USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Windsor > The history of ancient Windsor, Connecticut > Part 22
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 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93
Finding both the assembly and council unyielding, the dis- senting brethren had no alternative but submission, and at the next society meeting, in December 26, 1716, it was " voted that
1 Signatures to the above :
Joseph Fitch, Sr., John Elmor, Sr.,
Robert Stedman, Ed. Elmor,
Nath'l Fitch,
Benj. Loomis,
Joseph Newberry,
Hezekiah Porter,
Benj. Colt,
John Wolcott,
Samuel Fitch,
Sam'l Evans,
Nath'l Porter,
Joseph Stedman,
Samuel Long,
Jas. Loomis, Sam'l Burnham,
Hezekiah Loomis,
Joseph Porter,
John Morton,
Henry Wolcott,
Sam'l Elmor, Noah Loomis,
Roger Wolcott,
Jeremiah Diggins,
Jabez Colt,
William Wolcott,
Jeremiah Diggins, Jr.,
Jolın Wood, Sr.,
Mary Morton,
Joseph Colt,
Thos. Loomis,
Joseph Phelps.
Simon Wolcott,
Thos. Skinner,
2 State Archives, Eccl. 11, 237.
30
234
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
Roger Wolcot, Esq., Capt. Stoughton and Ens. Burnham should dignify the seats in the meeting-house.1
An amusing evidence of the intensity of the excitement to which this controversy had given rise, is presented in the fol- lowing verbatim et literatim copy of some " Verses made by Jabez Colt (of East, now South Windsor), when they raised the Meeting- House on the East Side of the Great River, at the Lower End," which we found in Timothy Loomis's old common-place book. In the same book we find that "the meeting-house (on ye South end) of ye East Side of Great River was raised March 22d, 1714." 2
Behold all you that do pass by Which at us scorne and jeare Be pleased now to turne aside and our defence to heare
You do account that we Rebel And Siscems [schisms] we do make Thus are we in the talker's mouths and of us they do spake.
As if that some new sectary we did intend to bring we never had the least intent to practise such a thing.
Thus Ruben, Gad, Menassa's tribe they were reproacht likewise but yet the altar which they built was not for sacrifice.
1 State Archives (11), 237.
2 There has been some difficulty in our mind as to the location of this edifice. It seems most probable that it was the East Hartford meeting-house, which being of course more accessible to those who lived at the lower end of East (now South) Windsor, would have greatly enlisted their sympathies ; and it is likely that Jabez Colt, the poet, together with many of the south-end East Windsor people, volunteered their services and good-will at this raising. We have at least failed to discover any evidence of independent church erec- tion by the disaffected party in East Windsor, to which our poet belonged.
235
EAST OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER.
Nor neither do we build this house false worship to erect Yet grievously, without a cause on us they do reflect. But if you have a mind to know or heare the reasons why we undertake to build this house I'le tell ye presently.
One reason why we build this house I openly declare to offer praises, Sacrifice and for a house of prayer. The Lord of host [s] now grant for us with upright hand and mind we in the same may worship him with hearts that are unfained.
And let our priest with righteousness as with a robe be clad His holy truth for to unfold to make our soles full glad.
One other reason yet there is the which I will unfold
how many of us suffer much both by the heat and cold. It is almost four milds which some of us do go upon God's holy Sabbath day in times of frost and snow. Two milds we find in Holy writ Sabbath daie's journies bee O wherefore then are we compelled for to go more than three [?]
By reason of the length of way our burden it is great through stormy wind which we do go both in the rain and snow.
236
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
now let us all with one accord in unity and love by lifting up of heart and mind Seeking to God above
That He would cast off our reproach and eke exalt our horne and with His gracious presence then Our Meeting house adorn.
In August 30th, 1717, the Society voted Mr. Edwards £100, which " shall be paid Mr. Edwards, whether he does stay with tis, or go away from us."
Meeting-House Improvements.
December, 1718, the society vote records, that if there be money left that was raised for the building the meeting-house, the committee shall be empowered to build pews over the gallery stairs.
