USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > History of the Second church of Christ in Hartford > Part 2
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
" Upon this account how can it be avoided but there will be several churches in every town in this jurisdiction ? For if discontented persons who distaste the ways of God, pretending that they are the holy party, may separate from their brethren without just cause, will not this cause divisions and subdivisions of churches in several towns? In probability this will follow this evil example, and be destructive to the peace of the commonwealth, and kindle such a fire as will not be quenched till the observation of all divine observances be consumed among us." 1
It is the same argument that was brought to bear against all manner of Puritan dissent or separatism in Eng- land, only a few years before. It closes with the same old appeal to the civil authorities to put down all separatism by force. So quickly had these New England Puritans, and many others besides, forgotten the experiences of their fathers in the Old England.
In what precise form the first disagreements publicly appeared is uncertain. Trumbull says, "it seems that some member had been admitted, or baptism administered, which
1 Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. 2: 79.
One or more of the signers of this letter afterwards joined the minority party.
20
History of the Church
Elder Goodwin conceived to be inconsistent with the rights of the brotherhood and the strict principles of Congregation- alism.1 Another writer intimates, and probably hits the nail on the head, that the first appearance of disturbance was on the occasion of the call of a minister to take Mr. Hooker's place, when it was, perhaps, proposed to give baptized non- communicants the privilege of voting in the election of a minister.
"Some of the inhabitants, holding more strictly to the former princi- ples of discipline, could not well bear it that any, in whose real piety they were not satisfied (as not being confirmed members in the church), should partake of any higher privileges, civil or ecclesiastical, than formerly be- longed to non-members."
"And not long after, there arose another difference in that colony, which was occasioned through the endeavors of some of their ministers for enlarging of baptism, and extending the right of membership to children before their admission into full communion." 2
This statement of the case is probably correct in both its parts, and gives to the matter its true perspective. Passing over, for the present, the second part of it, let us notice some facts which tally with the first part.
In 1649, Mr. Jonathan Mitchell, then a divinity student, and afterwards the shining light of the church in Cambridge, preached in Hartford, and was invited to become its pastor. He declined the invitation. About the year 1653, Michael Wigglesworth, then twenty-three years of age, spent some time in Hartford, and preached. He had preached there be- fore, and evidently some endeavors of Mr. Stone had brought him before the church as a candidate for the pastorship. The question came up whether or no the members of the church should exercise the liberty of voting for or against Mr. Wigglesworth, after his trial. Capt. Cullick, a man of much reputation and influence, and Mr. Stone had a warm discussion. Capt. Cullick thought there should be some ex- pression by the brethren, " that we either do like and approve of him, or not. We have had a trial, and it is not meet that 1 Hist., vol. 1: 310. 2 Hubbard's Hist. of N. E., pp. 315, 316, 352.
-
21
The Struggle for Existence
we should let him go away, and never say what our further desires are of him." For some reasons Mr. Stone did not wish any such expression of opinion by the brethren.1 More than that, he interfered to prevent what he did not desire. In a paper drawn up in 1657, Mr. Stone distinctly acknowl- edges that he had "hindered the church from declaring their apprehensions by vote concerning Mr. Wigglesworth's fitness for office in the church of Hartford." In the same paper he also acknowledges that the brethren had the right or liberty to do just what he had hindered them from doing, and like- wise admits that he ought to have left the church to their liberty in voting.2
Mr. Stone was charged with infringement of the rights of the brotherhood. In two church meetings the matter was debated, and though the majority acquitted their teacher, yet the accusation was renewed. Then followed Mr. Stone's resignation. " He would lay down his place and office-power: he should not act as an officer any more among them; his work was done in this place."
Several of the church lamenting their sad condition as being thus deprived of a minister, he replied, that if the brethren desired, while he tarried with them, and as he was able, he would speak to them on Sabbath days, "as a brother."3 This resignation of Mr. Stone, evidently offered in a fit of great impatience and welcomed by the minority, was speedily repented of and withdrawn, for he soon ap- peared again in his old office, and that fact was urged against him by the minority. At the time of his resignation he took care to give Elder Goodwin a staggering blow. Acting as Moderator of the meeting, although he had laid down his office, he caused the election of another, "disorderly as the minority conceived," to "lead the church in his room," thus virtually displacing the Ruling Elder from his office.4
1 Hist. Coll., vol. 2: 53. 2 Hist. Coll., vol. 2: 71. 9 Hist. Coll., vol. 2: 58-60.
4 " As for the choice of a Moderator . . . so far as I acted by advising to it, it was the present exigence of the church that led me thereunto." Sam. Stone, Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. 2: 71.
