USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > History of the diocese of 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 | 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
There was a religion by law established, and all were bound to conformn to it under severe penalties. No one could be admitted a freeman, or free burgess, within the jurisdiction of New Haven colony, but such planters as were members of some one or other of the approved churches of New Eng- land. Union of church and state existed in its strictest sense ; indeed, so closely allied were they that the history of one is a record of the other. The salaries of the ministers were paid by assessments levied upon all.2 "Early provision was made by law for the support of the ministry. All persons were obliged to contribute to the support of the church, as well as of the Common- wealth ; the ministers' rates were inade and collected like any other." 3 If "all sober, orthodox persons" who dissented from the Congregational system were allowed by the General Assembly "peaceably to worship in their own way," they were not exempt from the obligation of supporting the established religion. The modicum of religious liberty allowed to Dissenters depended upon the good will of the General Court. So intimate was the relationship between the State religion and the civil authorities that the latter made attendance at divine worship compulsory under penalty of five shillings fine, and every family was obliged to possess "bibles, orthodox catechismns and books in practical godliness."
Among the special objects of aversion to the Puritans were "some loath- some heretics, Quakers, Ranters, Adamites, or some otliers like thein." The Quakers, particularly, were the victims of much annoyance, and stringent laws were enacted against them. To entertain theni was to incur a penalty
1 Historical Magazine, July, 1868, p. 11.
2 Public Records of Conn., 1636-1650.
3 Rev. Dr. Gillett, Hist. Mag., July, 1868.
14
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NEW ENGLAND.
of five pounds a week for any town infringing the law, and the luckless dis- ciples of George Fox were imprisoned or expelled from the colony. If the captain of a vessel brought any such heretics into port he was compelled to transport them from the colony or pay a fine of twenty pounds in case of refusal. Quaker books and manuscripts were forbidden to all save teaching elders, under penalty of ten shillings for each offence. No one could "un- necessarily speak more or less" with Quakers without forfeiting five pounds for each conversation, and any town that harbored them paid also five pounds for each Quaker entertained. Furthermore, a person could be arrested under suspicion of being a Quaker, and, if after investigation he was so adjudged, he was either imprisoned or expelled from the colony.
Such being the drastic measures taken against the Quakers at the rec- ommendation of the Commissioners of the United Colonies, not many of them remained within the borders, and those who did so could enjoy liberty of worship only by "soberly dissenting" in approved form before the County Court ; but their obligation to pay the assessments for the support of the established church remained inviolate.
The antipathy of the Puritans to foreigners is embodied in their legisla- tion. Who were they ? Children of the soil? Foreigners-that and nothing more; and yet with the utmost nonchalance, and in utter disregard of the proprieties, they solemnly passed enactments against others who were born beyond the seas. At the "General Courte of Election," held on May 16, 1650, it was
Ordered "that no Forreigner, after the 29th of September next, shall retaile any goods by themselves, in any place within this Jurisdiction : nor shall any Inhabitant retaile any goods weh belong to any Forreigner, for the space of one whole yeare after the said 29th of September next, uppon pen- alty of confiscation of the value of one halfe of the goods so retailed, to be paid by the seller of them."1
The spirit of persecution was abroad. Intolerance was a cardinal doc- trine of the Puritan, and the foundation upon which he builded his hopes of uninterrupted rule. "The Puritan, firmly believing that he was elect of God, and that the saints must persevere, exercised but little charity towards those whom education and circumstances had taught another creed." 2 A great Puritan figure, Johnson, declared that there was "no room in Christ's army for tolerationists," and Cotton taught that toleration made the world anti-Christian. " The church never took hurt from the punishment of here-
tics," said another devout teacher. ""Tis Satan's policy to plead for an in- definite and boundless toleration," cried Shepard in 1672, and a year later President Oakes inade this declaration : "I look upon toleration as the first- born of all abominations." The Simple Cobbler of Agawam wrote : "He that is willing to tolerate will for a need hang God's Bible at the devil's girdle." 3
Such being the views of the Puritans on Toleration, it is pertinent to
1 Public Records of Conn., 1636-1665.
2 " The Puritan Commonwealth." Oliver, p., 193.
