USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > Branford > A history of the First church and society of Branford, Connecticut, 1644-1919 > Part 6
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
As many a good minister, in these later days, has brought discredit upon himself by an endeavor to "ape" "Billy" Sunday, doubtlessly in a sincere effort to reproduce the spiritual achievements of that well known evangelist, but with a lamentable unconsciousness of the disparity in genius between himself and his pattern; so was it in the days of Whitefield. Ministers began to imitate him, upon every hand, and many of them were guilty of wild excesses which worked havoc with the reputation of their master. Speedily New England became divided into two parties: those who condemned the work of the evangelists-the "Old Lights," and those who defended them and felt that their labors were renewing the spiritual life of the people-the "New Lights." In reality the distinction between the parties ran much deeper, and the former party were the conservatives of the time, and the latter
>
86
the liberals. Feeling was bitter indeed, and each party was arrayed in a struggle to the death against the other.
Now it happened that the "Old Lights" held the reins of power in Connecticut and that the region about New Haven was a veritable stronghold of them; and it also happened that the Reverend Mr. Philemon Robbins was not one of their number, and that so they set themselves to work for his undoing. The means were not far to seek. Accu- rately and cleverly perceiving that a sure way to put an end to the activities of the itinerant evan- gelists would be to confine the activities of the "New Light" ministers to their own parishes, the New Haven Consociation, at a meeting held at Guilford in 1741, had passed the following vote: "that for any minister to enter into another min- ister's parish, and preach or administer the Seals of the Covenant, without the consent of, or in opposition to the settled minister of the parish, is disorderly. Notwithstanding, if a considerable number of people in the parish are desirous to hear another minister preach, provided the same be orthodox and sound in the Faith, and not notori- ously faulty in censureing other persons, or guilty of any other scandal, we think it ordinarily advis- able for the minister of the parish to gratify them by giving his consent upon their suitable application to him for it, unless neighboring ministers should advise against it." This vote seems very reason- able, at first sight, but, if examined carefully and
.
87
thoughtfully, will be seen to leave small chance for any minister who was not in favor with his "Old Light" neighbors to preach outside of his own boundaries.
The vote was supplemented, strengthened and made state-wide, by an act of the General Court, soon after, which read in part as follows: "If any minister or ministers, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, shall presume to preach in any parish, not under his immediate care and charge, the minister of the parish where he shall so offend, or the civil authority, or any of the committee of said parish, shall give information thereof, in writing under their hands to the clerk of the society of the parish where such offending minister doth belong, which clerk shall receive such information and lodge and keep the same on file in his office, and no assistant or justice of the peace in this colony, shall sign any warrant for collecting any minister's rate, without first receiving a certifi- cate from the clerk of the society or parish where such rate is to be collected, that no such informa- tion as is mentioned hath been received by him or lodged in his office." This act was rigorously enforced and, under it, several ministers were driven from the ministry. A Mr. Humphreys, minister at Derby, was deposed for officiating at a Baptist meeting; Timothy Allen, of New Haven, was expelled for stating that "the reading of the Scriptures, without the Spirit's aid, will no more convert a sinner, than reading an old Almanack"-
88
surely not a very blasphemous remark; while Mr. Todd, of Northbury, Mr. Lee, of Salisbury, and Mr. Leavenworth, of Waterbury, were also cast into the outer darkness and disfellowshipped, upon equally weighty pretexts. The truth, we cannot but be convinced, is that the conservative majority were out after the blood of the liberal few and were not scrupulous about how they obtained it. The turn of Philemon Robbins was to come soon, and the score against him was a heavy one.
Mr. Robbins was an earnest and ardent leader among the "New Lights." It was by his influence that the Branford church had invited Whitefield to preach a second time, despite the mandate of the State Association that "it would by no means be advisable for any of our Ministers to admitt him into their Pulpits, or for any of our people to attend upon his Preaching and Administrations." He had also held special evangelistic meetings, in his parish, and had induced his people to join in the special services of prayer, for a revival of religion, which had originated with the churches of Scot- land. From time to time he had invited outside assistance, notably the evangelist Davenport, who was in ill repute with the conservatives for his extravagances. Yet, when Davenport began sing- ing loudly, upon his way to the meeting, Mr. Rob- bins reproved him openly for unseemly conduct, he himself having small sympathy for excesses but only a very earnest desire for a spiritual reawaken-
89
ing among his people. But, for all these things, Robbins was in disfavor with the conservatives.
