USA > Connecticut > Litchfield County > Woodbury > History of ancient Woodbury, Connecticut : from the first Indian dead in 1659 to 1872, Vol. II > 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 | 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 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73
1
894
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WOODBURY.
appeared of any such great distance in our apprehensions as might be inconsist- ent' with 'an union,' and his adherents in their letter to the church, Feb. 9, 1665 6, distinctly point at the chief cause of dissension in specifications, which involve the controversy between Presbyterian and Congregational schemes of church order. These protestants insist, that examination for church membership should be by the minister and elder only. They also strenuously object to the re-examination of persons already professors of religion, when received to other churches. They desire ' not to be further troubled with any imposition of that nature.' The controversy about church government and discipline seriously dis- turbed not a few of the original New England churches.
" An error occurs on page 115, in representing the letter there given as the opening of the case, whereas it is entitled, in the Ecclesiastical Documents at Hartford, ' An Answer to Mr. Chauney's' letter.' That letter seems to have been lost. This letter is itself a reply to a previous letter from Mr. Channcy, by order of the church of which he was then only a ' stated supply.'
" Two statements regarding the pulpit in Stratford need correction. 1. The Walker and Reed story. This is a re-issue of a Scotch anecdote about two can- didates in Edinburg, and belongs to a period a hundred years later than the Chauncy and Walker times. 2. Mr. Chauney's ordination. The current story of his ordination in the independent mode, and with the laying on of Elder Brinsmade's mittened hand, is, doubtless, pure fiction. As Mr. Chauney, having already preached a year, had his call in June, it is not credible that mittens were were worn in the season of his ordination. Moreover, there was no such person as 'Elder' Brinsu.ade. Philip Grove was the only elder of Stratford church. Nor is it conceivable that the church in Stratford disowned or neglected the fel- lowship of the churches in this ordination, for as early as 1645, the church had been in a council called by the Milford church for the ordination of a ruling elder, and had otherwise cultivated that friendship." 1
Such is the "Stratford View," and such the reasons for holding it. The fact that it is the theory held by some friends, for whose sincerity and general correctness of judgment and of information the writer has the highest respect, has led him to a full and care-
I The Hist. of Woodbury is not responsible for either of these stories, nor has the author ever credited them, as will be seen, in part, by note to page 133. The statement, that " there was no such person as Elder Brinsmade, however, is in- correct. In a list of the Freemen of Stratford, reported pursuant to the Statute to the General Court, " 8 mth., 7 d., '69," recorded in 2 Trumbull's Records of Conn. Col., p. 521-2, appears the name of John Brinsmead, clder. This list of Freemen was taken in October, 1669, and Mr. Walker was ordained over the Second church in May, 1670. It contains sixty-four names, and is the legal and accurate list of Freemen in the town, at the date of the organization of the Second church. The "Stratford View " is therefore mistaken in stating the number sf Freemen to be eighty-three, and the part voting with the Second church at nineteen. The Second church organized with twenty-seven members. and four more males were added the following year, thus embracing nearly hal of the Freemen of the town.
895
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WOODBURY.
ful review of all the facts in the case, actuated by the sincere de- sire to " discern the truth" of the matter. And upon such care- ful review he has become more fully confirmed in the substantial correctness of the " Woodbury View," which is set forth fully in the former edition of this work. There are some minor errors of statement, but that the "Half-way Covenant " system and cognate , theories were the substantial and overshadowing cause of the dis- sensions among the people of Stratford, he is most fully persuaded. Nothing short of something most vital in doctrine-something that concerned the spiritual welfare of the soul to all ages-some- thing, the abandonment of which involved a loss eternal, can fur- nish an explanation for that long, earnest, intense dissension which resulted in the formation of the Second church in Stratford, now the First church in Woodbury. Trivial differences, as between the Congregational and Presbyterian modes of Church govern- ment, while both parties were imbued with the same faith, and acknowledged the same covenant of grace, theoretically and for- mally, could never be the occasion of a dispute so heated, in a new and feeble community, struggling for existence, surrounded by external dangers and difficulties, in a wilderness land,-among Christians as earnest and conscientions as were the fathers of Stratford and Woodbury. Spiritual pride, or pride of opinion, could not go so far as that among a people so strictly conscien- tions. It was also quite too early in the ecclesiastical history of the colony for the laity, with whom these questions began, to be so thoroughly conversant with the systems of church government, and so well grounded in the "fundamentals," or Christian author- ity for their views, as to induce them to run the risk of such open opposition to the polity or order of the Puritan churches, as to involve their excision from the church and deprivation of all the church ordinances for themselves and their children, for the enjoy- ment of which, in every recorded word and act of theirs, they showed so earnest a solicitude. Presbyterianism, as such, had not at that date a place for the "sole of its foot," in all the colonies. Dissatisfied individuals were, indeed, in various places, waiting a safe occasion to introduce Presbyterian and Episcopalian views of church discipline and government. But their efforts were " with- out form and void," to a period long after this date, so far as Pres- byterianism is concerned. Says Dr. Sprague, in an srticle on Presbyterianism in the . New American Encyclopædia, vol. 13, p. 557: " The Presbyterian church of the United States is undonbt-
896
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WOODBURY.
