USA > Connecticut > History of Connecticut, Volume I > Part 21
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
Yet, although Stoddard opened the doors of the Church more widely, he was not democratic. Instead, he contended that "the Elders
227
RELIGIOUS DISSENT, 1730-1750
are to Rule over the Church, and therefore not to be over-ruled by the Brethren," and he held that "the Community are not men of under- standing."" To enforce discipline and maintain control over the choice of ministers, Stoddard encouraged particular churches to join into regional associations. Through the teaching of Stoddard and the prac- tices which he encouraged, the view that an authoritative body should be established to supervise the churches gained wide acceptance. The established order in Connecticut favored such a control, and Yale Col- lege, which had been founded in 1703, favored the establishment of a stronger ecclesiastical government. When Gordon Saltonstall of New London, a most ardent defender of the synod, became governor in 1708, the time seemed propitious to attempt to eliminate the defects of the discipline of the Church.7
The Saybrook Platform
"To invigorate church discipline," the ministers of the several counties were directed to meet in June 1708 "to consider and agree upon those methods and rules for the management of ecclesiastical discipline." They, in turn, named as delegates twelve ministers, in- cluding eight trustees of Yale, to meet at Saybrook, September 9, 1708, where the platform of Church discipline was adopted.8
The results of the meeting were included in a volume published in 1710, which apparently was designed to present the sum of Church discipline at that time. The usual praise of the Toleration Act was in- cluded. The Heads of Agreement and The Savoy Confession of Faith were reprinted. The Confession, which had been formulated by the Eng- lish leaders of the Congregational Church in 1658 and reaffirmed by the reforming synod of Boston in 1680, contained a declaration of church order.9 The Heads of Agreement represented an effort by the Presby- terian and Congregational Churches to reconcile their differences. While no specific mention was made of the church covenant, the church was referred to "as a competent number of visible saints consenting to- gether."10 It did not give authoritative jurisdiction to the governing body of the Church, but it did require that neighboring churches be consulted on certain matters.11
The main body of the Platform consisted of the newly formulated
228
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
-
(Courtesy Conn. State Lib.)
COLUMBIA-OLD CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH AND MEETING HOUSE ON THE GREEN
"Fifteen Articles." These increased the power of the elders by joining them with pastors into associations and by organizing the churches into Unions or consociations. The associations exercised extensive power through such privileges as that of recommending candidates for the ministry. The consociations could be appealed to for advice by the church before sentencing an offender, but an offender could not ap- peal to the consociation without the approval of the church. Religion in Connecticut moved closer to Presbyterianism. Yet, when interpreted
229
RELIGIOUS DISSENT, 1730-1750
in the light of the Heads of Agreement, the platform could be con- sidered as providing for only voluntary confederation.12 The adminis- trative machinery was more clearly defined.
The Platform granted no formal coercive power. However, through the legislative provision for the public support of the minis- ters, a coercive influence upon a recalcitrant was available. It appeared that the established church had attained the height of its power with the legalization of the new administrative arrangements by legislative sanction. This "government within a government" attained peace for a while, but it had been bought at the expense of orthodox Congrega- tionalism, since it adopted Presbyterian administrative controls.13 Too, it appeared to grant a degree of tolerance (which would not have been countenanced in an earlier period), to dissident religious groups, since, in publication, it was coupled with acceptance of the Assembly's Tol- eration Act.
