USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Wethersfield > History of Saint Mark's Church, New Britain, Conn., and of its predecessor Christ Church, Wethersfield and Berlin : from the first Church of England service in America to nineteen hundred and seven > Part 3
USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Berlin > History of Saint Mark's Church, New Britain, Conn., and of its predecessor Christ Church, Wethersfield and Berlin : from the first Church of England service in America to nineteen hundred and seven > Part 3
USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > New Britain > History of Saint Mark's Church, New Britain, Conn., and of its predecessor Christ Church, Wethersfield and Berlin : from the first Church of England service in America to nineteen hundred and seven > Part 3
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 | Part 57
In the strongholds of the Congregationalists, Massachusetts and Connecticut, Episcopalians and others after a while were " tolerated " by law, and Connecticut recognized them as " sober dissenters " in 1708, but it was not until 1818 that all religious denominations were placed on precisely the same footing in Connecticut, and it was not until 1830 that Congregationalism ceased to be the established religion in Massachusetts.
Authorities : Bishop Perry's History of the American Episco- pal Church; Bishop Coleman's History of the Church in America; The Church Cyclopedia; Dr. Beardsley's Life of Samuel Johnson; Documentary History of the Church in Ver- mont ; Journal of the Anti-Episcopal Convention, 1766-75 ; Records of Convocation, Diocese of Connecticut ; Wilberforce's P. E. C. in America ; History of the S. P. G. Society.
II. THE CHURCH IN CONNECTICUT
1127808
مـ
Jamie,
12h. Holand.
Samuel, by divine permission, Bethop ofConnecheck ARhode Island, To our below # Vin Christ, Seth Hart, Clerk, Greeting,
We do hereby give A grand unto you, una whole learning, found doctrine, diligence; A. prudence we do fully confide, our Luence Lilathority, to continue only during our pleasure, to execute the face of a Finest. in the Church of Connecticut, A wherever chie you shall be lawfully called there to You conforming yourself to the Sitiongy, Doctrine, Leupline of A continuing in Communion with the Boleskant Epersonal Church of America, Iobeying fach lawful · directions as you Shall for time to hire receive from us. In Welness where of the have hercanto affixed our Episcopal feal at New London, the first day of november 1792, I in the eighth year of our Confe- orahon. +++++.
CERTIFICATE BY BISHOP SEABURY.
THE CHURCH IN CONNECTICUT
-
HISTORY
The early towns or plantations in Connecticut were first settled as religious societies. These societies each brought with them their minster, and the ministers and people, who had been educated and trained in the Episcopal Church, were dissenters. It was only in matters of worship and Church government that they dissented. In all the cardinal doctrines of religion their beliefs were the same. Even as late as 1774, the Rev. Elizur Goodrich of Durham, a prominent Congregationalist, declared that the principles and faith of the Congregationalists was in general the same as that contained in the doctrinal articles of the Church of England. But in matters on which the Puritans dissented, they were very emphatic and radical. To worship in their own way and manage their Church affairs without refer- ence to any one else, was the main object of their coming to America. In this way, the people of the several towns were practically all of one mind, both as to their civil and religious government. While the Church was, in a sense, separate from the town, the distinction was not clear, and there was practically no distinction between the town and the ecclesiastical society, all matters relating to the society being voted upon in town meeting until about 1657. Until 1669, there was precisely the same number of ecclesiastical societies in the Colony as there were towns or plantations. Every town before 1658 was, for anything in the laws of the Colony, free to establish worship according to the practices of any denomination, (excepting such as were considered notorious heretics), but no one expected to follow any other than the " Congregational way." Laws for the support of ministers were passed in 1644; compulsory attendance on "Gospel service " and respect for the ministers was enacted in 1650. No exceptions were made, so that every
38
THE CHURCH
one had to attend service, and all males over 16 years of age, whether saints or sinners, had to pay their due proportion for supporting the minister. When part of the people were dis- satisfied with the Gospel Service, and their number was large enough, they banded together, went to some new field and established a new plantation and ecclesiastical society by them- selves.
In 1657, for local causes not necessary to mention, a party led by Elder Goodwin attempted to withdraw from the Church at Hartford and start a second Congregational Church and society in that town. The Legislature was equal to the occa- sion and all persons were prohibited from embodying them- selves " into Church estate without consent of the General Court and approbation of the neighboring Churches." After this date new ecclesiastical societies applied to the General Court for permission to organize. But, for the particular benefit of the Hartford seceders, the General Court further enacted a law forbidding the people from attending any ministry or Church administration " distinct and separate from and in opposition to that which is dispensed by the settled and approved minister of the place." This resulted in the removal of the seceders to Hadley, Mass. In 1656 severe laws were passed against " Quakers, Ranters, Adamites, or such like notorious Heri- tiques," and this is the first mention by name in the statutes of any religious sect or denomination. There were no such sec- taries then in Connecticut, but Quakers had arrived in Boston and this law was passed at the recommendation of the Commis- sioners for the United Colonies.