edly to be reckoned as a daughter of the Church of Scotland. Presbyterians begun to emigrate from Scotland and the North of Ireland, to the American Colonies, as early as 1689; and they quickly manifested a disposition to reproduce here, their own pe- culiar institutions. The first and largest churches were established in Pennsylvania and Maryland, two colonies distinguished from the earliest times for their notions of religious liberty. The Pu -. ritan element early found its way into the body from New Eng- land, and the reformed churches on the continent have, from time to time, made contributions to it; but the original organization has always remained substantially the same." So Presbyterianism was introduced into the States south of us some twenty years later than the time of the Stratford troubles, and into New Eng- land later still. Yet by the "Stratford View," we are called to believe, that differences as between Presbyterian and Congrega- tional church order and discipline, was the true cause of the "un- happy " dissensions at Stratford. It is quite inconceivable that this church should be disputing about " non-essentials," and rending the peace of the colony, as well as their own, while they were quite at peace, and in loving accord on the " Half-way Covenant " theory, and views connected with it, which were at that very time shaking to their centres, and to the loss of their usefulness, the churches at Hartford, Windsor, and, indeed, all churches throughout the colony.
It will also be readily noticed on a careful inspection of the records introduced into the former volume, and those which fol- low in this, that the form of church government and discipline is no where insisted on. It is nowhere claimed by either party, that the " ancient way " of independent and individual church govern- ment should be abandoned, and a " system of church government by presbyterics, or associations of teaching and ruling elders," should be instituted in its stead. From the beginning they had had their Elder Grove, a leading man in the colony, "Deputy and Assistant," against whom no complaint seems ever to have been brought, who remained said elder to his death, in 1676, a period some years later than this. And yet this church, like the first three churches of the colony, was a strictly Congregational church. It was a "law unto itself." It never ceased to be a Congregational church, and never had even a ruling elder after Elder Grove's death. The Second church of Stratford ever was and now is, as the First church of Woodbury, a purely Congre-
897
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WOODBURY.
gational church. It never had a ruling elder. Where then do we discover the faintest traces of Presbyterianism ? Something caused the division of the church, and the formation of the new one. Neither ever practised Presbyterianism. Both, in their original organization, and in their subsequent history, were and are, lite- rally, " a church without a bishop, and a State without a King." They organized as civil, as well as religious communities, and for long years the towns acted parish-wise in the calling and settling of ministers, and in all arrangements for their support, while all the conditions of baptism, communion and church government were decided within the circle of communicants, subject only to appeal to the General Court. In 1665, (about the commencement of these troubles,) the Commissioners of Charles II. reported, of the people of Connecticut, " that they had a scholar to their min- ister in every town or village." They were independent, and were well supplied with scholars to lead them. In view of all this, could disputes concerning the introduction of Presbyte- rian church order have been the cause of these Stratford disputes ? We think not.
