CONNECTICUT, no less than other parts of New-England, was settled with a particular view to religion. It was the design of the first planters, to erect churches in the strictest conformity to scripture example; and to transmit evangelical purity, in doc-trine, worship, and discipline, with civil and religious liberty, to their posterity. The attention which they paid to these interest-ing points, will be the principal subject of this chapter.

The first churches, though their numbers were small, and they

1It was now thirty years since the settlement of the colony commenced, yet, after the defalcation of Long-Island, it consisted of nineteen towns only, which paid taxes. The grand list was no more than 153,620:16:5.

232

had to combat all the hardships, dangers, and expense, of new settlements, commonly supported two able, experienced minis­ters. With the first three churches, settled in Connecticut, there were, at Hartford, the Rev. Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stone, at Wind-sor, Mr. Warham and Mr. Hewet, and at Weathersfield, Mr. Prudden, in 1638, while his people were making preparations to remove from New-Haven to Milford. To the garrison, at Say-brook fort, Mr. John Higginson, son of the Rev. Mr. Higginson, of Salem, preached three or four of the first years. At New-Haven, at first were Mr. Davenport and Mr. Samuel Eaton, brother to governor Eaton. At Milford, Mr. Prudden was pas-tor, and the church invited Mr. John Sherman, afterwards min-ister of Watertown, in Massachusetts, to be their teacher; but he declined their invitation, and that church never had but one settled minister at the same time. The Rev. Mr. Whitfield was pastor of the church at Guilford, and about the year 1641, Mr. Higginson removed from Saybrook, and became teacher, as an assistant to Mr. Whitfield, in that church. After Mr. Prudden left Weathersfield, Mr. Henry Smith was elected, and ordained pastor of the church and congregation in that town. About the time that Mr. Higginson left Saybrook, the Rev. Mr. Thomas Peters became chaplain to colonel Fenwick, and the people there. Upon the removal of Mr. Eaton, from New-Haven, Mr. William Hook was installed teacher, as an assistant of Mr. Davenport. The six first towns in Connecticut and New-Haven, enjoyed the constant labor of ten able ministers. This was as much as one minister to about fifty families, or to two hundred and sixty or seventy souls. As other towns settled, churches were gathered, and ministers installed or ordained. Mr. Jones was chosen pas-tor at Fairfield, Mr. Adam Blackman, at Stratford, and Mr. Rich-ard Denton, at Stamford. Mr. Abraham Pierson was pastor of the church at Branford, and it seems one Mr. Brucy assisted him as a teacher for some time. Fourteen or fifteen of these ministers had been episcopally ordained in England, before they came into America.

The Rev. Mr. Richard Blynman, first pastor of the church at New-London, was also ordained in England. After he came into this country, he settled first, pastor of the church at Gloucester, in Massachusetts. From thence he removed to New-London in 1648.

From these reverend fathers, the ministers of Connecticut trace their ordinations; especially, from Mr. Hooker, Mr. Warham, Mr. Davenport, and Mr. Stone. Some or other of these assisted in gathering the churches, and ordaining the ministers settled in their day.

With respect to their religious sentiments, and those of their followers, they were puritans. This was a name which first ob-

233

tained in the reign of queen Elizabeth, in 1564. It was given as a name of reproach, to distinguish and stigmatize those who did not conform to the liturgy, ceremonies, and discipline, of the church of England. Fuller says, "it was improved to abuse pious people, who endeavoured to follow the minister with a pure heart, and labored for a life pure and holy."1 When arminianism began to prevail, in the latter part of the reign of James the first, those who were calvinistic, were termed doctrinal puritans.2 It was used finally, as a stigma for all Christians, who were strict in morals, calvinistic in sentiment, and unconformed to the lit-urgy, ceremonies, and discipline of the established church.3

This was truly the character of the first ministers and churches in this colony. They were strictly calvinistic, agreeing in doc-trine with their brethren of the established church, and with all the protestant reformed churches. In discipline, they were con-gregationalists, and dissented from the national establishment. They firmly believed, that it was the sole prerogative of Christ, as king in Zion, to direct the mode of worship and discipline, in his own house. They were persuaded, that the scriptures were a perfect rule, not only of faith and manners, but of worship and discipline: and that all churches ought to be formed entirely after the pattern exhibited in the New Testament.

Some of the ministers of Connecticut were distinguished for literature, piety, and ministerial gifts. Mr. Hooker, Mr. Daven-port, Mr. Stone, and some others, were men of great learning and abilities. They were all men of the strictest morals, serious, experimental preachers. Mr. Neal, after giving a catalogue of the ministers, who first illuminated the churches of New-Eng-land, bears this testimony concerning them. "I will not say that all the ministers mentioned, were men of the first rate for learn-ing, but I can assure the reader, they had a better share of it, than most of their neighbouring clergy, at that time: they were men of great sobriety and virtue, plain, serious, affectionate preachers, exactly conformable to the doctrine of the church of England, and took a great deal of pains to promote a reformation of manners in their several parishes." They were mighty, and abundant in prayer. They not only fasted and prayed frequently with their people, in public, but kept many days of secret fasting, prayer, and self-examination, in their studies. Some of them, it seems, fasted and prayed, in this private manner, every week. Besides the exercises on the Lord's day, they preached lectures, not only in public, but from house to house. They were diligent and laborious in catechising and instructing the children, and young people, both in public and private.

1Fuller's ecclesiastical history, b. IX, p. 76.

2Fuller, b. X, p. 100.

3Neal's history of the puritans, preface to vol. I, p. 7, and vol. I, p. 72. Sec-ond edition, quarto, London, 1754.

234

They paid a constant attention to the religion of their families. They read the scriptures, and prayed in them daily, morning and evening, and instructed all their domestics constantly to attend the secret, as well as private and public duties of religion. They were attentive to the religious state of all the families and indi-viduals of their respective flocks.1 As they had taken up the cross, forsaken their pleasant seats and enjoyments in their native country, and followed their Saviour into a land not sown, for the sake of his holy religion, and the advancement of his kingdom, they sacrificed all worldly interests to these glorious purposes.

The people who followed them into the wilderness, were their spiritual children, who imbibed the same spirit and sentiments, and esteemed them as their fathers in Christ. Many of them were men of figure, as Haynes, Hopkins, Wyllys, Ludlow, Wol-cott, Eaton, Gregson, Desborough, Leet, and others, who were governors and magistrates in their respective colonies. Many of them, especially their governors, magistrates, and leading men, were not less pious and exemplary than their ministers. The people in general were pious, and strictly moral. Instances of intemperance, wantonness, sabbath-breaking, fraud, or any other gross immorality, for many years, were rarely found among them. If any there were, they were commonly found among servants, or some of the lowest of the people.

It was the opinion of the principal divines, who first settled New-England and Connecticut, that in every church, completely organized, there was a pastor, teacher, ruling elder, and deacons.2 These distinct offices, they imagined, were clearly taught in those passages, Romans, xii, 7, I Corinth. xii, 28, I Timothy, v, 17, and Ephesians, iv, 11. From these they argued the duty of all churches, which were able, to be thus furnished.3 In this manner were the churches of Hartford, Windsor, New-Haven, and other towns organized. The churches which were not able to support a pastor and teacher, had their ruling elders and deacons. Their ruling elders were ordained with no less solemnity, than their pastors and teachers. Where no teacher could be obtained, the pastor performed the duties, both of pastor and teacher. It was the general opinion, that the pastor's work consisted principally in exhortation, in working upon tne will and affections. To this the whole force of his studies was to be directed; that, by his judicious, powerful, and affectionate addresses, he might win his hearers to the love and practice of the truth. But the teacher was doctor in ecclesia, whose business it was to teach, explain, and

1See an account of the lives of many of them, in the Magnalia, b. III. Particu-lar tracts and manuscripts characterize them in the same manner.

2Hooker's Survey, part II, p. 4 to 20.

3Ibidem, and Cambridge Platform, chap. vi, and vii.

