7139 H39 11 "59 c 4 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY GIFT OF Anonymous REVIEW Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029454505 REVIEW TRIBUTE TO THE PILGRIMS, &c., ©entennml ^Xftfvtm, JOEL HAW ES, D. D. BY JURIS CONSULTUS. HARTFORD. 18 36/ EX h-2L2i^'^ PREFACE. The writer of the following Review, was born and educated a Congregationalist of the most radical stamp, and it was not until after he had finished his academical studies, and entered upon the duties of a laborious profession, that the subject of the organization of the Church, ever attracted his attention. Indeed, during the whole time he remained with his brethren of the Congregational Church, he does not recollect, ever to have heard the subject dis- cussed in any manner, by the members of that denomination. About that time, he was thrown among Churchmen, and being de- .eirous of informing himself of the reasons they could give, for what he then considered the most extravagant pretensions, he com- menced reading on that subject, nothing doubting, but that in this manner he should enable himself to answer most triumphantly, as he imagined, such absurd claims. The read;r may therefore judge what was his surprise and astonishment, to find those claims appa- rently well substantiated by the quotations made from the scriptures and the early history of the church. In this dilemma, he applied to the minister of the church, of which he was a member, for coun- sel and advice, and for books in defence of CongregationaUsm. His minister, who is above mediocrity in that church, advised him to procure Dr. Hawes's Tribute to the Pilgrims, ^c, which he pro- nounced " THE BEST DEFENCE OP CoNGKEGATIONALISM WITH WHICH HE WAS ACQUAINTED," and to re-examine the subject* carefully and prayerfiilly. The writer pursued the advice of his minister — procured the Dr.'s book — read and re-read it, and re-ex- amined the works in favor of Episcopacy. He also read works in favor of Presbyterianism, and to put the question beyond all doubt in his mind, procured copies of all the fathers quoted in the follow- ing Review ; examined them in the original, and compared them with approved translations of the same. But with all his predilections, all his prejudices, and aJl his inter- ests opposed to Episcopacy, he was compelled by the weight of ev- idence, to believe in the divine appointment of three orders of cler- gy, with an especial reference to perpetuity. With an honest heart, there could, therefore, be no alternative, and renunciation of Congregationalism, and embracing Episcopacy, was the dictates of conviction, and of course, of honesty and duty. For these acts, he was called to an account by a numerous cir- cle of respectable and respected friends in" the Congregational Church, in answer to whose inquiries he undertook to give in a se- ries of private letters, his reasons for his conduct. But tliis he soon found, would occupy more time than he should be able to devote to the subject, and he therefore adopted the more expeditious course, of giving them to the public, in a Review of the Tribute to the Pilgrims, Sue, which resolution gave rise to a Review, of which the following, so fer as it relates to that work, is only a small abridgment. REVIEW. 1. An Address delivered at the request of the citizens of Hartford, on the Qth of November, 1835, the close of the second century from the first settlement oftlie city. By Joel Hawes, D. D., Pastor of the First Church in Hartford. 12mo. Hartford, 1835. 2. A Tribute to the memory or the Pilgrims and a vindication of the Congregational Churches in New England. By Joel Hawes, Pastor of the First Church in Hartford. 12mo. Hartford, 1830. 3. 2d Edition same work. 12mo. Hartford, 1836. During the summer and fall of 1833, a writer in the Episcopal Watchman, pubhshed in Hartford, and in the Churchman, published in the city of New York, signing himself Juris Consultus, made a thorough and critical review of the first edition of the Tribute to the memory of the Pilgrims, or rather of the Tribute to the memory of their descendants, in which he claimed to have proved by unimpeachable testimony; that the Dr. had "misun- derstood THE fathers, misrepresented the Re- formers OF the Church op England, and Episcopa- cy GENERALLY, WAS INCONSISTENT WITH HIMSELF, AND HAD BLUNDERED WHEN SPEAKING OF HIS OWN CHURCH ;" and in December of the same year, he