which have been generally termed Calvinistic, would have wrought out such glorious results for New England.

The sovereignty of God and a particular divine providence,the essential sinfulness of the race,-justification through faith in the blood of Christ, and renewal and sanctification by the Spirit, these are the doctrines that cast man on the divine agency, and stir up his own. These make pardon possible, and move him to seek it. These shake the thrones of despots, and make tyrants tremble. These proclaim the right of religious and civil freedom, and teach men how to use it. "By their fruits, ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Can an evil tree bring forth such good fruit?

In short, the Chief Fathers were not Unitarians, but Trinitarians. They were not Baptists, but Pædo-baptists. They were not Episcopalians, but Congregationalists. And we felicitate the public on the fact that the writers of the volumes before us, are doctrinally and ecclesiastically in the true line of descent from the Pilgrim Fathers.

The six volumes of this series contain the lives of nine of the Chief Fathers of New England. Of these, eight were clergymen, and one a layman. Seven of them, Cotton, Wilson, Norton, Davenport, Eliot, Shepard, and Hooker, fled from persecution in England. Increase Mather, and Sir William Phipps were born in New England.

The two volumes by Mr. M'Clure contain the lives of the first four ministers of the First Church in Boston. The author has made himself thoroughly master of his subject. He has surveyed the whole field, and possessed himself of the richest materials which it affords. His style is distinguished for directness and strength, rather than for beauty, although some of his passages are scarcely surpassed in elegance by the finest portions of Bancroft or Macauley. He abounds in metaphors and images, and is not deficient in logic. His sense of the humorous is exquisite. His sarcasm is biting, and his pen is a perilous weapon to the revilers of the faith and order of the Fathers; and may be, sometimes, a little so to him who holds it.

Besides the interesting pieces of biography which his books contain, Mr. M'Clure has given a valuable historical statement of the ecclesiastical principles of the Fathers, and an able vindication of them from the unjust charge of a persecuting spirit.

Dr. Adams, in his Life of Eliot, has collected a large amount of interesting information relating to the missionary spirit and labors of the first settlers of New England, particularly respecting their Indian policy. This gives to his work an intrinsic value, not surpassed by that of any of his coadjutors. His large philanthropy and love of Christian missions, fit him peculiarly to write the biography of such a man as Eliot.

To those who have been accustomed to hear the planters of New England reproached as guilty of the most mercenary and exterminating conduct in this matter, we take pleasure in commending the perusal of this Life of "the apostle to the Indians."

It was one of the professed objects of the Puritans in coming to this then dreary wilderness, " to win and incite the natives of the country to the knowledge of the true God, and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith." The device on the seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, was the figure of an Indian, uttering the Mace lonian cry: "Come over and help us." The Plymouth Colony early provided by law for the preaching of the gospel among the Indians. The Massachusetts Bay Colony soon followed their example. Eliot commenced the study of the Indian language in 1641; and five years later, began his labors among them at Nonantum. In 1661, an Indian Church was formed. Thomas Mayhew began his labors among the Indians at Martha's Vineyard in 1643, and from that time till 1803, including five generations, the Indian Church there was supplied with pastors from this apostolic family. As a result of these missionary efforts, there were in 1698, thirty Indian churches in Massachusetts, comprehending about three thousand converted Indians, being nearly three-fourths of the whole Indian population.

Eliot is entitled to the honor of being the first among Protestants, to translate the Word of God into a heathen tongue. The first Bible printed in the New World, was the fruit of missionary labor for the Indians. The first tract for the heathen, was writ ten for the same purpose, by Thomas Shepard. Both were printed at Cambridge.

Nor were our Fathers less scrupulously just in their pecuniary transactions with the aborigines, than they were benevolent in their efforts to bring them to the Christian faith. Governor Endicott, in his first instructions from the Company, was required to extinguish the Indian title to the soil on equitable terms. Dum

mer, in his defence of the New England charters, says that the first planters "assured the Americans that they did not come among them as invaders, but as purchasers; and they therefore collected an assembly of them, to inquire who had the right to dispose of their lands, and being told it was their sachems or princes, they therefore agreed with them for what districts they bought publicly, and in open market." It does not appear that a foot of land was taken from them without a fair remuneration. In this matter, the Pilgrim Fathers will bear an honorable comparison with the Quaker Planter of Pennsylvania; and they put to shame the statesmen of the present generation, who, in defiance of treaty stipulations, and of national justice, have waged an exterminating war with the Cherokees and Choctaws.

