congregation, he certainly had few, if any, superiors among his contemporaries."

"The warmth and constancy of his devotional feelings," says Dr. Milledoller,* "formed a very striking and prominent feature in his character. No person could be long in his presence without perceiving that he was conversing with a man of God, nor depart from it, if he had a kindred spirit, without receiving some new impulse of holy love, and increased fidelity to Heaven. By the weight of his character, and the combined dignity and courtesy of his manners, he acquired an influence over the minds and hearts of those with whom he associated, which is rarely attained. This was experienced by old and young, rich and poor, not only by members of his own, but also of other denominations; and that to such a degree, that it was difficult to come in contact with him, and not feel his superiority. In that branch of the church with which he was more particularly connected, he had, and has left no compeer."

,,,

"Dr. L.," remarks the Rev. Dr. Janeway, "was eminently pious and devout. He lived near to the throne of grace. His gift in prayer was great. He drew nigh to the mercy-seat with reverence; but he pleaded with the freedom and confidence which a child uses with a parent, whom he reveres and loves. He once remarked, that the prayers of an advanced Christian are distinguished, not by going over the lofty titles of Jehovah, but by using the tender appellation of Father.' "For the duties of a theological professor, when I had the advantage of attending his lectures, he was eminently qualified, and second to no man in this country. He was learned and extensively read in theological books, especially those written in the Dutch and Latin languages. With the Greek and Hebrew he was acquainted. So familiar was he with the Latin, that as he once informed me, while in Holland pursuing his studies, he used to dream in that language."

"The characteristic of this venerable man," says the Rev. Dr. Samuel Miller, "which most deeply impressed me at my first acquaintance with him, and which continued to deepen its impression on me, up to my last interview with him, was his ardent, habitual piety. I know not that I ever met with a man, whose daily and hourly conversation indicated a mind more unremittingly devout, or more strongly marked with the exercises of the deeply experimental Christian." "As a preacher, he deservedly enjoyed a high reputation. He seldom or never, I believe, wrote his sermons fully out; and very often, more especially towards the close of life, preached without writing at all. Hence he was by no means remarkable for that terse, polished, rhetorical style of sermonizing, in which some distinguished preachers have succeeded so admirably. The great excellence of his preaching consisted rather in the solidity and excellence of the matter, than in the refinement of the manner. He was generally diffuse, sometimes circuitous in his expositions and illustrations; but generally rich in thought; always solemn and experimental; sometimes in a high degree powerful; and seldom failed to keep up, and to reward to the last, the attention of all classes of his hearers, especially of the more deeply pious."

NOTE. For the greater part of the facts contained in the preceding sketch, we are indebted to the interesting Memoir of Dr. Livingston, prepared by the Rev. Alexander Gunn, D. D. of New York, and published in 1829, in one vol. Svo.

*See sketch of Dr. Livingston's character, by the Rev. Philip Milledoller, D. D., in the New York Observer, February 5, 1825.

APPENDIX

ΤΟ

BRIEF SURVEY OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES AND MINISTERS

IN THE

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND IN CHELSEA, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, MS.,

PUBLISHED IN THE ELEVENTH VOLUME,

CONTAINING ADDITIONAL NOTICES OF CHURCHES AND MINISTERS; FACTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF ANCIENT ECCLESIASTICAL USAGES; WITH COPIOUS REFERENCES TO AUTHORITIES.

[By SAMUEL SEWALL, M. A., Pastor of the Church in Burlington, Ms.]

(Owing to the sickness of Rev. Mr. Sewall, the preparation and publication of this Appendix has been delayed to the present time.)

1. (A)

CHARLESTOWN.

CHURCH OF.

Churches Custom of gathering: Whence.

