and Independency, be "a hearty friend unto the consociation of churches," and that he should make the declaration, "We must agree upon constant meeting of ministers, and settle the consociation of churches, or else we are undone." We need not be surprised that "he would have nothing publicly propounded unto the brethren of the church, but what had been first privately prepared by the elders." We need not be surprised that SAMUEL STONE, the teacher of the church in Hartford of which Hooker was pastor, and afterwards the successor of Hooker, should define Congregationalism as "a speaking aristocracy in the face of a silent democracy."

Connecticut, more than Massachusetts, inclined to a stable, regular, representative church government. Besides having in some churches ruling elders or teaching elders, or seven pillars, Connecticut more than one hundred and fifty years ago established the CONSOCIATION of CHURCHES, each Consociation being expected to keep permanent records of its own doings, for future inspection, in cases of ordination or dismission of ministers, or of discipline. Thus in Connecticut the ecclesiastical government has conformed somewhat more to the civil government than in Massachusetts. It is not arbitrary and discretionary, but representative and constitutional. In the civil government representatives are chosen, and delegated rather than original powers are employed; and continuous records kept by an officer statedly appointed. There is a near approach to this in the organization and functions of Consociations. Connecticut has a written ecclesiastical constitution for the Congregational denomination; just as it has a written civil constitution for all the inhabitants. The reasons for adopting the one were similar to those for adopting the other.

It is true that all the Congregational churches in the State are not consociated under this constitution. It might be profitable to investigate the historical reasons why they are not. It might be instructive to investigate the causes why certain churches in Connecticut, which were once inside of that constitution, are now outside of it. In other words, it might be useful to learn what were the grounds and reason of their secession; whether those reasons were the excessive love of liberty; or an unwillingness to submit themselves to censure when to blame; or an unwise self-esteem, which led them to measure themselves by themselves, and commend themselves among themselves; or the influence of demagogues, who are apt to make light of constitutions, whether political or ecclesiastical, as interfering with their own schemes; or some better reasons.

Again, what were the relations of Connecticut to the several Synods anciently convened in Massachusetts? These Synods appear to have grown out of the conscious weakness of independency, or out of certain movements of Presbyterian Puritans who were disgusted with that weak

ness.

The one convened in Boston in 1662, recommended the consociation of churches. What are the historical reasons why Connecticut adopted the consociation of churches, and Massachusetts did not?

One or more of the Synods recommended the baptism of children under what was called the half-way covenant. Under that practice, for many years, there was a strong desire on the part of those who were in full covenant to offer up their children in baptism. That practice ceased. What relation does the cessation of that practice bear to the present great neglect of that beautiful and impressive ordinance? Why do the Episcopalians perform the duty of offering up their children in baptism more faithfully than Congregationalists?

Why did Connecticut more largely than Massachusetts become Episcopalian? Why did Massachusetts become Unitarian, and Rhode Island become Baptist more largely than Connecticut? What causes conspired to produce the secession of the separatists, or strict Congregationalists? What were the origin and progress of other Christian denominations in the State? As compared with other denominations, is Congregationalism as strong as formerly? What relation do the churches and ministers of Connecticut, at the present time, sustain to Presbyterianism, compared with what ministers and churches, in Connecticut, sustained to it when the heads of agreement by the united ministers, formerly called Presbyterian and Congregational, were assented to in 1708?—or what they sustained to it when the "plan of union" was adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and by the General Association of Connecticut?-or when President Stiles, and President Dwight, and Dr. Strong, of Hartford, spoke of the churches of Connecticut as Presbyterian churches? In the instructions given by His Majesty, the King of Great Britain, to certain commissioners that were directed to visit Connecticut in April, 1664, it is declared, "We conceive those of Connecticut to contrive themselves under the most rigid Presbyterian government." Is Connecticut more Presbyterian, or less so, than formerly?

Secondly, a well-considered and well-executed Ecclesiastical History of Connecticut would embrace the doctrinal opinions and the correspondent conduct, which has prevailed in the successive eras. Under this particular it would be seen, that our beloved Commonwealth, in comparison with any other New England State, is worthy of praise for orthodoxy, and moderation in opposition to extreme views. If there are those who are accustomed to think of Massachusetts as the venerable Mother State of Connecticut, we can say to them, with the most kindly feelings towards that ancient and excellent Commonwealth, pulchrior filia, pulchra matre. Thirdly, A well-considered and well-executed Ecclesiastical History of Connecticut would embrace the several controversies, both external and internal, which have agitated the Congregational denomination from time to time.

Fourthly, A well-considered and well-executed Ecclesiastical History of Connecticut would embrace the results of the system and usages of Congregationalism, namely, the inner life of piety, and the external manifestation in worship and in morals; the revivals in the churches; the labors, the influence, and respectability of the clergy; the schools and the colleges; the Sabbath schools and domestic missions; the orderly habits and Christian courtesies, in social intercourse; those virtues and graces that have prevailed in private and public life, which make men but little lower than the angels; the transmitted influences which make us what we are to-day.