If, then, the "Stratford View" be not the true one, is the " Woodbury View" any more reliable ? Let us examine, and weigh well every recorded word on the subject, and determine, as best we may. And, in the beginning, we must bear in mind throughout the discussion, that the First church of Stratford was, in its church government purely Congregational, and in its doc- trine purely Calvinistic. It was precisely the same, in all its fea- tures, as the churches at Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield. A history of the one, with a change of names, would be a history of the other. What was this organization ? No better answer can be given to this question, nor to the question as to what caused the divisions in the church at Stratford, than those given in an- swer to the same questions in relation to the church at Hartford, planted by the sainted Hooker and the Apostolic Stone, by the late lamented author of "Hartford in the Olden Time," the Hon. Isaac W. Stuart, the accomplished scholar, the industrious anti- quarian, the orator of surpassing ability, who was a descendant, in the fourth generation, of that worthy and distinguished divine, who for more than sixty years ministered to us in Ancient Wood- bury-our own sainted Anthony Stoddard. In his truly eloquent history he records :-
" A few words now on the first religious organization of Hart-
898
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WOODBURY.
ford. This was purely Congregational, and we may add also, purely republican. Non-conformists all to the liturgy. ceremonies and discipline of the Church of Engand, though firm believers in its faith-feeling that the simplicity of the gospel was 'marred by association with the display of surplices, caps, capes and cas- socks'-the settlers claimed the right, independently of all exter- nal or foreign power, to choose and establish their own ministers, to enact their own ecclesiastical laws, and exercise their own dis- cipline-and so, with a Pastor, Preacher, Ruling Elder, and Dea- cons, for officers, in a Meeting House, which those who preceded Hooker and his party had already erected, they started the first systematized Church of God in this their 'Wilderness town .? Their Deacons were as Deacons now, but their Pastor and their Teacher were somewhat peculiar in their functions. Exhortation chiefly was the duty of the former-it was his province to work on the will and the affections. The latter was Doctor in ecclesia, as he is styled-it was his province to teach, explain and defend the doctrines of Christianity. The Ruling Elder, who was ordain- ed with all the solemnity of a Pastor, or Teacher, was, "to assist in the government of the church, to watch over all its members, to prepare and bring forward all cases of discipline, to visit and pray with the sick, and, in the absence of the Pastor and Teacher, to pray with the congregation, and expound the scriptures." 1
Such was the organization and constitution of the church at Hartford, and such was the type of the church at Stratford, during what we will call the First Period in the ecclesiastical history of the colony, which extended to 1650 or later.
Now let us quote from the same eloquent author in the same volume a statement which embodies the " Woodbury View," in choicer words than we can express it.
"Soon after the commencement of our Second Period, a contro- versy commenced in the church of Hartford, which, 'for its cir- cumstances, its duration, and its obstinacy,' says Trumbull, ' was the most remarkable of any in its day-which affected all the churches, and insinuated itself into the affairs of societies, towns, and the whole commonwealth.' Nor was it confined to Connec- ticut. It hung like a cloud over the heart of all New England- darkened almost every temple of worship, and kindled baleful fires at almost every altar.
1 Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 58.
899
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WOODBURY.
" It began with a difference between Mr. Stone and Elder Wm. Goodwin, either about the admission of some member to the church, or the administration of the rite of baptism, and quickly involved many other points also of ecclesiastical polity. Look at the leading questions that were raised :
" What constitutes church membership-admission to full com. munion only, or a belief in Christianity and worshipful attendance upon its ordinances also ? Is the 'matter of the visible church ' composed of saints exclusively, or of those also, who, not being communicants, attend religious services, hold pews, and pay rates ? Particularly does it not belong to the whole body of a town jointly to call and settle its minister-and may not the adult seed of vis- ible believers, not cast out, be true members of the church and subjects of church watch ? What constitutes baptism-is 'fede- ral holiness or covenant interest' its proper ground ? Is the grace of perfect regeneration vital to its application, or may it not be used also as a seal of the covenant initiatory in its nature ? Particularly, is it scriptural to baptize the children of any parents who are not themselves in full communion ? Whence do minis- ters receive their commission to baptize ? Does the word of God warrant the communion of churches, as such ? Has a Synod de- cisive power? How far shall any particular church yield to its authority, or to that of any other ecclesiastical council ? Must every person grieved at any church process or censure, acquiesce in it, and if not, where shall he repair? What is the gospel way to gather and settle churches ? Does the laying on of hands in ordination belong to presbyters, or brethren ? A formidable list of questions, truly ! But there were others, too-of minor conse- quence, yet all involved in these just stated-and most of these, in point of fact, in these two salient ones of church membership and baptism, of which baptism particularly was debated with an ardor that neither Socinian nor Romanist, Pelagian nor Hermian, not Naziandzen, St. Ciril, nor Salmasius, have ever surpassed !