3 Ibid.
15
DIOCESE OF HARTFORD.
inquire how fared it with our ancestors in the faith in those days? Did they feel the heavy hand of persecution ? If illiberal laws were enacted against "forreigners," Quakers and others; if Protestant ministers were punished for preaching beyond their jurisdictions without license, it need excite no sur- prise to learn that a deeply hostile spirit prevailed against the Pope and the Catholic church. Judged by Puritan standards, but with no semblance of reason, the Church was a foreign institution, governed by a foreign potentate, and inimical to the progress of the human mind. From their point of view, but with no shadow of justice, Catholics were idolaters, grossly superstitious, held in subjection by their clergy and enveloped in spiritual and intellectual darkness. Therefore did the pious Puritan regard the Catholic with horror, a being of inferior clay, with no religious rights which the elect should recognize. The Pope was Anti-Christ, and his "authority, as such, was from the bottomless pit."1
Whatever savored of Catholic practice was scrupulously barred. They would have nothing in common with "Papists," and as for ceremonial wor- ship, it was anathematized. "The Puritans aimed to differ in their worship from the Romisli ceremonies as much as possible. Instead of kneeling at prayers they made it a point of propriety-if not of conscience-to stand, and they always sat at singing. Instrumental music they excluded because it was used by the Roman and English churches. . . . They observed a public fast in the spring and a Thanksgiving fast in the fall. Especial pains were taken that the fast should never be appointed on Good Friday." 2
Unlike Massachusetts, New York and Virginia, the statute books of Connecticut were never stained with enactments against the Jesuits or other Catholic priests. What have passed current for anti-priest laws are stupid forgeries, the creation of a clergyman,3 who was forced to leave Connecticut on account of his offensive Tory propagandism. He was a man with a griev- ance, and, at the sacrifice of truth, sought to cast odium upon Connecticut. As far as enactments were concerned priests could come and go without fear of molestation, though any exercise of their ministry would be an infringement
1 " Will and Doom; or, the Miseries of Connecticut," by Gershom Bulkeley. In " The Peoples' Right to Election " the same author wrote in May, 1689, to the Court or Convention at Hartford: "Consider your profession ; we are all Protestants. I hope there is not a Papist in our limits."
2 History of the Colony of New Haven, by Edward R. Lambert, pp. 189, 190. Apro- pos of this antipathy to music at divine worship: 1773, April, "Voted to sing on the Lord's day in the afternoon, according to the rules taught in the Singing Schools in this and the neighboring societies."-"Simsbury Town Records."
Soon after this a teacher of music was employed. After practising some time he appeared with his scholars in church on a Sunday, and the minister, having announced the psalm, the choir, under the instructor's lead, started off with a tune much more lively than the congregation had been accustomed to hear, upon which one of the dea- cons, Brewster Higley, took his hat and left the house, exclaiming as lie passed down the aisle, " Popery ! Popery !"-Phelps' History of Simsbury.
3 Rev. Samuel Peters. His book is known as Peters' History of Conn.
16
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NEW ENGLAND.
of the following law enacted by the General Assembly, May, 1742, for the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs : 1
"It is further enacted, That if any foreigner, or stranger that is not an inhabitant within this Colony, including, as well, such persons that have no ecclesiastical character or license to preach as such as have received ordina- tion or license to preach by any association or presbytery, shall presume to preach, teach or publickly to exhort, in any town or society within this Colony, without the desire and license of the settled ininister and the major part of the church and inhabitants of such town or society, provided that it so happen that there is no settled minister there, that every such preacher, teacher or exhorter shall be sent (as a vagrant person) by warrant from any one assistant or justice of the peace, fromn constable to constable out of the bounds of this Colony."
But granting the non-existence of proscriptive enactments against priests as such, it is undeniable that the concrete sentiment of Connecticut was bitterly hostile to Catholics, and this hostility was not infrequently manifested by mnen of exalted station in civil life and in high position in the church. The spirit of antagonism to all things Catholic was everywhere. Children imbibed it at the maternal breast. It pervaded the religious literature of the times and inspired the philippics of the clergy. Proscription of Catholics was officially taught as a duty " for the defence of the Protestant religion and people," while " popery and slavery" were seriously joined as twin evils of equal dye.2
In 1689 an interchange of letters between Captain Jacob Leisler, of New York, a man of ungovernable anti-Catholic prejudices, and the General Court of Connecticut, disclosed the hostile sentiment existing against Catholics at that period.