December 8, 1719, it was voted "that the present committee shall demand what money there is due to the society, and lay it out to buy a cushion and a hour-glass; and make two horse-blocks, one on the north end of the meeting-house, and the other on the south; and build two pews, one over the south stairs, and the other over the north stairs, if the money will hold out. Voted, if there be money enough together, then to make caps over the doors."
Probably the money failed "to hold out," as the caps were rescinded at a subsequent meeting. Our fathers were careful not to incur any undue amount of indebtedness in the matter of church erection, a point worthy of notice by some "church building committees " of the present day.
March 27, 1724. There being a general dissatisfaction with the seating of the meeting-house, it was ordered to be reseated, and the rules adopted by vote, were:
1st. That shall be I head to a man, and age, and estate, &c., to take it from the building of the meeting-house until now.
2d. That the men shall sit on the men's side, and the women
237
EAST OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER.
on the women's side, and it shall be counted disorder to do other- wise.
3d. That the seaters shall fill up all the seats with young persons, viz: where the married [folks] are not seated.
Singing.
May 22, 1727. "Voted," That for the future the rule of Singing in this Society shall be according to the rule of singing now brought in, and taught among us by Mr. Beall."
Renewed Attempt at Division.
In May, 1729, an attempt was again made to divide (East) Windsor into two distinct societies, but the movement was promptly negatived by a vote of 60 against 19. It would seem, however, that its adherents were augmenting in numbers, for on a similar motion made at the society's annual meeting, two years later (1730-1) they formed a minority of 31 against 66. In April following, the south end people petitioned the assembly for a new society.1 In this document they state that the present " society is built almost wholly on one street, and is ten miles long." But the assembly would not sanction them, whereupon, with a degree of perseverance which does them honor, they petitioned at the October session of 1732, for winter privileges (i. e. that they might employ a minister during the months of December, January, February and March), and for an abate- ment of one third of their rates to Mr. Edwards.
" We are forced," say they, "to travel from our own dwellings unto ye meeting-house, & there endure ye extreme cold, & often- times with wet clothes, fasting from morning until night, and then travel from ye meeting-house, unto our own dwellings, which by reason of ye difference of ye way, & ye coldness of ye weather, is so great a hardship that but few of us are able to endure. So that many of ye aged men, women & children are utterly debarred from attending on ye public worship a great part of ye cold season, &c."1
Again the influence of the society prevailed, and again were the courageous south-enders defeated.
1 State Archives. This petition signed (and probably drawn up) by Lt. David Bissell, Clerk.
238
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
Here we will leave them for a while, contending against the prejudices of their neighbors, and the old fogy conservatism of the assembly.
Troubles in the Church, 1735-1741.
The even course of the Second Church was now seriously disturbed by a sharp and protracted contest between the pastor and his people on certain points of church government and discipline. The somewhat remarkable character of this dispute, as well as the importance of the principles involved, claim for it a more than passing notice at our hands. It is necessary to take a brief retrospective glance at the state of the churches in Connecticut, in which this difficulty first had its origin. Pre -- vious to 1708, the congregational had been the only mode of worship in the colony. Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism, however, had commenced their inroads upon the established. opinions of the people. Against them the Congregational Churches had no general plan of church-fellowship or discipline to oppose. The Cambridge Platform, which for sixty years had been their rule, made no provision either for any association of ministers or consociation of churches. It was true that such associations of the clergy had, at an early date, been established in particular counties or neighborhoods - which had been pro- ductive of much good; yet they were purely voluntary and lacked the efficiency which a more general plan of union would have secured. In the absence of such a plan, many abuses had crept into the churches. One of the chief of these, was an utter lack of any regular system of examination of candidates for the ministry, and of their proper introduction to that office. The deplorable looseness which prevailed in this matter was a source of reproach and evil to the cause of religion.
" Besides," says Trumbull, "it was generally conceded that the state of the churches was lamentable, with respect to their general order, government and discipline. That for the want of a more general and energetic government, many churches ran into confusion; that councils mere not sufficient to relieve the aggrieved and restore peace. As there was no general rule for the calling of councils, council was called against council, and opposite results were given upon the same cases, to the reproach of councils and the wounding of religion."
239
EAST OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER.
