limits. Many of these quotations may be found in the notes subjoined to "An Inquiry into the right to change the Ecclesiastical Constitution of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts." Published by Wells and Lilly, 1816.

II. There is one representation of the author of the statement on the Dedham ordination, which we choose to set apart as preeminent in its injustice and want of truth. Referring to the second ex parte council, called by 18 persons of the "church" in Dedham, the author says, "We are authorized to say that they (the council) had but one opinion as to the irregularity and inexpediency of Mr. Lamson's ordination."

It is obvious, that as eight members of that council voted against the result, this assertion could only be founded on private declarations of the dissenters. Now we undertake to say, that this is wholly untrue, and that those who dissented neither expressed nor entertained any such opinion. Our authority is derived from those who have conversed with them, and they declare this representation to be utterly unfounded. It is precisely in character with all the other calumnious insinuations of this writer.

III. We have expressed a doubt as to the manner in which the case at Middleborough terminated. We have since ascertained that the parish succeeded in settling a minister against the will of, the church. It is not a proof merely, as the author we are reviewing considers, that men will violate the law, but it is a proof that the law was unsettled; and to render this more certain, we will cite the case of the Brattle Street church in Boston, which, from its foundation, has asserted and maintained the rights for which we contend. In elections there has never been a distinction, for more than a century, between the church and the parish, or ordinary worshippers, and yet they have never been out of communion on account of their liberality. What names have we more venerable than those of Colman, Cooper, Thacher and Buckminster?

IV. This sentiment for which we have been contending, is not of recent date, and ought not to startle weak minds on account of its novelty.

Cotton Mather, in his Ratio Disciplinæ, more than a century ago, admits that the right claimed by the church was odious and offensive. He says, "though the law of the province about choosing and settling a minister be a very wholesome law, and has much of the gospel in it, yet, there grows too much upon the inhabitants who are not yet come into the communion, a disposition to supersede it and overrule it. Many people would not allow the church any privilege to go before them in the choice of a pastor. The clamour is, we must maintain him."

66

And we ask what more reasonable clamour? Especially if he had added the nobler, less mercenary, and probably the true ground,-"We must hear him, whether we like his opinions or not. Be he wise or foolish; illiterate or learned: teach he truth or falsehood, we must, during his life, be compelled to hear him." Is it strange that men have struggled for a century to recover this right? Or is it not rather strange, that from the incipient opposition to the arrogant pretensions of the church in 1710, we have never succeeded in getting the principle settled in our favour?

V. We had resolved not to extend our notes beyond those inserted above, yet having met with some ancient tracts publish-® ed in New England, which fully confirm all the doctrines we have laid down, and have the additional value of puritanical authority, in support of those of the early fathers, and of chancellor King, we ought not to withhold them.

The first are taken from an authoritative work; (so far as authority can be given to a work in an age of imperfect light ;) it is entitled "Propositions concerning the subject of Baptism, &c." by a synod of elders and messengers of churches in Massachusetts, in 1662; assembled by appointment of the general court, and by the general court recommended to the consideration of all the churches.

We cite it merely to shew, that our views with regard to those who are church members, and who were so considered in early times, conform to the ideas of the synod of 1662; fourteen years after the Platform.

They begin with this catholic sentiment, for maintaining which, the liberal clergy are now so often abused by the self-styled orthodox.

"That in matters of religion, not so much what hath been practised or held, as what should be, and what the word of God prescribes ought to be our inquiry or rule. The people in Nehemiah's time are commended for doing as they found written in the law, though from the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day the children of Israel had not done so. Neh. viii. 14. So in 2 Chron. xxx. 5. 26: 2 Kings xxiii. 21, 22. They did not tye themselves to former use and custom, but to the rule of God's written word, and so should we."

To the support of our doctrine, the synod cite Mr. Hooker. "Suppose a whole congregation should consist of such who were children to parents now deceased, who were confederate; their children were true members according to the rules of the gospel, by the profession of their father's covenant, THOUGH they should

2

not make any personal and vocal expression of their engagement as their fathers did." Hooker's Survey, part I, p. 48.

It would be impossible for us to dictate to the learned Hooker were he alive, words more apposite to our argument. And are we not all in this age the children of confederate parents?

But it may be said this extends to ONE generation only. No; "We maintain that the believing parent covenants and confesseth for himself and his posterity." Same author, part 3, p. 25.

Mr. Philips, speaking of a people made partakers of God's covenant, and all the privileges outwardly belonging thereto, saith, "Themselves and all that ever proceed from them, continue in the same state, parents and children successively, so long as the Lord continues the course of his dispensation." Philip's reply, 1. p. 126.

Again, "A company became, or are a church, either by conversion, or institution, or by continuance of the same constituted churches successively by propagation of members who are all born in the church state, and belong unto the church, and are 'a church' successively so long as God shall continue his dispensation, EVEN AS WELL and as FULLY AS THE FIRST." Same work of Philips, p. 145.