A number of years before Mr. Robbins came to Branford, a little group of Baptists began hold- ing meetings in the town of Wallingford. They ordained Mr. John Merriman, as their minister, and organized a separate church, refusing to pay their church rates to the Congregational Society. By the advice of Governor Talcott, the Wallingford Society let them alone and did not attempt to collect these taxes. The Society and the Wallingford minister, Rev. Samuel Whittlesey, a prominent member of the "Old Light" party, were very sensi- tive about the presence and activities of this Bap- tist body. During the closing months of the year 1741, these Wallingford Baptists, who had caught the revival spirit which was abroad in the state, were holding a series of Evangelistic services, much to the resentment of the established Society. Through the influence of a certain Baptist lady who had attended his services in Branford, Mr. Rob- bins received the following invitation to participate in these special meetings :
"To Mr. Robbins, Branford.
Sir :- After suitable respects to yourself, this note is to inform you that Mr. Bellamy has been with us at Walling- ford, and preached in our Baptist Society to very good satisfaction and success on several persons both of our people, and also those of your denomination, with whom we desire to join heartily in the internals of religion, though we can't in form; so that it seems to be the desire
1
90
of both denominations here, that yourself would oblige us with a sermon or two as soon as you can after the next week; and please to send me when. This is also my desire for the good of souls and the glory of God.
Sir, yours in good affection,
John Merriman, Elder.
Wallingford, Dec. 23, 1741."
The invitation offered an attractive opportunity for an act of neighborliness and was, as such, accepted. But, upon the day before that set for the service, Mr. Robbins received two notes from members of the Congregational Society in Wallingford, and also notes from the Rev. Mr. Hemingway and from Rev. Mr. Stiles, requesting him not to attend the meeting. Robbins could not, however, feel that there was any good reason for breaking his engage- ment. He attended the meeting, preached two sermons to large congregations, was received enthu- siastically, and was consulted, after the meeting, by several people about their souls' welfare. Both he and the Baptist people felt that the services had been much blessed.
It was on January 6th, 1742, that Robbins preached to the Wallingford Baptists. It is said that he also preached for dissenting congregations at Haddam and at Middlefield. His enemies made the most of their opportunity. The Wallingford case was a flagrant violation of the rule of the Guilford gathering, and of the act of the General Court. The offence was heightened by the fact that Mr. Robbins had previously been invited by
91
Mr. Whittlesey, the Congregational minister, to preach in his church and had declined to do so. The affair was brought to the formal attention of the Consociation at its meeting at New Haven, February 9, 1742. The following complaint was entered by Theophilus Yale, a delegate from Wal- ling ford :
"The subscriber, do certify, in way of complaint, to this reverend Consociation, that on the 6th day of January last past, the Rev. Mr. Philemon Robbins did enter into the First Society of Wallingford, and preach in a disorderly manner, in contempt of the authority of this Consociation, without the consent of the Rev. Mr. Whittlesey, pastor of said society; contrary to the act of the Guilford Council; contrary to an act of this Consociation, and contrary to the desire of his neighboring ministers, and a great num- ber of church members in Wallingford.
Theophilus Yale."