publicly challen- ged the Dr. and his friends to disprove these allegations by showing, " 1st. that Dr. H. had used no such language 1* 6 as Juris Consultus had attributed to him ; or 2d. that the authors J. C. had quoted were not authority ; or 3d. that J. C. had mistaken their purport ; or 4th. that other au- thors of equal authority contradicted them." Some time after this the Dr. is said to have been ask- ed « Has ihe Review of the tribute to the Pilgrims by Juris Consultus been answered ?" to which he is said to have replied ; " Not to my knowledge. That Juris Con- sultus used me cruelly — most cruelly." Whether J. C. used the Dr. " cruelly — most cru- elly," I will not attempt to decide; acknowledging, however, that if demonstrating the truth of the forego- ing claims, was cruel usage, then was J. C. guilty ; but if truth and justice demanded such an exposure, then has J. C. done no more than his duty; and that it did so, we have good evidence in the fact that the challenge given in 1833, has never been accepted, and the Review never been answered. Under these circumstances, it was with no small as- tonishment that we beheld a second edition given to the public, in the preface to which he professed to have read the reviews of the first edition, and " to have profited by them," and " where he was convinced he had fallen into mistakes, to have corrected them," but which con- tained a reiteration of a great variety of statements which had been proved erroneous ; and that, too, with- out a scintilla of additional proof. If then the Dr. alone was concerned in the questions which his book has at- tempted to decide, we could not depart so far from ev- ery rule of honorable discussion and controversy, as to enter into a detailed answer of charges which have al- ready been refuted, but inasmuch as the majority of the readers of the Dr.'s book have in all probability never seen the review alluded to, we shall give here a brief synopsis of the points which were then refuted and have never been denied, together with references to the prin- -cipal authorities adduced at that time. I. In the first edition, p. 22, second edition, pp. 28, 29, the Dr. says, that " the early fathers, such as Clemens, Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and others who lived within the second century, though they often mention the officers of the church, take no notice of more than two orders, bishops and deacons, nor once intimate that any distinction existed between bishops and elders ;" to which in the 1st. Ed., was add- ed, " but with one voice declare them to be of the same order." In a note to this passage in the 1st. Ed., the Dr. says, " after the author had consented to the publi- cation of these lectures, it was his intention to present, in^ the form of notes a brief argument in support of the above positions with quotations from the Fathers. But he soon found that this would require a volume, instead of a few short notes. He was therefore obliged to re- linquish his purpose and only refer to his principal au- thorities in the margin." Yet notwithstanding this show of examination, the margin contains not one authority, not even a single reference. In answer to this we proved in our former review, . that the statement contained in the above quotation, was a mistake in respect to every author mentioned. In respect to Clemens, Romanus, or Clement, Bish- op of Rome, about A. D. 90,* and fellow laborer with the Apostles, inasmuch as he expressly asserts, that there were three orders in the ministry, succeeding to the three orders of the Jewish Priesthood ; instituted by di- * Phot. Biblio., cod. 113, Paley Ev. Ch. p. 298. 8vo. PhU. 1831. Iren. adv. Haer, L. 3. c. 3, p, 203. fol. ox. 1702. Tert. Praes. adv. Haer. c. 32, p. 213, Ed. Rig. fol. Par. 1G75, Euseb. Ecc. Hist. L. 3, u. 34, p. 120, by Cmse. Vet. Test. De. Ep. Clem. Le Clero Apos. Pat. 2 Vol. fol. Ant. 1698, Lives Popes. Walsh, D. D. 8vo. Lond. 1759, p. 27. Faber Diff. Rom, p. 341. 12mo. Phil. 1830. vine appointment to prevent contentions in the ministry, and that the same were of perpetual obligation.* In respect to Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, A. D. 107, and a martyr to our holy religion,! inasmuch as he has enumerated the three orders by the names they now^ bear, has assigned to them the power and duties they ^ now possess, and declares that " no Chuixh can exist without them."X The same was shown in respect to Polycarp, inas- much as he has endorsed all that Ignatius has said on this subject.^ Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna, and contemporary with Ignatius, and also a martyr.y TertuUian, a Presbyter in the Church at Carthage, about A. D. 175, enumerates the three orders, assigns to them the power and duties they now possess, and pleads an uninterrupted succession in the ministry, as evidence of an Apostolic descent.TI Justin Martyr, whom the Dr. has quoted, says noth- ing pertinent to the question under consideration. The others who lived within the second century and whom, the Dr. says, declare the same things, are Irenaeus Bish- * Ep. Cor. L. 1. c. 40-44 and Trans. Abp. Wake, Paber, ubi sup. Potter on Church Gov. p. 123. 8vo. Phil. 1824. Brittan Apol. p. 65 12mo. N. Y. 1833. t Euseb.'Ecc. Hist. L. 3. c. 36, p. 120. Orig. Horn. Luc. 6. Jerome Lib. Vir. Illus. c. 16. Iren. adv. Haer L. 5. c. 28, p. 445. Le Clerc Pat. Apes. Vet. Test. Ep. Ign. t Ep. Mag. c. 6. Polycarp c. 6. Smyrn. c. 12. Phil. u. 7. Trail, c. 3 and 7, see also 1. Bovird. Lett. Dr. Miller, p. 84, et seq. 12mo. N. Y. 1831. Pot. Ch. Gov. p. 142—148. Britt, Apol. p. 63. Cooke on Presb. Ordin. Sec. 109. § C. 13. apud. Phot. Bib. Cod. 126, see also Euseb. Ecc. H. L. 3, c. 36, p. 122. Cooke's Essay, Sec. 126. II Ign. Ep. Inqr, c. 15. Iren. adv. Haer. L. 3, c. 3. Euseb. L. 3. c. 36. Jerome Catag. Ecc. Scrip. Le. Clerc Apos. Pat. Vol. ii. p. 182. IT De Bap. C. 17, fol. Ed. Rig. Paris, 1675. De Praes. adv. Haer, cc. 32 and 41. See also Pot. Ch. Gov. pp. 154, 176. Cooke, Sec. 185. 1 Bow. p. 84. op of Lyons, and Clement of Alexandrinia, successor to Pantaenus in the Christian Academy in the latter city. Irenaeus who was contemporary A^vith Tertullian and Clement, asserts that in his day the Apostolic Churches were able to reckon the succession of Bishops from the time of the Apostles, and he appeals to the existence of this succession as evidence of the orthodoxy of the churches.* Clement, enumerates the three orders, and likens them to the progressions of angelic glory.f To all this there has been no reply, and yet with such evidence before him, the Dr. has repeated the as- sertion regardless of the contradictory proof The Dr.'s Preface to the 2d edition, therefore, will certainly mis- lead the public, for if, as he intimates in it, he has read the reviews of the first edition, he has made statements he can scarce help knowing to be at variance with the facts. In the first edition, no doubts were entertained, or if entained — expressed, concerning the genuineness of the Epistles of Ignatius ; but in a note to the second, he says, " they should be rejected. Eight of them are al- most universally abandoned as forgeries. And the re- maining seven, are by many learned men and able crit- ics, deemed either wholly spurious, or so interpolated and corrupted as to be unworthy of confidence." It is a little curious that among the Dr.'s list of " leamed men and able critics," vvhose opinions he professes to quote, no one is to be found unless he be a staunch opponent of Episcopacy : but not one of whom have ever at- tempted an answer to the able and eloquent disserta- tions of Abp. Usher on the Epistles of Ignatius and Po- lycarp, or the unanswerable vindication of the former, • Adv. Haer. L. 3, c. 3. Ed. Grabe. Ox. 1702. Cooke, Sec. 130. t Ped. L.3, M. 12, p. 151. fol. Pai-is, 1649. Strom. L. 6, p. 667. 10 by Pearson and Hammond. This, however, is not the only objectional feature of the note to the 2d Ed. His language, the '^ eight epistles of Ignatius, which are forgeries, and the remaining seven," has given us much trouble ; for it is impossible to give it any signification without making^teen epistles of Ignatius, of which eight are universally acknowledged to be forgeries, and the remaining seven by many believed to be so ; and yet " are often refered to by Episcopalians as proving the existence of the three orders, in the time of Ignatius." Now the Dr. could hardly be ignorant that it is un- true ; first that there are fifl;een epistles of Ignatius quo- ted by Episcopalians ; or second that there is at the present Asy fifteen, attributed to him. Now we should be extremely sorry to be obliged to suppose, that the Dr. intended to mistate the facts, or that he has misrep- resented them through lack of knowledge, but we con- fess that