posed that in the spring or summer of 1638, the Sparrow came to Quinnipiack, bringing Mr. Davenport's books and household goods, and laden with similar freight for the planters, it may easily be conceived, how the time of her remaining in the harbor might be a time when the friendly debate between Mr. Davenport and Mr. Samuel Eaton, must needs stand still. This is a trifling conjecture; but inest sua gratia parvis.

This pamphlet is the most formal exhibition that I have ever seen, of the reasons by which our ancestors themselves vindicated that principle in their polity, which has been so much condemned and ridiculed. It has therefore an importance as a historical document, which might win for it a place in the collections of the Historical Society.

The last of the six arguments by which the author maintains the affirmative of his question, is "taken from the danger of devolving this power upon those who are not in Church order." "The dangers to the Church are (1) the disturbance of the Church's peace, and (2) the danger of corrupting Church order, either by compelling them to receive into fellowship unsuitable ones, or by imposing on them ordinances of men and worldly rudiments, or by establishing idolatrous worship." "The dangers to the civil State are (1) the danger of factions,-there will naturally be a party opposed to the Churches, and (2) the danger of a perversion of justice by magistrates of worldly spirit." With men who had had a taste of the Star Chamber, and who had come so far to "enjoy Christ's ordinances in purity and peace," every word in this enumeration of dangers had great significancy.

No. II.

THE PRIMITIVE ORDINATIONS IN NEW ENGLAND.

THE statement on page 41, that the act of ordination at the organization of a Church was performed by two or more brethren in the name of the Church, is made with some hesitation, but with very little doubt:—with some hesitation, because it asserts as generally true, what is commonly considered as an exception; yet with very little doubt, because the statement corresponds with all the evidence which I have been able to discover. Johnson (Wonder Working Prov., II, Mass. Hist. Coll. vii, 40,) undertakes to declare how "all the Churches of Christ planted in N. England" "proceeded in religious matters," yet he describes the ordination of a pastor as performed by "two persons in the name of the Church," after which, prayer is offered by "one of the elders present." Lechford's testimony is to the same effect, (p. 3.) I remember no instance in Winthrop, of an ordination performed by an elder called in from a neighboring Church. The Cambridge Platform (C. ix,) says, "In such Churches where there are no elders, imposition of hands may be performed by some of the brethren orderly chosen by the Church thereunto." The language evidently implies that such was the ordinary and regular course in the case described. The authors, instead of intimating that this ordination by a committee is doubtful or inexpedient, only add, that "where there are no elders and the Church so desire, we see not why imposition of hands may not be performed by the elders of other Churches."* If a synod should now say, "We see not why imposition of hands may not be performed by brethren

*The notions of Cambridge Platform respecting ordination were not at the time so entirely novel as some imagine. Archbishop Cranmer was very much of the same way of thinking. "In the admission of many of these officers [he is speaking of all officers, ecclesiastical and civil] there be divers comely ceremonies and solemnities used, which be not of necessity but only for a goodly order and seemly fashion. For if such offices and ministrations were committed without such solemnity, they were nevertheless truly committed." Stillingfleet's Works, Irenicum, 401. So again, "In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a bishop or a priest, needeth no consecration by the Scripture, for election or appointing thereto is sufficient." 402.

in the name of the Church," would the language imply that imposition of hands by a committee is the ordinary course of proceeding? It is matter of record that in the ordination of Mr. Prudden over the Milford Church, (1640,) the imposition of hands was by brethren, though it was done at New Haven, and therefore, doubtless, in the presence of Mr. Davenport. So again in the ordination of Mr. Newton over the same Church, (1660,) the ruling elder was assisted by one of the deacons and one of the brethren. So again in the ordination of John Higginson at Salem, in the same year, (Hutchinson, I, 425.) Can any authentic instance be found, of a primitive New England ordination performed by the officers of neighboring Churches?