Between the views of Mr. M'Clure and Dr. Adams, upon the authority of our ecclesiastical polity, the careful reader will perceive some apparent discrepancy. One thinks that Congregationalism has its origin and right in the express prescriptions of the Word of God. The unexplained language of the other seems to convey the idea that there is no such right or prescription to be found there. Mr. M'Clure says: "The worship of the church is to be fashioned after the New Testament example. We have there a fair transcript of the pattern given on the mount, a true copy of the ground plan and elevations." To follow this, would be unquestionably safe. To depart from it will be certainly to go wrong. It is not enough to justify such a usage in divine worship to say that there is nothing in the Bible against it. The truth is, "as John Norton tersely expresses it, there is enough against it, if there be nothing for it.'"*

The language of Dr. Adams is, "With regard to the appointment of any special form of Church Government, it would seem that there is a wise silence in the New Testament." "We may

infer what form of Church Government prevailed under the apostles, though different readers of the New Testament will draw different inferences. This shews that no form is prescribed as essential, otherwise, we should not have been left in the dark, on so important a subject." "Our preference for the Congregational form of church government, is not properly founded on any prescriptions in the New Testament, but on our convictions that

Vol. I. P. 127.

this form is most accordant with the genius of Christianity, and of republican government. But so surely as we insist on Congregationalism as having any divine right or authority, and we seek to propagate Congregationalism with such convictions, we are as surely High-Churchmen and Puseyites as can any where be found."*

Notwithstanding this apparent discrepancy between these two adherents to the faith and order of the Fathers, we are assured on the best authority that it is only apparent. And we account for this appearance of difference in opinion where none exists, partly by the different points of view from which the writers contemplated the subject; and partly from the want of a sufficiently distinct announcement by Dr. Adams, of the object at which he aimed. Mr. M'Clure evidently wrote of Congregationalism, as a constitution or statute-law, and Dr. Adams as a collection of usages, or as common law. As a constitution comprising the distinctive principles of ecclesiastical polity, both ascribe to Congregationalism prescription and authority. As a collection of mere usages, set forth as law, on the ground of human precedent, both would be equally agreed in withholding these from it. This distinction, we think, however, the language of Dr. Adams does not make sufficiently evident. He gives a blow at "a sectarian spirit," which he would rebuke when it "insists on a perfect simplicity of worship," as well as when it "urges the adoption of all the ceremonies of the Cathedral." This is the true Congregational position. Our polity no more consists in "the absence of all forms," than in the multiplication of them. Its essence is that which will give vitality to all reverential forms, and yet is confined to none. With the thoughts which we wish to submit, Dr. Adams, we are confident, would in the main concur, though they may bear against, what at first sight, might seem to be the natural construction of his own language.

We entirely agree with him that neither the Congregational, nor any other form of church government, is prescribed in the Word of God as essential to the existence of a church, or to acceptable worship. But, while we admit that churches which are not governed according to the Congregational discipline, may be true churches, we cannot concede that this discipline has no

* Vol. III. Pp. 62-64.

prescription in its favor in the New Testament, and is without any divine right or authority. Upon what does our church-polity rest, if it has no prescriptions in the New Testament? Is it upon mere human authority? With whom then, does this authority reside? With the fathers or their children? With the Pope or the Pastors, the bishops or the churches? Should Dr. Adams's right to administer the sacraments be disputed, because his ordination was not by diocesan bishops, would he find no "prescription in the New Testament" for the parity of the clergy? Should the government of his church by the voice of its own members, be declared to have no divine sanction, would he not find a warrant for it in some declarations of Scripture? Should his ministerial brethren conspire to constitute one of their number Bishop of Boston, and that one should claim jurisdiction over him, and the right to legislate for his church, would he not meet the assumption by a pure divine independency of the churches? He admits that the Congregational church government, "comes nearer the spirit of Christianity" than any other. But it does not come near enough to receive any divine right or authorization from it. He prefers it because he thinks it is "more accordant with the genius of Christianity" than any other mode. But this, even, is a matter of inference, based upon no prescription in the New Testament; in respect to which, "different readers draw different inferences," and which also, according to Dr. Adams, shews that we "are left in the dark on so important a subject." But are we left in the dark? Is God a wise and considerate Father, and the church his family? And has he left no directions for its government and training as a family?

Certainly this was not the view of the Chief Fathers of New England. No one conviction was deeper in their minds, than that the constitution and principles of church government are laid down in the Word of God. This was the great point of contest between the Puritans and the hierarchy in England. In "The Reasons of Church Government," by Milton, the first chapter has the following title: "That church government is prescribed in the gospel, and that to say otherwise is unsound." The title of the second chapter is: "That church government is set down in Holy Scripture, and that to say otherwise is untrue." This was the view held by many of the English Reformers. They received the Bible as a rule for discipline as well as doctrine. The first