235

defend, the doctrines of Christianity. He was to inform the judg-ment, and advance the work of illumination.1

The business of the ruling elder was to assist the pastor in the government of the church. He was particularly set apart to watch over all its members; to prepare and bring forward all cases of discipline; to visit and pray with the sick; and, in the absence of the pastor and teacher, to pray with the congregation, and expound the scriptures.2

The pastors and churches of New-England maintained, with the reformed churches in general, that bishops and presbyters were only different names for the same office; and, that all pas-tors, regularly separated to the gospel ministry, were scripture bishops.3 They also insisted, agreeably to the primitive practice, that the work of every pastor, was confined, principally, to one particular church and congregation, who could all assemble at one place, whom he could inspect, and who could all unite to-gether in acts of worship and discipline.4 Indeed, the first minis-ters of Connecticut and New-England, at first maintained, that all the pastor's office power was confined to his own church and congregation; and that the administering of baptism and the Lord's supper in other churches, was irregular.5

With respect to ordination, they held, that it did not constitute the essentials of the ministerial office; but the qualifications for office, the election of the church, guided by the rule of Christ, and the acceptance of the pastor elect6 Says Mr. Hooker, "or-dination is an approbation of the officer, and solemn setting and confirmation of him in his office, by prayer, and laying on of hands." It was viewed, by the ministers of New-England, as no more than putting the pastor elect into office, or a solemn recommending of him and his labors to the blessing of God. It was the general opinion, that elders ought to lay on hands in ordination, if there were a presbytery in the church, but if there were not, the church might appoint some other elders, or a num-ber of the brethren to that service.7

It was acknowledged that synods or general councils, were an ordinance of Christ, and in some cases, expedient and necessary: That their business was to give light and counsel in weighty con-cerns, and bear testimony against corruption in doctrines and morals. While it was granted, that their determinations ought to be received with reverence, and not to be counteracted, unless

1Survey, part II, p. 19, 20, 21, and Cambridge Platform, chap. vi.

2Hooker's Survey, part II, p. 13, 19, C. Plat. chap. vii.

3Hooker's Survey, and Cambridge Platform.

4Cambridge Platform, chap. iii, and chap. ix.

5Hooker's Survey, part II, p. 62, 68.

6The same, part II, p. 75, 78, Cam. Platform, chap. ix.

7These sentiments were not peculiar to the first ministers and churches of New-England. Augustine, Chrysostom, Zanch, Bucer, Melancthon, Dr. Ames, Dr. Owen, and many other divines of great fame, were of the same opinion.

236

[1639

apparently repugnant to the scriptures, it was insisted, that they had no juridical power.1 The churches of Connecticut originally maintained, that the right of choosing and settling their ministers, of exercising discipline and performing all juridical acts was in the church, when properly organized; and they denied all external or foreign power of presbyteries, synods, general councils, or assemblies. Hence they were termed congregational churches.

The fathers of Connecticut, as to politics, were republicans. They rejected with abhorrence the doctrines of the divine right cf kings, passive obedience, and non-resistance. With Sidney, Hampden, and other great writers, they believed that all civil power and government was originally in the people. Upon these principles they formed their civil constitutions.

The churches of New-Haven, Milford, and Guilford, were formed first, by the choice of seven persons, from among the brethren, who were termed the pillars. A confession of faith was drawn up, to which they all assented, as preparatory to their cov-enanting together in church estate. They then entered into cove-nant, first with God, to be his people in Christ, and then with each other, to walk together in the strict and conscientious prac-tice of all Christian duties, and in the enjoyment of all the ordi-nances and privileges of a church of Christ. The confessions of faith contained a summary of Christian doctrine, and were strictly calvinistic. The covenants were full, solemn, and impressive, im-porting, that they avouched the Lord Jehovah, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be their sovereign Lord and supreme Good; and that they gave themselves up to him, through Jesus Christ, in the way and on the terms of the covenant of grace. They cov-enanted with each other to uphold the divine worship and ordi-nances, in the churches of which they were members; to watch over each other as brethren; to bear testimony against all sin; and to teach all under their care to fear and serve the Lord. The other brethren joined themselves to the seven pillars, by making the same profession of faith, and covenanting in the same man-ner. The members, previously to their covenanting with each other, gave one another satisfaction with respect to their repent-ance, faith, and purposes of holy living.

It appears, that the churches of New-Haven and Milford were gathered to the seven pillars, on the 22d of August, 1639.2 The tradition is, that soon after, Mr. Davenport was chosen pastor of the church, at New-Haven; and that Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stone came and assisted in his installation.

Mr. Prudden was installed pastor of the church at Milford, April 8th, 1640, upon a day of solemn fasting and prayer. Im-position of hands was performed by Zechariah Whitman, William

1Hooker's Survey, part IV. p. 45-48. C. Plat. chap. XVI.

2Milford church records.

1643]

237

Fowler, and Edmond Tapp. They were appointed to this service by the other brethren of the church.1 The installation was at New-Haven, and it seems that the hands of the brethren were imposed in the presence of Mr. Davenport and Mr. Eaton.

Though the members of Mr. Whitfield's church were in the original agreement, at New-Haven, and engaged to embody into church estate, in the same manner as New-Haven and Milford churches did, yet they delayed the completion of the work for a considerable time. Probably, it was because their company were not yet all arrived. But in April, 1643, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Higginson, Mr. Samuel Desborough, Mr. William Leet, Mr. Ja-cob Sheaf, Mr, John Mipham, and Mr. John Hoadly, were elected the seven pillars. On the 19th of June, all the other church mem-bers were gathered unto these seven persons. Mr. Higginson, who had been preaching about two years at Guilford, with Mr. Whitfield, was, at this time, elected teacher in that church. Mr. Whitfield had not separated from the episcopal church, when he came into New-England. As he came over in orders, and his church came generally with him, there are no intimations of his installation.

The circumstance of the seven pillars in these three churches appears to have been peculiar to them. There are no intimations of it in the formation of any other churches. The churches in the other towns were gathered, by subscribing similar confessions of faith, and covenanting together in the same solemn manner, upon days of fasting and prayer. Neighbouring elders and churches were present on those occasions, assisted in the public solemnities, and gave their consent. When new members were admitted to full communion, in any of the first churches of Con-necticut, they gave satisfaction to the brethren of their sincere repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. They commonly made a relation of their religious experiences. They were then admitted to full communion, by a public profession of their faith, and by covenanting in the manner which has been represented.

Mr. Eaton continued but a short time at New-Haven, and then returned to England. Mr. William Hook succeeded him as teacher in the church.

Mr. Denton, after spending three or four years at Stamford, removed to Hampstead on Long-Island.

Upon his removal, the church sent two of their members to seek them a minister. They travelled on foot, through the wilder-ness, to the eastward of Boston, where they found Mr. John Bishop, who left England before he had finished his academical studies, and had completed his education in this country. They engaged him to go with them to Stamford. He travelled with

1Milford church records.

238

[1646

them, on foot, so great a distance. The people were united in him, and he labored with them, in the ministry, nearly fifty years.

Mr. Peters, after preaching three or four years, at Saybrook, returned to England. In 1646, a church was formed in that town, by the direction and assistance of the Rev. Mr. Hooker and some other ministers. At the same time, Mr. James Fitch, who had perfected his theological studies, under the direction of Mr. Hook-er, was ordained their pastor. The tradition is, that though Mr. Hooker was present, yet that hands were imposed by two or three of the principal brethren, whom the church had appointed to that service.

On the 13th of October, 1652, a church was gathered at Farm-ington, and Mr. Roger Newton was ordained pastor.

The same year, Mr. Thomas Hanford began to preach at Nor-walk, and some time after a church was formed in the town, and Mr. Hanford ordained pastor.

In 1660, Mr. Fitch and the greatest part of his church removed to Norwich. Mr. Thomas Buckingham succeeded him in the ministry at Saybrook. A council of ministers and churches as-sisted at his ordination, but the imposition of hands was performed by the brethren, as it had been before in the ordination of Mr. Fitch. The council considered it as an irregular proceeding, but the brethren were so tenacious of what they esteemed their right, that it could not be prevented without much inconvenience.1

These fifteen churches were the whole number, formed in the colony, and in which ministers had been installed, or ordained, at the time of the union. The settlements and churches upon Long-Island had been adjudged to the jurisdiction of New-York. There were several other towns which paid taxes, where churches were not formed nor pastors ordained. This was the case with Stonington, Middletown, Greenwich, and Rye. Nevertheless, at the two former, there was constant preaching. The general court would not suffer any plantation to be made which would not support an able, orthodox preacher.

At Stonington, Mr. Zechariah Brigden officiated about three years, until his death in 1663. To him succeeded Mr. James Noyes, the same year, who preached more than fifty-five years in the town, but he was not ordained until more than ten years after his first preaching to the people.

At Middletown, Mr. Nathaniel Collins was preaching, but not ordained. Mr. Stow also preached there, before, or with, Mr. Collins. Greenwich and Rye were but just come under the juris-diction of Connecticut, and not in circumstances for the support of ministers. They had occasional preaching only, for a consid-erable time.

From this view, it appears, that the first towns and churches

1Manuscripts from Saybrook.

