Christ in the new dispensation which he established, we are referred to the interesting conversation that took place between our Lord and the woman of Samaria. One design which the Lord evidently had in that conversation, was, to put to rest the question that existed between the Jews and Samaritans at that time, respecting the PLACE where worship should be paid, whether at Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizzim. The Jews held to the former, while the Samaritans held to the latter place. The Saviour, predicting the general spread of his religion, when churches would be established in every quarter of the world, and not confined as then to a particular place, he said to her, "The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem worship the Father."ー"God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."ーWe are told, that "the idea of temple worship is here clearly disclaimed." This paragraph is somewhat ambiguous; I am at a loss which of two meanings to attach to it.ーWhether the worship of a church, or the worship of God in a church, be thee idea clearly disclaimed, we are not here informed. We have the precise meaning, perhaps, in the following sentence; "The house which God requires, is a spiritual one;" that is, an invisible one. This, we are to understand, was the sum of our Lord's teaching to the woman of Samaria, touching the point under consideration. The idea of dedicating churches to the worship of God, is entirely scouted. He designed no other than "spiritual houses."ーWhile I say nothing against spiritual houses. I may, in behalf of visible ones, ask how the conduct of the apostles is to be accounted for in establishing churches in Asia, Africa and Europe. Were their minds enveloped in the darkness of superstitious error with regard to the instructions of their master on this point? And if they mistook his meaning, is it not passing strange that this error was not rectified by our Lord, when he appeared in vision half a century afterwards to the venerable Apostle, John, on the Isle of Patmos? But so far was he from rectifying, that he confirmed the so-called superstitious notion, by directing John to "write," not to the invisible, but "to the 'visible' angels of the seven 'visible' churches in Asia." After the sanction of such high authority, we shall surely be pardoned if we continue to hold to the so-called superstitious notions of dedicating churches to the worship of Godーall that has been said to the contrary notwithstanding.ーFor we cannot but think that the hold apostles understood the instructions of the Saviour on this point a little better than those who would break our heads for being so shamefully deluded. But perhaps the great superstition complained of, lies, not in the dedication of a church to God, but in considering it "too holy to plead the cause of injured man therein."ーNow I readily grant, that if it were so considered, it would indeed be superstition blind. But I deny that it is so considered. The supposition that it is so considered could never be derived from a consideration of the form of consecration itself, nor from the avowed sentiments of those who realize the sacredness of the obligation imposed upon them by the act. That I do not consider the church too holy to plead the cause of injured man therein, is clearly admitted by my animadvertist, when he refers to a canon of the church which prohibits all except ordained ministers from occupying the pulpit. It is admitted here that ordained minsters may plead the cause of injured man in the church, and not thereby be considered as "using the house of God improperly."
This weak point being discovered, and no other resource being at hand to defend it, a desperate attempt is made to fortify it by ridiculing the idea of ordination in the following witticism: "The devil, in holy orders would be received, while Christ, unordained, would be rejected." To hold up the ludicrous picture of "the devil in holy orders" before the minds of the frivolous, might be quite conclusive; from this summary process such a one might be laughed into a full conviction that ordination is the grossest absurdity that can be conceived of. But the reflecting know how to appreciate an argument like the above. They know that no just conclusion can be reached by supposing impossible events. The above argument, stripped of its extravagant dress of wit, would amount to this: A bad man, in holy orders would be received, while a good man, unordained, would be rejected. How conclusive against the idea of ordaining any set of men with exclusive authority to minister in holy things! With the aid of his satanic majesty "in holy orders," ordained ministers are driven to the winds, with one omnipotent sweep. The "bolts and bars" of churches are now spiritualizedーtheir doors now opened as by magic at the stately approach of the "unordained;" who of course, must be good, because they are "unordained." The tables are completely turned. Should the man, Christ Jesus, whom "God the Father hath ordained," make his appearance, He must be rejected, "because he is 'ordained!'" This is the new order of things that must be understood, to prevent "the devil in holy orders" from occupying the pulpit. And here I would say, that while St. Thomas' church acknowledges no "bolts and bars" against the cause of the slave; while she does not consider her sacred edifice too holy to plead therein "the cause of injured man," it is fortunate for her that she has a canon to guard against the erroneous notions that have passed in review before us, the promulgation of which can have no other than an injurious effect upon the young and thoughtless.
If the rising generation are to be taught that such passages of scripture as the followingー"Reverence my sanctuary; Holiness becometh thy house forever; My house is the house of prayer"ーif they are to be taught that such apssages are all obsolete, of no force whatever except in a spiritual senseーif they are to be told that the idea of consecrated times and palces is "superstitious"ーthat "we need meeting-houses," not churches, (for there is a wide distinction between a meeting-house and a church)ーthat an ordained ministry is only a "form" of human invention;ーif these notions are henceforth to form the basis of their future practice, then we instinctively recoil from the moral ruin, desolation and misery that will thereby be the inevitable result. To describe here, would be vain to attemptーa limner is required that can trace his lines with die from perdition's gulf. I drop the pen, leaving the doleful scene to be sketched out in the horror-stricken imagination of your numerous readers. Yours, as ever, for the elevation of our people,
W. D.Douglass, William

The Reverend William Douglass (?-1861) was the rector of Philadelphia's St. Thomas African Episcopal Church. Founded in 1792 by Absalom Jones and the first black congregation in that city, St. Thomas called William Douglass to be its preacher in 1834. Born to free black parents in Baltimore, William Douglass had been an African Methodist Episcopal clergyman in his native city. In the early 1830s he quit that denomination and became the first black Episcopal minister ordained in a slave state. An intelligent and articulate clergyman, William Douglass emphasized self-help as the key to racial elevation in his sermons and other ministerial duties. Despite his response to Frederick Douglass's criticism, the Reverend Douglass apparently feared for the safety of his church building if he allowed militant black abolitionists to lecture there. In 1855 William Douglass married Sarah Mapps Douglass, an important female black abolitionist and educator. Julie Winch, Philadelphia's Black Elite: Activism, Accommodation, and the Struggle for Autonomy, 1787-1848 (Philadelphia, 1988), 157-61; Robert F. Ulle, "A History of St. Thomas' African Episcopal Church, 1794-1865" (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1986), 81-101; ANB, 6:821-22.