The Dissenters
There were four dissenting religious groups in Connecticut at the time of the passage of the Toleration Act of 1708: the Quakers, Episco- palians, Baptists, and Rogerenes. The last centered in New London and had been introduced from Rhode Island in the last quarter of the seventeenth century. They disapproved of the paid ministry of the Congregationalists, disagreed on the form of administering baptism, and believed in personal regeneration which the established order denied. For a quarter of a century, they had been harassed and im- prisoned by Connecticut authorities, principally for their public tes- tifying on Sunday and for their demanding use of the churches. The persecution of the sect continued after Rogers refused Governor Saltonstall's offer to protect the Rogerenes if they would but give up their public testifying and conduct their services in private.14
Saltonstall was less tolerant of the Baptists, who first began to come into Connecticut from Rhode Island at the beginning of the eighteenth century. When they began a church at Groton in 1705, in disregard of the General Court's refusal to grant them permission to incorporate in church estate, they were met with the full penalties of the law which provided for fines, imprisonment, and flogging.15
230
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Connecticut at first, in contrast to New Haven, followed a policy of unusual moderation toward the Quakers. Most of these were found in border towns. They were ministered to by traveling preachers or they attended monthly or quarterly meetings in neighboring colonies. This general tolerance was extended until 1702. Then, perhaps because of the challenges of other sects, and, perhaps, because of the weakness of the established church itself, the colony began a policy of oppression. The Quakers promptly protested to England. England, in 1705, or- dered the repeal of the law of 1657 against heretics insofar as it applied to Quakers. Connecticut, in the midst of defending her charter, quickly obeyed.16
The Episcopalians, because of their close relations with the gov- ernment in England, constituted the greatest threat to Connecticut. Un- til the numbers of Episcopalians increased near the end of the seven- teenth century, Connecticut could discharge her responsibilities to the Church of England by implying that its services would be permitted as soon as the settlers desired it. There prevailed, however, a party in Eng- land interested in strengthening the Episcopal bond between the col- onies and the home government. A report on the "churchly sentiment" within the colonies resulted in the formation in 1701 of a Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, to which belonged all the English Bishops.17
This Society sent missionaries to several of the American colonies, emphasizing publicly their functions of ministering to church mem- bers and converting Indians, but, also, expecting them to attempt to persuade dissenters to conform. In answer to a suggestion of Caleb Heathcote, a man of wealth and influence in New York, a license was issued in 1706 to George Muirson, a missionary in New York, giving him permission to go to Connecticut to baptize children of Anglicans living there. Although those who attended his services were threatened with imprisonment, converts were made and included John Read, the Congregational Minister at Stratford, and some of his parishioners.18 The Society, its missionaries, clergymen in the middle colonies, and the increasing number of Anglicans in Connecticut all urged the establishment of an American episcopate. The demand was reinforced by the unsettled political relation of England and Connecticut. An-
231
RELIGIOUS DISSENT, 1730-1750
glicans felt the situation would be improved by strengthening the Church in the colony; Connecticut's opposition was somewhat ham- pered by her ever present fear of the loss of the charter. By the time Saltonstall became Governor, it began to appear that religious discon- tent had reached dangerous proportions. It was to ameliorate royal
HEBRON-ST. PETER'S CHURCH (EPISCOPAL)
disfavor and to disarm complaints against the colony that the Tolera- tion Act was introduced.19
This provided that a dissenter, by taking the oath of allegiance to the Crown, by denying transubstantiation, and by declaring dissent from Congregationalism, would be guaranteed the same liberty of worship as that established by law, provided that "nothing . .. shall be construed to the prejudice of the rights and privileges of the Churches as by law established in this government, or to the excusing of any person from paying any such ministers or town dues, as are now or
232
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
shall hereafter be due from them."2ยบ Obviously, the act did little to en- courage dissent. The Quakers and the Rogerenes were prevented by principle from taking the oath of allegiance. Others were dissuaded from becoming Baptists or Episcopalians by the requirement that they would have to continue to lend financial support to the established church, by the social opprobrium which could be levied against them, and the laws which would be applicable if they should fail to practice their choice diligently.21 From this beginning, however, a margin of concession was forced by the dissenters upon the established church of the colony during the next twenty years.