we are unable to see how he can avoid both horns of the dilemma. To those unskilled in these matters we would say, that there are only seven epistles of Ignatius in all, which are mentioned by ancient writers or quoted by modern ones, and these were directed to the Ephesians, Magne- sians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and to Polycarp ; but of which there exists two copies, called the longer and the shorter epistles. It was at one time a subject of dispute, whether the longer were an interpolation of the shorter, or the shorter an abridge- ment of the longer ; but this question, though often talk- ed about, has never been seriously mooted since the days of Pearson, Hammond. Usher and Lardner, whose writings have settled the question as far as argument and authorities can settle a question of this kind, in fa- vor of the shorter. II. Again he says, p. 22, 1st. Ed., p. 29, 2d. Ed. « It was the opinion of the first reformers of the Church of 11 England, that there is, according to the Gospel, no dis- tinction between bishops and presbyters," and quotes in proof what he denominates, " a celebrated work call- ed the Institution of a Christian man, approved express- ly by Abp. Cranmer, Bishops Jewell, Willett and Stil- lingfleet, and the main body of the English clergy to- gether with the king and parliament. The pertinency and relevancy of the Institution of a Christian man on a question as to what was the opin- ion of the Reformers of the Church of England, may be judged from a few facts." This book which was drawn up by Cranmer and oth- er prelates, approved by the king and parliament in 1537, or ten years before the death of Henry VIII,* established the most contested points of popery, viz., transubstantiation ; communion in one kind; celibacy cf the clergy ; monastic vows ; sacrifice of mass ; auricu- lar confession, made the number of sacraments seven.^ The composers of that book, proved themselves in all things staunch Papists, except in the single item of the Pope's supremacy. But farther this book which Hal- lam calls a " summary of royal faith,"J is in the opinion of Hume, " to be regarded rather as the composition of the king himself."§ Whether Cranmer can be supposed to have given his approbation to a work of this kind, after he was entitled to the epithet of a Reformer of the Church of England, I leave the public to decide and proceed to examine the case of " Jewell, Willett and Stillingfleet." Bishop Jewell was born in May, 1522, and in 1537 when tlie Institution was published, was only fifteen * l.Bow. Lett., p. 186. Hallam's Constitution, Hist. Eng; vol. i. p. 111. 8to. 3 vols. Bost. 1829. t Bowden, Hallam and Hiame, ubi. sup. t Hall. Con. H. E., p. HI. 5 Huitie, Hist. Eng. vol. 2, pp. 362, 3. 8vo. 4 vols. Phil. 1828. 12 years of age and a member of Merton College, Oxford. He was Lecturer on Scholastic Divinity in the reign of Edward VI. but expelled and obliged to flee his coun- try, on the accession of Mary.* The idea of any approval by Bishop Stillingfleet, is if possible, still more absurd and ridiculous, for the very good reason, that he was not born until ninety eight YEARS AFTER the hooTs, was published. The name of Willett does not appear in the history of those times, nor has it found a place in any of the Encyclopedias or Bi- ographical Dictionaries. But this is not the only blunder of the above quota- tion ', for if the Dr. had read the ordinal, drawn up by the Bishops in 1549, or the second of Edward VI. in pursuance of an act of parliament, he would have there found a recognition of the three orders, with the decla- ration that they had continued in the church from the time of the Apostles,f and in the prayers accompany- ing, he would have seen evidences that they believed them to be of divine appointment, existing jure divino, and independent of human authority. III. Again, p. 23, 1st. Ed. p. 29, 2d. Ed., he says, " Nor is there any evidence that the exclusive divine right of Episcopacy was ever asserted until 1588. In January of that year. Dr. Bancroft undertook to prove in a sermon that the bisliops of England were a distinct order from priests, and had authority over them jure di- vino and directly from God." * See Life of Bishop Jewell, and preface to his. apology. I2mo. New- York, 1831. t 1. Bow. p. 95, from Coll. Ecc. Hist. vol. 3, see also Act of Pari. 2, and 5 Ed. 6, Act of Uniformity 1. Eliz. Burnet on Art. 36, Hum. Hist. Eng. vol 2, p. 405. Hal. Cons. Hist. Eng. vol. I, pp. 382, 404, Hist. Mod. Europe, vol. 2, p. 264, 8vo. 4v. Dublin, 1779. Crabbe's Hist. Eng. Cora. Law. p. 19, 8vo. Burling. 