and profession, is known to every one. Their Platform does expressly dislike and disclaim the name of Independent." Why so? Hear the old man's reason. "The reason why that name has been imposed upon them was, because they maintained, that a particular and organized church has entire power, within itself, to manage the affairs of the kingdom of Christ, and the holy discipline belonging to it, without a dependence on any superior power on earth." Is not this enough to satisfy you that this divine defended the perfect independence of every congregational church? Thus have I said enough to defend my statement, and refute your pretended argument and authority. Letters, p. 134. Review, p. 21. Disquisition on Ecclesiastical Councils, pp. 6, 7. Preface to Ratio Disciplinæ, p. 1.

But since you have called in question the independency of the congregational churches, I will let the Pilgrim Fathers settle it to the entire satisfaction of every honest man. The Puritans originated in England; and what was their decision on this subject? Hear their own explanation. "1. They hold and maintain, that every congregation or assembly of men, ordinarily joining together in the true worship of God, is a true visible church of Christ. 3. That Christ has not subjected any church or congregation to any other superior ecclesiastical jurisdiction than to that which is within itself; so that if a whole church or congregation should err in any matters of faith or worship, no other churches, or spiritual officers, have power to censure or punish them, but are only to counsel and advise them." You also know that John Robinson was the father of the Pilgrim church at Plymouth. And what was his opinion on this subject. Hear the words of his biographer. "He maintained to the last, that every particular church or society of Christians had a complete power within itself, to choose its own officers, to administer all gospel ordinances, and to exercise all acts of authority and discipline over its members; and that consequently it was independent upon all classes, synods, convocations, and councils." You likewise know that the society in Salem was the first regularly organized congregational church in New England. When the first ministers were ordained, Governor Bradford from Plymouth church was to express the right-hand of fellowship. But he was not permitted to perform this friendly service until it had been distinctly proclaimed, "that no inference should ever be drawn from it, in support of the idea, that there was the least dependence whatever in this church upon others, or the least necessary connexion between it and other churches, wherever they might be." You indeed assert, that these ministers had been ordained in England. Certainly. And had you not sufficient discernment to perceive, that this is the strongest possible argument for the independency of that church? They paid no regard whatever to the former ordination, but proceeded precisely as if no such service had ever been performed. You also intimate,

66

that the Plymouth delegation were prevented from taking a part in the other performances, because they did not arrive in due season. You know this is not correct; that no such meaning was intended by the writer, from whom you quoted the passage. But not to detain our readers any longer by your quibbles, I would ask you to look at the decisions of the first synod of New England. These are the words. "2. That none of our particular churches shall be subordinate to one another, each being endowed with equality of power from Jesus Christ. And that none of the said particular churches, their officer or officers, shall exercise any power, or have any superiority, over any other church or their officers." Hear also the decision of the third synod. Every church or particular congregation has full power and authority ecclesiastical within itself, regularly to administer all the ordinances of Christ, and is not under any other ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatever." Listen likewise to the following words of the Rev. Samuel Mather. "And, as these churches assert and claim the right of private judgment as men, as Christians, and as Protestants, they also declare for and maintain the rights of particular churches. For they conceive that every Christian society or church ought not to have any dependence in ecclesiastical matters, nor are obliged to acknowledge the authority of councils and synods for their direction and government, but ought to be governed within itself, and by its own laws. They acknowledge, indeed, that they ought to exercise their proper jurisdiction and government within themselves, with dependence upon our blessed Saviour, together with his Holy Spirit and unerring oracles. But they think themselves by divine right excused from subjection to any other church, though it be a mother one, and that they may exercise an independent jurisdiction within themselves." Listen, finally, to some extracts from the orthodox President Stiles. "We agree that every individual church has the sole power of judging and determining its own controversies. Our churches, to the purposes of discipline, are so many distinct, ecclesiastical sovereignties, in point of power and control, as independent of one another as the United Provinces of Holland to the purposes of civil government. Our churches acknowledge no jurisdiction of sister churches over them; but hold themselves both capable and to have power to determine all matters of difference that arise in a particular church. The constitution of our churches, like those in the apostolic age, is independent, free, and social; and our platforms were received by the body of the churches only as plans of union and mutual fellowship; explicit agreements, in which, referring to themselves individually their independence, equality, and unaccountableness to one another, they united in general communion, in ordinances, pastoral labors, advice, and councils.” Are not these authorities sufficient to settle this question for ever? If you think not, say so, and I will furnish you with as

many more.

Who understood the principles of the Pilgrims best, the Pilgrims themselves, or Enoch Pond? Letters, p. 134. Review, p. 31. Neal's Puritans, vol. 11. p. 86. Neal's New England, vol. 1. p. 73; vol. 11. p. 660. Upham's Second Century Lecture. S. Mather's Apology for the Churches, p. 6. Stiles's Convention Sermon, pp. 34-56. IV. HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

You have contradicted but three of my positions under this section. Two of your assertions I shall not notice, because a complete and final refutation of the orthodox slanders against this ancient Institutution is this day published. If those who have believed your misrepresentations of the College neglect to read this defence from a member of the Corporation, I cannot regard them as honest Christians. And if any individual can peruse this book without conviction and satisfaction, he is not to be envied for his reasoning powers. I call upon all the enemies of the College to study "Mr. Gray's Letter to Gov. Lincoln on Harvard University."

I asserted, on the authority of an orthodox church member, that there was more dissipation at Amherst College than at Cambridge. You affirm that this student was suspended, both from the church and College, and that I must have known these circumstances. Your insinuation is without foundation; for I knew nothing of these facts at the time of writing my Letters. Your very confession, however, serves to establish my position. For I cannot learn that this student ever drank to excess while at Cambridge, before his conversion. Now if the temptations are so great at Amherst, that an orthodox church member must be suspended for intoxication, is it not clearly demonstrated, that there is more dissipation at Amherst than at Cambridge? Letters, p. 144 Review, p. 35.

