USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > New Haven > Thirteen historical discourses, on the completion of two hundred years : from the beginning of the First Church in New Haven, with an appendix > 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
* Some account of this treatise will be found in the Appendix No. I.
t. There appears to be no reason to distrust the tradition which fixes on " Mr. Newman's barn" as the scene of that meeting. The only question is, Where was Mr. Newman's barn ? When this question was proposed by the Committee of arrangements before the late Centennial celebration, it could not be answered.
Among the original planters of New Haven were two who bore the name of Newman,-Francis, who after a few years became Secretary both of the town and of the jurisdiction, and on the death of Gov. Eaton became gov- ernor of the colony,-and Robert, who was the ruling elder of the Church. Francis Newman appears to have been a young man when the town was settled ; he was not a man of wealth, his estate being put in the list for taxes at only £160; and when he was made Governor, the colony provided him a house to live in. It is not at all likely that he was the proprietor of a " large barn" as early as 1639. Robert Newman on the contrary, was at the beginning one of the leading men in the colony. He was a man of con-
21
and commonwealth, as in matters of the Church. They unanimously renewed the great engagement of their planta- tion covenant, and professed that they held themselves bound, not only in all ecclesiastical proceedings, but in all civil du- ties, the choice of magistrates, the enactment and repeal of laws, and the dividing of inheritances,-to submit them- selves to the rules held forth in the Scriptures. They unan- imously expressed their " purpose, resolution, and desire, to be admitted into church-fellowship according to Christ, so soon as God should fit them thereunto." They unanimously voted that they " felt themselves bound to establish such civil order as might best conduce to the securing of the purity and peace of the ordinances to themselves and their posterity ac- cording to God."
" Then," as the record informs us, "Mr. Davenport de- clared to them by the Scripture, what kind of persons might best be trusted with matters of government ; and by sundry arguments from Scripture proved that such men as were de- scribed in Exod. xviii, 21; Deut. i, 13, with Deut. xvii, 15, and 1 Cor. vi, 1, 6, 7"-[viz. "able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness"-"men of wisdom and understanding, and known among your tribes"-" not stran- gers, but brethren, and those whom the Lord your God shall choose"-" not the unjust, or the unbelieving, but the holy"]
siderable wealth, his estate being rated at £700. He acted as scribe on the occasion in question, the minutes of the meeting being written by him ; and he was chosen for one of the seven pillars. If there is any truth in the tra- dition, we cannot doubt that the barn was his.
But Robert Newman's name does not appear among the " original gran- tees" on the old Plan of New Haven published in 1806 by Col. Lyon. And where such an antiquarian failed, it is not easy to succeed. One allusion, however, which I have happened to light on, supplies this deficiency. The deed by which the town in 1685 conveyed to the Rev. James Pierpont the lot on which he lived, extending on Elm Street some distance above and be- low where Temple Street now is,-describes that lot as bounded, in the rear, by the lot which was once Mr. Robert Newman's, and which is thus identi- fied as the corresponding lot in Grove Street. In other words, Mr. New- man's barn was somewhere on the ground now occupied by the dwellings of Professor Kingsley and Dr. Webster.