66

"Mr. Shepard, in defence of the nine positions, page 143, hath this expression," "concerning the infants of church members; they are subject to censures whensoever they offend the church, as others are ;" and in 1649, in a letter to a friend, he says, concerning the membership of children, which he proveth by sundry arguments, that they are members, and sheweth at large what great good there is in children's membership. In which discourses he asserteth, that as they are members in their infancy, so they continue members when they are grown up till for their wickedness they be cast out."

This writer adds, what many would hardly dare to say even in this liberal age, "That there is as much danger (if not more) of the degenerating and apostatizing of churches gathered of professing believers, as of those that rise out of the seed of

such."

How could our present system of exclusion, and aristocratical pretensions have grown up in a church, in which a synod, after the platform, published such scriptural truths? Is it not time to vindicate the rights of believers, and to remove the stumbling blocks which keep so many away from the table of our Lord?

"Mr. Prudden also is cited, as having written in 1651, three years after the Platform, "that the children of church members,

are members;" which he supports by an abundance of argument and authority.

Mr. Nathi. Rogers, in a letter, 1652, says, "To the question concerning the children of church members, I have nothing to oppose, and I wonder any should deny them to be members too."

From these authorities, which the synod cite as their justification, they conclude, "That it was the judgment of those worthies in their time, that the children of church members are members of the church as well as their parents, and do not cease to be members by becoming adult, until in some way of God they be cast out; and that they are subject to church discipline." It is true that there is an intimation, that though church members, they are required to own the covenant before they are admitted to a particular rite, the communion; yet this does not impair their civil or other ecclesiastical rights. They are members of the church, and have all the privileges of other members in the transaction of its affairs. If subject to its discipline they must be entitled to the exercise of its powers. To be church + members, and yet not church members, would be an absurdity. This synod completely supports our doctrine, that the church, corporately considered, includes all professing christians, and their descendants. Hooker's authority first cited, is the fullest, and states explicitly, "that a whole society, (in which there is not a single man who has made a personal and vocal profession) but whose parents were in covenant, are true members of the church."

The question is therefore we conceive, at rest. It seems however that the doctrine of this synod was attacked by the Baptists, and was most elaborately defended in another tract by sundry elders of the synod of 1662.

This work has the fault of its age, of proving what no man could deny, and of believing that in the multitude of words there is wisdom. There is only one part we shall quote, because it puts an end to a possible objection, that might be started, that the descendants of church members could not exercise all the rights of church members without a personal engagement.

The Baptists pressed them with this difficulty; "If your children are ipso facto members, then if all the parents should die, they, the children, though not expressly admitted, be entitled to a vote in church affairs, which you now deny to them."

Our congregational ancestors were not puzzled or appalled at this objection. They boldly replied, as we contend at the present day. "But we say that this second generation, continuing in a visible profession of the covenant, faith, and religion of their fa

thers, are a true church of Christ, though they have not yet made any explicit personal expression of their engagement as their fathers did."

ARTICLE X.

A Sermon, exhibiting some of the principal doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, by which that Church is distinguished from other denominations of Christians; by WILLIAM EDWARD WYATT, A. M. Associate Minister of St. Paul's parish, and professor of Theology in the University of Maryland. Baltimore. Joseph Robinson. pp.

44.

Letters on the ministry, ritual, and doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church; addressed to the Rev. Wm. E. Wyatt, D. D. Associate Minister of St. Paul's parish, Baltimore, and Professor of Theology in the University of Maryland; in reply to "a Sermon exhibiting some of the principal doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States;" by JARED SPARKS, A. M. Minister of the First Independent Church of Baltimore. Baltimore, N. G. Maxwell. pp. 268.

SINCE Episcopacy sustained in 1763, the formidable assault of Dr. Mayhew, and to shield it, the rector of Cambridge and the archbishop of Canterbury interposed alike in vain, it has made no progress among us, such as could be satisfactory to its friends. The writings of that admirable man gave the alarm through New-England, and awoke the old congregational spirit. The measures of the English society* were disconcerted; and it was fain to turn again to the new settlers and the Indians, and leave the descendants of Puritans to take care of themselves. The revolution succeeding, of course did the cause of the English establishment no good; and the most important incident in its history, among us, since that time, is the separation from it, and open avowal of Unitarian sentiments, of one of the principal churches in its communion.

In other parts of the country it has been different. In NewYork, the rich endowment of Trinity, and, of late, the exertions of an active individual, have given a currency to Episcopal peculiarities, and church has pursued log-house with no

* Our readers are aware that the writings of Dr. Mayhew referred to, were occasioned by the society established under king William, "for the propagation of the gospel in foreign parts," having engaged in proselyting operations in New-England.