22
History of the Church
It may be said here, parenthetically, that however un- fortunate for the Hartford Church Michael Wigglesworth's candidacy may have been, his settlement as pastor in it would have been still more unfortunate. He was something of a preacher, something of a physician, and fancied himself a poet. It was he who in verses described the last judgment, and represented God as saying, in answer to the pitiful plead- ings of reprobate infants for mercy : -
" Yet to compare your sin with their Who lived a longer time, I do confess, it is much less, Though every sin's a crime."
" A crime it is; therefore in bliss You may not hope to dwell; But unto you I shall allow The easiest room in hell."
" You sinners are; and such a share As sinners may expect, Such you shall have, for I do save None but mine own elect."
The poetaster who could put such sentiments into a tripping meter and double rhyme, as if for singing, was not the man to succeed Thomas Hooker, or to stand in the list of pastors of the First Church in Hartford. If the minority were responsible for his defeat, they deserve the gratitude of posterity.
The state of things is indicated by the following sen- tence from Hull's Diary (Boston, 1656): -
" Great breach of love and union in the church at Hartford last summer, which continued to the end of the winter now past, notwith- standing all endeavors there, and also by letters from here, to have gained a reconciliation."
The following extract from a letter to Mr. Stone and the church, signed by John Webster, John Cullick, William Goodwin, and Andrew Bacon, will show how the with- drawers, as they may now be called, proceeded: -
23
The Struggle for Existence
" For, whereas to the wounding of our harts there grew a breach in our peace, wee propounded our thoughts and judgments of the rule, and attended that way of debate which your selves judged most according to rule; and you expressed your selves that if we would but give in our things in writting, you looked that the differences wear even at an end; which, as we feared, we have found a sad mistake. In our writting we presented that which we accounted and judged rule and reason." 1
This written statement of their grievances has, un- fortunately, perished, but from the same letter it appears that this orderly proceeding did not accomplish any recon- ciliation. It was answered by Mr. Stone and his party in a way of remonstrance, and their answer is not on record.
To this remonstrance of Mr. Stone, the following letter, endorsed "June 11th (56)," was written and sent in reply: 2
" Dear Brethren: Wee have as seriously and sadly as the Lord hath helped us considered and weighed what hath beene presented to us in the papers received from Mr. Stone and severall brethren, and doe solemnly profess wee have laboured with all our might according to our Abilities and Light, to receive satisfaction in those things wee have presented to you for help in, but cannot meete with that in your answers which wee hoped and looked for, and therefore doe declare ourselves that our doubts and difficulties yet remaine with us, and in some of them they are rather increased than removed; and therefore, to the great greife of our hearts. must say, that as the case now stands with this church, wee cannot with- out sin, till wee receive other Light, joine with you in any office acts put forth by Mr. Stone; for he hath, as much as in him lyes, laide down his place, hath acted since accordingly, and the church hath done that which wee conceive holds forth their acceptance; neither has Mr. Stone, in his answer to those questions that concerns the same, held forth satisfying and convincing Light to us to the contrary: Wee doe therefore, humbly desire that you would forbear doing that which will put us upon doing that which you shall judge offensive, or otherwise expose us to tempta- tions to act with you doubtingly, to the great offence of God and hazard (if not wounding) our inward peace, until we can have helpe from an able and Indifferent Councell mutually chosen, which wee desire may bee indeavored and attended with as much speed as may bee. [ If you shall refuse to graunt us our desire heerein, then wee desire that you would graunt us our dismission, the thoughts whereof in many respects is ex- ceeding bitter to us, but any condition is better to us (though bitter) than that which doth expose us to sin. ]
1 Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. 2: 70. 2 Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. 2: 54.
24
History of the Church
We subscribe to all that is above written uncrost. March 12th, 55.
