The Development of Religious Liberty in Connecticut Part 11

The result of all this agitation for liberty of conscience, emphasized by its counterpart in the political life of the state and nation, was that in the first edition of the "Laws and Acts of the State of Connecticut in America," [ad] appearing in 1784, all reference to the Saybrook Platform was omitted, and all ecclesiastical laws were grouped under the three heads ent.i.tled Eights of Conscience, Regulations of Societies, and the Observation of the Sabbath. [166]

Under the Sunday laws, together with numerous negative commands, was the positive one that every one, who, for any trivial reason, absented himself from public wors.h.i.+p on the Lord's day should pay a fine of three s.h.i.+llings, or fifty cents. The society regulations remained much the same, with the added privilege that to all religious bodies recognized by law permission was given to manage their, temporal affairs as freely as did the churches of the Establishment. Dissenters were even permitted to join themselves to religious societies in adjoining states, [ae] provided the place of wors.h.i.+p was not too far distant for the Connecticut members to regularly attend services. To these terms of toleration was affixed the sole condition of presenting a certificate of members.h.i.+p signed by an officer of the church of which the dissenter was a member, and that the certificate should be lodged with the clerk of the Established society wherein the dissenter dwelt. While legislation still favored the Establishment, toleration was extended with more honesty and with better grace. All strangers coming into the state were allowed, a choice of religious denominations, but while undecided were to pay taxes to the society lowest on the list. Choice was also given for twelve months to resident minors upon their coming of age, and also to widows. In any question, or doubt, the society to which the father, husband, or head of the household belonged, or had belonged, determined the church home of members of the household unless the certificates of all dissenting members were on file. If persons were undecided when the time of choice had elapsed, and they hadjiot presented certificates, they were counted members of the Establishment. Thus the Saybrook Platform, no longer appearing upon the law-book, was quietly relegated to the status of a voluntarily accepted ecclesiastical const.i.tution which the different churches might accept, interpreting it with only such degrees of strictness as they chose. Consequently, all Congregational and Presbyterian churches drew together and remained intimately a.s.sociated with the government as setting forth the form of religion it approved.

As toleration was more freely extended, oppression quickly ceased. The smaller and weaker sects [af] that appeared in Connecticut after 1770 received no such persecution as their predecessors. Among them the Sandemanians [ag] appeared about 1766, and from the first created considerable interest. The Shakers were permitted to form a settlement at Enfield in 1780. The Universalists began making converts among the Separatist churches of Norwich as early as 1772. The year 1784 saw the organization of the New London Seventh-day Baptist church, the first of its kind in Connecticut.

The abrogation of the Saybrook Platform was implied, not expressed, by dropping it out of the revised laws of 1784. The force of custom, not the repeal of the act of establishment, annulled it. As in the revision of 1750, certain outgrown statutes were quietly sloughed off.

After the abrogation of the Saybrook system, the orthodox dissenters felt most keenly the humiliation of giving the required certificates, and the favoritism shown by the government towards Presbyterian or Congregational churches. This favoritism did not confine itself to ecclesiastical affairs, but showed itself by the government's preference for members of the Establishment in all civil, judicial, and military offices. If immediately after the Revolution this favoritism was not so marked, it quickly developed out of all proportion to justice among fellow-citizens.

FOOTNOTES:

[a] As a pet.i.tion "To the King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council."

[b] "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellows.h.i.+p with thee, which frameth mischief by law?"

[c] The "History" is brief, and the "Vindication" is largely of President Clap's own reasons for establis.h.i.+ng the college church. See F. B. Dexter, "President Clap and his Writings," in _New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers_, vol. v, pp. 256-257.

[d] "Let no man, orders of man, Civil or Ecclesiastical Rulers, majority, or any whoever pretend they have a right to enjoyn upon me what I shall believe and practice in matters of Religion, and I bound to subject to their Injunctions, unless they can convince me, that in case there should happen to be a mistake, that they will suffer the consequences, and not I; that they will bear the wrath of G.o.d, and suffer d.a.m.nation, in my room and stead. But if they can't do this, don't let them pretend to a right to determine for me what religion I shall have. For if I must stand or fall for myself, then, pray let me judge, and act and choose (in Matters of Religion) for myself now. Yea, when I view these things in the Light of the Day of Judgment approaching, I am ready to cry out Hands off! Hands off! Let none pretend a right to my subjection in matters of Religion, but my Judge only; or, if any do require it, G.o.d strengthen me to refuse to grant it." _A Word in Zion's Behalf._ Quoted by E. H. Gillett in _Hist. Magazine,_ 2d series, vol. iv, p. 16.

