USA > Connecticut > A complete history of Connecticut, civil and ecclesiastical, from the emigration of its first planters, from England, in the year 1630, to the year 1764; and to the close of the Indian wars > Part 23
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56
As to the last article relative to the standing ministers not thinking as Mr. Robbins did, &c. his reply was, "Here comes in standing ministers again : and now I suspect the article refers to the neighbouring ministers of this county ; for I have said of some of them, that they and I did not think alike : and I am of the same mind still. As to my saying I had rather be under a bishop, than under our as- sociation, it is probably true, and I have no reason to alter my mind, (though I must dissent from the church of Eng- land, for some weighty reasons.) As to my joining with ministers unknown in their principles to my people, I sup- pose they do not know the principles of most ministers that they like, but by their preaching and conversation; and they may have the same trial of those I join with. Prove all things."
As the time for the meeting of the consociation ap- proached, Mr. Robbins appointed a church meeting, at which they unanimously voted, that they would abide by their votes passed November 4th, 1745 ; and they made choice of John Russell and William Gould, Esq'rs. the pas- tor, and deacons, to be a committee, to represent the church before the consociation, to lay the votes of the church in 1745, and of this meeting, before said consocia- tion, and earnestly to declare against its jurisdiction.
In this meeting Mr. Robbins read the articles of com- plaint, and his answer to them, with his citation from the moderator. The consociation met, according to appoint- ment, on the last Tuesday in September. The council, immediately after dining, chose a committee, of whom their moderator was one, and sent over to Mr. Robbins. The moderator professed a great desire to hear their difficul- tics : he said he did not question but Mr. Robbins might do much good there ; but now they were not peaceable, and he wished to have them in peace. Mr. Robbins ob- served, he apprehended there was but a step which parted them-the matter of the Saybrook and Cambridge plat- forms : that if he should espouse the Saybrook, though it might satisfy the minor part, he should disaffect the ma-
Mr. Rob- bins' an- swer, &c ...
219
CONNECTICUT.
CHAP. VIII.
jority of the church and society : that he knew of no way Book II. for peace, but for the council to advise the minor party to be easy as they were. He also observed, that some of 1746. the heads of the minor party had said, we will sit down easy, as we now are, if the association shall advise us to do it. But this did not suit the committee. They propo- sed that Mr. Robbins would submit to have them use their endeavours to make peace among them; that he would answer to the articles, or only go and answer for his preaching to the baptists, or offer the same confession now that he had offered before to the association ; and that he would call a church meeting. Mr. Robbins referred these proposals to the committee, who unanimously reject- ed them. They acquainted the council, that they had a message from the church and society, which they wished for an opportunity to lay before them. Soon after, the council sent for Mr. Robbins, who went with the commit- tee of the church and society. Mr. Robbins offered to speak, but the moderator forbade him, and the council proceeded, by his order, to the reading of the moderator's letter for convening the consociation, and the articles of charge against him. He then begged liberty to speak, but the moderator would not hear him, telling him that there was not time to hear articles, and the council must be adjourned until eight o'clock to-morrow morning. He said he had but a word to offer. He was then reprimand- ed by one of the council, and told that he knew the orders of the council better ; that it was adjourned till to-morrow, &c. It was then ordered, that the citation should be read. Immediately after which, Mr. Robbins desired liberty to speak again ; but the moderator said the council was ad- journed, and would not hear him. After this, the scribe got up and adjourned the council.
The next morning Mr. Robbins and the rest of the com- mittee, went to the house where the council met, and just as they knocked at the door, they met the committee of the consociation, who were going over again to speak with, Mr. Robbins. They urged the same things which had been proposed the day before. But the committee utterly refused to comply with them ; and as soon as they could obtain liberty, exhibited the votes of the church and socie- ty at their first and second meetings, relative to these mat- ters, and denied their jurisdiction. The council urged them to give their reasons, but they observed the votes contained reasons, and they had no orders to give any. Indeed they agreed among themselves to give none.
The council, finding Mr. Robbins and the church, with
220
HISTORY OF
CHAP. VIII.