George Steele,
Nathaniel Ward,
Ozias Goodwin,
Andrew Bacon,
Will. Partrigg,
Andrew Warner,
John Marsh,
John White,
Isaac Graves,
John Crow,
Benjamin Harbert,
Thomas Standly,
Wm. Leawis,
John Barnard,
Thomas Bunc,
Gregory Woolterton,
John Webster,
John Arnold,
John Cullick,
Zachary Fild,
Richard Church.
The closing sentence of this letter was "crost" with black lines in the original, indicating some difference of opinion or hesitation as to "dismission." The letter is of prime importance as indicating the gravity of the situation, and also the spirit of the minority. Considering the number of subscribers, their weight of good character, and their reasonable requests, it is difficult to understand why they should have been subjected to such treatment as was given them. John Webster was at that time Deputy-Governor of the Colony, and two months later was made Governor.
John Cullick was a Pequot soldier; Deputy, 1644, 1646, 1647; Magistrate and Secretary of the Colony, 1648- 1658; Commissioner for the United Colonies for Connecticut, 1652 - 1654. Andrew Bacon and John Barnard were Deputies. Wm. Lewis, Ozias Goodwin, Zachary Fild, Richard Church, and Nathaniel Ward, were prominent townsmen. Of John White, Thomas Standly, Thomas Bunce, and others, we shall have occasion to say somewhat, in due time.
On the 18th of March the church addressed a letter to the withdrawers, containing four propositions. This letter is lost, but the following reply to it, dated March 20th, 5g, is of importance: - 1
" DEARE BRETHREN :- Your paper of the 18th Instant, containing 4 1 Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. 2: 56-58.
25
The Struggle for Existence
perticulars or propositions, wee have received and considered, unto which (according to your desire) wee return this speedy answer:
To your Preface wee answer, that in our last paper wee doe some- thing more than desire a Councell, in the generall; for wee desire an In- different Councell mutually chosen, by which we declare ourselves to meane, that if you please to nominate the Elders of. 4 or 5 churches, wee shall nominate the elders of 4 or 5 other churches, which, if you thinke good to accept, we shall readily attend.
To the first perticular wec answer, that we deny that there has beene as yet any Councell agreed upon by the consent of the whole church.
To the 2nd and 3d perticulars wee answer, that wec doe not judge them, or either of them alone, to bee sutable or suffitient meancs, most according to God, to heale or helpe us in the state wec now stand.
To the 4th perticular wee Answer, that we conceive there are suf- fitient reasons, and such as to us are cogent, why we desire another Coun- cell than that which you say is agreed uppon by the consent of the whole church:
I. Because of the weight and difficulty of severall of the thinges in difference, which every godly and learned Councell may not bee able to helpe us in.
2. Because we have had none that have gone before us to give us Light therein.
3. Because the more able the Councell is, the more satisfaction you and we may have in the Light they hold forth for Conviction.
4. Because our work is much increased since that councell was in nomination.
And we further explain ourselves in these two particulars following:
I. Concerning our desires of a Councell, that wee might both attend the due weight of the occasions to bee considered by them, and yet not overload the business with numbers, wee desire that the members of the Councell might bee within the compass of these two neighboring Colonies, viz: New Haven and our owne; and that out of them, each party might have the choice of 4 or 5 churches, and that you would name yours first, and then wee shall add the other parte of the forenamed num- ber; or, if you are not willing to nominate first, then, if you desire it, wee are ready to doe it: not that we would avoid any helpe of Elders from the Bay, but that wee are not willing to propound thinges that may be ex- ceeding difficult to attaine. This we desire, as speedily as may bee to bee attended, because wee cannot attend to all the ordinances of Christ for our soules nourishment with you, with a good conscience; nor see, in the present posture you are in, that wee can, in any way of Christe,
26
History of the Church
have the exercise of discipline for the redressing what is amiss on either side.
If you thinke not fitt to comply with us in this our motion and desires of such a select Councell, though with griefe of heart, yet wee are con- strained to desire our dismissions for ourselves, our wives, and children, to some approved Church or Churches of Christe, which wee will indeavor to attaine within two or three months, in some place or way which the Lord shall shew to us: "
[The remainder of this letter is omitted here, as unim- portant.]