THE practice of gathering churches distinct from the worshipping assemblies, which has prevailed in New England from its settlement, was viewed by our Puritan fathers, as most consonant with the principles of Scripture. And it was further recommended by the example of the primitive Christians, who did not receive catechumens and persons baptized in infancy to the communion, before admission to the rite of confirmation.1 But its immediate occasion will probably be found in the scandal which was caused by the promiscuous access to the communion, tolerated in the mother country. The Church of England, in her Thirty-Nine Articles, defines “the visible church of Christ" to be "a congregation of faithful men,” &c. And in the rubrics prefixed to the communion office in her liturgy, she requires her ministers to deny admission to the Lord's table to every one, who is "an open or notorious evil liver, or (has) done any wrong to his neighbours by word or deed, so that the congregation (is) thereby offended," till he has given satisfactory evidence of repentance and amendment of life.3 But notwithstanding her declared sense of the proper character of her members, and the above and other similar precautions for preserving the purity of her communion, it cannot be doubted, that from various causes many were suffered to come to the Lord's supper, who were notoriously ignorant or scandalous. The historian of the Puritans, enumerating their prominent matters of complaint against the Establishment in the former part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, mentions the following as one: viz.

66

• Fourthly, They lamented the want of a godly discipline, and were uneasy at the promiscuous and general access of all persons to the Lord's table. The church being described in her articles, as a congregation of faithful persons, they thought it necessary that a power should be lodged somewhere, to inquire into the qualifications of such as desired to be of her communion "4

So obvious were the evils resulting from the free access to the communion here complained of, that some persons well affected to the Establishment, as well as the Puritans, were induced to exert themselves for their prevention. The bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, for example, published about 1585, "some articles for his visitation, which savored of Puritanism: as, against non-residents; for making a more strict enquiry into the qualifications of ministers; and for restraining unworthy communicants.”5′′ Among the regulations for worship and discipline, agreed upon in 1571 by the ministers of Northampton, with the consent and approbation of the bishop of their diocese, the mayor of the town, and the justices of the county, was this: "There shall be a general communion once a quarter in every parish-church, with a sermon. A fortnight before each communion, the minister with the church wardens shall go from house to house, to take the names of the communicants, and examine into their lives; and the party that is not in charity with his neighbor shall be put from the communion," &c. &c. 6 In "the Millenary Petition," so called from a report that it was subscribed by a thousand hands, and presented to King James I. by the Puritan ministers of the church at his accession to

the throne, one article of amendment in the church service which they craved was, that "examination may go before the communion."7 And we read of Mr. Higginson, the first teacher of the church of Salem, that "before he became a non-comformist, (he) professed this principle, That ignorant and scandalous persons are not to be admitted unto the Lord's supper: and as far as he could, he practised what he professed. Wherefore he did catechise and examine persons about their fitness for the communion; and if any persons were notoriously scandalous, he not only told them of their sins in private, but also in publick declared, that they were not to be admitted unto the Lord's supper, until the congregation had some testimonies of their serious repentance." s In view of these evidences of the strong dislike of the Puritans to promiscuous communion, and of their exertions to check or do it away, it can hardly be doubted, that the custom which they went into in this country, of gathering churches distinct from the worshipping assemblies, was designed as a remedy of this evil. Had the measures of Mr. Higginson and of others likeminded within the pale of the church, or any other means of a plausible character, for maintaining "a godly discipline," and for promoting purity of faith and practice in her members, been generally countenanced and adopted; one prominent cause of disaffection to the Establishment would have been removed: and the Puritans might have been satisfied to have had no further distinction made in the great body of worshippers, between the visibly worthy communicants and those who were not, than what those measures were in their opinion calculated to effect. But strict measures like these, though evidently warranted, or at least favored by the articles and liturgy of the church, were not approved by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities of that day, but rather frowned upon and opposed. 56 Hence, it is apprehended, many were led in England gradually to withdraw from the Established Church, and to form separate churches of their own, in which they hoped a salutary discipline might be more easily maintained. And for the promotion of the same and other like ends, our Puritan ancestors, in coming to this country, seem to have had no design nearer at heart, than to gather into distinct churches from the mass of their several companies, all who upon trial appeared possessed of a competent knowledge of the great truths of Christianity, and gave satisfactory evidence of hearty piety, sound religious principle, and correct practice. [Cave's Prim Christ. Pt. I. ch. 8, 10. 2 Burnet on the XXXIX Art. 3 Wheatly on Comm. Prayer, ch. 6, sect. 1. 4 Neal's Hist. of Pur. by Toulmin, Vol. I. ch. 5, p. 258, 260. 5 Neal's Hist. Vol. I. ch. 7, p. 452. Neal's Hist. Vol. I. ch. 5, p. 290. 7Neal's Hist. Vol. II. ch. 1, p. 31. Mather's Magn. B. III. Pt. II. ch. 1.]