All but the Rogerenes gained a measure of tolerance within the next two decades. Even they, by their militant striving for status, ex- tended the limits of the liberty toward which later generations might strive. Their effectiveness can, perhaps, be measured by the oppressive- ness of the act designed to bring them under control. Significantly, the "Act for the Better Detecting and More Effectual Punishment of Pro- phaneness and Immorality," aimed principally at the Rogerenes, de- parted from a basic Anglo-Saxon principle of jurisprudence: Rogerenes were held guilty until proved innocent.22 One "not able to prove . . . that he or she has attended the said worship, shall incur the penalty of five shillings money for every such offense." For convening in a meeting house when approval had not been previously gained, they were fined 20 shillings. If they should be found away from home for reasons other than to attend public worship or for performing some other necessary work, they were fined five shillings. For unlawful behavior on the Lord's day, they were fined forty shillings. If the convicted refused or neglected to pay their fine, they were to be employed in labor for the colony for a month at their own expense. Until Talcott became Gov- ernor in 1724, the persecution of the Rogerenes continued. It was learned, however, that the most effective way of controlling the Roger- enes was to ignore their behavior. When stripped of the role of the per- secuted, the sect became numerically insignificant.23
The Episcopalians, after the passage of the Toleration Act, looked hopefully toward the establishment of a bishopric in America. Angli- cans questioned the validity of lay ordination and the validity of sacra- ments administered by such questionable clerics.24 It was important
RELIGIOUS DISSENT, 1730-1750
233
*
(Courtesy Conn. Devel. Comm.)
CHESHIRE CHURCH
234
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
to them that they be served by Episcopally ordained ministers, especially since they felt that sacraments were a means of grace necessary to salva- tion. As long as ordination had to take place in England, the supply of such ministers, especially of those of colonial origin, was limited. The high death rate from the overseas trip was offered as an explanation as to why many colonists were deterred from seeking proper ordination.25 It was known that Queen Anne was interested in establishing an Amer- ican bishopric and a bill for the expansion of the Church of England in America and for its severance from the Bishop of London had been prepared. So confident were the proponents of the bill that a home for the prospective Bishop was purchased in Burlington, New Jersey. With the death of the Queen, however, the bill was withdrawn, and an effort to interest King George failed.26
The growing number of Anglicans in America, as well as inter- ested persons in England, kept the idea alive. In addition to doubts about lay ordination which motivated ministers, especially, to defect from Congregationalism and to seek Episcopal ordination, a factor in gaining new converts was the exclusionist inclination of the Congrega- tionalists, under which many were completely denied the sacraments of baptism and communion.27 In 1718, at Stratford, which was the center of Episcopalianism in the colony, it is estimated that there were con- gregations of from two to three hundred.28 Episcopalianism received a further stimulus when, in 1722, Timothy Cutler, the Rector of Yale, Daniel Browne, then the only other instructor, and several com- panions declared for Episcopacy. Although some of these recanted, Cutler and four of the companions, including Reverend Samuel John- son went to England where they were ordained.29 This infiltration of Anglican conviction, particularly in regard to ordination, had re- sulted from a collection of books given to Yale by English donors. They yielded a harvest to meet the wishes of the Anglican who donated the money with which Yale was founded, for he was persuaded to make his gift because of the argument of Jeremiah Dummer, an agent of Connecticut in London, "if the discipline of the Church of England be most agreeable to Scripture and primitive practice, there's no better way of making men sensible of it than by giving them good learning." These notable conversions intensified both Congregational animosity
235
RELIGIOUS DISSENT, 1730-1750
and Anglican confidence. The Congregationalists felt they must pre- vent the growth of Anglicanism. As late as 1779, the books which had influenced the defection of Cutler and his companions were avail- able to students only by special permission and subsequent proffers of books by Anglicans were held suspect. Harvard's library was ex- amined by a committee of ministers and magistrates in the hope of preventing a similar occurrence at that institution. The Anglicans became more vociferous in their demand for an American bishopric, were emboldened even to contend that theirs was the established church in the colony, and, on this basis, to press for exemption from taxation to support Congregational churches.30