The letter is signed, "Your loving brethren."
This request for a mutual council, so reasonably and forcibly made, was granted by the church, and the council convened in Hartford in June, 1656. It was composed of ministers from the Connecticut churches, with one or two from New Haven Colony. There are three distinct contem- poraneous documents which shed light on this council and its result, viz .: John Davenport's Letter to the church at Wethersfield, John Higginson's Letter, and a letter of the Withdrawers to the Hartford church, dated March 13, 1657. These documents, which we shall freely quote, may be found in the second volume of the Conn. Hist. Soc. Collections.
All these documents agree that, after thoroughly con- sidering the case, the council unanimously decided, Ist, that mutual satisfaction should be given on both sides, each to the other ; 2d, that if differences should again break forth, or not be healed, the dissenting brethren should crave their dis- mission and the church should give it them. "The decision of this council," says Dr. Walker, " was a substantial vindi- cation of the position of the minority as against the arbitrary procedures of Mr. Stone and the church." 1
But while the minority fulfilled the injunctions of the council and stood by its decision, they could get neither relief nor release from the church. Mr. Stone and his supporters utterly disregarded the advice and result thus given, as will appear from the testimony of Messrs. Davenport and Hig- ginson. Mr. Stone went so far as to publish, together with
1 Hist. of First Ch., p. 158.
27
The Struggle for Existence
the council's verdict, certain "considerations" of his own which tended to nullify the result, and for this breach of courtesy and faith he was compelled, in due time, to confess that he had "acted unseasonably." 1
Mr. Davenport's letter was written to the church at Wethersfield. That church had asked advice of the church at New Haven as to whether they might properly receive the withdrawers at Hartford. Mr. Davenport had, as he says, received from the members of the late council a com- plete account of the state of things, and he says that the elders of the said council do
" testify that the brethren formerly called dissenting, have fully attended the determination of the counsill in both the advices left with them," and " that Mr. Stone and the church at Hartford have violated the determin- ation of that counsill in both parts of their advice, by their never giving the satisfaction prescribed for the healing of offences, and now by their not giving the offended brethren their dismission."
John Higginson's letter is even more explicit. The oc- casion of his writing is the same as that in Mr. Davenport's case. After showing how the council was mutually called, and what its conclusions were, he says -
" The dissenting brethren have submitted to the judgment of the counsell, in both parts of it. They have given such satisfaction as they were advised to. In case of non-satisfaction they have desired their dis- mission.
Mr. Stone and the church there hath not submitted to the judgment of the counsell, in neither part of it. They have not given satisfaction as they were advise 1. They have not given dismission when it was desired.
But instead of submission, Mr. Stone hath risen up in way of oppo- sition to the counsell, setting up his owne judgment, in his owne case, against the judgment of the counsell, openly in the face of the countrey publishing a confutation of the judgment of the counsell. .
This opposition to the counsell by Mr. Stone hath bene the blameable cause of the continuance and increase and multiplying of those conten- tions and disorders, .. . as also it hath given such a scandalous and formidable example of opposition to counsells, and such a wound to the Congregationall way, that except Mr. Stone's repentance for it bee as publickly knowne as his sinne in so doing, his example in this, and the
1 Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. 2: 70.
28
History of the Church
consequences of it, is like to have a destructive influence upon all the churches of New England."
Mr. Higginson also says that "many of the magistrates there, being interested in the case," neglected their duty, allowed the sentence of the council to be contemned and the elders of the council to be discountenanced by a "party growing up under the shaddow of Mr. Stone."
In the Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections, volume 7th and 4th series, page 530, occurs a letter from Mr. Davenport to Gov. Winthrop, in which he bluntly says that the messengers sent to the former council at Hartford "suffered grievous ill-usage. Some of the magistrates there labored to hinder them, sum- moned them in attendance, and publicly reproved them."
Now as for the testimony of the withdrawers, it is found in a letter addressed to the church by Messrs. Webster, Good- win, Cullick, and Bacon, urging them to abide by the decis- ion of the late council.
" After many propositions and prayers " we " obtayned a Councell of persons suiting and answering your propositions and desires; wherein how far we condesended and denyed ourselves to seek peace, your selves know.