The first record of the name of any denomination not con- sidered heretical is dated October, 1664, when William Pitkin, John Steadman and Robert Reeve, of Hartford, Michael Humphreys, James Enno, John Moses, and Jonas Westover, of Windsor, presented a memorial to the General Assembly stating that they were members of " the Church of England "; that they were not given the Communion, and that their chil- dren were not baptized ; and praying that " no law shall make us pay or contribute for the maintenance of any minister or officer in the Church that will neglect or refuse to baptize our children and to take care of us as members of the Church." [Ecclesi-
39
IN CONNECTICUT.
astical manuscripts, Vol. I, Doc. 10, b.] Whether these men were in fact Episcopalians or not depends upon when they were members of the Church of England, for that Church was legally Presbyterian from 1645 to 1660. Whatever they desired, it is clear that they did not expect nor ask for the establishment of worship in accordance with the usages of the Episcopal Church. The Court recommended the ministers and Churches to entertain persons " who are of an honest and godly conversation " by an " explicit covenant and that they have their children baptized." Stiles' "Windsor," Vol. I, p. 196, says that a copy of this recommendation or act was sent to every minister in the Colony. This was the beginning of the legal establishment of the so-called half-way covenant which cul- minated in legalizing the Saybrook Platform, in 1708. The standard of morals and religion that would entitle one to have his children baptized is not stated in the act of 1664, but pre- suming the law to have been applicable to the memorialists, we may say that the General Court acknowledged members of the " Church of England " to be persons " of an honest and godly conversation."
Two years later, (Nov. 22, 1666,) this same William Pitkin and John Steadman with four others, viz., Joseph Fitch, Nicholas Olmstead, Jno. Gilbert and Edward Grannis, called on Mr. Whiting, (minister of the First Church of Hartford,) and requested full privileges " in all the ordinances of Christ," on account "of a union they had already," referring to their Church membership in England. Mr. Whiting knew of no such union but agreed to consider the matter. [Walker's History First Church, p. 200.] The first mention by name in the laws of the Colony of any orthodox denomination is in the act of May, 1669, whereby the " Congregational " Churches (profession and practice) were approved, and others " orthodox and sound in the fundamentals of Christian religion, may have allowance of their perswasion and profession in church ways or assemblies without disturbance." This in effect prevented the law of 1657 from being applied to any ministry or Church administration other than Congregationalists.
Such application of the law was also prevented by the law of 1665, which gave all persons full and free liberty to worship
40
THE CHURCH
God in the way they think best, provided they make no disturb- ance of the public or minister's support. Thus the way was open for all denominations to organize new societies, subject to the approval of the General Court. In October, 1669, the Second Church at Hartford was legally established and given permission to " practice the Congregational way without dis- turbance." This is the first instance in Connecticut of two ecclesiastical societies in one town. For more than ten years the " half-way covenant " had been agitated, so that there were two kinds of Congregationalists then in the Colony, the old and straight kind that would baptize the children of none but those who were " fit for the Lord's Supper," and the new and large kind that would baptize the children of those who were " not yet fit for the Lord's Supper," provided they were persons " of an honest and godly conversation," or, according to the General Assembly of 1664, provided they had as much religion as mem- bers of the Church of England were supposed to have. The Second Church of Hartford was the first in the Colony that made a special issue of straight Congregationalism in its forma- tion, but notwithstanding this fact, it was overcome by the raging tide that swept over nearly all the Congregational Churches in the Colony, and it began immediately to practice the half-way covenant.
By request, Gov. Leete reported to the English Commis- sioners for Trade and Foreign Plantations on July 15, 1680, that "in our corporation are 26 towns and there is one and twenty churches in them. In one of them, (Hartford,) we have two churches. Our people are some strict Congrega- tional men, others more large Congregational men, and some moderate Presbyterians; and, take the Congregational men of both sorts, they are the greatest part of the people."
" There are 4 or 5 Seven day men and about so many more Quakers."