V. CATHOLICS.

You have attacked two of my statements under this section. In one instance, your correspondent apologizes for his own conduct, but does not deny the truth of my positions; and the other assertion of yours I will now answer. In showing that some of the measures of the exclusionists were worse than those of the Catholics, I asked, whether an orthodox church had not lately excommunicated some of its members for attending another orthodox church;-and whether their proceedings had not been sanctioned by an Ecclesiastical Council, with the Rev. Mr. Storrs at its head; and whether the aggrieved had not appealed to Professors Stuart and Woods. You make three misrepresentations out of my two first questions. I will therefore give you an outline of this most aggravated instance of clerical usurpation, oppression, and tyranny.

The circumstances are briefly these. Mr. A. Hathaway and wife, and Mr. B. Hathaway, belonged to the orthodox church in Berkley, of which the Rev. Mr. Andros is pastor. About two years since they

became dissatisfied, and joined the orthodox society in Taunton. They requested a dismission and recommendation, but for certain reasons waived their application to the church. In July, 1830, the church in Berkley convened an ecclesiastical council, consisting of four ministers and four delegates. The Rev. Mr. Cobb of Rochester was moderator, and the Rev. Mr. Storrs principal scribe. The three aggrieved members agreed to consider the Council as a mutual one, and accordingly submitted to their judgment the following question. "A. Hathaway and wife, and B. Hathaway, will take the advice of this Council in regard to their right to have letters of dismission and recommendation from this church to Mr. Maltby's." Zechariah Eddy, Esq., a distinguished orthodox lawyer from Middleborough, and brother to the aggrieved lady, was admitted as their counsel. Two petitions were addressed to the council by the aggrieved. They asked for dismission on the plea of better edification, as may be learnt from the following extract. "I earnestly hope you will advise that I be dismissed and recommended to the church in Taunton according to my request. I have claimed and do now claim the full benefit of the laws on religious freedom. I claimed the benefit of those laws by joining the religious society in Taunton. I cannot have the full benefit of them, unless I am also allowed to join the church there. I claim also the rights of conscience as protected by the usages of the churches. I am conscientious in my claim; I cannot conscientiously belong to the society here; I cannot be edified here; I get no religious improvement here; I seek better edification."

What was the result of Mr. Storrs? Was this reasonable request granted? No. And what were the reasons assigned? Such as none but tyrants would dare to advance. Listen to his own words. "You assign no reason for your dismission, except that you cannot be edified by the means here enjoyed; and when asked why you cannot be edified, you answer by setting up a claim to have your own feelings sanctioned as the proper rule of your conduct. And this you claim, not on gospel principles, but on those of civil and political freedom. You have also claimed the right of withholding your support from the church and pastor with whom you are in covenant on the ground of law. We interfere not with the law; we are not called to do it; but we do solemnly protest, brethren, against members of Christ's church claiming advantage of a civil right to violate a covenant obligation. It appears to us, that although by such procedure you violate no law of man, yet you would violate a law of Christ, to which you owe higher obligations of obedience; you violate the platform and usages of our churches, and the obligation which every Christain owes to the church of which he is a member. We are under law to Christ; we are bound to walk in covenant with our brethren; and for disannulling the obligations of this covenant, and for being loosed from that law, we ought to assign some better rea

son, than the fact that we choose to be free." Such, Sir, is the reasoning of congregational ministers in this commonwealth, in this nineteenth century!

In the true spirit of this result, the church "voted, that two months be allowed to Barzillai Hathaway, Asahel Hathaway and his wife to return to the church, and if they do not in that time return, they will be considered as disconnected from the church." Here then you have the vote of excommunication. They were not excommunicated, because two months were given for repentance; and within that period, circumstances occurred to prevent the execution of this unrighteous sentence. A petition was immediately presented to the pastor and church, signed by seven of its own members, besides another signed by the three aggrieved ones, to induce it to unite in calling another mutual council, "to consider and advise" on the same subject. These the pastor would not communicate. Letters from the same individuals were then sent to eleven churches, in order to convene an ex parte council. Among those invited were the Rev. Drs. Beecher and Codman. Only five of the eleven dared to attend, and these five not of the leaders. To this body, two most able petitions were presented, one from the church members who disapproved of the first result, and the other from the aggrieved members. From the former of these I will now present you with the following extracts. "Is it, or is it not, contrary to the true intent and meaning of the church covenant, and to the law of Christ; in other words, does it consist with true liberty of conscience, that the churches should give dismissions and recommendations under the circumstances which have been named? These are in substance, that the brother is in good standing, that he selects an orthodox church, seeking, as he says, and as we believe, 'better edification' therein, a church with which we are in fellowship, within a convenient distance for worship, watch, and discipline."-" Professor Stuart in his letter to Dr. Channing, says, 'You accuse us of wishing to use compulsion in matters of religion,' and justly, if we are about to say, 'You shall not worship in our sister church, though orthodox and in fellowship with us; we not only will not allow it, but if you do, we will send after you such punishments as are in our power to inflict.' If we say and do this, how much reason is there to fear, that if we cannot accomplish the object and fail with the terrors of excommunication; we shall soon covet powers more efficient and less spiritual!"—"Christian liberty is the very pivot on which the grand controversy seems to be poised. The enemy is called upon, is challenged to give an instance among the orthodox churches, in which they have desired to use compulsion in matters of re. ligion. We pray God that our church may not be the one in which this instance shall be found." Such is a specimen of these orthodox petitions. Their ability cannot be seen without reading the whole in connexion. And what was the result of this second council? It may be