USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > History of the Second church of Christ in Hartford > 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
This point is enlarged upon here because, afterwards, 1 Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. 2: 68-70.
31
The Struggle for Existence
Mr. Stone and his party, who had utterly disregarded and contemned the findings of the first and mutual council, charged the withdrawers with disregarding this second coun- cil, in calling which they had no part, to the assembling of which they objected, and which they finally attended, under importunity, simply as a means of pacification.
In the spring of 1657, then, John Norton and the Elders of six other Bay churches set out for Hartford "to endeavor a reconciliation amongst them in those parts." The Boston church observed the 16th day of April as a day of fasting and prayer in their behalf. There is no record of the pro- ceedings or result of this assembly, but beyond doubt it went over the whole case. It is known that Mr. Stone submitted certain acknowledgments of errors.1 Hull's Diary, April 23d, relates, "we received letters from Hartford, and understood that the work of reconciliation went very slowly forward." Some pacification was at length effected, voted, and solemnly owned. On the 6th of May Mr. Norton returned to Boston, bringing word that "the Lord had graciously wrought the church at Hartford to a reunion and a mutual promise to bury all former differences in silence for the future." 2
This report of what Mr. Norton is said to have said, and similar reports from the party of Mr. Stone,3 must be taken in connection with the facts already stated, that the with- drawers never accepted this council nor its findings as in any way superseding or weakening the force of the previous council's decision. This pacification was evidently super- ficial, for it was of brief duration. Mr. Stone, as we shall see, soon succeeded in troubling again the calmed waters, and the contention was renewed, each party claiming that the other had broken the recent pacification, and the with- drawers standing again on the decision of the old council of 1656, and demanding their dismission, since their condition in the church was intolerable.
Dropping now, for awhile, this main thread of the narra-
1 Hist. Coll., vol. 2 : 71.
2 Conn. Col. Rec., I : 29C.
3 Hist. Coll., vol. 2 : 117.
32
History of the Church
tive, it becomes necessary to note and trace other movements in the churches which finally entered into the Hartford church contention, and both complicated and intensified it.
According to the original scheme of Congregationalism in New England, the proper subjects of baptism were such believing persons as desired to enter into full communion in the church and could satisfy the tests of admission, and the infant children of church members in full standing. They required "visible saintship " as a condition of church mem- bership. They constructed rigorous tests of such saintship, both theological and experimental. In due time these re- quirements proved to be exclusive of large numbers of excel- lent men and women in all the communities. These "outside saints " could neither come to the sacraments nor have their children baptized, nor have any voice or vote in the affairs of the churches which they must, nevertheless, be taxed to support. They constituted an unchurched multitude in the communities where the church was the central and dominant institution.
It is not strange that grievances were presented, and relief was sought from a condition of things so fraught with injustice and danger. It is pitiful to think that no church seemed to be aware of the real necessities of the case, - of the need of returning from human dogmatisms and devices to the simplicities of the Gospel of Christ. Men began to complain that they were debarred from all church privileges except as they would submit to such ways of church entrance and covenant as their consciences would not admit. Under the stress of a growing public sentiment, many ministers were moved to adopt and practice a new and larger way, which finally became known as the "Half-way Covenant " scheme. Persons who had been baptized in infancy, on coming to mature years, might, if of good understanding and not scandalous, bring their children to be baptized, although they had never come into full communion in the church. These persons were held to be, by virtue of their own bap-
33
The Struggle for Existence
tism, in covenant relations with God and the church, at least, in some sense, and they might come forward and "own the covenant " and have their offspring baptized, and yet not be full members or communicants. In 1634 John Cotton wrote to the Dorchester church, giving an opinion on the following case of conscience : whether a grandfather, being a member of a Christian church, might claim baptism for his grand- child whose parents had not been received into church cov- enant. The opinion given by him, as that of his church also, was that the grandfather might claim that privilege for his grandchild.1
We have already referred to Mr. Stone's deliverance, in 1650, that "children of church members have a right to church membership by virtue of their father's covenant." Mr. Hooker strenuously opposed this view, contending that only the immediate offspring of parents in full communion should receive baptism. The way of this new departure and en- largement was a thorny one, and, as experience demonstrated in due time, fraught with manifold evils and degeneracies. And yet, some enlargement of rights and liberties was im- peratively demanded.