1831. Black. Com. Eng. Law. B. 1. ,;. 11, p. 380. n. 5, p. 382. n. 14. Coke on Litt. Sec. 96, 344. WoodesoHi Lect, on Eng. Com. Law. Leot. 11. 13 In answer to this it was shown in our former review, and is also made manifest at this time, that the ordinal and prayers taught the same doctrine thirty six years before ; and what is as much to the purpose, that in the sermon in question, there is not a word on the subject.* - IV. In 1st. Ed. p. 24, 2d. Ed. p. 30, the Dr. says, that " Calvin, Knox, Bucer, Fagius, Tremellius, Peter, Mar- tyr and others, though foreigners and Presbyterians, were openly acknowledged by the English Reformers as true ministers of Christ ; that the last four vsathout any question as to the validity of their ordination were employed as Professors of Divinity in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and that Knox was allowed to preach in the English pulpits without reordination."f To this our reply was, and now is, that Calvin never was in priest's orders, and never claimed to be, nor was acknowledged, as a minister of Christ, true or false ;J and that Knox received Episcopal ordination. § In re- gard to the others, who were foreigners, it may be re- marked, that Bucer and Fagius never received any thing but accademical preferments, that P. Martyr was or- dained in England by a Bishop, and that all the foreign ministers, who had not received Episcopal ordination, were incorporated by letters patent from the king for purposes of religious worship, and John A. Lasco made their superintendent.^ * Hallam Const. Hist. Eng. vol. 1, p. 504. t Buoer was Episcopally ordained. He was at first a Dominican fri- ar, and was thirty eight years old when Luther composed his new Church service. (Bayle's Hist, and Crit. Die. in'Buoer's Encyc. Am. in same.) t I. Bow. Lett. p. 205. Bayle Hist, and Crit. Die. Art. Calvin. 9 Rob. Hist. Scot, vol 1, p. 338. 8vo. Phil. 18U. Biog. Univ. 22 499. II 1. Bow. p. 204. Bayle H. and Crit. Die. in Bucer's Pref. Jewell's, Apol. Miller's Essay on Ruling-Elder, pp. 123—125. 2 14 V. On pp. 53, 54, 1st. Ed. p. 52, 2d. Ed., the Dr. says that « the first settlers of New England did not consider the ruling elder as essential to the organizatioq of the church." As a set off against this, we quoted the Rev. Thomas Hooker, first Pastor, of the First Church in Hartford, and to whom Dr. H. is a successor, who says ; " That there is such an office and officer appointed by Christ, is plain to him whose spirit is not possessed and forestalled by prejudice."* To the same effect is the language of the Rev. John Cotton ;f of the Rev. John. Davenport; J of the Synods held in 1648, 1662, and 1679,§ and Cot- ton Mather goes still stronger, and says that " the opin- ion that the church needs but one elder, is not only con- trary to the sense of the faithful in all ages ; but also to the law of scripture."|| VI. On p. 32, 1st. Ed., p. 35, 2d. Ed., the Dr. makes Tertullian say, " we do not pray with a monitor reading our prayers out of a book. No, but on the contrary, we pray depectore from the heart, our own heart and soul dictating to us what is most proper and suitable to be asked, having no need of any other monitor besides." The Dr. was publicly challenged three years ago, to produce any thing from Tertullian like the above quota- tion, but has failed to do so ; and gives it in the 2d. Ed. as in the 1st. Ed., without any reference to any authority whatever. VII. On pp. 32, 33, 1st. Ed., pp. 34, 36, 2d. Ed., he * A Sume of the Survey of Church Discipline, P. 2. pp. 6—8. 4tQ. Lend. 1648. t a. and Ans. on Church Government, P. 4. t The Power of Congregational Churches "Vindicated, pp. 56, 81, 94, 112. 13mo. Lond. 1672. § Result Three Synods, Cambridge, Platform, c. 7. g Magnalia, B.5. P. 3. pp. 206—207. 8vo. Edin. 1820. 