" When this Counsell was come and we had declared our things to them, they, in most of our things, concurred with us and strengthened our thoughts; wherein they did not, we readily attended their councill, and there abide. . . Therefore, deare Bretheren, we doe beseech and in- treat you, in the fear of the Lord and for the sake of Christ, to yield to that councell that is already given; either in the first part of it, which would be matter of great rejoicing and comfort to our hearts, if your light and conscience can come thereunto; or else that you would, in like tenderness toward us, graunt us our dismission, according to our de- sire formerly exprest." 1
We have lingered at this point, because of its supreme importance in the whole case. From the decision of that council there was no appeal, either in law or equity. By that decision the minority stood, awaiting justice.
The " restless endeavor to procure other elders to come up from the Bay," supported by the interference of the Gen- eral Court, was not fruitless. In August, 1656, five dis- 1 Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. 2: 68-70.
29
The Struggle for Existence
tinguished elders of Massachusetts,-John Wilson, Richard Mather, Samuel Whiting, John Sherman, and John Norton,- wrote to the leaders of the withdrawing party in Hartford. Mr. Stone was then in Boston and had been in conference with them, as their letter shows. They lament over the " wound of so famous a sister church," and cry out in fervent deprecation of the scandal of an incurable breach therein; but the point of their communication is the proposal of a confer- ence of all parties at Boston, or, if that be inconvenient, at Hartford. "Mr. Stone will stay here till we hear from you."1
This proposal was not accepted. A month later the Hartford Church received a letter from several Massachu- setts churches exhorting both parties to mutual forbearance, counseling the church against haste in the way of discipline, and warning the minority of the sin of "intempestive seces- sion," and suggesting a "second meeting, consisting of some from hence with some also of yourselves, the late reverend council, with any others you shall see cause."? The Hartford Church accepted this suggestion and endeavored to induce the withdrawers to accept it also. The General Court of Con- necticut seconded the suggestion, and desired the members of the former council of 1656 to be invited to meet the Bay Elders at Hartford, to review the whole case. Governor Webster, Capt. Cullick, and Mr. Steele opposed this move- ment in the court, appealing to the decision of the previous council which Mr. Stone had disregarded, and also objecting to legislative interference in the case. 3 The withdrawers sent a letter to Mr. Stone and the church, in which they declined the suggestion of a new council.
They reviewed their steps from the beginning of the troubles, showing that they had "attended that way of de- bate which yourselves judged most according to rule "; had put their grievances in writing, according to request, and yet without redress; and "after many propositions and prayers
1 Hist. Coll., vol. 2: 59-63.
3 Col. Records, vol. 1: 291.
2 Hist. Coll., vol. 2: 64-68.
30
History of the Church
had obtained a council of persons suiting and answering your propositions and desires." They had accepted the definitive judgment of a mutual council, whereas the church had disre- garded it. With spirit and force they argued that this move- ment was an attempt to re-open a closed case before a court composed of persons "who may not, at least some of them, be so fitted every way for our work." As for the elders of the former council, "we see not that your entertainment of their counsel hath been such as would be any encouragement in them to come again." They conclude by entreating the church to yield to " that counsel already given."
The proposed council was held, and the withdrawers were by some means persuaded to participate in its delibera- tions, yet they never abandoned the impregnable ecclesias- tical position which the mutual council of 1656 afforded them, nor did they ever admit any force in later councils as sup- planting the authority of that first one.
In a letter to Gov. Eaton and Rev. John Davenport of New Haven, Dec., 1657, they say: -
" If the last elders and messengers which were here with us, being those from the Bay, had ever been called or owned by us as a council, we should have concluded our duty and rule had been to have done as in yours to us is suggested; but that never was."
John Higginson's letter explicitly confirms this state- ment. He says that
" notwithstanding Mr. Stone's opposition to the Council (of 1656), and notwithstanding the different apprehensions of the Elders of the Bay (who were not called by both parties . . ) yet the definitive sentence of the council stands in full power, as it did at first. The pacification (procured by the Elders of the Bay, and through importunity yielded unto by the dissenting brethren) did not nullify either the power of the definitive sentence of the council or the duty of submission there- unto."
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.