1665]

239

in Connecticut were remarkably instructed. Scarcely in any part of the Christian church, have so many stars, of such distinguished lustre, shone in so small a firmament. At the time of the union, the colony contained about 1700 families, eight or nine thousand inhabitants, and they constantly enjoyed the instructions of about twenty ministers. Upon an average, there was as much as one minister to every eighty-five families, or to about four hundred and thirty souls. In some of the new plantations, thirty families supported a minister, and commonly there were not more than forty when they called and settled a pastor. In several of the first churches, there were not more than eight, nine, and ten male members. Exclusive of Hartford, Windsor, New-Haven, and Guilford, there appears to have been none, in which there were more than sixteen or seventeen male communicants, at their for-mation.

That the first churches and congregations, notwithstanding their poverty, hardships, dangers, and expense in settling in a wilderness, and in defending themselves against the savages and other enemies, should maintain such a number of ministers, strongly marks their character as Christians, who desired the sin-cere milk of the word. It affords a striking evidence of their zeal for religion, and that the word and ordinances were indeed pre-cious in those days.

The most perfect harmony subsisted between the legislature and the clergy. Like Moses and Aaron, they walked together in the most endearing friendship. The governors, magistrates, and leading men, were their spiritual children, and esteemed and ven-erated them, as their fathers in Christ. As they had loved and followed them into the wilderness, they zealously supported their influence. The clergy had the highest veneration for them, and spared no pains to maintain their authority and government. Thus they grew in each other's esteem and brotherly affection, and mutually supported and increased each other's influence and usefulness.

Many of the clergy who first came into the country, had good estates, and assisted their poor brethren and parishioners in their straits, in making new settlements. The people were then far more dependent on their ministers, than they have been since. The proportion of learned men was much less then, than at the present time. The clergy possessed a very great proportion of the literature of the colony. They were the principal instructors of the young gentlemen, who were liberally educated, before they commenced members of college, and they assisted them in their studies afterwards. They instructed and furnished others for pub-lic usefulness, who had not a public education. They had given a striking evidence of their integrity and self denial, in emigrating into this rough and distant country, for the sake of religion, and

240

were faithful and abundant in their labours. By their example, counsels, exhortations, and money, they assisted and encouraged the people. Besides, the people who came into the country with them, had a high relish for the word and ordinances. They were exiles and fellow sufferers in a strange land. All these circum-stances combined to give them an uncommon influence over their hearers, of all ranks and characters. For many years, they were consulted by the legislature, in all affairs of importance, civil or religious. They were appointed committees, with the governors and magistrates, to advise, make drafts, and assist them in the most delicate and interesting concerns of the commonwealth. In no government have the clergy had more influence, or been treated with more generosity and respect, by the civil rulers and people in general, than in Connecticut.

The ministers and churches of Connecticut abhorred the Anti-nomian heresy, which so distracted the church at Boston, and some others in the Massachusetts. In the first general council in New-England, in 1638, Mr, Hooker and Mr. Davenport bore a noble testimony against the prevailing errors and spirit of that time.

In the next general council in New-England, ten years after, the ministers and churches of Connecticut and New-Haven were present, and united in the form of discipline which it recom-mended. By this platform of discipline, the churches of New-England, in general, walked for more than thirty years. This, with the ecclesiastical laws, formed the religious constitution of the colonies.

In the platform, it is declared to be evident, "That necessary and sufficient maintenance is due to ministers of the word, from the law of nature and nations, the law of Moses, the equity there-of, and also the rule of common reason:" that it is matter of indispensable duty, a debt due, and not an affair of alms or free gift. "That not only members of churches, but all who are taught in the word, are to contribute unto him that teacheth in all good things: and that the magistrate is to see that the min-istry be duly provided for."1

An early provision was therefore made, by law, in Massachu-setts and Connecticut, for the support of the ministry. In Con-necticut, all persons were obliged, by law, to contribute to the support of the church, as well as of the commonwealth. All rates respecting the support of ministers, or any ecclesiastical affairs, were to be made and collected in the same manner as the rates of the respective towns.2 Special care was taken, that all persons should attend the means of public instruction. The law obliged them to be present at the public worship on the Lord's day, and

1Cambridge Platform, chap. xi.

2The first code of Connecticut, p. 52 and 59.

241

upon all days of public fasting and prayer, and of thanksgiving, appointed by civil authority, on penalty of a fine of five shillings for every instance of neglect.1 The congregational churches were adopted and established by law; but provision was made that all sober, orthodox persons, dissenting from them, should, upon the manifestation of it to the general court, be allowed peaceably to worship in their own way.2 It was enacted, "That no persons within this colony, shall in any wise embody themselves into church estate, without consent of the general court, and approba-tion of neighbouring elders." The laws, also, prohibited that any ministry, or church administration, should be entertained, or at-tended, by the inhabitants of any plantation in the colony, distinct and separate from, and in opposition to, that which was openly and publicly observed and dispensed, by the approved minister of the place; except it was by the approbation of the court and neighbouring churches.3 The penalty for every breach of this act, was five pounds.

The court declared, that the civil authority established in the colony, "Had power and liberty to see the peace, ordinances, and rules of Christ, observed in every church, according to his word; and, also, to deal with any church member in a way of civil justice, notwithstanding any church relation, office, or in-terest." The law also provided, that no church censure should degrade or depose any man from any civil dignity, office, or au-thority, which he should sustain in the colony.4

In the grant of all new townships, special care was taken, by the legislature, that the planters should not be without a minister, and the stated administration of gospel ordinances.

Every town, consisting of fifty families, was obliged, by the laws, to maintain a good school, in which reading and writing should be well taught; and in every county town a good grammar school was instituted. Large tracts of land were given and ap-propriated, by the legislature, to afford them a permanent sup-port.

The select men of every town were obliged, by law, to keep a vigilant eye upon all the inhabitants, and to take care that all the heads of families should instruct their children and servants to read the English tongue well, and that once every week they should catechise them in the principles of religion. The penalty for every instance of neglect, in this respect, was twenty shillings, for any family so neglecting. The select men were also author-ised, to take care that all families should be well furnished with bibles, orthodox catechisms, and books on practical godliness. It was provided by the legislature, that the capital laws should be taught weekly in every family.8

1The first code of Connecticut, p. 22.

2Ibid. p. 21.

3Ibid. p. 21.

4Ibid. p. 22.

5Old code of Connecticut, p. 13.

242

The colony of New-Haven, from the beginning, made provision for the interests of religion, learning, and the good conduct of the inhabitants, with no less zeal than Connecticut.

The care and piety of the first planters did not rest here; but they were careful, as soon as possible, in their circumstances, to found public seminaries, in which young men might be instructed in the liberal arts, prepared for the ministry, and all places of im-portance, in civil or religious life.

As Connecticut and New-Haven were not able, of themselves, at first, to erect a college, they united with Massachusetts, and contributed to the support of that at Cambridge. Frequent con-tributions were made, both in Connecticut and New-Haven, for that purpose, and money was paid from the public treasury. For a course of years, the inhabitants educated their sons at that uni-versity.

By these means, knowledge, at an early period, was generally diffused among people of all ranks. This abundant public and private instruction, and constant attention to the morals, indus-try, and good conduct of the inhabitants, has been the means of that general illumination, which has always been observable among the people of this colony; and of that high degree of civil, ecclesiastical, and domestic peace and order, which, for so long a period, have rendered them eminent, among their neighbors. This has made it feasible to govern them by that free constitution and mild system of laws, by which they have ever been distin-guished. To this, are owing the wisdom and steadiness of their elections, and the integrity and firmness of their public adminis-trations. In this way they have been formed not only to virtue, but to industry, economy, and enterprise. Indeed, they have been rendered one of the happiest people upon the earth.

Cambridge platform, in connection with the ecclesiastical laws, was the religious constitution of Connecticut, for about sixty years, until the compilation of the Saybrook agreement.