·
22
-"ought to be intrusted by them, seeing they were free to cast themselves into that mould and form of commonwealth which appeared best for them in reference to the securing the peace and peaceable enjoyment of all Christ's ordinances in the Church." After which, the company having been entreated "freely to consider whether they would have it voted at this time or not," it was deliberately voted that " free burgesses shall be chosen out of the church-members, they that are in the foundation-work of the Church, being actually free burgesses, and to choose to themselves out of the like estate of church-fellowship ; and the power of choosing magistrates and officers from among themselves, and the power of making and repealing laws according to the Word, and the dividing of inheritances, and deciding of differences that may arise, and all the business of like nature, are to be transacted by these free burgesses." From this, after the vote had been taken, one man expressed his dissent in part. That man, though the record does not name him, was probably the Rev. Samuel Eaton, of whom it is related by several authors,* that he dissented from Mr. Davenport in re- spect to the principles of civil government. In expressing his dissent, " he granted, that magistrates should be men fear- ing God ; that the Church is the company where ordinarily such men may be expected ; and that they that choose them ought to be men fearing God ; only at this he stuck, that free planters ought not to give this power out of their hands .?? Upon this a debate arose. To the reply made by some one, that whatever was done, was done with the consent of the planters, and that the government which they were forming was to originate strictly in the will of the people, the objector answered, "that all the free planters ought to resume this power into their own hands if things were not orderly car- ried," and therefore that this constitution which made no pro- vision for such a contingency was defective. Mr. Theophi-
* Mather, Magn. III, 213. Dana's Sermon on the completion of the eigh- teenth century, 46.
23
lus Eaton illustrated the equity of the proposed arrange- ment, by showing, that in all places civil power is in the hands of a part for the benefit of the whole, and reminded them that in London, with the constitution of which city they were familiar, the companies choose the livery, and the livery choose the magistrates. "Some others," it is recorded, "entreated the former to give his arguments and reasons whereupon he dissented. He refused to do it, and said they might not rationally demand it, seeing he let the vote pass on freely, and did not speak till after it was passed, because he would not hinder what they were agreed upon." The debate having proceeded thus far, Mr. Davenport, who appears to have acted throughout as moderator of the meeting, made " a short relation of some former passages between them two about this question," and "prayed the company that nothing might be concluded by them on this weighty question, but what themselves were persuaded to be agreeing with the mind of God ;" and in view of what had been said since the vote was taken, " he entreated them again to consider of it, and put it again to vote as before." It was voted again with one consent. " And some of them confessed, that whereas they did waver before they came to the assembly, they were now fully convinced."
Having thus settled this principle as " a great fundamental agreement concerning civil government," they proceeded another step towards the organization proposed. And "to prevent the blemishing of the first beginnings of the Church work, Mr. Davenport advised that the names of such as were to be admitted, might be publicly propounded, to the end that they who were most approved might be chosen,"-a method of proceeding which, as you observe, has been con- tinued to this day, none being now received into church-fel- lowship till after their names have been publicly propoun- ded. Then by the consent of all, it was agreed, " that twelve men be chosen, that their fitness for the foundation-work may be tried ;" "and that it be in the power of these twelve to choose out of themselves seven, that shall be most approved of the major part, to begin the Church."
24
The seven pillars chosen to begin the Church, according to the arrangement just described, were Theophilus Eaton, John Davenport, Robert Newman, Matthew Gilbert, Thomas Fu- gill, John Punderson, and Jeremiah Dixon. By these seven persons, covenanting together, and then receiving others into their fellowship, the first Church of Christ in New Haven was gathered and constituted on the 22d of August, 1639 .*
I have been the more particular in these details, because they illustrate the character, and especially the religious char- acter of the founders of this Church. The record of the meeting in Mr. Newman's barn, has often been published,+ and I presume has been regarded by many as showing con- clusively a great deal of fanaticism and bigotry, on the part of the New Haven colonists. Fanaticism and bigotry are qualities that affect Christian character very seriously ; and therefore it is proper to inquire here, with some attention, what the record contains, and what it does not contain ; and particularly how far it gives any indications of narrowness or fanaticism.
1. There is no claim of a divine right in the Church to rule the commonwealth. There are in these proceedings no fifth-monarchy notions-no intimations that the saints as such are of right to rule the earth. This is perfectly accor- dant with the views of Davenport elsewhere expressed. In the " former passages," between him and his colleague, he had utterly refused to discuss the question " whether the right and power of choosing civil magistrates belongs to the Church of Christ." He said that arguments for the negative of such a question are arguments "produced to prove that which is not denied."