15 denominates Chancellor King an Episcopalian, " and an able and candid writer." If the Dr. has read all the Reviews of his first edition, he must know that Lord King's Inquiry into the Consti- tution, ^c. of the Primitive Church, was written against BOTH Episcopacy and Independency — apparently to bring the contending parties together on the ground of expediency ; and that it is owing to that book that we owe the existence of the Methodists as a distinct de- nomination,* but with all this evidence staring him in the face, he still persists in quoting him as " an Episcopaliani and as an able and candid writer."t There were many other points enumerated in our former review, but which we will not spend time to no- tice, for until he makes answer to the above, and clears himself from the inferences it gives rise to, he can never expect to be regarded as of any authority, or his works at all relied upon in subjects of this kind. We leave therefore the further consideration of his Tribute, and proceed to examine a few passages in his Centennial Address, in which he appears to us to have wandered from historical truth and accuracy. ♦ Cooke, Sec. 378 et seq. Wesley's Lett, to Dr. Cooke and Mr, Ash- burg. Bishop White's Mem. Prot. Epis. Church, U. S., p. 170. ap. 21. 8to. N. Y. 1836. t The zeal of anti-churchmen has given Lord King's book, a celebrity the author little desired. Influenced, as there is every reason to believe, by a desire of uniting the discordant elements of contending parties, he endeavored to pursuade them to mutual concessions, of first princi/ples, that they might unite on the common ground of expediency. On the first appearance of that work, it was answered by Mr. Slater, a Presbyter in the Church of England, in an Original Draught of the Primitive Cknrch, &c. and in so masterly a manner, as to call from Lord King an ackowledgement of his error, and a promise that no edition should there- after be published with his consent, {Bow. Lett. Dr. Miller, vol. 1, p. 243,) and in token of his respect for Mr. Slater, he soon after presented him to a lucrative benefice which was at his disposal. (^Pref. Ans. Ed. of Orig. DrmgU, p, 41.) 16 , I. He says, p. 18, that " the pilgrims brought out [i. e. discovered] the idea of a free elective government." Before it can be necessary for us to make a formal answer to this extravagant claim, it will devolve upon the Dr. to show that the Constitutions of the States of antiquity which have ever been supposed to possess a free elective government, have been entirely misunder- stood ; but lest the Dr.'s memory should be treacherous, we would remind him of the Athenian and Lacedemo- nian Republics ; the Amphyctionic Council and Achae-- an League ; the conferation of the German States, and the Dutch conferacy under the Stadtholder ; and for the origin of our political institutions, we would point him to the municipal regulations of the country our forefathers left, and we would commend to his perusal, a late work on this subject by Alexis de Tocqueville, entitled " De- mocracy in America" II. He says, p. 57, that "in the Colony of Connecticut Church membership was never made a qualification for civil office." We cannot imagine what the Dr. means by this pas- sage, for sure we are, that if it be understood literally, and we can give it no other meaning, it is certainly erroneous. By the fourth article of the compact of 1 63a, the Governor was " always to be a member of some approved congregation;" which if it was not at that time tantamount to saying he should be a member of some " orthodox church ;" we believe the people so un- derstood it, until the days of Roger Griswold,in 1811. But whatever might have been the intention of the fra- mers of that compact, or what the view taken of it by the people, it was agreed and declared by and between the Colonies of Massachusetts and Plymouth, Connecti- cut, and New Haven, to enter into a perpetual league, offensive and defensive, for the purpose of making war and peace, of regulating the general concerns of the Colonies, and the conduct of the inhabitants towards the Indians. , These matters were to be settled by the meet- ing of the Commissioners of the Colonies, each of which sent two, and who were required " always to be Church members."