The colony of New-Haven, sensible of the importance of public seminaries, and of the inconvenience of sending their sons to so great a distance as Cambridge for an education, at an early period, attempted the founding of a college. A proposal, for this purpose, was made to the general court, in 1654. The next year, at the session in May, it appeared, that New-Haven had made a dona-tion of 300l. and that Milford proposed to give 100l. more, for the encouragement of the design. The court proposed it to the deputies of the other towns to enquire, and make report, what they would give. Mr. Davenport, who was the principal pro-moter of the affair, about the same time, wrote to governor Hop-kins, who was then in England, upon the subject; and it seems, solicited his assistance. Soon after, some lands were given, by the people of New-Haven, for the further encouragement of so

243

laudable an undertaking. Upon these favorable prospects, the egislature, in 1659, proceeded to institute a grammar school at New-Haven. It was ordered, that 40l. annually, should be paid out of the public treasury, for its support. 100l. were also appro-priated for the purchase of books for the school. In 1660, the donation of governor Hopkins having come into the possession, and being at the disposal of Mr. Davenport, he, on the 3Oth of May, surrendered it into the hands of the general court, for the purpose of founding a college. He proposed, that this donation should be united with the lands which had been already given, and with such other donations as might be made by the legisla-ture, for the same purpose. The elders of the several churches in the colony, were nominated as trustees. As Mr. Davenport was the only surviving legatee of governor Hopkins, with respect to that part of the donation which had fallen to the share of New-Haven, he desired, that, for the better discharge of the trust, which had been reposed in him, he might have a negative upon the cor-poration, with respect to the disposal of that, whenever he could exhibit substantial reasons, that it was about to be applied to my purpose contrary to the design of the donor. The resignation was made in writing, in a formal manner, containing valuable sketches of history, and a complete plan of the college and gram-mar school, which it was designed to institute.1

The general court thankfully accepted the donation, upon the terms on which it had been surrendered. They appropriated the lands, which had been given, at New-Haven, to the support of the college; agreed to collect the money given by governor Hop-kins; and besides all other grants previously made, enacted, that a hundred pounds stock should be paid in from the treasury of the colony, in such time and manner as the court should order. The court also ordained, that both the grammar school and col-lege should be at New-Haven. One Mr. Peck was appointed master of the school; but this and the college were of short con-tinuance. The troubles in which the colony was involved by the claims of Connecticut, and the defection of such numbers of their inhabitants, so impoverished and weakened it, that a support could not be obtained for the instructor. He became discouraged, and the court gave up the school. By the same means, the design of a college also miscarried. After the union, the colony made fur-ther provision for a grammar school, and all the lands and money, which had been given for that and the college, were appropriated to its support. The school revived and has continued unto the present time.

For a long course of years, there were no sectaries in Connecti-cut. The churches, in general, enjoyed great peace and harmony, during the continuance of the first ministers and principal mem-

1Appendix No. xxi.

244

bers of whom they were composed. But many of these were con-siderably advanced in life when they came into the country, and in about four or five and twenty years after the first settlements, a considerable proportion of them were in their graves, some had returned to England, and others were far advanced in years. Be-fore the union of the colonies, in 1665, almost all the first ministers were either dead, or removed.

Mr. Hewet, teacher in the church at Windsor, died September 4th, 1644.

The Rev. Thomas Hooker, the father and pillar of the churches in Connecticut, died July 7th, 1647, in the 61st year of his age.1 He was born at Marshfield, in the county of Leicester, 1586. He appears to have been educated at Emmanuel college, Cambridge, in England. Afterwards he was promoted to a fellowship in the same college, where he acquitted himself with such ability and faithfulness, as commanded universal approbation and applause. While at college, in his youth, he was arrested with strong convic-tions of his sin and misery, and of the dreadfulness of the divine displeasure. His heart was afterwards humbled, and submitting to the terms of mercy, he received the spirit of adoption; and was enabled to exhibit a life of the most exemplary piety, self-denial, patience, and goodness. He was naturally a man of strong and lively passions; but obtained a happy government of himself. In his day, he was one of the most animated and powerful preachers in New-England. In his sermons, he insisted much on the appli-cation of redemption; was searching, experimental, and practical. Another circumstance, which rendered his public performances still more engaging and profitable, was his excellency in prayer. A spirit of adoption seemed to rest upon him. In conversation he was pleasant and entertaining, but always grave. He was exceed-ingly prudent in the management of church discipline. He es-teemed it a necessary and important, but an extremely difficult, part of duty. He rarely suffered church affairs to be publicly con-troverted. Before he brought any difficult matter before the church, special care was taken to converse with the leading men, to fix them right, and to prepare the minds of the members; so that they might be harmonious, and that there might be no con-troversy with respect to any point, which he judged expedient for the church to adopt. He was affable, condescending, and chari-table; yet his appearance and conduct were with such becoming majesty, authority, and prudence, that he could do more with a word, or a look, than other men could with severe discipline. It was not an uncommon instance, with him, to give away five or ten pounds at a time to poor widows, orphans, and necessitous people. At a certain time, when there was a great scarcity, at Southamp-

1He possessed considerable property. His estate was appraised at £1336:15:0. His library only, at £300.

245

ton, upon Long-Island, Mr. Hooker, with some friends who joined with him, sent the people a small vessel, freighted with sev-eral hundred bushels of corn, for their relief. in family religion and government, he was strict and prudent. In his family was ex-hibited a lively and sincere devotion, and the very power of godli-ness. Not only his own children and domestics, but students, and other persons, who occasionally resided in his family, were in-structed and edified, so that their acquaintance with it, was matter of their joy and devout thanksgiving. He died of an epidemical fever, which prevailed that year in the country. He had, for many years, enjoyed a comfortable assurance of his renewed estate, and when dying said, "I am going to receive mercy." He closed his own eyes, and appeared to die with a smile in his countenance.1

Mr. Henry Smith, first pastor of the church at Weathersfield, died in 1648, and was succeeded by the Rev. Jonathan Russell.

The Rev. Mr. Prudden departed this life in 1656, in the 56th year of his age. Before he came into New-England, he a preacher in Herefordshire, and in the parts bordering upon Wales. His ministry was attended with uncommon success; and when he came into this country, it seems, that many good people followed him, that they might enjoy his pious and fervent ministrations. He had the character of a most zealous preacher, and of a man of an excellent spirit He had a singular talent for reconciling con-tending parties, and maintaining peace among brethren and neighbors. His ministry was conducted with prudence, and his church enjoyed great harmony during his life, and rejoiced in his light.2

He was succeeded by Mr. Roger Newton, who removed, from Farmington, and was installed at Milford, August 22d, 1660. Hands were imposed at his installation, by Zechariah Whitman, ruling elder, deacon John Fletcher, and Robert Treat, who were appointed to that service by the brotherhood

Mr. Samuel Hooker, son of the famous Mr. Hooker, of Hart-ford, succeeded Mr. Newton at Farmington. He was ordained in July, 1661.

These deaths were all before the charter. There were also a number of removals of some of the principal ministers. The Rev, Mr. Whitfield, after he had labored eleven years, with the people at Guilford, returned again to England. Some time in the year 1650, he took leave of his flock and congregation, and embarked for his native country. He was exceedingly beloved by his flock, and they accompanied him to the water's side with many tears.

1His character may be seen more at large in the Magnalia, B. iii. p. 58-68. 2His estate in this country was appraised at £924:18:6. He left a landed in-terest in England, at Edgton, in Yorkshire, valued at £1300 sterling, which is still enjoyed by some of his heirs. He had two sons. One of them, John Prudden, was educated after his decease, and graduated at Cambridge, 1668. He settled in the ministry, at Newark, in New-Jersey. The other inherited the paternal estate; aned their descendants are numerous, both in Connecticut and New-Jersey.

246

He had a large family of nine children, whom he supported prin-cipally out of his own estate, as most of his people were poor. He found that his estate was much exhausted, and that he must still labor under many and great inconveniences, if he continued in this country; and he had numerous and pressing invitations to return to England. A combination of these circumstances, at length, prevailed with him to leave his flock. He was one of the wealthiest clergymen, who came into Connecticut. Before he came into this country, he enjoyed one of the best church livings at Okely, in the county of Surrey, and had a fine interest of his own. His charity was happily proportioned to his opulence. While he was at Oke-ly, he procured another pious and able preacher, that he might go abroad and give assistance unto other churches and poor people. While he was in England, his house was a place of resort for the distressed. Though he was, for twenty years, a conformist, yet his house was a place of refreshment for Mr. Cotton, Mr. Hooker, Mr. Goodwin, and other pious non-conformists. After he came into New-England, he expended much of his interest in assisting his poor people. He was a capital preacher, delivering himself with a peculiar dignity, beauty, and solemnity. After his return to Eng-land, he appears to have finished his life, in the ministry, at the city of Winchester.1

Several of the principal men returned to England with Mr. Whitfield; particularly Mr. Samuel Desborough, Mr. Jordan, and others. Mr. Desborough, after his return, was made lord keeper of the great seal, and one of the seven counsellors of the kingdom of Scotland.

Mr. Higginson continued his ministry, as teacher in the church at Guilford, until about the year 1659, when, upon the death of his father, he returned to Salem, and succeeded him in the pastoral office, over the church in that town.