A very general desire was felt, therefore, among the clergy and the laity of New England, for some nearer union between the churches. In Connecticut, both legislative and clerical in- fluence favored the association of ministers and the consociation of churches; and the synod of 1662 had distinctly approved of the latter. " The heads of agreement drawn up and assented to, by the united ministers in England, called presbyterian and congregational, in 1692, had made their appearance on this side of the Atlantic; and in general, were highly approved."
Such was the state of things, when in May, 1708, the Assem- bly of Connecticut, being "sensible of the defects of the disci- pline of the churches of this government, arising from the want of a more explicit asserting of the rules given for that end ine the holy scriptures," passed an act, requiring the ministers and churches of each county to meet and prepare drafts of an eccle- siastical constitution, which drafts were to be compared together at a subsequent general meeting at Saybrook. Accordingly, the delegates of the several councils met at Saybrook, Sept. 9th, 1708, and having duly considered the drafts submitted to them, drew therefrom a constitution, which was presented to, and approved by the assembly at its session in October following.
Concerning this platform of discipline, now generally known as the Saybrook Platform, Trumbull makes the following re- marks:
" Though the council were unanimous in passing the platform of discipline, yet they were not all of one opinion. Some were for high consociational government, in their sentiments nearly presbyterian; others were much more moderate and rather verging on independency; but exceedingly desirous of keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, they exercised great Christian condescension and amicableness towards each other.
As it was stipulated that the heads of agreement should be observed through the colony, this was an important means of reconciling members to the constitution, as these did not carry points so far as the articles of discipline. These did not make the judgments of councils decisive, in all cases, but only main- tained, that particular churches ought to have a reverential re- gard to their judgment, and not to dissent from it without
240
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
apparent regards from the word of God. Neither did these give the elders a negative in councils over the churches; and in some other instances they gave more latitude than the articles of discipline. These therefore served to reconcile such elders and churches, as were not for a rigid consociational govern- ment, and to gain their consent. Somewhat different construc- tions were put upon the constitution. Those who were for a high consociational government, construed it rigidly according to the articles of discipline, and others by the heads of agree- ment; or, at least they were for softening down the more rigid articles, by construing them agreeably to those heads of union."
We have been at the pains of thus quoting these remarks of «Trumbull's, because they serve to enlighten us very materially, concerning this controversy in the Second Church.
Mr. Edwards was undoubtedly one of those who " were for high consociational government, and in their opinions nearly Presbyterians," and disposed to construe this Saybrook Platform rigidly according to the articles of discipline." On the promul- gation, therefore, of the Platform, he asserted that it should henceforth be the order of his church,1 as their delegates had been present at the convention which framed it, and had (im- pliedly at least) endorsed it.2 This the church denied, inas- much as they were unaware, when they sent their messengers
1 This church early adopted the Cambridge Platform of church government and worship, and the Westminster Confession of Faith ; as the church in West Windsor, from which they originated, had also done ; but has ever united in associations and ecclesiastical councils, with the neighboring churches, who are generally settled on what is called the Saybrook Platform. (Extract from Church Manual.)
2 For our information concerning this controversy in the Second Church of Windsor, we are indebted to a manuscript volume, in the possession of the Conn. Hist. Society. It fills 108 small quarto pages, written in the clear chi- rography of Governor Roger Wolcott, and was evidently (having title page, preface, &c.) intended for publication. It is entitled "A | Narrative | of the Troubles in the Second Church in | Windsor | since the year 1735 ; to the year 1741 | with the | Reasons why the Brethren of that Church | adhere to the order of Church Government | Assented to | By the Churches of New England A: Dom: 1648 | and | Refuse to submit to the order of Discipline | agreed upon at Saybrook 1708 | Acts, xvii, 11. |
241
EAST OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER.
to the convention, that any such change was contemplated. They also declared their adherence to the ancient congrega- tional order. " Finding their Pastor so much attached to this new Scheme of Discipline;" and finding that according to its provisions the messengers of a church were of no account un- less they conformed to the major part of the elders; and not approving of the silential method of voting, they insisted to their pastor upon their right, as a church, to the free choice of messengers.