2. (B)

Church Covenants, Confessions of Faith, Relations.

The covenant of the First Church of Charlestown, now of Boston, at its gathering, was very brief; comprehending but little more than a solemn consecration by its founders of themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ, and a general engagement to walk according to the rules of his gospel, and in conformity to his holy ordinances, and in mutual love and respect to each other. The same may be said of the covenant of the present First Church, Charlestown," gathered 1632, which was taken from the covenant foregoing, and which, except in its omission of one unimportant clause, is expressed in almost precisely the same terms.2 Other covenants, (as that of First Church, Salem,3 and of First Church, Watertown,4) were drawn up at greater length; specifying, with more or less minuteness, the duties which they who enter into church covenant, do especially owe to Christ their divine Lord and Head, and to one another, as members of the same body with themselves; and declaring their resolutions, by divine grace, to perform them.

The covenants of the early churches of the Massachusetts Colony seem all to have agreed in omitting any formal enumeration of articles of faith: as witness the covenants of the four churches last named; that of First Church, Concord, gathered in 1636;5 of Woburn Church, 1642; and of Old North Church, Boston, 1650. But this omission was not owing to indifference in our fathers, as to the particular religious tenets, which might be preached or professed in the churches which they founded. Its true cause is perceived in attending to the design of church covenants; which was not not to be a test of soundness of faith, but to combine in church fellowship those, whose soundness in this respect had been already approved. The Hutchinson controversy in 1637 sufficiently evinces the solicitude of the first settlers of the Bay to promote and maintain in their churches correctness of faith, as well as purity of worship, according to the Word of God, their sole acknowledged standard for both. Hence the persons who were to join in covenant at the gathering of any church, were always expected to give previous satisfaction concerning their sentiments of belief both to one another, and to those elders and messengers of other churches who might be present, and from whom they hoped to receive the right hand of fellowship, in token of their acknowledging them to be a true church of Christ. This satisfaction they were wont to give, in some instances, by subscribing or solemnly assenting to a written confession of faith. Thus, "the religious people at Salem designing to settle in a church state," Mr. Higginson at their request drew up

"a Confession of Faith and Church Covenant according to Scripture;" of which thirty copies were transcribed, one for each of the thirty persons, who were to " 'begin the church" and August 6th, 1629, "the appointed Day being come, after the Prayers and Sermons of the two Ministers; in the End of the Day the said Confession and Covenant being read in the Publick Assembly, are solemnly consented to; and they immediately proceed to ordain their Ministers," &c. &c. In other instances, an oral declaration of their Christian belief, by those who were to enter into church covenant, without reference to any particular confession of faith, as a standard, seems to have been deemed sufficient: as witness the accounts of gathering the churches of Cambridge and Woburn, cited presently below.