Book II. the society, totally renounced their jurisdiction, and would make no answer or plea before them, or have any thing to 1746. do with them, proceeded to consider the matter of juris- diction in this case. One of their principal members un- dertook, in a long and zealous speech, to prove Mr. Rob- bins and his church were under the Saybrook platform, and could not get from under it. Others insisted upon it, that they were not under it, and that the council had not jurisdiction in the case before them. But the council de- termined that they had jurisdiction. And then, upon an exparte hearing, (the evidence of the complainers,) or without any hearing at all,* came to the following result ; viz :
The result of the con- sociation.
" At a meeting of the consociation of the county of New- Haven, regularly convened, upon the request of twelve members of the first church, and thirty of the inhabitants of the first society in Branford, at the house of Mr. John Factor, in said Branford, September 30th, 1746. A com- plaint having been exhibited to this consociation, against the Rev. Mr. Philemon Robbins, pastor of said first church in Branford, in various articles respecting his preaching, conduct and behaviour, by Joseph Frisbie, a member of said church, bearing date July 23d, 1746 ; after using re- peated methods to reconcile the parties, which proved in- effectual, Mr. Robbins rejecting all proposals for accom- modation ; the consociation proceeded to the consideration of said complaint. The parties appearing, the Rev. Mr. Robbins denied the jurisdiction of this council, refusing to assign any reasons for his so doing, except what may be gathered from the votes of the church and society, laid be- fore the council ; which votes being read and considered, it was resolved, that what Mr. Robbins had offered against the jurisdiction, was insufficient. Whereupon the conso- ciation entered upon the hearing of the several articles contained in said complaint, and examined the evidences in support thereof; and find the following articles of com- plaint against Mr. Robbins sufficiently proved, viz.
" I. With respect to his public preaching and doctrine.
" 1. That he hath taken upon him, to determine the state of infants, dying in infancy, declaring them as odious in the sight of God, as snakes and vipers are to us.
" 2. That he hath assumed the prerogative of God, the
* As the complainants, or disaffected, were the only persons appearing before the council, upon what was called the trial, it seems that they only must have been the witnesses. And there is no mention of proofs on file, in the judgment. Mr. Robbins sent to the scribe for a copy of the evidences ; but he returned answer, that he had nothing to send but men's names. He then desired the names, but could not obtain even then.
221
CONNECTICUT.
CHAP. VIII.
righteous judge, in determining the state of the dead ; say- Book II. ing, that they were in hell.
" 3. That he hath spoken evil of dignities; that the 1746. leaders and rulers of this people, were opposers of the Result of glorious work of God.
the conso- ciation.
" 4. That he hath reviled the standing ministry of this land, calling them Arminians, and comparing them to false prophets.
" 5. That he hath publicly taught, that there is no direc- tion in all the bible, how men should come to Christ, nor could he direct any persons how they should come to him.
" 6. That he hath publicly taught, that God could easier convert the seat a man sits on, than convert a moral man : and that the most vicious person stands as fair, or fairer, for conviction or conversion than the strictest moral man.
" 7. That he hath publicly asserted and taught, that a man might be sincere in religion, and a strict observer of the sabbath, and yet be a hypocrite.
" 8. That he hath publicly taught, that it is as easy for persons to know when they are converted, as it is to know noon day light, from midnight darkness.
" 9. That he hath declared in public, that believers never doubt of their interest in Christ after conversion ; and if they do, it is a sign of an hypocrite.
" 10. That he hath publicly taught, that unconverted persons have no right to praise God.
" II. With respect to his conduct and behavior, we find,
" That he hath been a promoter of schismatic conten- tions, separations and divisions. That he hath led off a party with him to rise up against and separate from the ecclesiastical constitution of this colony, under which this church was peaceably established ; reproachfully insinu- ating, in a church meeting, that under Saybrook platform it was king association, in opposition to Jesus Christ, the only king of the church. And also, that he hath remain- ed obstinate, under censure of a former consociation, not- withstanding repeated endeavours used to bring him to his duty : with'some errors, and many other unguarded and unsuitable expressions, as appears by the articles of com- plaint, and proofs offered upon file. In which articles, upon mature deliberation, we judge said Mr. Robbins is guilty of a breach of the 3d, the 5th and the 9th com- mands, and many gospel rules, for which he ought to give christian satisfaction, by making a confession to the ac- ceptance of this consociation. The above voted, Nemine contradicente.
" Test. SAMUEL WHITTELSEY, jun. jun. { Scribes." ROBERT TREAT,
922
HISTORY OF
CHAP. VIII.