The new departure did not originate in Connecticut, but. Connecticut did put forth the first official expression of a desire for some discussion and settlement of the new ques- tions which evidently were disturbing the churches of the. colony. With Mr. Stone advocating the new measures which Hooker had disapproved, the Hartford church could but feel the effect thereof as increasing its difficulties. Trumbull says that "numbers took this opportunity to introduce into the Assembly a list of grievances, on account of their being denied their just rights and privileges by the ministers and churches." ?
As early as May, 1656, the General Court of Connecticut appointed a committee of four leading men to advise with
1 Walker's Hist. of First Ch., pp. 188-190, where several opinions of eminent di- vines are cited.
2 Hist., I: 298. 3
34
History of the Church
the elders of the colony about "these things that are pre- sented to this Court as grievances to several persons among us," and to ask their help in drawing up a statement to be presented to the General Courts of the United Colonies.1
This committee made a report, embodying twenty-one questions for discussion, and recommending a Synod of elders from all the colonies to consider the matters. Massa- chusetts accepted the proposal and chose thirteen of her elders to meet with those of other colonies in the month of June. Plymouth colony gave no heed to the matter. New Haven thoroughly distrusted the movement and declined to attend, although answers to the twenty-one questions by John Davenport were sent to the Synod. In the letter from New Haven there were caustic expressions to the effect that the churches were competent to settle their own troubles, and it was more than intimated that restless spirits were seeking great alterations both in civil government and church discipline, and that it was proposed to give the right to all church privileges to mem- bers of English parishes who should come hither.
On the 26th of February, 1657, the Connecticut General Court appointed four elders, - Warham of Windsor, Stone of Hartford, Russell of Wethersfield, and Blinman of New London, as representatives of this colony. This Synod, composed of ministers appointed by the General Courts of. Massachusetts and Connecticut, and in the least degree a congregational assembly, met in Boston, on the 4th of June, 1657, and continued in session for two weeks. The result of its deliberations, drawn up by Richard Mather, was published in England, two years later, entitled “ A Disputa- tion concerning church members and their children, in answer to twenty-one questions."? In answer to the tenth question, the Synod defined and endorsed the doctrine of the Half-way Covenant. It declared that baptized children, when they reach the age of discretion, though not yet fit for the Lord's Supper, should own the covenant they made
1 Col. Rec., 1: 281. 2 Hubbard's N. E., 563-569.
35
The Struggle for Existence
with their parents ; that the church should call upon them to do this ; and if they refuse so to do, they are liable to church censure ; that, in case such persons are not scanda- lous in life and understand the grounds of religion, and own the covenant, baptism should not be denied to their chil- dren.1
This was a long step away from the doctrine and practice of the fathers. It created a church within a church. It conferred upon a large number of persons all the rights of church-membership except that of coming to the Lord's Supper, on conditions which implied no Christian expe- rience. º It was a practical return to the old "Parish-way" against which the fathers had protested and provided.
Resuming now the main thread of our narrative, it should be noted that the Pacification effected in the Hartford Church by the elders from the Bay, and this Boston Synod, were events that occurred at about the same time. The Pacification was effected in May, 1657, and the Synod met only a month later, in June. Mr. Stone went to Boston to attend the Synod, in which he was known as a strenuous supporter of its new measures. A copy of its answers to several questions, bearing his signature, was presented to the General Court of Connecticut which ordered that copies should speedily be sent to the several churches of the colony. That this action tended to aggravate the difficulties in the Hartford Church is unquestionable. The minority, or the withdrawing party, were opposed to the synodical innova- tions, as were most of the Connecticut churches. But mean- while, in August, and while still in Boston, Mr. Stone sent a letter to the Hartford Church with sundry remarkable propo- sitions attached thereto, which effected a complete breach of the Pacification which had been patched up three months be- fore by the Bay elders, and set all things in more violent contention than ever. His letter referred to the late Pacifica- tion, described his love for the church, and then proceeded
1 Hubbard, pp. 566.
2 Vide Dr. Bacon's Cont. to Conn. Ecc. Hist., pp. 21-22.
36
History of the Church
to speak of his physical infirmities, and his inability to ad- minister the difficult matters of church government required at Hartford. It suggested the propriety of his retirement from his office. Then followed a series of propositions to be accepted by the church.