These Seven-day men and Quakers were probably the Rogerenes of New London, founded about 1675. They were variously called Quakers and Baptists, and no other Seven-day men or Quakers are known to have been in the Colony at that date. The Rogerenes were the first disturbing sect within our borders. The Presbyterians and Congregationalists were so
4I
IN CONNECTICUT.
nearly alike as to be considered practically the same, and appar- -
ently there was no trouble as to taxes, with the sinners who may have resided in the Colony. The first general complaint against compulsory minister's support came from the Rogerenes, in the memorial of Richard Steere et al. of New London, to the Gen- eral Assembly, dated Jan. 16, 1694-5. It was a tirade against the Colonial Government, based largely on alleged violations of the English act of toleration. We quote the following :
"For do not the Presbyterian party here being most numerous and powerful forcably seize by Distress the estates of some and threaten to do the like by others of their fellow dissenters, viz., Baptist and Quaker, for the building of a Presbyterian meeting house and for the maintainence of a Presybterian minister. Nor are such who are of the Church of England Communion like to fare any better, though the same is contrary to nature, reason and the laws of the realm of England."
Their expression of contempt for the civil authority seems to have been the main object of this memorial, rather than relief from taxes, and Steere was promptly called to answer for his contempt. The reference to "the Church of England Com- munion " in this memorial was probably for effect, as no Churchmen were known to have been in the vicinity of New London at that date. There were, however, about ten or fifteen families then at Stratford, " who had been born and bred in England " and were already Episcopalians. From them came the first expression in this Colony of a desire for the services of the Church. Some of them were in Stratford about 1675, but it was not until 1702, after the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts had been organized, that they petitioned for a missionary.
The first preaching in Connecticut by Episcopal ministers was Sept. 13, 1702, when the Rev. John Talbot, missionary of the S. P. G., preached at New London in the Congregational Church in the forenoon, and the Rev. George Keith, his com- panion, in the afternoon. They were invited to preach there by the minister, Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall, who entertained them at his house. After the morning service they were invited to dinner by Governor Winthrop, who also entertained them at
-
42
THE CHURCH
his house " then and the next day." This was the only stop in 1702 of these missionaries in Connecticut.
On Oct. 26, 1704, the Rev. Mr. Vesey of Trinity Church, New York, wrote to the Secretary of the S. P. G. that " Mr. George Muirson, a sober, ingenious youth designs, God willing to receive Holy Orders and is recommended by my Ld. Corn- bury & the Reve'rd. Clergy convened at New York." Some- time in 1705, the Churchmen of Stratford, Conn., applied to Mr. Vesey for services at Stratford. Mr. Muirson was sta- tioned as missionary at Rye, N. Y., before Nov. 21, 1705, on which day he wrote that he had "lately been in ye Government of Connecticut where I observe some people well affected to ye Church." The people of Connecticut were then attending services at Rye on Sundays.
On Sept. 2, 1706, Missionary Muirson came in company with Col. Caleb Heathcote to Stratford, and Mr. Muirson preached both forenoon and afternoon to a numerous congregation and baptized about twenty-four persons. Inasmuch as Keith's Journal makes no mention of services at New London in 1702, other than preaching, this service at Stratford is supposed to have been the first in Connecticut, in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer. The Churchmen of Stratford applied to the authorities for the use of the meeting house, (which the Churchmen had helped to build,) but this request was refused. Mr. Muirson says that the people of Stratford "ignorantly called " the Church "Rome's sister." Col. Heathcote writes to the Society that they found the " Colony much as we expected, very ignorant of the constitution of our Church and for that reason great enemies to it."
At the second coming to Stratford of Messrs. Muirson and Heathcote, (they were there three times before April 4, 1707,) Mr. Joseph Curtice and James Hudson read a paper to Mr. Muirson forbidding him, under threats of fine and imprison- ment, from holding service or administering the Sacrament, the purport of which paper Mr. Muirson says "was to let me know that I had done an illegal thing in coming among them to establish a new way of worship, and to forewarn me from preaching any more. And this he did by virtue of one of their laws." Mr. Muirson asked for a copy of the paper and was
43
IN CONNECTICUT.
