they were thrust into prison, without food, fire, or beds, and kept in dreadful sufferings for several weeks: and probably would have perished had not some Baptist brethren, residing at New-London, Great Neck, carried them provisions. One of the imprisoned was an infaut, carried in her mother's arms; which infant afterwards became the wife of Mr. Stephen Webb, of Chester. Another was an unconverted man by the name of Job Buckley; the prayers, and Christian patience, with which these Christians bore their sufferings in jail, were blessed to his conversion; when they were released they formed a church at Sayville, placing his name first on the list of the constituent members.

In 1744, the Congregational church in Canterbury, under the care of Rev. James Cogswell, divided and a part organized on the Cambridge platform. John Cleaveland and Ebenezer Cleaveland, who were students in Yale College, visited Canterbury and attended the Cambridge meeting, and for this offense they were boik expelled from college, Nov. 19, 1744.

Trumbull's History, vol. 2, pp. 178, 182.

November 23, 1744, the Rev. Mr. Humphreys, of Derby, Rev. Mr. Leavenworth, of Waterbury, and the Rev. Mr. Todd, of Northbury, ordained the Rev. Jonathan Lee, of Salisbury, who had adopted the Cambridge instead of the Saybrook platform. Mr. Lee was a man of distinguished abilities and piety; but his embracing the Cambridge platform was so great an offense, that the New-Haven Association not only refused to fellowship him, but actually suspended the three above clergymen who ordained him, from all associational communion. Trumbull's History, vol. 2, p. 196.

It should be remembered that the whole colony was divided into parishes, and that the law had established the Saybrook platform as the religion of each parish; so that the Baptist was not only deprived of all'enter

tainment, however willing to pay for it, and from all conversation with the people, but they could not preach the gospel or baptize in any part of the colony without preaching in a Congregational parish, and thus expose themselves to a fine of £10, a whipping of thirty stripes, and BANISHMENT from the colony as vagrants.

But notwithstanding all that we have suffered, and still suffer from our pedobaptist brethren, our refusing to commune with them is not a retaliation: but arises from a fear of deviating from the law of our Savior, which regulates this institution; and our design in publishing these facts is not to injure our persecutors, but simply to inquire who has the greatest cause to complain of close communion, and, where in reality is the practice found.

When the church of England broke off from the Roman Catholics they ceased to commune with them and all other sects. A pious Englishman residing in this city, has furnished me with the following information and documents: 'The church of England will not partake of the Lord's supper with any person who can not produce a certificate of his birth and baptism, from under the hand of the parish officer where he was born and the baptism must have been administered by an Episcopal minister, and no other; the church must also have proof that the communicant has been confirmed in the Episcopal church, if not he can not be admitted to the Lord's supper. A certificate of birth and baptism from a dissenter will not be accepted, nor can any one gain admittance to the churchman's communion by it.

No.

[COPY OF REGISTER.]

These are to certify that N. son of N. N. and S., his wife, who was daughter of N. N., was born street, in the parish of

at No.

in

[COPY OF A CHURCHMANS' CERTIFICATE.] N., son of N. N. and S., his wife, was born the day of 18 and baptized the day of as appears by the register of births and baptisms, belonging to the parish of ness my hand, this

18

day of

18

Wit

S. G., Curate.'

The Episcopal confession of faith says: 'And there shall none be admitted to the holy communion until such time as he be confirmed, (by one of the Episcopal bishops,) or he be ready and desirous to be confirmed.' Book of Common Prayer, under Confirmation,

'Confirmation seemed to give as it were the last stroke to perection, and to lay on the top stone by which a person was counted worthy of the name of a Christian, and a participation of the Eucharist; he therefore that was not confirmed, was not entitled or admitted to the Eucharist.'

J. Hanmer's Treatises on Confirmation, p. 21.

Hence Episcopal confirmation is an indispensible qualification for communing with them; and if they admit those whom they have not confirmed they violate their creed. The Episcopalians pretend that they have a regular succession of ministers from the apostles; and, therefore, they have the only true priesthood and church order; they look on the Presbyterians, Methodists, &c. as not authorized to preach the gospel or administer its sacraments, and therefore will not even admit them to preach in Episcopal pulpits; and the British churches will not commune with the American Episcopalians. Dr. J. Milner, went to England in 1836, and Dr. F. L. Hawks, in 1837, but neither of them were permitted to preach in Episcopal pulpits,

because they had not been ordained by British Episcopal hands. We are the only true church, says the American Episcopalian, and if the different sects wish to partake of the Lord's supper from our priests' hands, thereby acknowledging us right, we will not prevent them; but we will not go and commune with Methodist and Presbyterian errors, neither can we, for their ministers are not lawfully ordained and prepared to administer. But after all their boasted Episcopal succession of bishops, they are obliged to acknowledge themselves dissenters from the Roman Catholics, as late as 1558; and if the Episcopalians are the true church, because of their apostolical ordinations, then for the same reason the Roman Catholics are the true church, yea, more than the true church, for the Episcopalians are mere dissenters from the Roman Catholics. But even the Catholics fail of their succession of bishops, for 'One extraordinary event afforded in the ninth century, a ludicrous interruption to the boasted succession of regular bishops from the days of St. Peter, the election of a female Pope, who is said to have ably governed the church, for three years, till detected by the birth of a child.' Tytler's General History, p. 119.

Whatever pretensions Episcopalians make to oper communion, it is certain that their creeds and tenets bind them to close communion, and other pedobaptists know it and treat them accordingly: Our readers have noticed that when we spoke of the ground assumed by the leading papers of the Episcopal church, in this country, in denying the ordinations of other churches, we have always said except the Catholics; and have also considered the doctrine of diocesan Episcopacy, and a distinction of ranks in the Christian ministry as the RADICAL PRINCIPLE OF POPERY.'

New-York Evangelist, August 8, 1838.

Can Presbyterians commune with the radical prin

The Episcopal Methodists are close communion.-For information on this point, we are not to apply to some ignorant individual, or to the disorganizing practice of their churches; but to their discipline, published by authority; to illustrate the facts contained in their discipline, we will suppose that myself and wife resolve to partake of the Lord's supper with the Methodists: we go with their discipline in hand, open at chapt. 1, sect. 22. Of the Lord's Supper.-Question. Are there any directions to be given concerning the Lord's supper? Ans. 2. LET NO PERSON THAT IS NOT A MEMBER OF OUR CHURCH be admitted to the communion without examination, and some token given by an elder or deacon.' We submit to the examination, and then ask what they mean by the word token. Ans. This may certify that my understanding of that clause in the discipline which requires an examination, and some token to be given by an elder or deacon, to entitle a person, not of our church, to commue with us, is that a TICKET, or CERTIFICATE should be given to such persons: signifying that he or she is considered worthy, and therefore is permitted to come to the communion table.' New-York, Oct. 2, 1834, (signed,) N. Bangs. With this instruction, we go to one of the elders, and petition for a token or ticket; he being faithful to his charge, opens the discipline and reads chapt. 2, sect. 6, Of Dress.Question. Should we insist on the rules concerning dress? Ans. By all means; this is no time to give any encouragement to superfluity of apparel; therefore give no tickets to any till they have left off superfluous ornaments-allow no exempt cases, better one suffer than many-give no tickets to any that wear high heads, enormous bonnets, ruffles, or rings? Finding ourselves defeated, by reason of my wife's dress, she puts on a plain Quaker suît and returns, we meet the Methodist, and he now opens the Discipline