vate. His teaching daily in the school was incompatible with his spending much time in private houses. He always chose the most open manner of teaching. He never imitated those seducers who creep into private houses.

July, 1782. I was an instrument of rescuing two children from the jaws of death.

Riding out in the early part of the day, I turned to the river to water my horse. In the river and contiguous to the shore, I saw, at some distance, a raft of boards, on which a young girl, with an infant child in her arms, was diverting herself. Apprehensive that she might be in danger, I determined, that, when my horse had drank, I would ride to her, and warn her to depart. Scarcely had the purpose taken place, before I heard a shriek, and saw her fall from the upper side of the raft into the river. I hastened to the place, at the same time calling for help. At the place where she fell I could make no discovery. Instantly passing to the down stream side, I saw her fingers holding by the last and undermost board. I threw myself down, seized her arm, raised her head above water when I joyfully saw the infant under her other arm. Lest she should lose it, I took it from her, and reached it to a woman, who by this time had come upon the raft. I then drew out the girl, who was able to stand, and soon able to speak. They belonged to a family who lived near the river. In the evening I visited the family, and endeavored to lead them, and especially the girl, to a proper improvement of the danger and deliverance.

April 23, 1784, died Rev. R. Breck, of Springfield, aged 71. He had been a patron and father to me, and his friendship continued to his death. He endured a long and grievous.sickness with patience, and met death with resignation and hope. Agreeably to his desire, expressed to me a few weeks before his death, I delivered a discourse at his funeral, which was published at the request of his affectionate people.

After the war with Britain had ceased, and a stable medium was restored, I advised my people to make a settlement of the arrears due to me, which probably might be done in my life time, more easily than after my decease. A considerable sum found in arrear, I remitted with only this precaution, that in future my salary should be kept good in substance, as well as in name. Where a remission is made on condition only of future justice, it may be considered as an absolute gratuity. The parish voted their thanks. I knew how delicate a matter it was to call up old arrears. I was sensible, that in most societies, there were some, who could not see, and some who would not effectually feel the obligations of justice in social transactions. I considered that my own, and my wife's patrimony, not yet wholly expended, though somewhat reduced, afforded a prospect of a comfortable subsistence without the arrears due from the parish; and I felt a disposition rather to make a sacrifice of private property, than of social tranquillity. I would not purchase a parish; but when I had one, I would make some sacrifice to preserve it from ruin. Some of my people told me I relinquished too much. It might naturally be believed, that these would not appropriate any benefit from the relinquishment. What sacrifice a minister ought to make in the cause of the gospel, can be determined by no fixed rule. It is a matter of discretion. He is not bound to do same worldly ability, ought to do; but he is

more, than

every other man, of the

bound to do more than

almost any other man will do. They who urge the necessity of disinterestedness in ministers, when they themselves act with unvarying selfishness, are guilty of palpable hypocrisy. True reli gion must be the same in all.

April 27, 1787, died my eldest son, Solomon, as he had just entered his 28th year. The strict virtue of his life, his exemplary patience through a long and tedious sickness, his calm resignation and humble hope in the view of approaching death, gave sweet

consolation to his parents and friends under an affliction which was deeply felt.

April 27, 1789, the family had an evening no less distressing, than that in which my son, just two years before, closed this mortal scene.

Mrs. Lathrop, for some time, had been afflicted with rheumatic complaints, which concentrated in her breast, and were attended with excruciating pains, and violent, but fruitless efforts to vomit. In one of those efforts, on the morning of this day, she vomited nearly a pint of blood. She was weakened by the discharge, but still able to walk her room. In the evening, as she lay on her bed, the physicians and some other company being with the family in her room, she gave notice, that she felt the blood flowing in her stomach, and should soon vomit. Immediately a copious hemorrhage ensued. The blood issued in as full a current, as could be discharged from her mouth, until the fountain seemed to be exhausted. She fainted-she ceased to breathe-her eyes were closed-her limbs were motionless. I viewed her as gone— gone to return no more. But God had mercy in reserve for us. In a short time she breathed-she moved a hand-she opened her eyes-she spake. How refreshing was the voice! Still for many days her case appeared desperate-more than once we thought her dead. We experienced great attention from our neighbors, who felt with me, and mourned the anticipated loss of one whom they esteemed and loved. She enjoyed the comforts of religion, and seemed to choose a present removal to a better world, rather than a return to this. In a few months she was able to bear the motion of a carriage; in about four years she regained a considerable degree of strength.

In 1791, I was honored with the degree of doctor in divinity from the university, in which I received my education. This I

valued as a token of respect from my literary friends; but it added nothing to the merit of the recipient.

In 1792, I was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

In 1793, I was elected a professor of divinity in the university in which I was educated.

Here was an important question to be decided. If I should accept the appointment, I became entitled to a salary double in value to that which I received from my parish; could expect an honorable maintenance, and perhaps a surplus for the benefit of my family; my labours would be lightened, as for nearly three months in the year I should be excused from service; I might be under the best advantages for mental improvement; could have daily access to learned company; and should be placed in a sphere of extensive usefulness and high respectability. On the other hand; I had now passed the age of sixty; it would be a new sphere of action, to which, at that time of life, it might be difficult to accommodate myself; I must break connections, which time had rendered strong and agreeable; my parish was in a critical state, being under the necessity of erecting a meeting-house soon, and not agreed in the location; and a vacancy at such a time might be fatal to their peace. There was no disaffection to me among the people. As many as I conversed with strongly remonstrated against my removal. And in addition to other considerations, I much doubted, whether my talents were adapted to such a sphere. The latter arguments prevailed; and I gave a negative answer.

I was advised even within my own parish, to improve the advantage now in my hands for obtaining an augmentation of my salary. But I feared, that to have stated such a condition of continuance with my people, when, even without it, duty seemed to require my continuance with them, would be too near an approach

to duplicity. Besides, I have always valued those favours highest, which proceed from liberal, or, at least, from grateful sentiments.

In 1795, my parish, in consideration of the depreciated state of my salary, erected and finished for me a good barn, my old one being decayed beyond repair. It was worth two hundred dollars. Many other gratuities I have received from particular persons, under the former and the present paper depreciation. In my long sickness my physician made no charge for his advice and attendance. I believe he usually treated me with the same liberality.

A few families in the south parish were, on their petition, annexed to my parish in 1793. Among these, two respectable householders, who were baptists in sentiment, as were their fathers before them, expressed to me a desire to be baptized, and received to our communion. They said, they were in charity with us; for though they esteemed baptism by immersion, and at adult age, to be most agreeable to divine institution, yet as the water had been applied to us in the name of the Trinity, and we, at mature age, had professed our faith, and, they believed, had acted conscientiously, they were free to have fellowship with us. All that they requested was, that we would exercise the same candour toward them. They had never been baptized in any form. They should be better satisfied with immersion, than affusion; they were willing to receive the ordinance from my hands.

I consented to baptize them by immersion; mentioned to the church their desire and my consent, appointed a time and place for the administration, and no objection was made. On Lord's day, July 19, 1795, they made a profession of their faith, after the morning exercise; the assembly then proceeded to the river; there the solemnity was performed; in the afternoon they were admitted into the church. They are exemplary and peaceable

members.