At the gathering of a church, the persons who proposed to join in covenant, were likewise required, at an early period of the history of the Colony, to make a declaration of their Christian experience. And for failing to give satisfaction on this point to the magistrates and elders convened on the occasion, the founders of the present First Church, Dorchester, in their attempt to be gathered into a church state, April 1, 1636, were for a while deferred, though their confession of faith had been approved.9

The following quotations serve to illustrate the early usages of New England, especially with regard to the points foregoing, at the gathering of churches. The first is an account of the embodying of the present First Church, Cambridge, February 1st, 1636, the original church under Rev. Messrs. Hooker and Stone being then about to remove to Hartford, Ct. "1635. Mo. 12. 1. [the year then beginning with March.] Mr. Shepherd, a godly minister, come lately out of England, and divers other good Christians, intending to raise a church body, came and acquainted the magistrates therewith, who gave their approbation. They also sent to all the neighbouring churches for their elders to give their assistance, at a certain day, at Newtown, when they should constitute their body. Accordingly, at this day, there met a great assembly, where the proceeding was as followeth Mr. Shepherd and two others (who were after to be chosen to office,) sate together in the elders' seat. Then the elder of them began with prayer. After this, Mr. Shepherd prayed with deep confession of sin, &c. and exercised out of Eph. v.that he might make it to himself a holy,' &c., and also opened the cause of their meeting, &c. Then the elder desired to know of the churches assembled, what number were needful to make a church, and how they ought to proceed in this action. Whereupon some of the ancient ministers, conferring shortly together, gave answer, That the Scripture did not set down any certain rule for the number. Three (they thought) were too few, because by Matt. xviii. an appeal was allowed from three; but that seven might be a fit number. And, for their proceeding, they advised, that such as were to join should make confession of their faith, and declare what work of grace the Lord had wrought in them; which accordingly they did, Mr. Shepherd first, then four others, then the elder, and one who was to be deacon, (who had also prayed,) and another member. Then the covenant was read, and they all gave a solemn assent to it. Then the elder desired of the churches, that, if they did approve them to be a church, they would give them the right hand of fellowship. Whereupon Mr. Cotton, (upon short speech with some others near him,) in the name of their churches, gave his hand to the elder, with a short speech of their assent, and desired the peace of the Lord Jesus to be with them. Then Mr. Shepherd made an exhortation to the rest of his body, about the nature of their covenant, and to stand firm to it, and commended them to the Lord in a most heavenly prayer. Then the elder told the assembly, that they were intended to choose Mr. Shepherd for their pastor, (by the name of the brother who had exercised,) and desired the churches, that, if they had any thing to except against him, they would impart it to them before the day of ordination. Then he gave the churches thanks for their assistance, and so left them to the Lord."9 And very similar to these were the proceedings at the gathering of Woburn Church in 1642, according to Johnson, whose account of them, (written in 1651,10) is professedly given as a specimen of all transactions of this nature in New England at that day. After Rev. Mr. Symmes of Charlestown "had continued," saith he, "in preaching and prayer about the space of four or five houres, the persons that were to joyn in Covenant- -stood forth, and first confessed what the Lord had done for their poor souls, by the work of his Spirit in the preaching of his Word, and Providences, one by one; (and that all might know their faith in Christ was bottomed upon him, as he is revealed in his Word, and that from their own knowledg) they also declare the same, according to that measure of understanding the Lord had given them; the Elders, or any other messengers there present question with them, for the better understanding of them in any points they doubt of, which being done, and all satisfied, they in the name of the Churches to which they do belong, hold out the right hand of fellowship unto them, they declaring their Covenant, in words expressed in writing to this purpose," &c. &c.

For admission to a church already gathered, nearly the same prerequisites were expected of candidates, as had been originally of those members by whom it was embodied. Those, as well as these, were required from the beginning to express their assent to the