" We are blameless, as most people, in our lives and conversa- tion-we are well disposed-we are sober-argued, according to Mather, 'multitudes' of persons-and so, particularly, many in the church in Hartford. We are full believers in the doctrines of Christianity. We desire to accept Christ for our Redeemer. We seek forgiveness of our sins. We are ready to promise that, through the aid of the Holy Spirit, we will forsake the vanities of this evil world, and strive to act according to the rules of the
.
900
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WOODBURY.
gospel. We wish to submit ourselves to the watch and discipline of the church. Particularly, we will promise to bring up our children, that may be given us, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We want the distinction and privileges, therefore, of church membership for ourselves, and of baptism for our children. True, we are not communicants, but we will labor diligently to become so. Why then shut upon us, 'hopeful candidates ' as we thus are, the doors of church privilege? Is it just ? Is it wise? Why make no difference, in this respect, between ourselves and Pagans ? Why, in particular, exclude our offspring, dear as they are to our hearts, and partakers, as it is our dearest wish they should be, of the kingdom of heaven, why exclude them from the baptism of Christianity simply because our own honest doubts and fears are such that we cannot ourselves come up to the cove- nanting state of communicants at the table of the Lord ? This is harsh-it is an unwarrantable strictness. Baptism and full com- munion are separate things, and the former, with church watch, may be enjoyed without the latter. Seal though it be of the cov- enant, baptism is, after all, but an initiatory rite. It does not itself absolutely confer, it does not of itself indelibly impress the grace of regeneration, nor is salvation so inseparately annexed to it, as that without it, no person can enter heaven. 'The Lord hath not set up our churches,' be it remembered, 'only that a few old Christians should keep one another warm while they live, and then carry away the church into the cold grave with them when they die; no, but that they might with all care, and with all the obligations and advantages to that care that may be, nurse up still successively another generation of subjects to our Lord, that may stand up in his kingdom when they are gone.' So pleaded, so demanded one large party in the church of Hartford." 1
So pleaded, so demanded one large party in the church at Strat- ford, in 1665 and 1866. Let us see if we are right. Let us refer to the vote of the town, parish-wise, passed June 1, 1666-for, it will be remembered, that the whole town voted parish-wise in the settlement of ministers till after 1700-which vote is recorded on page 119 of this history. By that vote, it is claimed in the " Wood- bury View," the liberal, or dissentient party triumphed over the church proper in its conservative, close corporation notions, that is, the dissentient communicants, added to the freemen who were
1 Stuart's Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 221.
901
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WOODBURY.
not communicants, but who agreed in their view with the minority of the church, made a majority of the whole in town meeting, and, in their call to Mr. Chauncy, were able to establish their platform, as the condition on which they would settle him, grant him a portion of the lands, " set apart for the support of the ministry," and pay him an annual salary beyond. Whether we are right in this claim will be discussed further on. An extract from that vote seems to shine with a clear light upon the subject matter in dispute at Strat- ford. They lay down, as the great object of desire, and as the prime condition of settlement, the principles of the Half-way Cov- enant. Why so particular, unless the privileges of this plan had before this time been denied to them by the church proper, in the church meetings, where communicants only were allowed a voice. They say :-
" More particularly we desire y ' all they y ' professe fayth and obedience to the rules of Christ, not scandalous in life, and doe present themselves in owning ye covenant wherein they have given themselves unto the Lord in baptism, may be admitted and accounted members of ye church, and under the care and disci- pline thereof as other members, and have their children baptized. Yet, notwithstanding, we desire not that any thus admitted may approach unto the Lord's table till, in and by examination and due tryall, they make testimony unto the Judgement of Charity, of their fitness therennto. Moreover, as God owneth the Infant children of believers in ye Covenant of Grace, neither doth ex- clude ye same children w" grown up from keeping their standing in ye covenant, while they soe walk as they doe not reject it, God owneth y " and would not have ye grace of his covenant shortened or straitened, nor put y m from under the dispensations of his grace, giving his ministers a solemn charge to take care of, and train up such a part of their flock: We desire also that y e children of church members may be accounted as church mem- bers, as well as their parents, and yt they do not cease to be men- bers by being grown up, but that they still doe continue in the church, successively, until, according to ye rules of Christ, they be cast out, and yt they are still ye subjects of church discipline, even as other members, and yt they should have their children baptized, notwithstanding their present unfitness for partaking of the Lord's Supper."