They were to bind themselves to submit to every doc- trine which he should propound to them, grounded on the Scriptures. They were to engage themselves not to make any movement to bring in any officer to join with him with- out his consent and approbation. The church must promise him full liberty to secure an assistant minister, whom they shall receive on Mr. Stone's testimony that said assistant is a fit person to be employed in that place. The church would be expected to procure some able physician to settle in Hartford before the next October.1 [The nearest educated physician was Dr. Rossiter of Guilford.]
The purpose of Mr. Stone in sending such a letter to the Hartford Church at that time is obvious. He wished to com- mit it as a whole to the above propositions. An acceptance of such propositions would have bound the minority hand and foot and left them entirely at the mercy of Mr. Stone. The communication was received with astonishment and in- dignation. It was vigorously denounced as a breach of the late Pacification, and the old quarrel broke out again fiercer than ever. Hull's Diary (page 183) notes, "The breach at Hartford again renewed; God leaving Mr. Stone, their officer, to some indiscretion, as to neglect the church's desire in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and to proceed to some acts of discipline toward the formerly dissenting brethren." The minority, hopeless of procuring dismission again, formally withdrew from communion in the church, and applied to the church in Wethersfield for reception there. They sent a letter, Nov. 11, 1657, to other churches in the colony, inclos- ing their reasons for separation, and this letter was publicly read in some of the churches. There seems to have been a previous paper, dated the 26th of October, 2 and of the nature
1 Hist. Coll., vol. 2: 73-77. 2 Hist. Coll., vol. 2: 77-78.
37
The Struggle for Existence
of a remonstrance, sent to the church at Hartford, which was published and read in several churches. Nathaniel Barding and others of the Hartford Church resented this action, as tending to the defamation of Mr. Stone and the church at Hartford, and on 4th of Dec., 1657, they presented a complaint to the General Court against the withdrawers, alleging viola- tion of covenant, breach of pacification, and untruthfulness of statement, and asking the General Court to interfere, for the punishment of such offences against peace. 1
The following paragraph is significant : -
" At a Quarter court at Hartford, 3ª December, 1657. Ensigns Tal- cott and John Allin maketh complaint contr : Mr. John Russell Jr., of Wethersfield, defendant, for reading of a paper on the Lord's Day (being the 29th of November last) at Wethersfield, which tended to the defama- tion of Mr. Stone and the church at Hartford, and also which they con- ceive tendeth to the disturbance of the peace of the churches and commonwealth." 2
With Rev. Mr. Russell at the bar, stood also Rev. John Warham of Windsor and Rev. Roger Newton of Farming- ton, whose wife was the eldest daughter of Rev. Thomas Hooker. They stood there to answer for the crime of pub- licly reading the communication addressed to the churches by the withdrawers who could get no other hearing. The court spent one whole day in hearing the complaint and defence, and broke off without passing any sentence.
The subscribers to the obnoxious document went before the Governor and Deputy, and, in the presence of many of their opponents, made declaration that Mr. Stone would allow them no hearing in the church, that the Court would not attend them when they offered to make proof upon oath of the particulars alleged by them, and then earnestly asked the Governor (Winthrop) and Deputy to take their sworn testimonies. The Governor was willing to grant this, but " Mr. Talcott, Mr. Lord, and W. Wadsworth did vehemently presse the Governor that, if he took our testimonies upon oath, we should be engaged to use them no otherwise but in a way of preparation to a civil triall in our court." 3
I Hist. Soc. Coll., vol. 2: p. 79. 2 Mass. Records. 3 Letter to Gov. Eaton.
38
History of the Church
Mr. Stone and his party seemed bent on utterly prevent- ing the withdrawers from making known, in any manner, their reasons for seeking admission to other churches.
Then the church at Wethersfield sought advice from New Haven and Guilford, and drew out the masterly letters of Davenport and Higginson, both of which "support the position of the withdrawers in all the main points of the con- troversy, up to the act of withdrawing."' " > Both Davenport and Higginson hesitate a little as to whether the Wethers- field Church is at liberty to receive the withdrawers, but evi- dently incline to justify such action should it be taken.