On May 31, 1689, Captain Leisler seized Fort James at New York. He published a declaration "to keep and guard surely the said fort, in the behalf of the power that now governeth in England, to surrender to the person of the Protestant religion, that shall be nominated or sent by the power afore- said." On June 5th, Major Gold, of Fairfield, wrote to Leisler a letter of con- gratulation upon the capture of the fort. In response to Gold, Leisler, .
1 Pub. Records of Conn. Vol. VIII.
2 Pub. Rec. of Conn., 1689, p. 463. An address to King William III., June 13, 1689, signed by Robert Treat, Governor, by order of the General Court of Conn.
The following letter from Jesse Root to Silas Deane, dated Hartford, May 25, 1775, furnishes us with another interesting combination of powers, which throws a side light upon the anti-Catholic prejudices of the time :
"DEAR SIR :
"The troops are continually marching for Boston. . . . May that unerring wisdom that guides the rolling spheres through the unmeasurable tract of ether, that mighty power ... inspire your venerable Body with all that wisdom and firmness that is requisite to guide and direct the important concerns of the American empire, for its safety and preservation against all craft and power of Tyranny, the Pope and the Devil." -Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., Vol. II., p. 237. A troublesome combination, in truth, one that now provokes a smile.
17
DIOCESE OF HARTFORD.
under date of June 7th, declared that his six captains and four hundred men unanimously " agreed to the preservation of the Protestant religion and the fort for the present Protestant power that now raigns in England." On June 13th the General Court of Connecticut ordered a letter to be despatched to Leisler, which contained among other matters this paragraph :1
"Gent," considering what you haue (liave) don we doe adu(v)ise that you keep the fort tenable and well manned for the defence of the Protestant religion and those ends above mentioned, and that you suffer no roman Catho- lick to enter the same armed or without armes, and that no romish Catholick be suf- fered to keep armes within your government or citty, and that those whoe shall be betrusted with the government or command of your forte be trusty persons whome you may confide in." This document was signed
"THE GENERALI, COURT OF CONNECTICUT, " Per their order signed, "JOHN ALLYN, Secret"y."
It was an official paper sent forth by the highest authority in the State, and was representative of the religious prejudices then extant against Catho- lics in Connecticut. It expressed precisely the proscriptive policy of the General Court against a class of persons who worshiped fervently and in spirit and in truth the same God as they, and who in the upbuilding and in the perpetuation of this republic gave freely of their warin, generous blood. Catholics coming into Connecticut could expect no toleration nor demand the recognition of any rights from a government that could proffer such illiberal counsel to another colony. The principle of hate was dominant.
CHAPTER III. THE CONFESSION OF FAITH.
T HE same deleterious influence that moved the General Court to transmit the above-namned letter to Captain Leisler, actuated the Protestant Dis- senters of Connecticut in their rejection of the Indulgence granted by Charles II, "that all manner of penal laws on matters ecclesiastical, against whatever sort of non-conformists or recusants should be suspended." 2 Tliis act of toleration aroused an opposition so acrimonious that Charles was forced to modify liis grant, and to promise "that no Catholic should profit by the indul- gence." The Protestant dissenters of Connecticut would forego the boon of freedom of worship if the privilege was extended to Catholics. The "Romish" church must be eliminated from any plan that would grant to dissenters liberty of conscience! Catholics were not members of the great family of Christ, and were beyond the religious pale. They were not of the household of the elect, nor were they fit subjects for toleration. Their political loyalty was suspected, and their religious doctrines, more precious than life itself, were branded as idolatrous and otherwise denounced witli a degree of bitter-
Colonial Records of Conn., 1678-1689.