Although the Anglicans did not secure their Bishop until near the end of the century, they gained tax relief within a few years. In 1725, Governor Talcott assured the Bishop of London, in reply to his inquiry, that the colony's one minister of the Church of England and his church "have the same protection as the rest of our Churches and are under no constraint to contribute to the support of any other min- ister."31 The Governor, then, was willing to grant toleration to the established congregation at Stratford, but did not recognize the Angli- can members scattered throughout the colony. The Anglicans were not content with such a restricted privilege, however, and continued to press for general exemption from support of the established church. Through the leadership of the Anglican vestry at Fairfield, Episco- palians were able to secure passage by the General Court in 1727 of an act exempting members of the Church of England from paying taxes to support Congregational Churches. Petty infringements of the act by town magistrates were countenanced by the courts, but fear of royal re- prisal enabled Episcopalian protest to prevent a sustained, general infraction of their rights. The Episcopalians, for example, were able to force repeal of an act which allowed towns to divert public school funds, secured from the sale of public land for this purpose, to Congregational churches.32
The success of the Episcopalians encouraged the Quakers and Baptists to seek similar relief from ecclesiastical taxes and fines. In 1729, the court granted this to both if they secured, from a society of their own sect in the colony or near enough to its borders that they
236
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
could regularly attend its services, a certificate vouching for their sup- port of its worship and regular attendance at its meetings.33 In time, objections were raised as to the necessity of showing this certificate, yet, even this constituted relief. The legislation did not grant freedom of thought, for the age believed that everyone should support and attend some organized form of Christian service. The laws, at least, admitted the right to exemption, even though they were weak and provided no penalty against an assessor who failed "to omit to tax" those entitled to exemption. It was a change from the early attitude that tolerance was sinful.34
Certainly, numerically, the dissenting elements did not pose a serious threat to the established church and the departure from the militant intolerance of the earlier period was probably more indicative than causative of the general lessening of religious fervor within the colony. The churches had become more formalized under the Half-Way Covenant and the Saybrook Platform: the clergy for the most part con- tented themselves with preaching a cold and lifeless morality. The General Court had exerted its energies toward protecting the rights of the charter; the populace had devoted itself to the material aspects of living.35 To the warning of the ministers that the worldly and the proud should fear, one minister felt the people seemed to reply: "We don't see but that we have not been of late, & are at present, as Prosperous as ever, there is Peace and Plenty, & the Country flourisheth."36 Spiritual religion seemed about to disappear "when it pleased God . .. to be- gin an extraordinary work of conviction and conversion, such as had never been experienced in New England before."37 The "Great Awakening" refers to the high tide of the period of unrest, 1740-41, when the "rain of righteousness" spread throughout the Connecticut Valley.
The Great Awakening
An impetus for the awakening had come from Northampton, Mas- sachusetts, where Solomon Stoddard preached an immensely practical religion, opened the church to all but the openly scandalous, and pre- sided as "Pope of the Connecticut Valley." Although Northampton was legally related to Massachusetts, it was culturally and geographically
237
RELIGIOUS DISSENT, 1730-1750
more closely united with Connecticut than with seaboard Boston. In 1726, Stoddard was joined in Northampton by his grandson, Jonathan Edwards, who was to become the intellectual leader of the Great Awakening.38
Edwards had been born in East Windsor, Connecticut, had pre- pared for the ministry at Yale, and had served as the pastor of the Scotch-Presbyterian Church of New York, before returning to the col- lege as tutor. It was when illness interrupted his teaching career that he joined his grandfather in the western Massachusetts town. After the death of Stoddard, who had annually preached in Boston, Edwards was invited there to deliver the Thursday lecture in July, 1731. As Minis- ter of Northampton, he would not necessarily have received this invita- tion, but Boston wanted to evaluate him as successor to Stoddard-as successor to a worthy antagonist of Boston's. Boston was aware of Ed- wards as a grandson of Solomon Stoddard and as a product of the turbu- lent frontier: he was born and bred in the valley and was a graduate of Yale-not of Harvard.39