Notwithstanding this wide variance of opinion between pastor and people, concerning this platform of discipline, there seems to have been no open break until the year 1735. In the course of that year, Mr. Edwards, preaching to his church on the subject of church discipline, asserted the following points:
1st. That it belongs to the Pastor of the Church to judge and determine what complaints or accusations shall be brought before the Church and what not.
2d. That the votes of the Brethren to Convict or Restore an offender, are of no force or validity without the concurrence or the approbation of the Pastor.
It is needless to say, that the brethren were both surprised and grieved at the position taken by their pastor. They imme- diately addressed him a letter, wherein they modestly but firmly insisted on the equal rights of messengers and elders ; complaining that he had always designated the one to be sent as messenger-unless some one objected, which is the silential method, and unfair in its operation. They conclude by request- ing a fair and free conference on the matter.1 This very rea-
Siquid Novisti Rectius Illis Candidus Imperti Si non his utere mecum .- Hor.
Published at the Desire of Several of the Brethren and others." The head- ing of the first page is " The Privileges of the Church contended for."
It evidently presents an ex parte view of the case, yet its able discussion of the theological points involved ; its strong common sense, and the dignified spirit of Christian courtesy which pervades it, incline us to a more than usual confidence in its statements.
1 This letter was signed " in behalf of the church," by Hez. Porter, Wil- liam Wolcott, Sam'l Bancroft, Joshua Loomis, Henry Wolcott, and Roger Wolcott, all highly respectable and influential men.
31
242
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
sonable request was declined by Mr. Edwards, and the difficulty existed in this unsatisfactory state, until a case of discipline brought matters to a focus. It seems that " Mr. Edwards had for a considerable time debarred Joseph Diggins from owning his covenant and having his child baptized, unless he would publickly confess himself guilty of a scandalous offence, Mr. Edwards had charged him with." This was his marrying Mr. Wm. Stoughton's daughter contrary to her father's wish. Joseph Diggins asserted his innocence, and claimed a trial by the church. This Mr. Edwards refused, claiming that he had a negative on the church, and that therefore, until his opinion was altered, it was useless for the church to trouble themselves about the matter. Thus the case rested (although Mr. Edwards was often importuned by the elders and brethren to allow a trial) until October, 1738, when a council was called which decided in favor of granting a trial to Joseph Diggins. Some- time after this, Mr. Edwards called a church meeting. and entered a formal protest against Diggins, charging him with having broken the 5th and 8th commandments.
The case was tried, and Joseph Diggins was pronounced not guilty. From this decision Mr. Edwards and two of the brethren dissented, and called a council. The council met June 12th and 18th, 1739, and their decision sustained the previous action of the church. They however commended Mr. Edwards for his " tenderness, prudence, faithfulness and caution " in the matter; and if he can not without scruples admit Joseph Diggins, the brethren are advised not to press the matter, and Diggins him- self recommended to apply to some other minister for church privileges and baptism for his child.
After this, Diggins again applied to and was denied by Mr. Edwards. The kindly importunities of the deacons of the church in his behalf met the same fate from the unrelenting pastor.
Then an affectionate, plain-spoken and earnest letter from the church, in behalf of Joseph Diggins, praying for his admission, and asserting their rights as a Congregational Church, was handed to Mr. Edwards. Again he refuses their request, on a
243
EAST OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER.
plea of conscientious scruples, as he does not wish to counte- nance such marriages as that of Joseph Diggins.
Finding the pastor thus disposed, the church move that Dig- gins be allowed to seek elswhere for church rights. To this he demurs: 1st, on the ground of its great inconvenience; and, 2d, because "it is safest for me to be here under the watch of this church, where my brethren are about me to observe my behavior and direct me."
The aspect of things was now decidedly bad, and the dea- cons, "fearful and loth to have the affair drove to extremity," . requested their pastor to call a church-meeting. This he flatly refused to do, whereupon the deacons called one on their own responsibility. At this meeting (Oct. 1739-40), Joseph Dig- gins made a formal charge, against Mr. Edwards, of mal-ad- ministration. Finally the pastor was induced to call a council, which met April 22, 1740.
To them the church propounded four questions for their con- sideration and advice.
Ist. Concerning the power of the pastor to appoint messen- gers.
2d. Concerning the pastor's power to negative the action of the church.