Mr. William Hook, who, for about fourteen years, had been teacher in the church at New-Haven, about the year 1655 re-turned to England. Mr. Eaton and Mr. Hook have been repre-sented as men of great learning and piety, and as possessing ex-cellent pulpit talents. A writer of Mr. Eaton's character, says, "He was a very holy man, a person of great learning and judg-ment, and a most incomparable preacher." He dissented from Mr. Davenport, with respect to his strict terms and form of civil government. His brother, governor Eaton, therefore, advised him to a removal. After his return, he became pastor of a church

1In consequence of Mr. Whitfield's estate and expenses, in purchasing and set-tling the plantation, and of Mr. Fenwick's gift of the eastern part of the township to him, a large portion of the best land in the town was allotted to him. On his return to England, he offered, upon very low terms, to sell all his lands to the town. But the people were poor, and imagined they should soon follow their pastor, and neglected to purchase. Mr. Whitfield, therefore, sold them to major Robert Thomp son, in England, by whose heirs they have been holden, to the great damage of the town, to this time.

247

at Duckenfield, in the parish of Stockport, in Cheshire. Mr. Hook, after his return, was some time minister at Exmouth, in Devonshire; and then master of the Savoy, on the Strand, near London, and chaplain to the greatest man then in the nation. After the restoration, he was silenced for non-conformity, May 24th, 1662. On the 21st of March, 1667, he died in the vicinity of London. Mr, Eaton was a companion with him in tribulation; for soon after the restoration of king Charles the second, he was silenced, and suffered persecution for conscience sake.

The Rev. Mr. Blynman, after he had labored about ten years in the ministry at New-London, in 1658, removed to New-Haven. After a short stay in that town, he took shipping and returned to England. He lived to a good old age; and, at the city of Bristol, happily concluded a long life, spent in doing good.

Mr. Nicholas Street succeeded Mr. Hook, as teacher in the church, at New-Haven, about the year 1659. And Mr. Blynman was succeeded in office at New-London, by Mr. Gershom Bulkley, from Concord, in Massachusetts.

The first ministers in the colonies being thus dead, or removed, and a new generation risen up, who had not all imbibed the senti-ments and spirit of their pious fathers, alterations were insisted on with respect to church membership, discipline, and baptism; and great dissensions arose in the churches. They began first in the church at Hartford, not many years after Mr. Hooker's decease. The origin of them appears to have been a difference between the Rev. Mr. Stone and Mr. Goodwin, the ruling elder in the church, upon some nice points of Congregationalism. It seems, that some member had been admitted, or baptism administered, which elder Goodwin conceived to be inconsistent with the rights of the broth-erhood, and the strict principles of the congregational churches. Perhaps he imagined himself not to have been properly consulted and regarded. Not only this church became divided and in-flamed with the controversy, but it spread into almost all the neighbouring churches. They interested themselves in the con-troversy, some taking one side, and some another, as their connec-tions, prejudices, and particular sentiments led them. The whole colony became affected with the dispute, and the general court particularly interested themselves in the affair. The brethren in the church at Hartford, became so inflamed, and imbibed such prejudices and uncharitable feelings one towards another, that it was with great difficulty they could be persuaded to walk together. To prevent an entire division of the church, it appears, that about the years 1654 and 1655, several councils of the neighbouring elders and churches were called, to compose the differences be-tween the parties. They laboured to satisfy them, with respect to the points in controversy. But the brethren at Hartford imagined, that all the elders and churches in Connecticut and New-Haven,

248

[1656

were prejudiced in favour of one party or the other, and, there-fore, they would not hear their advice. For this reason, it was judged expedient to call a council from the other colonies. Some time in the year 1656, it seems, a number of elders and churches from Massachusetts came to Hartford, and gave their opinion and advice to the church and the aggrieved brethren. But it appears, that, in the apprehension of the aggrieved, the church did not comply with the result. The state of the church, therefore, was no better than it was before, but the parties became more alienated and embittered. Elder Goodwin was joined by governor Webster, Mr. Whiting, Mr. Cullick, and other principal gentlemen at Hart-ford, who were leaders in what they imagined to be a defence of the true principles of Congregationalism.

Meanwhile, there was a strong party in the colony of Con-necticut, who were for admitting all persons of a regular life to a full communion in the churches, upon their making a profession of the Christian religion, without any inquiry with respect to a change of heart; and for treating all baptized persons as members of the church. Some carried the affair still further, and insisted, that all persons, who had been members of churches in England, or had been members of regular ecclesiastical parishes there, and supported the public worship, should be allowed to enjoy the priv-ileges of members in full communion in the churches of Connect-icut. They also insisted, that all baptized persons, upon owning the covenant, as it was called, should have their children baptized, though they came not to the Lord's table.

Numbers of them took this opportunity to introduce into the assembly a list of grievances, on account of their being denied their just rights and privileges by the ministers and churches. A dis-pute had arisen in the churches and congregations, relative to the choice of a pastor. It was urged, that it did not belong to the churches solely to choose the pastor for themselves and the con-gregation; but, as the inhabitants in general had an equal concern for themselves and their children, with the members of the church, in the qualifications of their pastor, and as they were obliged to contribute their proportion to his support, they had a just right to give their voice in his election. The denying them this right was considered as a great grievance. Many of the churches, and some or other of the members in all of them, it seems, maintained, that the choice of a pastor belonged to them solely, exclusive of the congregation: that there was no scripture example of any person's ever giving a suffrage, in the choice of a pastor, but members of the church: that pastors were ordained over the churches only, and were termed the elders, pastors, and angels of the churches. It ap-pears, by the acts of the assembly, and the questions proposed, that these, and a number of other points, were now warmly agi-tated in the colony.

1656]

249

The general state of the country was greatly altered from what it was at its first settlement. The people then were generally church members, and eminently pious. They loved strict religion, and followed their ministers into the wilderness, for its sake. But with many of their children, and with others who had since emi-grated into this country, it was not so. They had made no open profession of religion, and their children were not baptized. This created uneasiness in them, in their ministers, and others. They wished for the honours and privileges of church members for themselves, and baptism for their children; but they were not persuaded that they were regenerated, and knew not how to com-ply with the rigid terms of the congregational churches. A con-siderable number of the clergy, and the churches in general, zeal-ously opposed all innovations, and exerted themselves to maintain the first practice and purity of the churches. Hence the dissen-sions arose.

The general court, it seems, with a view to reconcile the church at Hartford, and to compose difficulties, which were generally ris-ing in the colony, at their session in May, 1656, took the affair into their serious consideration. They appointed a committee, consist-ing of governor Webster, deputy governor Wells, Mr. Cullick, and Mr. Talcott, all of Hartford, to consult with the elders of the colony, respecting the grievances complained of; and to desire their assistance, in making a draft of the heads of them, that they might be presented to the general courts of the united colonies, for their advice. The general courts were desired to give their answers with as much expedition as possible.

While the churches were thus divided, they were alarmed by the appearance of the Quakers. A number of them arrived at Bos-ton, in July and August, and had been committed to the common gaol. A great number of their books had been seized with a view to burn them. In consequence of their arrival, and the disturb-ance they had made, at Boston, the commissioners of the united colonies, at their court in September, recommended it to the sev-eral general courts, "That all quakers, ranters, and other notori-ous heretics, should be prohibited coming into the united colonies; and that, if any should come, or arise amongst them, they should be forthwith secured, and removed out of all the jurisdictions."1

In conformity to this recommendation, the general court of Connecticut, in October, passed the following act:-"That no town within this jurisdiction, shall entertain any Quakers, Ran-ters, Adamites, or such like notorious heretics; nor suffer them to continue in them above the space of fourteen days, upon the pen-alty of five pounds per week, for any town entertaining any such person: but the townsmen shall give notice to the two next magis-trates, or assistants, who shall have power to send them to prison,

1Records of the united colonies.

250

[1658

for securing them, until they can conveniently be sent out of the jurisdiction. It is also ordered, that no master of a vessel shall land any such heretics; but if they do, they shall be compelled to transport them again out of the colony, by any two magistrates or assistants, at their first setting sail from the port where they landed them; during which time, the assistant or magistrate shall see them secured, upon penalty of twenty pounds for any master of any vessel, that shall not transport them as aforesaid."1

The court at New-Haven passed a similar law. In 1658, both courts made an addition to tnis law, increasing the penalties and prohibiting all conversation of the common people with any of those heretics, and all persons from giving them any entertain-ment, upon the penalty of five pounds. The law however was of short continuance, and nothing of importance appears to have been transacted upon it, in either of the colonies.