This is the " Woodbury View," and it is not questioned but that it is a full statement of the Half-way Covenant system. Was
902
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WOODBURY.
this the original platform of the Stratford church, or was it some- thing new-an innovation ? If it was the old platform. why so earnestly proclaim it again, and make it a condition precedent to settlement ? Why not say, simply, that they would settle Mr. Chauney upon the ancient platform-in the ancient order, and " way of Christ among the churches ?" Not a word is said here of a different mode of church government from the old one. It was the right of church membership and baptism. that was the sole and all-absorbing theme. On this they insist-on this solely. This vote furnishes the key to the whole controversy. The same eloquent writer proceeds to give the views of the first established churches from which these were a departure. He says ; ---
"On the other hand, it was urged in reply to these claims, that they were wholly inconsistent with the rights of the brotherhood and the strict principles of the Congregational churches-that they were innovations on its practice, and contrary to its purity- that they would subvert the very design for which the churches in New England were planted. Baptism, said the advocates of these views, is a seal of the whole covenant of grace-those, therefore. not interested in this covenant of faith, by saving faith, by the having of repentance, ought not to have the seal thereof for them- selves, nor for their children. If we extend it in the manner de- manded, there would be great corruption. It would be a profa- nation of the right. It would have a natural tendency to harden unregenerate persons in their sinful condition-and to admit such to privileges and membership in the churches, would at once throw the homes of the saints into the power of the worldly part of mankind, profane their administration, and pervert their efficacy "1
Which party at Stratford was it that entertained such views as these ? Was it the Walker party, who for years insisted on being allowed the privileges of the Half-way Covenant, and, when they could not fully obtain them, organized a separate church, and re- paired to the interior forests to enjoy their faith in peace? Or was it the party of the "ancient church," under the guidance of Mr. Chaurey, as a " stated supply," who, when addressed by the Walker party, in Jan. 1665 6 (p. 115) " desiring also that we and our posterity may be owned as immediate members of the Church of Christ by you: as Christ owneth us and ours by his own in- stitution, taking us into covenant, and solemnly setting his seal
1 Stuart's Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 224.
903
IIISTORY OF ANCIENT WOODBURY.
upon us," (p. 115,) and again in Feb. 9, 1665 6 (p. 116) desiring "com- munion in all God's ordinances," with the rest of the church, replied, April 16, 1666, (p. 117) " These are to give you to understand, that our apprehension concerning the order of discipline is the same that we have formerly manifested it to bee, both by our practice, and answer to your proposalls. And whereas you appre- bend you have equal rights with ourselves in all the ordinances of Christ in this place. These may certifie you at present that we are of a different apprehension from you in that matter. And whereas you desire that your posterity may, etc. : we would put you in mind, that as yet the matter is in controversie among the learned and godly ?" Which party was it that demanded they and their seed should be "owned as immediate members of the church ?" Which party refused this before the ordination of Mr. Chauncey ? It was the Walker party that demanded. It was the church that refused, acting as a church, entitling and embalming its actions as "Church Answer to the Men." Are we wrong, then, in saying, that the church, when acting as an associated body of communicants, rejected the Half-way Covenant dogma, and that on the following June 1, 1666, the Walker party, in open town meeting, when all, both communicants and freemen, were acting together parish-wise, carried the day, and established the condi- tion of the Half-way Covenant in the "Town propositions to Mr .. Chauncey " of that date, (p. 119,) which were afterwards accepted by Mr. Chauncey ? Why, if this view be correct, it did not bring peace to the town and church, we will consider further on.
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.