Mr. Robbins was present and defended himself against the accusation. He claimed that he had not been present at the Guilford meeting, that the doings of that meeting had never been accepted by the Consociation, and that the Baptists in Walling- ford were, by reason of their exemption from the payment of church rates to the Congregational Society, practically an independent parish. He also said that he saw "much about being contrary to the law of the Guilford Council, of the Conso- ciation, and of his brother ministers, but nothing about its being contrary to the law of God." His defence was deemed unsatisfactory, and it was
1
92
insisted that he should confess his fault and make apology. He declined to do so, and they offered him over night to reconsider, but, upon his insisting that he should not change his mind, they passed the following resolutions :
"At a meeting of the Consociation of New Haven county, convened by and according to adjournment at New Haven, February 9th, 1742. A complaint being given in by Theophilus Yale, Esq., a member of the First church in Wallingford, against the Rev. Philemon Rob- bins, pastor of the First church in Branford, within this county, that the said Mr. Philemon Robbins has preached in said First society in Wallingford, in a disorderly and offensive manner, as by said complaint is set forth and laid before the Consociation :
"Resolved, That the Rev. Mr. Robbins so preaching was disorderly.
"Resolved, That the Rev. Mr. Philemon Robbins should not sit as a member of this council for his disorderly preaching."
This action did not go far enough to satisfy the Branford pastor's ecclesiastical enemies. Accord- ingly they worked among the malcontents of his own home church, with such good result that, at the next meeting of the Consociation, a complaint was read which emanated from his own people. Acting upon the complaint the Consociation sent to Mr. Robbins, who was not present, the following note :
"The Association of the County of New Haven con- vened at New Cheshire May 31, 1743. To the Rev. Mr. Philemon Robbins, Pastor of the First Church in Bran-
93
ford. Reverend Sir, and dear Brother; By a paper, given into this Association by one of the members of your church, and signed by six members of the same, we are given to understand that there is an uneasiness among a number of your people, with your conduct and manage- ment, in sundry particulars; and, hoping that it may be of good service, we have desired a number of our body, viz .: the Rev. Messrs. Jacob Hemingway, Samuel Russell, Samuel Hall, Isaac Stiles, and Johnathan Merrick, to repair to Branford on the second Tuesday of June next to make inquiry into the difficulties among your people, and shall rejoice if they may be instrumental of good and peace among you; and hoping you will take this in good part, and treat the motion candidly, we heartily wish you well.
Test, Thomas Ruggles, Scribe. By order of Association."
The charges which had been entered against Mr. Robbins' conduct were the following five :
"I, That Mr. Robbins has set up lectures, without a vote of the church for it.
2, That he denies the platform.
3, That he has baptized a child at New Haven.
4, That he is a promoter of divisions and seperations.
5, That he admits members of a seperate church at New Haven to the Communion."
Mr. Robbins was much surprised at the accusa- tions, and still more so when he discovered that, of the six subscribers to them, one was an aged man who was mentally irresponsible, and three were persons who had been disciplined. He easily satis- fied his accusers, and the matter was dropped, but the affair itself was very far from being ended.
1
94
From time to time new complaints were entered, and the matter was never long allowed to slumber. Philemon Robbins endured the matter as patiently as he might, never seeking to retaliate against his persecutors, and trusting that time would either vindicate his course or wear out the energy of his enemies. He was not afraid to openly own that, under the circumstances, he had been unwise to preach to the Baptists of Wallingford, but he neither could nor would admit that he had been either morally or spiritually culpable. After his first appearance before the Consociation, he had written,
"I took my leave of the Consociation, and expected no more trouble or complaints about my preaching to the Baptists." Later, when new charges began to thicken, he had added this memorandum; "The crime is preaching to the Baptists, and the punishment is being secluded the Consociation. But, unexpectedly, the punishment is turned into a crime, and becomes the burden of all the following complaints against me."
Rapidly the charges against him had been multi- plied, being drawn from all possible quarters and made to cover every conceivable aspect of his ministry, until the original accusation was all but lost sight of. Year by year he was cited before the Consociation, and still the matter grew.
It will be interesting and illuminating, as show- ing how deep was the rancor of his adversaries, and how far they were ready to go in their endeavor to
95
discredit and undo him, to read one of these later indictments which they brought against him. Here it is.
"I. That he, the said Mr. Robbins, has in public taken it upon him to determine the state of infants, dying in infancy, declaring that they were as odious in the sight of God, as snakes and vipers were to us; and left it wholly in the dark whether there were any saved or not. "2. That he had assumed to himself the perogative of God, the righteous judge, in judging the condition of the dead, in a funeral sermon, saying that they were in hell, to the great grief of mourning friends and others.