Upon the representations made of the heads of grievance, which had been matter of complaint, to the general courts of the con-federate colonies, the court of Massachusetts advised to a general council, and sent letters to the other courts, signifying their opin-ion. The general court of New-Haven wrote an answer to the grievances, and to the questions proposed respecting them. They supposed it sufficient. The general court of Connecticut, never-theless, on the 26th of February, 1657, determined to have a gen-eral council. They appointed Mr. Warham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Blyn-man, and Mr. Russell, to meet the elders, who should be delegated from the other colonies, at Boston, the next June; and to assist in debating the questions proposed by the general court of Connecti-cut, or any of the other courts, and report the determination of the council to the general court.

The church at Hartford continuing their contentions, the court directed the elders, who were going to Boston, to confer with the several ministers in the Massachusetts, who had been of the coun-cil, relative to the circumstances of that church, and to desire them to come to Connecticut, and give their assistance in council at Hartford. The court also directed the church there to send for the former council; and with the letters missive, to state the particulars, in the advice of the council, with which they were not satisfied. If this council should not be so happy as to give them satisfaction, then they were directed to invite Mr. Sherman of Watertown, and several other ministers from the Massachusetts, to make a visit at Hartford, and attempt the healing of the breach made in the church there.

Governor Webster, Mr. Cullick, and Mr. Steel dissented from the resolution of the assembly, and declared, in open court, that it did not appear to them, that the measures, adopted by the court, were any where directed by the divine word, or calculated to re-

1Records of Connecticut.

1657]

251

store peace to the churches. They appear to have been of the ag-grieved brethren at Hartford, and satisfied with the result of the former council, to which the church, in their apprehensions, did not submit. They doubtless judged it more agreeable to scripture and reason, and especially to the principles of congregational churches, to choose a council for themselves, when they should judge it expedient, than to have one imposed upon them, by leg-islative authority.

The general court, at New-Haven, were utterly opposed to a general council; and upon receiving a letter from the Massa-chusetts, inviting them to send a number of their elders to assist in the council, they, in a long letter, remonstrated against it, and ex-cused themselves from sending any of their ministers. They represented, that the petition and questions, exhibited to the gen-eral court of Connecticut, were unwarrantably procured, and of dangerous tendency: That they heard the petitioners were confi-dent that they should obtain great alterations both in civil govern-ment and church discipline: That they had engaged an agent to prove, "That parishes, in England, consenting to and continuing meetings to worship God, were true churches," and that the mem-bers of those parishes, coming into New-England, had a right to all church privileges; though they made no profession of a work of faith and holiness upon their hearts. They expressed their ap-prehensions, that a general council at that time, would endanger the peace and purity of the churches. They acquainted the gen-eral court of Massachusetts, that they had sent an answer to all the questions, proposed to the court of Connecticut; and that it was their opinion, that the legislature and elders of that colony were sufficient to determine all those points without any assist-ance from abroad. They observed that, on account of the re-moval of Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Hook, and the late death of Mr. Prudden, their elders could not be spared. With their letter, they sent the answers, which they had given to the questions to be de-bated, and they intreated the court and their elders seriously to consider them. They desired, that, as the court had formed their civil polity and laws upon the divine word, and as the elders and churches had gathered and received their discipline from the same, they would exert themselves to preserve them inviolable. They observed, that, considering the state of affairs, in Connecti-cut, unless the general court of Massachusetts should firmly ad-here to their then constitution, and the council should have the divine presence with them, their meeting might be of the most un-happy consequence to the churches. Considering how soon the church at Ephesus, though famous for her first love, declined and was forsaken of her Saviour, they insisted, that there was great occasion of watchfulness and prayer, lest the churches of New-England should decline after her example.1

1Records of New-Haven (June, 1657).

252

[1657

The colonies of Connecticut and Massachusetts persisted in calling a general council.

The questions proposed for discussion, as they stand upon the records, are the following.1

1. Whether federal holiness, or covenant interest, be not the proper ground of baptism?

2. Whether communion of churches, as such, be not warrant-able by the word of God?

3. Whether the adult seed of visible believers, not cast out, be not true members, and subjects of church watch?

4. Whether ministerial officers are not as truly bound to bap-tize the visible disciples of Christ, providentially settled among them, as officially to preach the word?

5. Whether the settled inhabitants of the country, being mem-bers of other churches, should have their children baptized amongst us, without themselves first orderly joining in churches here?

6. Whether membership, in a particular instituted church, be not essentially requisite, under the gospel, to entitle to baptism?

7. Whether adopted children and such as are bought with money are covenant seed?

8. Whether things new and weighty may be managed, in a church, without concurrence of officers, and consent of the frater-nity of the same church ? And if things of common concernment, then how far the consent of neighbouring churches is to be sought?

9. Whether it doth not belong to the body of a town, collectively taken, jointly to call him to be their minister, whom the church shall choose to be their officer?

10. Whether the political and external administration of Abra-ham's covenant be not obligatory to gospel churches?

11. Unto whom shall such persons repair, that are grieved at any church process or censure; or whether they must acquiesce in the church's censure to which they belong?

12. Whether the laying on of hands in ordination, belong to presbyters or brethren?

13. Whether the church, her invitation and election of an offi-cer, or preaching elder, necessitates the whole congregation to sit down satisfied, as bound thereby to accept him as their minister, though invited and settled without the town's consent?

1These questions only appear in the Colonial Records under date of Oct. 11, 1666, to be discussed at the state council of the following May. The questions dis-cussed by the synod of 1657 appear to have been twenty-one in number, the discus-sion of which resulted in what was later known as the "Half-way Covenant." These questions were different in character as well as in number from those here printed, and could not, as shown by Dr. Williston Walker, have been accessible to Trumbull. They may all have been proposed by Connecticut, but do not appear in the archives of the colony. It is evidently a mistake to give the seventeen ques-tions here printed the date 1657.-J. T.

1657]

253

14. What is the gospel way to gather and settle churches?

15. From whom do ministers receive their commission to bap-tize?

16. Whether a synod hath a decisive power?

17. Whether it be not justifiable, by the word of God, that civil authority indulge congregational and presbyterian churches, and their discipline in the churches?1

It appears, by the records, that several other questions were pro-posed, but these are all which are to be found upon them. They stand in the same order in which they are here inserted.

The council convened at Boston, June 4th, 1657, and, after a session of a little more than a fortnight, gave an elaborate answer to twenty-one questions. The elders from Connecticut brought back an authentic copy of the result of the council, and presented it to the general court, at a session on the I2th of August. The court ordered, that copies should be sent forthwith to all the churches in the colony; and if any of them should have objections against the answers which had been given, they were directed to transmit them to the general court, at the session in October.

The answers were, afterwards, printed in London, under the title of "A disputation concerning church members and their chil-dren." Several of the questions involve each other. The prin-cipal one was that respecting baptism and church membership. An answer to this, in effect, answered a considerable part of the other questions. With respect to this, they asserted, and learned pains were taken to prove, "That it was the duty of infants, who confederated in their parents, when grown up unto years of dis-cretion, though not fit for the Lord's supper, to own the covenant they made with their parents, by entering thereinto, in their own persons; and it is the duty of the churches to call upon them for the performance thereof; and if, being called upon, they shall refuse the performance of this great duty, or otherwise continue scan-dalous, they are liable to be censured for the same by the church. And in case they understand the ground of religion, and are not scandalous, and solemnly own their covenant in their own per-sons, wherein they give up themselves and their children unto the Lord, and desire baptism for them, we see not sufficient cause to deny baptism unto their children."2

The answer to this question was, in effect, an answer to the other respecting the right of towns to vote in the election of ministers; for if they were all members of the church by baptism, and under its discipline, they, doubtless, had a right to vote with the church in the election of their pastor. Indeed, there was no proper ground of distinction between them and the church. Hence, it seems, the answer to that question was to this effect, "That though it was the right of the brotherhood to choose their pastor,

1Records of Connecticut.

2Magnalia, B. V. p. 63.

254

[1657

and though it was among the arts of antichrist to deprive them of this power, yet they ought to have a special regard to the baptized, by the covenant of God, under their watch."

The decisions of the council do not appear to have had any in-fluence to reconcile, but rather to inflame the churches.

A number of ministers, and the churches pretty generally, viewed this as a great innovation, and entirely inconsistent with the principles on which the churches of New-England were orig-inally founded, and with the principles of Congregationalism.

The church at Hartford, and the aggrieved brethren, instead of being satisfied and reconciled, appeared to be thrown into a state of greater alienation and animosity. The aggrieved soon after withdrew from Mr. Stone and the church, and were about forming an union with the church at Weathersfield. Among the aggrieved were governor Webster, Mr. Goodwin, ruling elder in the church, Mr. Cullick, and Mr. Bacon, principal men both in the church and town. Mr. Stone and the church were proceeding with them in a course of discipline.