2 New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, Vol. III, p. 391. Green's Hist. of the English People. II-2
18
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NEW ENGLAND.
ness incomparable in its intensity. And this pernicious spirit of intolerance found official expression in the " Confession of Faith, Owned and Consented to by the Elders and Messengers of the Churches in the Colony of Connecticut, in New England ; assembled by delegation at Saybrook, September 9, 1708." The Assembly sent forth the Confession as "our firm persuasion, well and fully grounded upon the Holy Scripture, and commend the same unto all, and par- ticularly to the people of our Colony, to be examined, accepted, and constantly maintained." 1
But wherein lies the intolerance of the Saybrook Confession of Faith ? In what are its decrees antagonistic to Catholic dogmas and offensive to Catholic ears ? In Chapter XXIII. "Of Lawful Oaths and Vows," is the fol- lowing decree :
"Papist monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being signs of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares in which no Christian may entangle himself."
Thus at a stroke, and with an infallibility denied to the Pope, the whole economy of the monastic system was abolished. Chastity in the religious life, obedience and evangelical poverty were officially repudiated. The celi- bacy of the priesthood, tliat disciplinary law so precious in the sight of the Catholic laity, was branded as a superstition and a snare. And yet the godly framers of this Confession protested earnestly their faith in the authority of Holy Scripture "which ought to be believed and obeyed." "The whole counsel of God," they declared, " concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture."2 With this protestation in mind, it is a perplexing task to reconcile the above decree with the teachings of the Old and the New Testaments. They are not only contradictory ; the decree is indefensible.3 The higher spiritual life obtainable only by freedom from the cares of the world appealed as lightly to the Say- brook elders as did the plain, unequivocal words of St. Paul : "For I would that all men were even as myself . ... But I say to the unmarried and to the widows : it is good for them if they do continue, even as I." +
The Confession abhors the Pope and is intolerant of his claims; it endeavors to perpetuate the fiction that he is Anti-Christ. Under the title "Of the Church "-Chapter xxvi .- we read that
" There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that Anti-Christ, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."
1 From the Preface to the Confession.
2 The Confession. Chapter I.
3 Continency possible, Matt. x1x. 11, 12 ; the vow binding, Deut. xxiii. 21 ; the breach of that vow damnable, I Tim. v. 12 ; the practice commended, I Cor. vii. 7, 8, 27, 37, 38, 40 ; for reasons which particularly have place in the clergy, v. 32, 33, 35.
4 I Cor. vii. 7, 8.
-
19
DIOCESE OF HARTFORD.
This decree which exhales so inuch sweetness and Christian charity was built upon a perversion of certain texts of Holy Writ 1 and is a repudiation of St. John's counsel to love one another in deed and in truth.2
But it is upon the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass-that Clean Oblation that is offered in every place from the rising of the sun even to the going down 3 -that the vials of their wrath are emptied. To Catholics the Mass is the most profound, the most exalted act of homage a creature can pay to the Creator. It is the center of all religious worship. Toward it converge the heart offer- ings of the faithful; from it radiate the choicest and purest graces and bless- ings ; around it cluster all the sweet yet sad memories of Calvary. And yet all who sat beneath the shadow of Congregational pulpits were officially taught that
" The Popish sacrifice of the Mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's own, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect." 4
Concerning private Masses the Confession made this declaration:
"Private Masses, or receiving the Sacrament by a Priest, or any other alone, as likewise the denial of the cup to the people, worshiping the ele- ments, the lifting thein up or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this Sacrament, and to the institution of Christ."
Of Transubstantiation it defined as follows:
"That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood, (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a Priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to the Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of the Sacrament, and hath been, and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries."
The Confession contains also decrees concerning marriage. It declares it the duty of Christians to marry in the Lord and that those who profess the reformed religion "should not inarry with infidels, papists, or other idola- ters." 5 Verily, the devout Puritans had a wonderful penchant for the con- struction of forceful combinations. They proclaimed sonorously that "God alone is Lord of the conscience," 6 and then arrogated to themselves the con- trol of conscience. They declared effusively that it was their "duty to bear a Christian respect to all Christians, according to their several ranks and relations, that are not of our persuasion or communion," and forthwith con- piled a series of min-Christian decrees against the inost ancient organization in Christendom. In the light of the above decrees liow inconsistent and in- sincere appear their grandiloquent protestations that the New England colonies " were originally formed, not for the advantage of trade, or worldly interest ; but upon the most noble foundation, even of religion, and the Liberty of their Consciences." Liberty of Conscience? For Protestant dissenters,
1 Matt. xxiii. 8-10 ; 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, 8, 9; Apoc. xiii. 6. 2 1 St. John iii.
3 Malachias i. II. 4 Chapt. xxx. 5 Chapt. XXV. 6 Chapt. xxi.
20
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NEW ENGLAND.