"3. That in his public preaching he had been guilty of speaking evil of dignities; declaring that the leaders or rulers of the people were opposers of the glorious works of God in the land; and comparing our civil authority to and with Darius, who cast Daniel in the lion's den.
"4. In judging and declaring those persons carnal and unconverted that did not approve of the late religious stir that has been made in the land; and in the improvement of his sermon dividing them, and calling one part, that is, the approvers, the children of God, and branding the other part with the name and character of opposers.
"5. That said Mr. Robbins has also publicly and cen- soriously judged those that did not fall in with and impute the religious stir in the land (which he calls a glorious work of God) to be the work of God's spirit, declaring such were guilty of unpardonable sin.
"6. He has publicly asserted, and taught and laid down, that a man might be sincere in religion, and a strict observer of the church and yet be a hypocrite.
"7. Said Mr. Robbins has publicly reflected upon and reviled the standing ministers of this land, calling them Arminians, and comparing them with and to false prophets, putting himself in the place of Micajah."
96
Regarding his doctrine, they charged :
"I. That he has publicly taught us, that there is no promise in all the Bible that belongs to sinners; thereby frustrating the covenant of God's free grace, and the condescension and compassion of God, and his Son, our Saviour, to poor, lost and perishing sinners.
"2. That there is no direction in all the Bible how men should come to Christ, nor could he direct any persons how they should come to Him; thereby rendering the study and search of the Holy Scriptures, at least an unsafe and insufficient way of finding Christ, and the preaching thereof useless.
"3. He has publicly taught that it is as easy for per- sons to know when they are converted, as it is to know noonday from midnight darkness; making the only sure evidence of conversion to consist in inward feeling, and a sense of their love to God.
"4. He has declared in public, that believers never doubt of their interest in Christ, after conversion; and if they do, it is the sign of an hypocrite; rendering sanctification no evidence of conversion or justification, and that believers are never in the dark.
"5. He has also taught that God could easier convert the seat a man sits on than convert a moral man; and that the most vicious or vile person stands as fair a chance for conviction and conversion as the strictest moral man: thereby making holiness and obedience to the moral law, no way necessary to be found in men for their salvation.
"6. Mr. Robbins has taught that there are some sinners that Christ never died for, nor did he come to save them; thereby perverting the great doctrines of redemption in the gospel, and rendering all endeavors in men to obtain salvation, useless; teaching Arminianism and blending the covenant of works and the covenant of grace together."
Respecting his enthusiasm, which especially vexed them, they complained :
97
"I. That bitter and censorious spirit discovered by the said Mr. Robbins, against all, even civil magistrates, as well as ministers, who do not think the commotions in the land which bear the name of religion, a glorious work of God, and the effect of the agency of the Holy Spirit, declaring all such to be guilty of the unpardonable sin.
"2. In that strange heat of spirit, under which the said Mr. Robbins has acted; discovered in perpetual uneasiness, or craving to be preaching, going into those many unscriptual night meetings, and frequent public preaching under a religious pretence; consorting with and improving those to preach and carry on in public, as well as. in those private meetings, that have been most forward and famous for their enthusiasm in the present day.
"3. In the spirit of pride and conceitedness, and expec- tation to be believed only upon positive and bold asser- tion, discovered by said Robbins; among other instances thereof, by publicly declaring, in a sermon, that the standing ministers in this land were Arminians, and calling them false prophets, while he put himself in the place of Micajah before Ahab, in I Kings XXII, pro- nouncing these words upon it, That if the body of the people were in the way to eternal life, the Lord had not spoken by him.
"4. That Mr. Robbins has publicly taught, that uncon- verted persons have no right to praise God."
They also found fault with his personal conduct, condemning :
"I. Mr. Robbins' earnestness in promoting and improv- ing strolling or travelling preachers; and improving those that were most disorderly, to preach and exhort in the society ; more especially at one such meeting carried on at his house, by Messrs. Brainard and Buel; and another at the same place, carried on by Messrs. Wheelock and Munson; to the dishonor of religion, to the just offence of many of the church and people, and to the destruction of peace and gospel order, in church and society.