At a session of the General Court, March II, 1657-58, it was ordered, that
" henceforth no persons in this Jurisdiction shall in any way imbody themselves into church estate, without consent of the General Court and the approbation of the neighbor churches."
The same Court also ordered,
" That there shall be no ministry or church administration entertained or attended by the inhabitants of any plantation in this Colony, distinct and separate from, and in opposition to that which is openly and publicly observed and dispenced by the settled and approved Minister of the place, except it bee by approbation of the General Court and neighbor churches."
The same Court also still further ordered,
" In reference to the sad differences that are broken out in the severall churches of this Colony, and in spetiall betwixt the church of Hartford and the withdrawers that there be from henceforth an utter cessation of all further prosecution, either on the church's part at Hart- ford toward the withdrawers from them, and on the other part, that those who have withdrawn from the church at Hartford shall make a ces- sation in prosecuting their former propositions to the church at Wethers- field or any other church, in reference to their joyning there in church relation." 2
This summary action postponed the organization of the Second Church for twelve years. It left the withdrawers in an almost hopeless predicament, and sent some of the best men in the town to Farmington and Hadley.
1 Hist. of First Ch., p. 166. 2 Col. Rec., 1 : 311.
39
The Struggle for Existence
In the month of May, 1658, Capt. Cullick and Elder Goodwin petitioned the Mass. General Court, in behalf of themselves and others, for permission to settle up the river, near Hadley.1
The petition was granted, but on condition that they should "submit themselves to a due and orderly hearing of the differences between themselves and their brethren." The way of these men was made hard indeed.
The General Court, on Aug. 18, 1658, ordered the two parties to state their differences or grievances in writing, and discuss them together. Failing to come to agreement, they should each choose three elders, whose joint decision, after a full hearing, should be final. If either party refused to choose, the court would choose for it.
The withdrawers accepted the proposition, but the church declined it, and the court, acting for the church, selected Mr. Cobbet of Ipswich, Mr. Mitchell of Cambridge, and Mr. Danforth of Roxbury. The secretary of the court, Mr. Daniel Clark, notified these reverend gentlemen of their appointment, and requested their attendance in Hartford, by the 17th of September "to assist in that service."? The withdrawers had chosen Mr. Davenport, Mr. Norton of Bos- ton, and Mr. Fitch of Norwich. Questions for disputation were drawn up by Mr. Stone, 3 but the whole endeavor fell through, as Dr. Trumbull intimates, by fault of the church. 4
In March, 1659, the General Court was pleased to take fur- ther action. It ordered and appointed a council to be called by the court, to aid in settling the controversy. The parties concerned might send delegates if they desired. The secre- tary of the court should, in the name of the court, send letters to the selected churches, asking them to send their ablest men to Hartford by the 3d of June. The Hartford Church and the withdrawers should jointly concur in "bear- ing the charges of the former council, and in preparing and providing for this that is now to be called." 5 The secretary
1 Hist. Hadley, 312. 2 Hist. Coll., vol. 2: 101.
3 Hist. Coll., vol. 2: 104-105.
4 Hist., 1: 321. 5 Col. Rec., 1: 333-334.
40
History of the Church
of the court performed his duties, but in so doing disclosed the fact that "both parties . . refuse to act jointly in and about the way of calling for help."1 It is not to be wondered at, that both parties should refuse to have anything to do with such a proceeding. The churches of Boston and Rox- bury also refused to attend any such court-created council, in the calling of which neither of the parties concerned had participated. It seemed to them "little less than taking up an holy and sacred ordinance of God in vain."? This en- deavor fell through, by the weight of its preposterous order- ing. 3
On the 15th of June, 1659, the General Court, in no wise daunted, but somewhat the wiser for their pains, secured the cooperation of the church and the withdrawers in calling a council, unto whose decisive power, " the withdrawn party is required to submit," the church "fully engaging " to do so.4 This language is significant.