Charles Chauncey, a Bostonian who had failed to find in Stoddard the genius which some attributed to him, prepared for the eventuality that Edwards might ably succeed him, so Perry Miller thinks, by ar- ranging to have Samuel Whittelsey precede Edwards to Boston by three months. Whittelsey, distantly related to Chauncey by marriage, had earlier doubted the validity of Presbyterian ordination, but had re- covered from this uncertainty, as it happened, after a trip to the south- ern colonies. Although it was whispered that his doubts had been met by a secret ordination from one of the two non-juring bishops then in America, he had recovered quickly enough to be returned to Connect- icut's standing order and to become minister at Wallingford. His lec- ture, "The Woeful Condition of Impenitent Souls in their Separate State," was in the book stalls when Edwards arrived. The thesis, essen- tially "that the souls of wicked men go immediately at death without delay to hell,"40 was not memorable. It was of greater importance that by publishing the work, forces in Boston announced that they were establishing alliances in Connecticut with those who would oppose Edwards if he persisted in Stoddardean variations and defiances. Both Chauncey and Whittelsey did become arch-opponents of Edwards.41
238
HISTORY OF CONNECTICUT
Yet, Edwards challenged established theologians not on the basis of ecclesiastical forms, as had Stoddard, but on theoretical and philo- sophical issues. According to Perry Miller, Edwards' "Notes" for a summa of all knowledge reveal two keys necessary to understand the full import of his words: Locke and Newton. Miller emphasizes, how- ever, that Edwards was first of all a Puritan and all that he took from Locke and Newton was made to supplement his basic premise of an omnipotent and arbitrary God, who governed the world according to his own pleasure.42 Edwards did not accept the convenient stratagem of the Half-Way Covenant or the popular interpretation that by entering into the form of a covenant with God, one bound God. To Edwards, conversion was "in everything, directly, immediately, and entirely de- pendent on God." Man is holy, if ever, "from mere and arbitrary grace . . . the creature is nothing and . . . God is all." Since God was un- der no obligation to redeem anyone, if any were saved it was by "God's arbitrary and sovereign good pleasure."43 This seemed merely to restate conventional New England doctrine. The reiteration of this theme coupled with a failure to acknowledge any innovation which had gained acceptance presented a doctrinal challenge. There was no reference to the "Federal Theology" which admitted that redemption was a gift from God, but emphasized that the covenant into which one entered at conversion thereafter secured him. So much emphasis had been placed upon the means to grace that they had come to be thought of as the path to salvation. Such emphasis upon means had the advantage of appealing to the reason and will, motivating people in their conduct, and lending a certain feeling of security. Edwards held that while means are made use of, still God gives them, and alone makes them effectual. Edwards was protesting against the deviations from the pure religion of the founding fathers; he was preaching a new purification. New England knew that his reasoning could lead to the conclusion that means are not necessary.44
The ideas which were to provide the philosophical basis for the Great Awakening were further elaborated by Edwards in a publication in 1734, A Divine and Supernatural Light Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God, Shown to be both a Scriptural and Rational Doctrine. Puritans of the eighteenth century believed that certain con-
239
RELIGIOUS DISSENT, 1730-1750
cepts were innate, implanted by God, and, therefore, imperative or directive without regard to experience. Yet, that spirit of New England which would not permit "cramming principles down another man's throat" was, in Edwards' judgment, to admit to no principles at all. Locke had taught him that man can acquire the materials of reason and knowledge solely from experience. He accepted that what the mind knows is no more than its ideas, received through the senses and de- rived from the world to which he ascribed reality. Edwards reasoned that if God did not impart ideas of obligations outside sense experi- ences, a way had to be found to make a lasting impression upon man's mind-to force sensations and the ideas annexed to them into man's consciousness. A Christian oratory, free from obtuse language, which would appeal to the senses through which ideas could be carried, was the method by which Edwards was to seek to restore the piety of New England.45
For a religious society which believed in the doctrine of justifica- tion by faith, Edwards' methods could succeed only if the fundamental concepts were attacked. Puritans believed that "if a man has faith," he "is free from all things and over all things."46 Edwards reaffirmed the conventional doctrine that "A person is said to be justified, when he is approved of God as free from the guilt of sin and its deserved punish- ment; and as having that righteousness belonging to him that entitles to the reward of life."47 However, Edwards did not accept the inter- pretative extensions which had developed from this and were gen- erally accepted. In actual practice, the Covenant of Grace had come to mean to Puritans "not what God was pleased to grant, but what He was obliged to concede."48 Faith had come to mean "something which a man might obtain, and which, once he had it, gave him a claim that God was bound to honor."49 In a series of lectures delivered in 1734 and published in 1738, On Justification by Faith Alone, Edwards charged that the theory of faith was ambiguous and challenged the concept of faith as a direct cause of salvation.50
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.