2. There is here no confusion of the distinct provinces of the Church and the civil state. There is no proposal to transact the least particle of the business of the common-
This date is ascertained from the records of the First Church in Milford, which was gathered in New Haven, and, as tradition says, on the same day with the New Haven Church.
t 'Trumbull I, 502. Barber, Ilist. and Antiq. of New Haven, 30.
25
wealth in any church-meeting, or to put any civil power whatever into the hands of church officers. The proposal was not that membership in the Church should invest a man with power in the government of the commonwealth. Many might debate, and vote in church-meetings who could have no voice at all in the government of the civil state. None ever marked the distinction between the church and the state more carefully than Davenport. "Ecclesiastical administrations," he says, "are a divine order appointed to believers for holy communion of holy things. Civil administrations are a human order appointed by God to men, for civil fellowship of human things." Drawing out this distinction, he says, " Man, by nature, being a reasona- ble and sociable creature, capable of civil order, is, or may be, the subject of civil power and state. But man by grace, called out of the world to fellowship with Jesus Christ and with his people, is the only subject of church power." And " though they both agree in this, that they have the same last end, namely, the glory of God, yet they differ in their next ends, for the next end of civil order and administrations is the preservation of human societies, in outward honor, jus- tice, and peace ; but the next end of church order and admin- istrations are, the conversion, edification and salvation of souls, pardon of sin, power against sin, and peace with God." And not to detain you with other quotations, he insists that the ecclesiastical order and the civil must have different laws, dif- ferent officers, and different power. Who has ever distin- guished more accurately between the church and the state ? .
3. There is throughout these proceedings, a decided asser- tion of the right of the people to originate such a constitution of civil government, as might to them seem good. The fashion of the age was, to deduce all authority from the divine right of kings ; and the theory of civil power was the theory - of uninterrupted succession. But the settlers of New Haven thought, that having traveled beyond the bounds of any ex- isting government, "they were free to cast themselves into that mould and form of commonwealth which appeared best
4
26
for them" in reference to their great design ; and they had no doubt that the government which they might thus, by their voluntary compact, originate, would have as perfect an authority to exercise all the functions of government as any potentate on earth. Do you call this bigotry or fanaticism, or narrowness? Oh, no; their view has become since 1776 the only political orthodoxy on this side of the Atlantic. Yet it was this very thing, more than any merely religious pecu- liarities, which made New England so basely fanatical in the estimation of tory Englishmen. This strange enthusiasm of attempting to set up government by compact-this audacious doctrine, that the majesty of a state, with laws and powers ordained of God, could spring into being by the lifting up of the hands of a few exiles under the rafters of a barn, with no sanction of papal bull or royal charter-this it was, which in- spired the advocates of the theory of arbitrary and hereditary power, in England, and in this country too, with so bitter and relentless a hatred of New England fanaticism.
4. There is in these proceedings no indication of an arbi- trary or domineering spirit in any quarter. Nothing is done by the authority of the leaders-nothing implies that any one among them was specially endowed with any supernatural gifts of knowledge or of power, or had any right to control the opinions or conduct of the others. On the contrary, every thing is done by argument, by an appeal to reason and to Scripture. The planters are seriously warned not to " give their votes to things they understand not," and are entreated to give their answers " without respect to men, as they should be satisfied and persuaded in their own minds." Every thing is done too in the spirit of mutual confidence and affection: You see on the part of all a most respectful deference to the judgment and choice of the majority. You see the spirit of kindness, in the care with which they avoid putting upon the record, the name of the individual who was, as they esteemed it, so unfortunate as to differ from the rest in judg- ment.' It seems to show that they were not inclined to re- member it against him.