In this state of their affairs, the general court, interposed, and passed an act, March 11, 1658, prohibiting the church at Hartford, to proceed any further in a course of discipline of the members, who had withdrawn from their communion, and those members to join with the church at Weathersfield, or any other church, until further attempts should be made, for their reconciliation with their brethren. By the act it appears, that the churches in the colony were generally affected with the dispute at Hartford, and viewed it as a common cause, with respect to all the congregational churches. It exhibits, in so strong a point of light, the authority, which the general court imagined they had a right to exercise over the churches, and the spirit of those times, as to merit a place in this history. It is in the following words.

"This court orders, in reference to the sad difficulties that are broken out in the several churches in this colony, and in special, betwixt the church at Hartford and the withdrawers; and to pre-vent further troubles and sad consequences, that may ensue from the premises to the whole commonwealth, that there be, from henceforth, an utter cessation of all further prosecution, either on the church's part at Hartford, towards the withdrawers from them; and, on the other part, that those, that have withdrawn from the church, at Hartford, shall make a cessation in prosecuting their former propositions to the church at Weathersfield, or any other church, in reference to their joining there, in church relation, until the matters, in controversy betwixt the church at Hartford and the withdrawn members, be brought to an issue, in that way the court shall determine."

The court, having desired the elders of the colony to meet them, and assist in adopting some measures by which the divisions in

1658]

. 255

the churches, and especially in that at Hartford, might be healed, adjourned about a fortnight.

It met again on the 24th of March. Whether the elders met with them, or not, does not appear; but the advice of the assembly, at this time, was that Mr. Stone, with the church and brethren who had withdrawn, should meet together; and, in a private confer-ence, if possible, agree upon some terms by which they might be reconciled. Governor Wells and deputy governor Winthrop were appointed to meet with them, and employ their wisdom and in-fluence to make peace.

It seems, that the church did not comply with this advice; or if there were any meeting of the parties, nothing was done to effect an accommodation. It appears, that Mr. Stone viewed the with-drawn brethren as in the Hands of the church at Hartford, and the matters to be determined as not lying before any council or the general court. And he would not admit, that fie, or the church, had counteracted the advice of the former council. He therefore, at the session in May, petitioned, that the subsequent propositions might be entered upon the records of the colony, and that the withdrawn brethren, or some person whom they should appoint, would dispute them with him in the presence of the court.

1. "The former council, at Hartford, June 26, is utterly can-celled and of no force.

2. "There is no violation of the last agreement, (made when the reverend elders of the Massachusetts were here,) either by the church of Christ at Hartford, or their teacher.

3. "The withdrawn brethren have offered great violence to the forementioned agreement.

4. "The withdrawn brethren are members of the church of Christ at Hartford.

5. "Their withdrawing from the church is a sin exceeding scandalous and dreadful, and of its own nature destructive to this and other churches.

6. "The controversy between the church of Christ at Hartford, and the withdrawn persons, is not in the hands of the churches, to be determined by them.1

samuel stone."

It does not appear that the court gave their consent, that the propositions should be disputed before them, or that they en-acted any thing, at this court, respecting the affairs of the church, or the brethren who had withdrawn.

But at a session, in August, they insisted, that the church and aggrieved brethren should meet together, according to their former advice, and debate their difficulties among themselves, and that the points in controversy should be clearly stated.

1Records of Connecticut.

256

[1658

At this time, a complaint was exhibited against governor Web-ster, Mr. Cullick, elder Goodwin and others, who had withdrawn from their brethren. But the court would not hear it at that time. It ordered, that, if the church and brethren would not agree to meet together and debate their differences among themselves, each party should choose three as indifferent elders as could be found; who should afford all the light and assistance in their power, towards settling the differences according to the divine oracles; and that both parties should peaceably submit to their advice. If either of the parties should refuse to make choice of three gentlemen, for the design proposed, the court determined to choose for them. The church rejected the proposal, and the court chose Mr. Cobbett, Mr. Mitchel, and Mr. Danforth, for them. For a reserve, if either should fail, Mr. Brown was chosen. The aggrieved brethren chose Mr. Davenport, Mr. Norton, and Mr. Fitch; and as a reserve, Mr. Street. The council were to meet on the 17th of September.

The church, it seems, would not send for the council, and so it did not convene.

At a session of the general court, the next year, March 9th, 1659, it was determined, that, as its past labors, to promote una-nimity, at Hartford, had been frustrated, by the non-compliance of the parties, the secretary, in the name of the court, should desire the elders, who had been formerly appointed, to meet at Hartford on the 3d of June succeeding, and afford their assistance in healing the breach, which had been made there. It was also enacted, that the church, at Hartford, and the brethren who had withdrawn, should jointly bear the expenses of the former council, and of making provision for that which had been then appointed.

The council consisted of the elders and churches of Boston, Cambridge, Charlestown, Ipswich, Dedham, and Sudbury. They convened according to appointment, June 3, 1659, and were abun-dant in their labors to soften the minds and conciliate the affec-tions of the parties; and though they did not effect a reconcilia-tion, yet they brought the brethren much nearer together than they had been, and left the church and town in a better state than they had enjoyed for years before.

On the 15th of June, the court convened, and perceiving the good effects of this council, desired the same gentlemen to meet again, at Hartford, on the 19th of August. Upon the choice and desire of the brethren who had withdrawn, the Rev. John Sher-man, and the church at Watertown, and the elder and church at Dorchester, were also invited to come with them.

The general court, in this state of the controversy, ordered the heads of the complaint, which had been exhibited against the withdrawn brethren, to be drawn up and sent to them, and they were required to appear before the court, in October, and answer

257

to them. The church agreed to the whole council, and the breth-ren aggrieved, to seven of them. The general court ordered, that both parties should submit to the judgment of the council, and that it should be a final issue.

The council convened again, at Hartford, and so far composed the difficulties which had so long subsisted, as to prevent a separa-tion at that time. Some of the capital characters were soon re-moved into the land of silence, where all animosities are forgot-ten. Mr. Cullick removed to Boston, and a considerable number removed to Hadley. By these means, the church was restored to a tolerable state of peace and brotherly affection; but it was viewed, by some of its own members, and others, as having, in some degree, departed from the strict principles of the first con-gregational churches in New-England; and seems, afterwards, to have divided nearly on the same grounds.

Doctor Mather, in his Magnalia, represents, that it was difficult, even at the time of the controversy, to find what were the precise points in dispute. Indeed, what the particular act or sentiment in Mr. Stone or the church was, which gave elder Goodwin disgust, and began the dissension, does not fully appear. Nothing how-ever is more evident, from the questions propounded, which it ap-pears were drawn by the very heads of the parties, and by the gen-tlemen chosen by the disaffected brethren, and rejected by the church, than that the whole controversy respected the qualifica-tions for baptism, church membership, and the rights of the broth-erhood. Mr. Stone's ideas of Congregationalism appear to have bordered more on presbyterianism, and less on independence, than those of the first ministers in the country in general. His defini-tion of Congregationalism, was, "That it was a speaking Aristoc-racy in the face of a silent Democracy."

The Hartford controversy was, for its circumstances, duration, and obstinacy, the most remarkable of any in its day. It affected all the churches, and insinuated itself into all the affairs of socie-ties, towns, and the whole commonwealth. Doctor Mather, in his figurative manner of description, says, "From the fire of the altar, there issued thunderings, and lightnings, and earthquakes, through the colony." This was considered as much more remark-able, as the church, at Hartford, had been famous for its instruc-tion, light, gifts, peace, and brotherly love. It had been viewed as one of the principal churches in New-England. Its dissensions were a ground of great sorrow to all the good people in the coun-try. Extraordinary were the pains taken, by the principal char-acters in New-England, to heal them.

The commissioners of the united colonies, in September 1656, wrote them a friendly and pacific letter on the subject. They say, "We have, with much sorrow of heart, heard of your differences, and that the means attended hitherto, for composing them, have

258

[1660

proved ineffectual. We cannot but be deeply sensible of the sad effects and dreadful consequences of dissensions, heightened and increased in a church of such eminence for light and love." They represented to them, that though all the churches sympathized with them, yet they themselves would be sure, in the first place, to feel the smart. They most earnestly exhorted them not only to be exceedingly cautious of all further provocations, but to employ all their wisdom and exertions for a reconciliation. They intreated them, not to suffer any discouragements to prevail with them, to make a separation and scatter abroad.1

The churches in Connecticut and New-Haven laboured to har-monize their views and affections, and to make peace. The min-isters in Massachusetts were so affected with their circumstances, that they offered to make a journey to Connecticut, to attempt their reconciliation. The long and repeated journeys they made, and the indefatigable labours they employed to compose their dif-ficulties, exhibited a noble spirit of benevolence, and a zeal for the peace and prosperity of Zion. They not only merited the grateful acknowledgments of the people at Hartford, but of the colony in general.