3d. Concerning the pastor's power to judge and determine what complaints shall come before the church.
4th. To determine the case of Joseph Diggins.
Involved with this was the still pending charge of mal-ad- ministration, against the pastor. But the council, like most councils, was too thin-skinned to manage the matter. It con- tented itself with declining to entertain any discussion on the first three propositions, but professed its willingness to adjudicate the case of Joseph Diggins. This however was but of secondary importance to the church. Deeply interested as the majority were in the case of their aggrieved brother, they could not but feel that it involved principles of vital importance to them- selves and the church at large. For thirty-two years they had firmly maintained the inalienable rights of a Congregational Church to govern themselves, and during all that period they
244
HISTORY OF ANCIENT WINDSOR.
had resisted the attempted encroachments of their respected pastor, with a mingled judgment and forbearance which excites our surprise and admiration. Councils had but added to the difficulties of the case. That of 1738 had wholly omitted to pronounce on the duty of Mr. Edwards to submit Diggins's case to the church. That of 1739, had given advice contradictory to itself, or liable to inconstruction. The last council, had utterly refused to adjudicate the very points upon which the welfare of the church depended, and had, indeed, required them to renounce those principles. Their pastor also was still lying under a charge of mal-administration, and for nearly three years, the church had not partaken of the Lord's Supper.
" We desire," said the church, as they recounted their griev- ances, "no new thing, but only what were the principles and practice of our fathers; yea, the principles of the first Puritans, as may appear from the Order of Church Government drawn up by Mr. Cartwright, the father of the Puritans, in Queen Eliza- beth's time." Furthermore they stated their convictions that the real controversy was whether the church or the pastor should have the power of nominating their elders. Finally Mr. Diggins having, " upon importunity of some of the brethren," withdrawn his complaint, a considerable number of the church presented their pastor with the following letter:
Windsor, August 11th day, 1741.
Revd Sir:
It would have been a great satisfaction to us if you had granted our motion to you ( the last time you called us together) to call a Congregational Council to advise us in our controver- sies respecting our church-order which was offered to the coun- cil that met, which they refused to hear and give their opinion upon. We are still of opinion that a Congregational Council would have been the properest way to have led us into peace in that matter. But since you have declined this, and we are denied the benefit of such a council, we hope you will suffer us, without offence, to declare that we are still a Congrega- tional Church, and that in our opinion it is not with our Pastor to debar us from any privilege belonging to us as such; but we are ready to receive any evidence from the Scriptures or reason, to convince us that the Congregational Church-order is unscrip- tural or unsound. We are further of opinion that merely the different understanding between us about our church-order is not a sufficient cause to hinder our Communion, and Mr. Dig-
245
EAST OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER.
gins having withdrawn his complaint, we see nothing in the way but we may set down at the Lord's Table together. To the Revd Mr. Timothy Edwards.
(Signed) HEZ. PORTER,
JOSIAH ROCKWELL,
JOSEPH SKINNER,
MATTHEW ROCKWEL,
ROGER WOLCOTT, DANIEL SKINNER,
JOB ELSWORTH,
WILLIAM WOLCOTT, Jr.,
SAM'L BANCROFT,
WILLIAM ELLSWORTH,
JEREMIAH BISSELL,
JOSEPH OSBORN,
JOSEPH NEWBERRY,
JAMES PASCO,
RICHARD SKINNER, JACOB MUNSEL,
ABIEL ABBOT, SAMUEL ELLSWORTH.
Upon receipt of this letter, the Pastor " propounded the Sacra- ment, which was attended by the Brethren without objection."
The unhappy condition of the church seemed now in a fair way to be at an end. But, " on the Lord's day, Nov. 1, 1741," Mr. Edwards read a letter to the church after morning discourse, desiring them to send a messenger to a council at Hartford .. He also took occasion to reassert his right to nominate the mes- senger, " yet for peace sake, and for this time," lie condescended to leave it to them. In the afternoon the congregation met and appointed a messenger, who applied to Mr. Edwards for his cer- tificates to said council. The pastor, who had been absent from the election, although invited to attend, declined to furnish such certificate to the messenger, alleging as a reason, that not having been present, he did not know who was elected.
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.