* III. The assertion on p. 52, that our forefathers " were the tried friends of religious freedom," is so notoriously questionable, that a bare reference to some of the most fla- grant instances of persecution, will be amply sufficient. The laws against the Baptists, Quakers, Churchmen and Catholics, &c. ; the cases of Roger Williams, of Anne Hutchinson, of Checkly, of Gorton, of Rogers, of Mur- maduke Stephenson and Mary Dyar, of William Led- dra and Wenlock Christison, and scores of others whose names are before us, are sad commentaries on their ideas, or at least on their practice of religious freedom. IV. With the pious horror the Dr. vents on p. 44, against the Puritan Patrons, Lord Say and Seal and Lord Brook, we have no concern, since the proposition of theirs was a favorite with those who then ruled in the Colony ;f but we are compelled to say that the feelings of indignation which he utters against Abp. Laud, are entirely out of place, and the design he alledges against him of intending " to erect an established church in this country," destitute of proof, J and that the note in which he attempts to establish the truth of the charge, and jus- tify the laws requiring church membership as a qualifi- * Hutch, Hist. Mass. vol. I. p, 118. Trumb. Hist. Conn. vol. 1. pp. 127, 128. t Hutch, vol. 1; Ap. 2 and 3. t The first settlers of Massachusetts intended to establish an aristocra- cy, and to confine the choice of Governor to the orde* of nobles, or gentle, men. (Hutch. 1. pp. 47, 98. Mr. Cotton's Letter to Lord Say and Seal; and Answers to Wade by Lord Say and Seal and Brooke. Ap. to Hutch. 1.) 18 cation for civil office, is one series of error and mistake. That the object of that law was to prevent the influence of the hierarchy on account of an anticipated commis- sion to Laud, cannot be true, inasmuch as law was enacted within three years of the date of their charter, to say nothing of its being a palpable violation of it.* V. It is not true, as is alledged on pp. 17, 18, that the first settlers of Plymouth were " out cast and despis- ed exiles" or that they " laid the foundation of a new state of society ; of new laws, new governments, new forms of worship ; of a great, prosperous and growing republic." On the contrary, the first settlers of Plym- outh, were a mere company of adventurers who came here to trade with the Indians ; and for that purpose, formed a partnership with several merchants in Eng- land, who were to furnish goods for trafficing, receiv- ing a hhare of the profits ; and they intended rather to establish a factory, than to found a colony. This may sound like strange doctrine to those who have drawn their ideas of the Pligrims who came here to trade with the natives, from fourth of July and Plymouth rock ora- tions, but if such will take the trouble to give the appen- dix to the second volume of Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, a hasty perusal, they will find every word of the above substantiated. VI. The eighth and last point we shall now notice in the Dr.'s Centennial Address, is that to be found on pp. 14 — 18, and which maybe briefly stated thus, "the first settlers of New England, left England because they were persecuted ; and entirely for religious considera- tions." The descendants of the Puritans have so long set up this claim, and the point has, in effect, been so long con- * Hutch, vol. 1. pp. 27—37. 19 ceded, that it seems to savor somewhat of political he terodoxy to doubt ; but our motto is, let truth have its course and abide the consequences. First, then the controversy in England between the Puritan and Churchman, was a political one. It was the question of whether Puritanism or Prelacy should be the religion of the State, that divided the parties ; and this was as much a. political question as is that which at this moment divides the political parties of this country, in their attempts to elevate to the Presidency, their fa- vorite candidate. Second, The Puritans did not desire to he tolerated, their motto was, down with the Church, raze it, froncj turrett to foundation stone. Third, nor would they have tolerated others if they had obtained the ascendency.* There are other points which do not come precisely within the strict letter of the law, but which we cannot now spend time or space to examine ; bidding the Dr, adieu, with the hope, that before he publishes another edition, of the Tribute, or delivers another Centennial Address, he will be sure of his facts. * Hum. Hist. Eng. vol. 2. App. to the Reign of James I. Bilknap's Hist. New Hampshiie, Chap. 5. Sullivan's Hist, of Maine, Ch. 4 Hutch. Hist. Mass. vol. 1, c. 2. Greenwood's Hist. King's Chapel, cc. 1, 2, 3. Maddox's Answer to Neal's Hist, of the Puritans. Review of Daniel Webster's Plymouth Rock Oration, by Dr. Jarvis, in Gospei Advocats, vol. 3. BX7139 MTcf^" '"""' "^^IIMniniMimi'*"'* '° •''^ Pi'ft''''"®' * olin 3 1924 029 454 505