27
5. We find, throughout this record, a profound respect for the authority of the Scriptures as interpreted by common sense. I refer here to a very sure test of enthusiasm. So long as you find a man ready to follow the Bible in its plain, common sense meaning, as interpreted by the aid of study and learning, and on the same principles which regulate the interpretation of other books, you may be very sure that he is no enthusiast. Enthusiasts find the Bible a very unsatis- factory book, and therefore they either get above the Bible, finding their own inward light much better,-or else resort to mystical systems of interpretation, by which they evolve from the Bible some secondary, recondite, spiritual sense,
better suited to the exalted state of their imaginations. I lay it down then as a rule to which it will be very difficult to find any well established exception, that the man to whom the Bible in its obvious meaning as determined by the ordi- nary principles of interpretation, is a sufficient rule of faith and practice-the man who first exercises his judgment, and learning, and common sense, to determine what the Bible teaches, and what is its legitimate application to his conduct, and then yields to the authority of the Bible a profound and hearty deference-is no enthusiast. And where there is no enthusiasm-where common sense, studying the Bible, and yielding to its authority, governs the mind, there you will find nothing which deserves to be called fanaticism, unless you would make out that the Bible itself is fanatical.
6. The whole record shows their earnestness and care to secure the great end of their migration hither. They knew perfectly well that there was a royal commission then in be- ing, which gave power of protection and government over all English colonies which had been or might be planted, to their, old enemy Archbishop Laud with ten other courtiers of a kindred spirit .* They knew it was intended by the court, that the same iron rod which had been so heavy upon them in their native country, should strike them here in the
* Kingsley, 14, 15. Hazard, I, 344. Hubbard, 26
28
wilderness. They knew that as soon as they should have built their houses and got their lands under cultivation, as soon as they should have enough of what was taxable and tithable to excite covetousness, the king would be sending over his needy profligates to govern them, and the archbishop his surpliced dependents to gather the tithes into his store- house. Knowing this, they were resolved to leave no door open for such an invasion. They came hither to establish a free Christian commonwealth ; and, to secure that end, they determined, that in their commonwealth, none should have any civil power, who either would not, or could not, enter at the door of church-fellowship. " They held themselves bound," they said, " to establish such civil order as might best conduce to the securing the purity and peace of the ordinances to themselves and their posterity." Was this fanatical ? Was this bigoted ? Place yourself in their cir- cumstances, with their convictions of the importance of truth, simplicity, and purity, in the worship of God; and say what you could do, more rational or more manly.
Where then, I ask again, was the bigotry, the fanaticism, the narrowness of mind, which you have seemed to see as you have read the record of the famous meeting in Mr. New- man's barn, at which wisdom builded her house, and hewed out her seven pillars? You say, perhaps, that the constitu- tion itself which was then adopted, is the proof that they were fanatics. Who but bigots and fanatics, you ask, would think of constructing a government upon such principles ?
The constitution, if we may so call'it, adopted at that meeting, contained these two principles only,-first, that in the choice of magistrates, the making and repealing of laws, the dividing of inheritances, and the deciding of differences, all should be governed by the rules held forth in Scripture ; and, secondly, that a man's Christian character, certified by the Church in the fact of his being a church-member, should be essential, not to his enjoying civil rights and privileges, but to his exercising civil power.
.
29
If you believe the Bible to be a perfect rule of moral ac- · tion, you are precluded from taking any exception against the first of these principles, as it stands upon the record. If you do not believe in the Bible as a rule of moral action, I confess I am not careful at present to answer you at all in this matter. The principle as it stands, is simply that Christianity-the ethics of Christianity, should be the constitution of the com- monwealth-the supreme law of the land.
But give the principle another construction. Take it as it is commonly understood, and as, a few years afterwards, it was actually applied in practice. In 1644, it was ordered by the General Court of the jurisdiction, "that the judicial laws of God as they were delivered by Moses, and as they are a fence to the moral law, being neither typical nor ceremonial, nor having any reference to Canaan, shall be accounted of moral equity, and generally bind all offenders, and be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction in their proceedings against offenders, till they be branched out into particulars hereafter." Take this adoption of the civil laws of the Hebrew com- monwealth, about which malicious hearts and shallow brains have so employed their faculties ; and what is there in this, that should make us ashamed of our fathers ?- what that proves them to be fanatics or bigots ?