The withdrawers had little spirit left for controversy, and evidently submitted to this measure because there was nothing else left to them. They said: "The council now chosen, and by the church and court sent, we, in respect of our free choice, are not at all interested in." They did not "freely engage" to submit to the proposed council, but "were required" to do so by the court. They merely con- sented to the inevitable. Already, a month earlier, they and their friends had met at Goodman Ward's house in Hartford, and signed an engagement to remove themselves and their families into Massachusetts. 5 The council met, not in Hart- ford, but in Boston, on the 26th of Sept., 1659, and was com- posed of elders of the churches of Boston, Cambridge, Dor- chester, Roxbury, Dedham, Charlestown, Sudbury, Ipswich, and Watertown.
The following extract from Hull's Diary, Sept. 26th, ex- plains the situation: -
1 Hist. Coll., vol. 2: 105. 2 Hist. Coll., vol. 2: 108, 109.
3 Walker's Hist. of First Ch. in Hartford, p. 171, where Trumbull's inaccuracies are convincingly corrected.
4 Col. Rec., P. 339. 5 Hist. of Hadley, p. 19.
The Struggle for Existence
" The church at Hartford and the dissenting brethren that had withdrawn from communion and joined to another church, appeared here in their representatives, and referred themselves to a Council before chosen by nine churches and then set in Boston. The Council fully heard the grievances of both sides, and through the gracious presence of God so determined as was blessed with a sweet reunion, and very good satisfaction unto both parties ; which was publicly manifested before they departed home."
The result or the "sentence" of this Council, drawn up by the "matchless" Mitchell of Cambridge, and dated October 7, 1659, is in manuscript among the Hutchinson papers, in the Massachusetts Historical Society's Collections, and is also to be found, printed, on pages 112-125 of the second volume of the Connecticut Historical Society's Collec- tions, with an interesting note by Dr. J. H. Trumbull. It is unnecessary to present here any report of its distribution of mild censures, or of its findings on the various points at issue. The most important portion of it is that in which the church is counscled to give dismission to such " as shall still desire to dispose of themselves elsewhere."
At last there was a truce, if not a peace. It is idle to inquire again into the causes of the conflict which, beginning with "the first breaking out of the difference betwixt Mr. Stone and Mr. Goodwin," engaged the church into parties, and deeply disturbed the peace of society. Deeper than any personal feeling that "difference " must have been. The letters of the withdrawers show that they were constrained by higher motives, and by conscientious convictions. Mr. Stone and Mr. Goodwin were represent- ative men. Their ideas and principles were in conflict. There had been a change in the administration of affairs in the church since the departure of Hooker, a change involving not only "nice points of congregationalism," but "the rights of the brotherhood." Goodwin, Webster, Cullick, and their followers deplored and resisted this departure from the congregational way. It was a matter of con- science with them. The conflict was, as Dr. Bacon has said, "between opposite principles of ecclesiastical order."
42
History of the Church
A strong minority, composed of respectable and godly mem- bers, insisted upon their rights and liberties in the church. Denied these, and finding themselves unable to continue under Mr. Stone's high-handed administration with comfort or even a good conscience, and failing in their endeavors to give or receive satisfaction, they strove, in the main soberly and wisely, for a peaceable dismission to other churches. The candid historian of the First church says truly, "on the whole, respecting the controversy which turmoiled the church so long, the impartial verdict of history must be, that, spite of many irregularities and doubtless a good deal of ill-temper on both sides, the gen- eral weight of right and justice was with the defeated and emigrating minority."1
But, as will be seen, the defeat of the minority was but temporary and superficial. Their ideas and principles finally triumphed, not only in a separate organization, but in the mother-church as well, and in the congregational churches of the country. For it is the congregationalism of Thomas Hooker, and not that of Samuel Stone, that flourishes in our own age.
It has been noticed that in the famous Boston Synod of June 4, 1657, in answer to the roth question there presented and considered, an answer was given involving the principle of the Half-way Covenant and the Parish-way. There was great opposition to these new measures in the Connecticut churches. In Massachusetts, as well, there was so much opposition as to call for a new Synod, which met in Boston, March, 1662, and by an overwhelming majority approved and authorized the reforming principles. Meanwhile, in 1660, Mr. John Whiting had been ordained as colleague of Mr. Stone in the church at Hartford, where, beneath the surface, a new contention was preparing.
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.