refused. The day following, Curtice and others stood in the highway and forbade any to go to the assembly of Churchmen. The ministers and magistrates were remarkably industrious, going from house to house and persuading the people from hearing Mr. Muirson and threatening fines and imprisonment to all who should go to hear him. Mr. Muirson describes the law that the officers read to him with such accuracy as to clearly identify it as the act of March 8, 1657-8 that was enacted to sup- press the seceding Congregationalists of Hartford, and which prohibited people from entertaining or attending any minis- try or Church administration " distinct and separate from and in opposition to" that which is dispensed by the settled and approved minister of the place. A minister or Church adminis- tration could not be in opposition to another, unless they were both of the same persuasion. The true intent and object of the law was to regulate the Congregational Churches. It could not have been intended to apply to any other denomination, for there was not then in the Colony any body of people of any other persuasion. The toleration act of 1669 gave all Dis- senters from the Congregational way, who were orthodox and sound in the fundamentals of Christian religion, the right to worship in their own way "without disturbance." But this act was omitted from the revision of 1702 and no substitute for it was enacted until 1708, and thus, at this particular time, (1707,) there was no law to modify the law of 1657, which was so vaguely worded as to be improperly applied to suppress Churchmen, although it was never so intended. This one instance at Stratford is the only record we have of any attempt to so use this law. There never was a law of the Colony that could have been properly used to prevent Episcopalians having a minister in orders from assembling and worshipping God in accordance with the rules of the Church.
Beardsley's " History of the Church in Connecticut " says : When the Commissioners of Charles Second visited Connecti- cut in 1665, they reported to England that the Colony " will not hinder any from enjoying the Sacrament and using the Common Prayer Book, provided they hinder not the mainten- ance of the public minister." "But the Commissioners could not have meant by this statement that there was any legal pro-
44
THE CHURCH
vision for such liberty. · For there was no letting up of the Puritan rigor, nor relaxation of the rule that none should have liberty to worship God publicly, except after the order of the religion established by the civil Government until 1708." In this Beardsley was clearly in error. The law of April, 1665, (which had just been enacted,) provided for that liberty of worship which the Commissioners reported, and so did the law of 1669, while it was in force. In fact the toleration act of 1665 was the most liberal of all and applied to " all persons of civil lives " giving them full liberty to " worship God in that way which they think best." The act of 1669 was restricted to persons "orthodox and sound in the fundamentals of Christian religion," while the act of 1708 was still farther re- stricted, and encumbered, each successive toleration act making liberty to " worship God in that way they think best " still more difficult than it had been before. "Quakers, Ranters, Adamites, or such like notorious heretiques," are the only sectaries that were ever prohibited, or against whom any law was ever directly enacted, and the law against them was repealed in May, 1706. Mr. Muirson wrote to England that the laws here " deny a liberty of conscience to the Church of England people, as well as to others," and that such denial is "repugnant to the laws of England." He therefore disregarded the attempted applica- tion of the law to him because such an application was a clear violation of the English toleration act, which guaranteed to all freedom to worship God in their own way. The people of Stratford were not intimidated by the acts of the authorities. On the contrary, more and more came to hear Mr. Muirson and to receive baptism and the Holy Communion, many of whom had never received it before.
Mr. Muirson writes to the Secretary of the S. P. G. under date of April 4, 1707, that on invitation, he had lately preached in a private house at Fairfield and baptized some children. The Rev. Mr. Evans of Philadelphia was with him. He also asks the Society to send over some Common Prayer Books and some small treatise in defense of the Church. For years after, this request for Church books was often and earnestly repeated by the several missionaries. The Church at Stratford was
45
IN CONNECTICUT.
organized by Mr. Muirson, and wardens and vestrymen elected in April, 1707.
Under date of April 14, 1707, Col. Heathcote writes that Mr. Read, the minister at Stratford, had come over to the Church and had been dismissed. Again, under date of Feb. 24, 1707-8, he says: "I acquainted you in my former letter that there was a very ingenious gentleman at Stratford, one Mr. Read the Minister of that place, who is very inclinable to come over to the Church. By reason of this, he has undergone persecution by his people who do all in their power to starve him." Mr. Heathcote desired Mr. Read to go to England for orders, and writes that in case of "any proposal of his coming over for ordination, his family, which is pretty large, must be taken care of." This was the Rev. John Read, Congregation- alist minister at Stratford. In Orcutt's "History of Strat- ford " we find that he was called to Stratford in May, 1703, and very soon after, Sept. 25, 1706, “ perhaps before, some talk was indulged in by the public which Mr. Read resented and demanded inquiry." "No indication as to what was said offensive to Mr. Read has been found except the intimation that he had made overtures to join the Episcopal Church." He resigned March 27, 1707. He was the first Congregational minister in Connecticut to go over to the Church and also the first person to do so whose name is known. Perhaps he was one of the ministers who had opposed the services of the Church at Stratford.