Connecticut has her historic institutions and her own individuality; should not those institutions be distinctly described, and that individuality be faithfully portrayed by some of her admiring sons! Is it enough to have them faintly pictured in the background of a History of the United States, or of New England, or of Massachusetts? Is it enough that she should be placed in the constellation of American States?—or even in the New England pleiades?-or as a satellite of Massachusetts? Is she not herself "a bright particular star," to be gazed at as she moves on in her orbit!

Nor are materials and helps wanting for preparing an Ecclesiastical History of Connecticut. The several historical societies in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and elsewhere, have not only inspired a taste for historical studies, but have collected large stores of historical helps. Among the books which furnish valuable materials, two especially should be mentioned. One of these was prepared under the direction of the General Association, and is entitled, "Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of Connecticut." This does great credit to the Association in the facts which it contains, and in the spirit which it breathes. The other, namely, TRUMBULL'S History of Connecticut, has everything to recommend it to our confidence, so far as the honesty and industry of the author are concerned. It should however be remembered that he prepared the work under great disadvantages. He had been invited by the General Association to write a "History of the United States." While he was engaged in this work, he turned aside to write the History of Connecticut, as a kind of experimental effort. The following are his words: "Had the History been written more leisurely and with fewer avocations, it might have been more perfect; but as it was desirable to make as short a pause as possible in writing the 'History of the United States,' it was judged inexpedient to employ more time upon it. The author is under great disadvantages for historic writing. He can command no time for himself. The work of the ministry, which is his chosen and beloved employment, after all his application, so

engrosses his time, that sometimes, for weeks and months, he cannot find a single day for the composition of history. When he has attempted it, he has been able scarcely to write a single page without interruption. Often has he been so fatigued with other studies as to be in circumstances not the most favorable for composition."

He also remarks, "that about the middle of December, 1796, he began to look over and arrange his papers and compile the following History." The first volume was published in 1797, so that he could have spent but a year in arranging and presenting that part of his work. It need not, therefore, seem strange that it should bear evident marks of haste, of deficiency of materials, and crudeness in their composition.

It should be added that when the whole work was given to the public in 1818, it was objected to on the ground that the civil history is mingled with the ecclesiastical, when they ought to have been published in separate volumes. Indeed the author himself remarks, "It will be observed that the ecclesiastical part of the history is kept by itself in distinct chapters, and comprises about a third part of the History. It would make a volume by itself, and might be printed separately, without derangement of the narration."

It should also be stated that Trumbull's History is out of print. It took one of your committee two years to obtain a complete copy, at the price of eight dollars, though he sought for it in the principal cities. Nor is there a probability that it will soon be republished. HOLLISTER'S would come in competition with it.

Moreover, TRUMBULL'S History, in the ecclesiastical part of it, comes down only to 1760, so that there are now one hundred and four years not covered by it which require illustration. Evidently then from these considerations, it is not adequate to the supply of our wants, as an ecclesiastical history.

There are three divinity schools in the State; ought not the students in these schools to be able to take into their hands a volume which will furnish them with a continuous and connected statement of ecclesiastical affairs in this Commonwealth for the last hundred years? There are three religious colleges in the State; cannot the same question be asked in regard to the students in them, though, perhaps, with less emphasis ? There are several hundred Christian ministers in the State; do they not feel the want of such a book? Are there not many thousand intelligent Christians in this State, and elsewhere, who would welcome it?

If such a work should be extensively read, would not its influence be to render men more inclined to substitute the inductions of the past for the dreams of the present, to repress the overweening self-conceit which leads to a removal of ancient landmarks? Would it not help "to correct that cold selfishness, which would regard our day, and our genera

tion, as a separate and insulated portion of man and time; and awakening our sympathies with those who have gone before, make us mindful, also, of those who are to follow, and thus bind us to our fathers and to our posterity by a lengthening and golden cord?" Would it not help to raise some minds, which live only in the present, up to the full dignity of man, "able to look before and after?"

The General Association has already taken more than one step in the right direction. It has appointed a Statistical Secretary, who has collected valuable materials which are the pledge and earnest of future stores for the muse of history. It has patronized the "Congregational Quarterly," which is replete with historical facts and associations. It has had a historical commemoration at Norwich, and published a volume which does honor to itself, and contains important contributions to the religious history of the State. Will it not proceed to encourage still further a well-considered and well-executed Ecclesiastical History of Connecticut?

In behalf of the committee,

WILLIAM C. FOWLER.

XI-REPORT ON THE CULTURE AND USE OF TOBACCO.

The Committee to whom was referred the overture from Hartford Fourth Association, relating to the raising and use of tobacco, present the following report:

The subject referred to in this overture is one of grave importance, and may well claim the serious consideration of the pastors and churches represented in this Association. It is a subject but little understood by the masses of our people. Very few, it is believed, have any just conception of the nature and extent of the evils arising from the production and use of tobacco. These evils have for several years past been greatly on the increase, and they have now become so general and deep-rooted as seriously to threaten the best interests of the church and of society, Large portions of the richest lands in the State, especially along the valley of the Connecticut, are devoted to the raising of this noxious weed; and no small part of the labor of our farming population is turned to the production of this same article, the whole influence and effect of which is evil and only evil. It would be easy to establish the truth of this statement by an appeal to facts. But this can not be done with any fullness in a brief report, which is all that can be allowed on an occasion like the present. But let a few things be noted-to draw attention to the subject.