granted. For Catholics, it was peremptorily refused. It was a strange toleration that inade Catholicism synonymous with infidelity and idolatry. The laws permitting dissent explicitly included all Protestants, and by inn- plication excluded Catholics. The enactment of May, 1743, is plain:
"And be it further enacted, That, for the future, that if any of his Ma- jesty's good subjects, being Protestants, inhabitants of this Colony, that shall soberly dissent from the way of worship and ininistry established by the laws of this Colony, that such persons may apply themselves to this Assembly for relief, where they shall be heard." 1
CHAPTER IV.
ANTI-CATHOLIC SENTIMENT.
HE antipathy of the colonists to the Irish people was well exemplified in Voluntown, Connecticut, in 1722. In this instance the object of their aversion was a Presbyterian minister. Their opposition, of course, was not directed to his religion, but against his nationality. He was a son of the Emerald Isle. When hostility so pronounced could be manifested against a Protestant because he was an Irishman, to what extent would it not have gone had the person been an Irish Catholic, especially a Catholic priest ?
In the above named year the Rev. Samuel Dorrance arrived in Volun- town, and was duly installed as rector of the church. The installation aroused bitter opposition. The discontented of the parish drew up a protest, which they forwarded to the officers of the church. It is a characteristic document.
" We, whose naines are underwritten, do agree that one of our New Eng- land people inay be settled in Voluntown to preach the Gospel to us, and will oblige ourselves to pay him yearly, and will be satisfied, honorable gentle- men, that your choose for us, to prevent unwholesome inhabitants, for we are afraid that Popery and heresy will be brought into the land ; therefore, we protest against settling Mr. Dorrance, because he is a stranger, and we are informed he came out of Ireland, and we do observe that since he has been in town the Irish do flock into town, and we are informed that the Irish are not wholesome inhabitants, and upon this account we are against settling Mr. Dorrance, for we are not such persons as you take us for, but desire the Gospel to be preached by one of our own, and not by a stranger, for we can- not receive any benefit, neither of soul nor of body, and we would pay him to withdraw himself from us." 2
The Rev. Mr. Lyons, of Derby, a minister of the church of England, was also the recipient of unmeasured abuse on account of his Irish birth. Writing to London, May 8, 1744, he said : "As soon as they had advice of iny appointment, and from what country I came, and, indeed, before I arrived among them, they abused me, calling me an 'Irish Teague and Foreigner,'
1 Public Records of Conn. Vol. VIII.
2 Larned's " Hist. of Windham Co.," Vol. I., p. 25.
21
DIOCESE OF HARTFORD.
with many other reflections of an uncivilized and unchristian kind .... It would be too tedious to record all the abuse and insults I have received at Derby." 1
The Puritan's opposition to the Catholic church was blind, intense ; it carried him to ridiculous extremes, so far, in fact, as to deny to priests any spiritual power whatever. To him the ministrations of the priest were of 110 value. Not content with framing decrees that outraged the religious feel- ings of Catholics, and which were entirely inconsistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture, he refused to recognize the efficacy of the priesthood. In 1744, there occurred a case in point, when the Windham County Association, an organization comprising all the ministers of that county, after vigorously wrestling with the spirit, solemnly voted that "Baptism by a Popish priest is not to be held valid."2 This sapient decision well illustrates the narrow- ness of the religious views then prevalent. If baptism administered by a priest conferred no grace, if it failed to cleanse the soul from original sin, which is the end for which the sacrament was instituted by Jesus Christ, then were all other spiritual acts performed by priests equally valueless. In this instance the hatred of the Windham County Association outran itself.
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.