He was born 1673, graduated at Harvard 1697, married Ruth, daughter of Major John Talcott of Hartford, preached at Waterbury, 1698-9, at East Hartford two years, then at Stratford, 1703 to 1707, removed to New Milford and settled in a log hut, bought large tracts of land of the Indians, was involved in large and unsuccessful land litigation and was finally rewarded by a grant of 20,000 acres of land from the General Court. Part of this land was in the present town of Redding, (originally spelled Reading,) the town being named after Mr. Read, whose son John was one of its first settlers. The people at New Milford used Mr. Read's house as a place of worship, Mr. Read himself preaching there occasionally. He was admitted to the bar in 1708 and then both preached and
3
46
THE CHURCH
practiced. In 1712 was appointed Queen's Attorney for the Colony ; removed to Boston in 1722, where he was a successful lawyer, Attorney General of that Colony, and a Communicant at King's Chapel. He died at Boston, Feb. 14, 1748-9. [D. C. Kilbourn in Connecticut Magazine, and Orcutt's History of Stratford.]
Mr. Muirson extended his services into several places in Fairfield County and was so well received that the Rev. John Talbot, (who had probably preached there about that time,) writes to Mr. Keith in February, 1707-8, that "Norwalk and Fairfield are ready to break open their meeting house doors and let him, (Mr. Muirson,) in if he would suffer it." And also that they had "taken measures at Stratford to build a church, which never was seen in that country before. I pray God sent them an able minister of the New Testament for they have been long enough under the old dispensation."
Mr. Muirson writes that the people of Connecticut " say the sign of the cross is the mark of the beast and the sign of the devil, and that those who receive it are given to the devil." The Society finally tranferred Mr. Muirson from Rye to Strat- ford, but he died Oct. 12, 1708, before he learned of this appointment. The parish with about 30 communicants and a respectable number of families was left to the occasional services of missionaries who chanced to visit them. In 1710 the Rev. John Sharpe, Chaplain to the Forces in the Fort of New York, officiated frequently at Stratford and several other places in Connecticut. He records in his diary the baptism at Long Hill, Jan. 27, 1710, of " Isaac Styles, the first Man Child born in the Colony of Connecticut, a man of 80 years of age." In this year the people of Stratford petitioned for a missionary and at length Rev. Francis Philips was appointed, arriving there just before Christmas, 1712, and staying part of the time till the mid-summer of 1713. He left without orders from, or the knowledge or consent of the Society whose agent he was. But the Church continued to grow, and on April 9, 1714, they write to Col. Heathcote that they " have at last got the timber felled and do hope to have it raised in three months time," meaning a house of worship. In order to prevent as much as possible the growth of the Church in Stratford, the Standing Order,
47
IN CONNECTICUT.
after consulting the rest of Connecticut and the wise men of Boston, determined that one of the best preachers that both Colonies could afford should be sought and sent to Stratford to counteract the growth of the Church. Accordingly the Rev. Timothy Cutler, then of Boston, or its vicinity, was settled at Stratford. But while the Congregationalists were thus sup- plied with an able minister, the poor Episcopalians had none. Their house of worship did not materialize, and the venerable Society failed to send them a missionary, although they promised in 1720 to do so. Two years afterwards the Rev. George Pigott was sent to them and on May 29, 1722, they say of "his care over us, we are well satisfied that it will be to the advantage of the Church." But about five years before Mr. Pigott came, the Rev. Mr. Cutler had become the Rector of Yale College, and little did the wise men who had placed him at Stratford to check Episcopacy, dream that in eight short years he would be the means of imparting to the Church in Connecticut its first susbtantial growth, whereby the one poor struggling Church in a single town was soon multiplied many times, and extended throughout the western part of the Colony. Not only in Connecticut, but throughout all the Colonies was there great consternation when it became known, in 1722, that Timothy Cutler, the Rector of Yale College, Daniel Brown the tutor, and the Rev. Samuel Johnson, pastor of the Congre- gational Church at West Haven, had declared for Episcopacy and were going to England to receive ordination by a Bishop. At this time there was not an Episcopal house of worship in Connecticut and the little band at Stratford was the only organized Church. The Rev. James Wetmore, Congregational minister in North Haven, soon followed the others to England for Episcopal ordination. Mr. Brown died in England, Cutler and Johnson returned in the fall of 1723, Mr. Cutler going to Christ Church at Boston, while Mr. Johnson relieved Mr. Pigott at Christ Church, Stratford, the latter being transferred to Providence. Mr. Wetmore eventually settled at Rye, N. Y. Referring to the conversion of Dr. Cutler and his three com- panions, Mr. Pigott says Oct. 3, 1722, "This great onset towards a reformation in this deluded country has brought in vast numbers to favor the Church of England." Newtown and
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.