1
98
"2. His introducing Mr. Davenport to preach and exhort, and also his man to pray and sing, at the time when he went through the country, singing along the streets; attended with this aggravating circumstance, that it was on sacrament-day; to the great confusion and disturbance of the church, and profaning the sabbath in this society.
"3. His preaching in Wallingford, in the meeting- house of the Anabaptists there; and that contrary to the desire of a great number of the people at Wallingford, requesting him that he would not, and to the advice of neighboring ministers to the contrary."
We will forbear to comment upon these charges, further than to call attention to the puerility of some of them and the exceeding strangeness in the nature of many others. One would think, for instance, that a "strange uneasiness to be preach- ing" might be considered rather more commend- able than otherwise, in a minister. We shall see what the church thought about them, in a moment.
On August 18, 1744, the members of the church voted to request Mr. Whitefield to preach for them again. This brought about a new and hotter quar- rel with the Consociation. Mr. Robbins decided to appeal to the Ecclesiastical Society for support and, on October 14th, 1745, he "came into ye meeting Desiring yt he might have Leave to Lay ye states of his Difficulty with ye Association of N. Haven County before ye Society." The Society voted to grant his request and, feeling that the matter was too important for immediate action, adjourned until Monday, the twenty-first. At that time they passed the following vote :
99
"That this Society is of opinion yt what ye Revd Mr. Robbins our pastor has offered to ye Association of New Haven County relating to his Preaching to ye Baptists at Wallingford is sufficient.
This Society Desire ye Revd Mr. Robbins to Continue in ye ministry among us notwithstanding his preaching to ye Baptists & what ye association of New Haven County has done thereon.
That as a particular People have Right to Choose their own minister & no eclesiastical authority has Right to Impose one upon them without their vote & consent, or to depose a minister when he is regularly ordained with ye vote & consent of his People . . . We desire ye Revd Consociation & Association not to send any Counsells or Comtees among us unless ye Society desires.
That we cannot submit to ye Acts & Conclusion of any Counsells respecting ye ministry among us yt are made without ye vote & consent of this Society."
Acting in consonance with the Society, on November 4, 1745, the church voted as follows :
"I. That we renounce the Saybrook platform and shall not receive it as a rule of government and discipline in this church.
"2. That we declare this church to be a Congregational church.
"3. That we receive the Scripture of the Old and New Testament as the only perfect rule and platform of church government and discipline.
"4. That though we receive the Scriptures as the only perfect rule, yet as we know of no human composure that comes nearer to the Scriptures in matters of church government and discipline than the Cambridge platform, so we approve of that for substance, and take it for our platform, agreeably to the word of God.
"5. That we are not hereby straightened in our charity, but are free to hold communion, not only with Congrega-
100
tional churches, and church members that are in good standing, but with those called Presbyterian and also with those under the Saybrook platform regimen."
This was a declaration of war, with a vengeance, and also one of independence. Realizing the hope- lessness of further devotion to their former strategy, the "Old Light" leaders adopted new tactics, and sought to discredit the above votes by declaring that they represented the opinions of a minority party only; and also endeavored to win over the allegiance of as many members as possible to their cause. As a proof that these votes embodied the sentiments of almost the whole church, thirty-one members subscribed their names to the church vote, in an open meeting, and fifty- one persons affixed their signatures to the vote of the Society. There is not the slightest foundation for believing that, at any time, were there ever more than a very small percentage of Mr. Robbins' people who did not agree with and support their minister.
A council was called, by the Consociation, to meet at the house of John Taintor, in Branford, on the last Tuesday of September 1746, and Mr. Rob- bins was summoned before it. The session was an acrimonious one, and resulted in further condemna- tion of Mr. Robbins and of the Branford Church. The next step in the conflict developed when, doubt- less at the instigation of outsiders, certain of the minority party in the church endeavored to apply the act of the General Court, and to prevent the
IOI
payment of Mr. Robbins' salary. Angered by this action, the Society immediately added to that salary one hundred pounds.
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.