11

covenant, and to give satisfaction concerning their faith; and to these requirements was soon added an account of their religious experience. And accordingly, among the preliminaries at gathering the Church of Charlestown, afterwards First Church, Boston, July 30, 1630, we find these: "Not to proceed rashly, on the day of entering into covenant, to the choice of officers, or to the admission of any into their Society, except a few that were well known to each other; but to receive in afterwards such by Confession of Faith, as shall appear to be fitly qualified."1 And this proposed rule was subsequently adopted by this church. For at the admission of Rev. Mr. Cotton, Sept. 1633, "he signified his desire and readiness to make his confession, according to order."9 And April 20, 1634, “John Coggeshall, gentleman, being dismissed from the church of Roxbury to Boston, though he were well known and approved of the church, yet was not received but by confession of his faith," &c. The covenant however, to which the assent of those who would join the church was demanded, was not always the original one, (the covenant of foundation, as it may be termed,) but in some instances, a form more or less diverse from that, and described, by way of distinction, as the covenant of admission,2 or otherwise, as the covenant of communion. As to the confession or declaration of their faith, likewise, the way of making it seems not to have been uniform. "No man scarce ever doubted," says Mather, "that communicants must be examined about their orthodoxy." 12 And yet in the manner of their giving the church satisfaction respecting it, there is reason to suppose there was some variety. Candidates for admission were required in some churches to subscribe to a written confession of their faith. Concerning the ancient church of Watertown, for instance, Mather having finished his account of its gathering in 1630, observes, "In after time, they that joined unto the church, subscribed a form of the covenant, somewhat altered," (that is, a covenant of admission,) "with a confession of faith annexed unto it."4 In the church of Salem, public express assent to the church's confession of faith was required at admission in some instances, but apparently not in all. "As for the circumstances of admission into this church," (viz. First Church, Salem, 1629,) "they left it very much unto the discretion and faithfulness of their elders, together with the condition of the persons to be admitted. Some were admitted by expressing their consent unto their confession and covenant; some were admitted after their first answering to questions about Religion, propounded unto them; some were admitted when they had presented in writing such things, as might give satisfaction unto the people of God concerning them; and some that were admitted, orally addressed the people of God in such terms, as they thought proper to ask their communion with; which diversity was perhaps more beautiful, than would have been a more punctilious uniformity; but none were admitted without regard unto a blameless and holy conversation. They did all agree with their brethren of Plymouth in this point: That the children of the faithful were church members with their parents; and that their baptism was a seal of their being so; only before their admission to fellowship in a particular church, it was judged necessary, that being free from scandal, they should be examined by the elders of the church, upon whose approbation of their fitness, they should publickly and personally own the covenant; so they were to be received unto the table of the Lord: and accordingly the eldest son of Mr. Higginson, being about fifteen years of age, and laudably answering all the characters expected in a communicant, was then so received." 3

The above statements from the Magnalia respecting the diversity observable in the circumstances of admission to the church of Salem, seem very agreeable to the following account of an admission into that church in 1677. It is copied from the manuscripts of William Gibbs, Esq. formerly of Salem, now of Lexington; and presents internal evidence of having been taken originally from the records of Salem First Church. "1677. July 29. Mr. Lindall having stood propounded above a moneth, was admitted unto Church Membership with consent of ye Brethren on ye Lords day after ye Sermon. He expressing he had not an audible voyce gave in a paper containing his profession of Faith and Repentance desir-g it to be read for him, wch was done by ye Pastor."

Respecting declarations of Christian experience, or Relations, (as they used to be called) as a prerequisite to admission into the church, some, according to Mather, gave in his day the following account of their origin in this country. "They say, that instead of having any divine precept for the bottom of this practice, there is no bottom at all for it, but this, that it has been a practice. The first churches of New England began only with a profession of assent and consent unto the confession of faith, and the covenant of communion. Afterwards, they that sought for the communion, were but privately examined about a work of grace in their souls by the elders, and then publickly propounded unto the congregation, only that so, if there were any scandal in their lives, it might be objected and considered. But in the year 1634, one of the brethren having leave to hear the examination of the elders, magnified so much the advantage of being present at such an exercise, that many others desired and obtained the like leave to be present at it; until, at length, to gratifie this useful curiosity, the whole church always expected the liberty of being thus particularly acquainted with the religious dispositions