Contrary to all the primitive testimony, we have the declaration of Cotton Mather (Mag. V, 42,) "that setting aside a few plebeian ordinations in the beginning of the world here among us, there have been rarely any ordinations managed in our Churches but by the hands of presbyters." This shows plainly enough that the custom in his day was the same as in ours, and the context shows that Mather was anxious to obliterate as far as possible the memory of a contrary custom. It may be added, that the only time when such ordinations were expected to take place, was at what Mather calls "the beginning of the world here." A church once organized was expected to have, and for the first half century did ordinarily have a presbytery within itself, by whose hands subsequent ordinations were performed. Nor should it be forgotten, that the ministers thus ordained by committees were men previously ordained by bishops in England, and that their re-ordination here was similar to what we now call installation; so that those who, like Pres. Stiles, are fond of tracing their sacerdotal pedigree to the English bishops, and through them to the apostles, may easily make out an "uninterrupted succession," notwithstanding these "plebeian ordinations." Stiles's Election Sermon, 59–64.

See

It may seem audacious to attempt to correct the editor of Winthrop; but I may be allowed to inquire whether, in his note on ordination by bishops, he has not mistaken the meaning of his author. (Savage's Winthrop, I, 217.) At a council in Concord, April, 1637, "it was resolved by the ministers then present, that such as had been ministers in England were lawful ministers by the call of the people there, notwithstanding their acceptance of the call of the bishops, (for which they humbled themselves, acknowledging it their

sin, &c.,) but being come hither, they accounted themselves no ministers, until they were called to another Church." Upon this the editor remarks, "Ordination by a bishop in England must have been thought valid, for by that rite it was that all the other ministers asserted their claims to office, as we may see at the election in August, 1630, of Wilson to the first Church of Boston." "But how it should be a sin, yet a valid entrance or admission to the Christian ministry, can be explained only by such timid casuists as humbled themselves for their act in submitting to it."

With all deference to this most learned and honored antiquarian, I remark,

1. That in Gov. Winthrop's account of the ordination of Wilson, not a word is said about his having derived any claims from ordination by a bishop in England. "We used imposition of hands, but with this protestation by all that it was only as a sign of election and confirmation, not of any intent that Mr. Wilson should renounce his ministry he received in England." Winthrop, I, 33.

2. That the lawfulness of the ministry of such as had been ministers in England depended on the implied call of the people there, and was therefore lawful, "notwithstanding" the acceptance of prelatical ordination.

3. That the sin which they so humbly acknowledged, was not that ministry received and exercised in England, which Mr. Wilson did not renounce, but their submitting to the supposed ordaining power of the bishops, which was an invasion of the divine right of every Church to ordain its own ministers.

No. III.

SPECIMENS OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

THE early records of the New Haven Church exhibit the course of proceedings in only one instance of trial and censure, and in one instance of absolution or the restoration of an offending member to regular standing. The proceedings in these instances seem to have been put on record, as specimens of church discipline; that posterity might know both the principles and the forms by which such proceedings were then conducted. That there were other instances of excommunication is manifest from other sources, and particularly from the records of the town; but either by the loss of the records, or the negligence of the proper officer, or-what is more probablebecause no record of such transactions was considered necessary, the Church book, as we have it, is silent respecting them.

For the sake of the authentic and lively pictures of that age, which the two records above referred to exhibit, I transcribe the most material parts of the former, and the whole of the latter.

"A brief story of Church proceedings with Mrs. Eaton the Governor's wife, for divers scandalous offenses which she gave to sundry out of the Church.

"Matters being prepared, they were propounded to the Church by the ruling elder, in the public assembly, the fourteenth day of the sixth month, 1644, after the contribution on the Lord's day, as followeth :

"The elders have understood by divers of the brethren that they do wait for, and expect to hear, what issue the business that concerns Mrs. Eaton is brought to. The elders have not neglected the looking after it, but have now prepared matters for the hearing of the Church. If the brethren be willing that she shall be now called

* He who reads Mather's Life of Eaton carefully, cannot but observe the emphasis with which the biographer speaks of the happiness of Eaton with his first wife. Mather doubtless knew that the second Mrs. Eaton, though a bishop's daughter, was not a comfortable mate.