The proclamation for a public thanksgiving in November, rec-ognized the success of the council, in composing the difficulties at Hartford, as an event demanding public joy and praise.

The church at Weathersfield interested themselves in the dispute at Hartford, and became divided and contentious. Some of the brethren exhibited a complaint to the court against Mr. Russell, for joining with the church in excommunicating one of the breth-ren, as it was alleged, without giving him a copy of the complaint exhibited against him, and without acquainting him with his crime. The general court ordered, that Mr. Russell should be re-proved, for acting contrary to the usage of the churches. The brethren were divided with respect to their church state. Some insisted, that they were no church, because they had never been gathered according to gospel order; or if they had been a church, that the members of it had moved away in such a manner, as had destroyed its very existence. Many were inviolably attached to Mr. Russell, while others strenuously opposed him.

In this state of affairs, the general court appointed the elders and churches of Hartford and Windsor, a council to hear the diffi-culties which had arisen in the church and town. But the parties could not be reconciled. Mr. Russell removed to Hadley, where he and a number of his warm friends from Hartford and Weathers-field, planted a new town and church. The general court resolved, that a church had been regularly gathered at Weathersfield, by the consent of the general court, and approbation of neighbouring elders; and that, though divers of the members had removed to

1Records of the united colonies.

1662]

259

other places, yet the brethren there were the true and undoubted church of Weathersfield, and so to be accounted, notwithstanding any thing which did appear. Thus terminated the controversy; and Mr. Bulkley, in 1666, removed from New-London, and suc-ceeded Mr. Russell in the pastoral office. The same year, Mr. Simon Bradstreet, from Charlestown, came to New-London, and took the pastoral charge of the church there.

About the time of Mr. Russell's removal from Weathersfield, the minds of the people at Middletown became alienated from Mr. Stow, who appears to have been the first minister in that town. A committee of ministers and civilians, appointed by the general court, dismissed him, on account of the evil temper of the people towards him.

Many of the ministers and of the people, in the country, were for extending baptism, according to the determination of the gen-eral council, in 1657; but the churches were so generally and warmly opposed to it, that it could not be effected without a synod. As this and the consociation of churches were favourite points, which a large number of the clergy and principal civilians in Mas-sachusetts and Connecticut, wished to carry, the general court of Massachusetts appointed a synod of all the ministers in that colo-ny, to deliberate and decide on those points. The questions pro-posed, were,

1. Who are the subjects of baptism?

2. Whether, according to the word of God, there ought to be a consociation of churches ?

The council met at Boston, in September, 1662. Their answer to the first question, was substantially the same with that given by the council, in 1657.

They declared, "That church members, who were admitted in minority, understanding the doctrine of faith, and publicly pro-fessing their assent thereunto, not scandalous in life, and solemnly owning the covenant before the church, wherein they give up themselves and children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the government of Christ in his church, their children are to be baptized." They further resolved, "That the members of ortho-dox churches, being sound in the faith, and not scandalous in life, and presenting due testimony thereof, these occasionally coming from one church to another, may have their children baptized in the church whither they came, by virtue of communion of churches." They, also, gave their opinion in favour of the con-sociation of churches.

However, the council were not unanimous; several learned and pious men protested against the determination relative to baptism. The Rev. Charles Chauncey, president of Harvard college; Mr. Increase Mather, afterwards doctor in divinity; Mr. Mather, of Northampton; and others, were warmly in the opposition. Presi-

260

[1663

dent Chauncey wrote a tract against the resolution respecting bap-tism, entitled Antisynodalia. Mr. Increase Mather, also, wrote in opposition to the council. Mr. Davenport, and all the ministers in the colony of New-Haven, and numbers in Connecticut, were against the resolutions. Mr. Davenport wrote against them. The churches were more generally opposed to them than the clergy.

The general court of Connecticut took no notice of the synod, nor of the dispute, but left the elders and churches at liberty to act their own sentiments. They were attempting to form an union with New-Haven; and, as the ministers and churches of that col-ony were unanimous in their opposition to the synod, they, prob-ably, judged it impolitic, at that time, to act any thing relative to these ecclesiastical points.

While the churches were agitated with these disputes, another of their original lights was extinguished. Mr. Stone expired July 2Oth, 1663. He had his education at Emmanuel college, in the university of Cambridge. He was eminently pious and exem-plary; abounded in fastings and prayer, and was a most strict ob-server of the Christian sabbath. Preparatory to this, he laboured to compose himself on Saturday evening, to the most heavenly views and exercises, and was careful not to speak a word which was not grave, serious, and adapted to the solemnity. He spent much time, on this evening, in the instruction of his family, com-monly delivering to them the sermon which he designed to preach on the morrow, or some other, which might be best calculated for their instruction and edification. His sermons were doctrinal, re-plete with sentiment, concisely and closely applied. He was es-teemed one of the most accurate and acute disputants of his day. He was celebrated for his great wit, pleasantry, and good humour. His company was courted by all gentlemen of learning and in-genuity, who had the happiness of an acquaintance with him.

All the ministers who illuminated the first churches in Connecti-cut and New-Haven, except Mr. Warham and Mr. Davenport, had now finished their course, or returned to England; and most of their brethren, who composed the first churches, slept with them in the dust. The first governors and magistrates were no more.

October 13, 1664, the general court of Connecticut came to a resolve, with a view to enforce the resolution of the synod, upon the churches in Connecticut. It was in the words following.

"This court understanding, by a writing presented to them, from several persons of this colony, that they are aggrieved, that they are not entertained in church fellowship, this court, having duly considered the same, desiring, that the rules of Christ may be attended, do commend it to the ministers and churches in this colony, to consider, whether it be not their duty to entertain all such persons, who are of an honest and godly conversation, having a competency of knowledge in the principles of religion, and shall

1664]

261

desire to join with them in church fellowship, by an explicit cove-nant; and that they have their children baptized: and that all the children of the church be accepted and accounted real members of the church; and that the church exercise a due christian care and watch over them: and that when they are grown up, being ex-amined by the officer, in the face of the church, it appear in the judgment of charity, that they be duly qualified to participate in that great ordinance of the lord's supper, by their being able to examine themselves and discern the lord's body, such persons be admitted to full communion.

"The court desireth the several officers of the respective churches would be pleased to consider, whether it be not the duty of the court to order the churches to practice according to the premises, if they do not practice without such order. If any dis-sent from the contents of this writing, they are desired to help the court, with such light as is with them, the next session of this assembly."

The secretary was directed to send a copy of this resolution to all the ministers and churches in the colony.

The elders and churches, who would not comply with the pro-posed innovation, had not only to combat the arguments and in-fluence of the synod, but the influence of the uneasy people in the congregations, and of the general court; but it was but slowly, and with great difficulty, that the practice of owning the covenant, and baptizing the children of parents who did not enter into full communion, and attend both the sacraments, was introduced. But few churches, for many years, admitted the practice, and some never did. It appears that, notwithstanding the influence of the general court, and the resolutions of the synods, or general councils, a majority of the churches in Connecticut were against it. They imagined, that such a latitude in baptism, and admission of members to communion, would subvert the very design for which the churches of New-England were planted.

The discipline and usages of the Connecticut churches con-tinued yet, for some time, nearly in the same situation in which they had been from the beginning. The clergy and churches were strict in the admission of members to full communion. Those who were admitted, generally made a public relation of their Christian experiences, by which they gave satisfaction to the church of their repentance, faith, and sincere friendship to the redeemer.

The elders and churches were exceedingly strict, with respect to those whom they ordained; examining them not only in the three learned languages and doctrinal points of theology, with re-spect to cases of conscience, and their ability to defend Christianity and its doctrines against infidels and gainsayers, but with respect to their own experimental, heart religion. All those, who were to be ordained over any church, previously to their separation to the

262

[1665

sacred office, satisfied the brotherhood of their spiritual birth, and were admitted to their communion and fellowship. None were ordained, or installed over any church, until after they had been admitted to its full communion and fellowship.

They were also strict in the formation of churches; none could be formed, nor any minister ordained, without liberty from the general court, and the approbation of the neighboring elders and churches.

From the preceding view, it appears, that before the union there were fifteen churches in Connecticut, exclusive of those which had been formed upon Long-Island. There had been thirty-one min-isters in the colony; of whom about twenty-five or six had been installed or ordained. Twenty-one were ministering to the people at the time of the union; nineteen of whom had been installed or ordained. The other two, Mr. Noyes and Mr. Collins, were after-wards settled in the ministry, in the towns where, for some years, they had been laboring .