Remember now that, situated as they were, they must adopt either the laws of England or some other known sys- tem. A system entirely new, they could not frame immedi- ately. Should they then adopt the laws of England as the laws of their young republic ? Those were the very laws from which they had fled. Those laws would subject them at once to the king, to the parliament, and to the prelates, in their several jurisdictions. The adoption of the laws of England would have been fatal to the object of their emi- gration. Should they then adopt the Roman civil law, which is the basis of the jurisprudence of most countries in Eu- rope ? That system is foreign to the genius of Englishmen, and to the spirit of freedom, and besides, was unknown to the body of the people for whom laws were to be provided.
30
What other course remained to them, if they wished to sep- arate themselves from the power of the enemies who had driven them into banishment, and to provide for a complete and vital independence, but to adopt at once a system of laws which was in every man's hand, which every man read, and, as he was able, expounded in his family, and with which every subject of the jurisdiction could easily be made familiarly acquainted.
And what was there of absurdity in this code, considered as a code for just such a settlement as this was? Where are we, that we need to raise such a question ? Is it in a Chris- tian country, that the question must be argued, whether the Mosaic law, excluding whatever is typical, or ceremonial, or local, is absurd, as the basis or beginning of a system of ju- risprudence ? Suppose the planters of Quinnipiack had ta- ken as their rule, in the administration of justice, the laws of Solon, or Lycurgus, or the laws of the twelve tables : suppose the agreement had been, that the laws of King Alfred should be followed in the punishment of offenders, in the settlement of controversies between individuals, and in the division of estates :- where had been the absurdity ? Who will tell us, that the laws of Moses are less wise or equitable than the laws of any other of the legislators of antiquity ?
The laws of Moses were given to a community emigrating from their native country, into a land which they were to ac- quire and occupy, for the great purpose of maintaining in simplicity and purity the worship of the one true God. The founders of this colony came hither for the self-same purpose. Their emigration from their native country was a religious emigration. Every other interest of their community was held subordinate to the purity of their religious faith and practice. So far then as this point of comparison is con- cerned, the laws which were given to Israel in the wilder- ness may have been suited to the wants of a religious colony planting itself in America.
The laws of Moses were given to a people who were to live not only surrounded by heathen tribes on every frontier
31
save the seaboard, but also with heathen inhabitants, wor- shipers of the devil, intermixed among them, not fellow-citi- zens, but men of another and barbarous race ; and the laws were therefore framed with a special reference to the corrupt- ing influence of such neighborhood and intercourse. Similar to this was the condition of our fathers. The Canaanite was in the land, with his barbarian vices, with his heathenish and hideous superstitions ; and their servants and children were to be guarded against the contamination of intercourse with beings so degraded.
The laws of the Hebrews were designed for a free people. Under those laws, so unlike all the institutions of oriental despotism, there was no absolute power, and, with the ex- ception of the hereditary priesthood, whose privileges as a class were well balanced by their labors and disabilities, no privileged classes. The aim of those laws was " equal and ex- act justice ;" and equal and exact justice is the only freedom. Equal and exact justice in the laws, and in the administra- tion of the laws, infuses freedom into the being of a people, secures the widest and most useful distribution of the means of enjoyment, and affords scope for the activity, and health- ful stimulus to the affections, of every individual. The peo- ple whose habits and sentiments are formed under such an administration of justice, will be a free people.
But it is worth our while to notice two of the most im- portant effects of their renouncing the laws of England, and adopting the Mosaic law. In the first place, the principle on which inheritances were to be divided, was materially changed. The English law, except where some local usage prevails to the contrary, gives all real estate to the eldest son. This is the pillar of the English aristocracy. Let this one principle be taken away ; let estates, instead of passing un- divided to a single heir, be divided among many heirs, and that vast accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few great families is at an end. But the Jewish law divides inheritan- ces among all the children, giving to the eldest son, as the head of the family, only a double portion. This promotes
4
32
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.