BOOK II. " Voted, that this consociation be adjourned until such time as the moderator of the council shall see it needful to 1746. convene it again, according to the following method, viz. " That the Rev. Mr. Chauncey, and the messenger of the church of Durham, the Rev. Messrs. Samuel Whittel- sey, Joseph Noyes, Thomas Ruggles, with the messengers of the churches of which they are pastors, be appointed and constituted a committee, with full power to receive the satisfaction and acknowledgment of the Rev. Mr. Robbins, if he shall see it in his way to comply with the judgment of this consociation ; and to advise and concur with the Rev. moderator to convene this consociation, if it shall be needful therefor ; and that the moderator be empowered to cite all persons that are by them esteemed necessary, a major part of them being empowered to act. Test. SAMUEL WHITTELSEY, jun. Scribe."
Mr. Robbins remarked on the judgment to this effect. " The council speak of using repeated methods to reconcile the parties ; but that I rejected all proposals for an accom- modation. I thought, by their sending committees to me the first and second day, so early, before we could possi- bly have opportunity to do the message assigned us by the church and society, that they intended to do something to make a handle of against me. But what were their pro- posals for an accommodation ? Not such as I had made to the dissatisfied party, viz : That whatever errors and faults they would convict me of, I would recant those er- rors and confess the faults, as openly and publicly as the nature of the thing required ; or that we should mutually call a council, which would be much more likely to find out truth and promote peace among us. But their proposals were evidently calculated to bring us under, or to own their jurisdiction ; to which we could not submit." He noticed, that in the council, mention was made of the proofs offered on file, and that he therefore concluded, they had proofs against him on file, in writing. That he sent to the scribe for a copy of the evidences; and the scribe declared he had nothing to send but men's names : That he then desired a copy of the names, but these he never could obtain. These, doubtless, were no other than the complainants, and they were not willing that it should be known that they had condemned their brother merely upon the articles of complaint, and the evidence of the very persons who had offered it. Mr. Robbins further re- marked, that in the close of the result, it was attested by the scribes that it was, nemine contradicente ; whereas, one of the Rev. council had assured him that he was not in
Remarks on the re- sult of the consocia- tion.
CHAP. VIII.
CONNECTICUT.
the result ; that he did not vote that what was offered a- Book II. gainst the jurisdiction of the council was insufficient, nor that they had the right of jurisdiction. He also said, he 1746. opposed the passing of one of the articles. And he declar- ed, that as he could not vote with the council in every ar- ticle, so that when they were proposed to be passed all to- gether, he did not hold up his hand.
Mr. Robbins further remarks, that one of the Reverend council, had told him, since the result, that he settled un- der the Saybrook platform, whereas, he affirms, that at the time of his ordination, he had never seen it. He says, " I well remember the ordination council asked me whether I approved of the Saybrook platform ? I answered I could not tell, for I had never seen it. Then they asked me, if l approved the assembly's catechism ? I replied, I did. And so they proceeded to my ordination, without saying any thing further to me on that subject."
In this important crisis, when thus condemned by the consociation, Mr. Robbins judged it expedient to know the minds and feelings of his brethren. A church meeting was called on the 22d of January, 1747. At which time, the articles of charge were read, with Mr. Robbins' an- swer to them ; and the church passed the following votes, viz.
Jan. 1747,
"1. We are of opinion, that what is contained in the Votes of said articles of charge against the pastor of this church, Branford respecting doctrine and principles, is very wrongfully and church. injuriously charged, and disagreeable to the known course and tenor of his preaching-We are generally steady at- tendants on his ministry, and do not remember that he has ever expressed himself as charged in those articles-And as to what respects his conduct, we apprehend it wrong- fully represented in the articles of charge. Indeed, his admitting Mr. Davenport to preach at that time, and so Messrs. Buel and Brainard to hold a meeting at his house, as they did carry it on, was what we could not, some of us, so well approve of, under circumstances, and we do not think that he would act in the same form again.
"2. We think Mr. Robbins' answers to said articles, are according to truth, and agreeable to his known prin- ciples and doctrine. Some of us remember the particular passages in his sermons, which are quoted in his answers to said articles, and they truly represent what was deliv- ered.
" 3. We think Mr. Robbins preaches the doctrines of free grace, more clearly and pungently, than in some of the first years of his ministry among us ; and yet, we have
224
HISTORY OF
CHẤP. VIII.
Book II. too much reason to fear, our uneasy brethren and neigh- bours, especially some of the principal men among them, 1747. are dissatisfied on account of those doctrines ; which doc- trines for our part we think are clearly revealed in the word of God, adhered to by the reformed churches, as ap- pears by their confessions of faith and catechisms-And we trust, God has and will impress them on our hearts, and will enable us to maintain them as long as we live.
" 4. That the above votes be signed by the deacons of this church, in behalf of the church.
" Accordingly we, who heartily join with our brethren in the above votes ; subscribe our names.
JOHN RUSSELL, ? Deacons of the first SAMUEL ROSE, S church in Branford.
"The above was voted nemine contradicente. A truc сору.
" Test. PHILEMON ROBBINS, Pastor, &c. in Branford."
Remarks on the treatment of Mr. Robbins, Various remarks were made on the proceedings of the consociation with Mr. Robbins, some extracts from which are necessary to give a just history of the times. A cer- tain clergyman in a communication made to Mr. Robbins, by the con- printed at the close of his narrative, remarks, " The ques- sociation. tion whether your preaching there (at Wallingford) with- out Mr. Whittelsey's consent, was disorderly or not, de- pends on the meaning of the word parish, in the resolve of the council at Guilford, Nov. 24th, 1741, wherein it is said, For a minister to enter into another minister's parish and preach, &c. without the consent of, or in opposition to the settled minister of the parish is disorderly .* For, if in preaching there as you did, you did nothing contrary to the natural and true meaning of that resolve, your so doing cannot be disorderly by that resolve ; and I sup- pose it but just, to understand the word parish in the re- solve of the New-Haven county consociation, in the same sense, though they may put a different sense upon it. Now I take it, that by the word parish, in the said resolve of the council at Guilford, is to be understood an ecclesias- tical society, and not a circuit of ground which people do inhabit, that belong to several churches. For although it be true, most of our ecclesiastical societies have their dis- tinct local bounds, or circuits drawn, yet they have not all, as at Hartford and Guilford, are two ecclesiastical so- cieties in one circuit of ground ; so there are several sucht
* From this scrap of the doings of the council, at Guilford, which is all that I have ever been able to obtain, it appears that the extraordinary law for punishing ministers, had its origin in the clergy who were op- posed to the work then in the country.
225
CONNECTICUT.
CHAP. VIII.
like circuits, wherein there is a baptist church, and one of Book II. another denomination : so also others, wherein are those of the church of England communion, and of our own. 1747. Any other understanding of the word will infer the ab- Remarks, surdity of subjecting ecclesiastical societies and minis- &c. ters one to another, in an unreasonable and preposterous manner ; and depriving some ministers and churches of such rights as all confess they have. As for instance, I will suppose, that the first church in Hartford, with its pas- tor, may not invite or suffer any other minister to preach to said first church, without the consent of the second ; and that the minister, who should so preach in the first church, must be judged disorderly for it. I suppose it is the common understanding, since this resolve at Guilford, that either of the said ministers, or churches, has a right to invite a minister to preach in them without asking leave of one another; and that they have practised accordingly. Nor can I suppose a minister's preaching to the baptists in New-London or Groton, upon their minister's desire, without the consent of the ministers in the first churches in New-London and Groton, within the bounds of which the baptists dwell ; or a minister's preaching to those of the church of England, on their incumbent's, Mr. Johnson's desire, without the consent of the minister of the first church, in Stratford, would be accounted disorderly.
" As to the objection that they are not a lawful society, at Wallingford, not having taken benefit of king William's act of toleration, I would say, the baptists are allowed by- the laws of this colony, to enjoy or attend their own way of worship, without qualifying themselves according to the aforesaid act. That the same privileges had been granted to them as to the quakers, by the act passed in their favor, in 1729. Agreeable to this, was the advice of governor Talcott to the collector, relative to the bap- tists at Wallingford." The remarker insists therefore, that Mr. Robbins' preaching at Wallingford, was not a- gainst the Guilford resolve, nor that of the resolve of the consociation of New-Haven county, understood consist- ently with reason, nor contrary to any law of this colony.
On the proceedings and result of the consociation, he remarks, " That according to the natural construction of the preamble, or preface to the judgment, it must be sup- posed you was present at the trial, confronting the evi- dences brought in against you; for it is said the consocia- tion proceeded to consider the complaint, the parties ap- pearing, &c. 'Tis true they say you denied the jurisdic- tion of the council, but not a word is noted of your refus+
026
HISTORY OF
CHAP. VIII.
1747. Remarks, &c. :
Book II. ing to plead before them, after they had determined that they had jurisdiction. It is no new thing, nor uncommon for a person to make such a plea, before a judge, who, when overruled therein, proceeds to a further plea, in his defence; and the omission of noting your refusal to an- swer the articles before them, must, I think, leave the rea- der of that judgment with an apprehension, that you ap- peared on the trial of the articles, especially when it is considered that they say, " they proceeded to hear the ar- ticles, examine evidences for the support of them, and find the following things, &c. sufficiently proved." It being, as I conceive, contrary to an cquitable procedure, for a council to do what they here say they did; and the party to be tried, not there to answer for himself. Add to this. that there is no remark made, in any part of their judg- ment, of your contemning the authority of the consocia- tion, for refusing to be tried by them : which surely a rea- der of their judgment would expect to find, if they had a right to try you, and you had refused to be tried by them. So that from the face of the judgment, you are represented as having been present at the trial, and pleading for your- self, and on a full trial found guilty, of publicly teaching a number of errors, &c. when really the case was otherwise.
" You are condemned as guilty, &c. without ever being heard in your own defence, upon defective evidence, which I take to be contrary to equity. I conceive it to be con- trary to Saybrook platform, which the consociation pre- tends to be governed by ; where it is expressly said, in the eleventh article, " That if any person orderly complained of to a council, having regular notification to appear, shall neglect or refuse so to do, except such person shall give some satisfying reason thereof, he shall be judged guil- ty of scandalous contempt." It is wholly silent on their proceeding to a trial of the cause in such case. Here the council pass no sentence of contempt for refusing to ap- pear ; and proceed to try the cause in such a way, wherein the truth is most unlikely to appear. Ten of the articles, the council in their judgment say relate to your public. preaching and doctrine, which they say were sufficiently proved. I am of opinion, that your foregoing answers to the several articles, do sufficiently defend you against the charge of such preaching.
" Indeed, it seems somewhat hard, such a complaint. should be received against a minister of Christ, charging falsehood, &c. on his public preaching, in so general a manner, without mentioning time, or place, or text dis coursed on, when the false doctrine was supposed to be
225
CONNECTICUT.
CHAP. VIII.
delivered. I suppose it contrary to the methods of trial Book II. in civil courts, and subjects a person to such difficulties and disadvantages for his own defence, as the civil authori- ty will not suffer the king's subjects to lie under.
1747. Remarks,
" But then how are these proved against you ? Why, &c. by evidences (without your being present to answer for yourself,) who had taken offence against you, for these and several other things mentioned in their complaint. Now, if it be considered, that it is no uncommon thing, for persons not prejudiced against a preacher, to misap- prehend some passages he may deliver, either from want of attention, or from not observing the connection of a dis- course and the like, that the omission or adding of a word, or the alteration, or misplacing of a word, will give a dif- ferent meaning; that a sentence or passage abstracted from its relation to what preceded or followed, appears to be of a different sense from what it really had in the dis- course ; if these evidences had committed the sentences to writing when they supposed you spake them, or if they had so done before the council, and sworn to them, (though by what the scribe of the consociation says, they never were written at all ;) in either of the cases there would have been a deficiency in the proof: but then so much of pre- judice as is in the mind of the hearer against a preacher, so much is his evidence in that case weakened; which was the case here. Your unprejudiced hearers, it seems, nev- .er understood any passage in your sermons, as these evi- dences pretend to have done ; and as to some of the arti- cles, they can witness for you, that you preach the contra- ry, as is evident by their declaration at a church meeting. And a just presumption of prejudice lies against these evi- dences, and so of mistake, about what they evidence ; when it was well known to the council, that the generality of the church and congregation, (of many of whom it may be said without offence, that they were as understanding and judicious hearers as the evidences were, and as con- scienciously concerned to bear testimony against errors in doctrine, had they heard you deliver any) were satisfied of the soundness of your preaching. So that on the whole, I think it apparent, the judgment is founded on such evi- dence as is in its own nature deficient, for the proof of your preaching false doctrine ; and will really amount to just nothing, if your answers thereto be considered.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.