[e] _A Key to unlock the Door, that leads in, to take a fair view of the Religious Const.i.tution Established by Law in the Colony of Connecticut; With a Short Observation upon the Explanation of the Say-Brook-Plan; and Mr. Hobart's Attempt to establish the same Plan,_ by Ebenezer Frothingham.

[f] Robert Bragge, _Church Discipline_, London, 1738. The author takes for his text 1 Peter ii, 45, and under ten heads considers the Congregational church as the true Scriptural church, its rights, privileges, etc. Under topic four, "The Charter of this House," he says: "The charter of this house exempts all its inhabitants from obeying the whole ceremonial law:... from the doctrines of men in matters of faith,... from man's commands in the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d. Man can no more prescribe how G.o.d shall be wors.h.i.+pped, under the new testament than he could under the old.... He alone who is in the bosom of the Father hath declared this. To wors.h.i.+p G.o.d according to the will and pleasure of men is, in a sense to attempt to dethrone him: for it is not only to place man's will on a level with G.o.d's, but above it."--_Church Discipline_, p. 39.

[g] "Now suffer me to say something respecting the unreasonableness of compelling the people of our persuasion to hear or support the minister of another. Can a person who has been redeemed, be so ungrateful as to hire a minister to preach up a doctrine which in his heart he believes to be directly contrary to the inst.i.tutions of his redeemer? How if one of you should happen to be in the company with a number of Roman Catholicks, who should tell you that if you would not hire a minister to preach transubstantiation and the wors.h.i.+pping of images to your children and to an unlearned people, they would cut off your head; would you do it? Can you any better submit to hire a minister to preach up a doctrine which you in your heart believe contrary to the inst.i.tution of Christ? I do not doubt but that many of you, and I do not know but that all of you know what it is to experience redeeming love; and if so, now can you take a person of another persuasion, and put him in gaol for a trifling sum, destroy his estate and ruin his family (as you signify the law will bear you out) and when he is careful to support the religion which he in his conscience looks upon to be right, who honestly tells you it is wronging his conscience to pay your minister, and that he may not do so though he suffer?... Is it not shame? Are we sharers in redemption, and do we grudge to support religion? No: let us seek for the truth of the gospel. If we can't think alike, let us not be cruel one to another."

[h] _Connecticut Gazette_ (New Haven) April 1755-Apr. 14, 1764; suspended; revived July 5, 1765-Feb. 19, 1768. The _New London Gazette_, founded in 1763, was after 1768 known as the _ Connecticut Gazette _, except from Dee. 10, 1773, to May 11, 1787, when it was called _The Connecticut Gazette and Universal Intelligencer_.

Maryland published her first newspaper in 1727, Khode Island and Sonth Carolina in 1732, Virginia in 1736, North Carolina in 1755, New Hamps.h.i.+re in 1756, while Georgia fell into line in 1763.

[i] Edwards's _Nature of True Virtue_, written about 1755, was not published until 1765.

[j] This book, otherwise essentially Edwardean, was second only to Edwards's _Religious Affections_ in popularity and in its success in spreading the influence of this school of theology, and it did much, in Connecticut, to break down the opposition to the New Divinity. Edwards himself approved its ma.n.u.script, and in his writings recommended it highly.

[k] In 1769-70, Bellamy wrote a series of tracts and dialogues against this practice. They were very effective in causing its abandonment by those conservative churches that had so long clung to its use.

[l] Experience Mayhew in his _Grace Defended_, of 1744.

Lemuel Briant's _The Absurdity and Blasphemy of Depreciating Moral Virtue_, 1749. This was replied to in Ma.s.sachusetts, by Rev. John Porter of North Bridgewater in _The Absurdity and Blasphemy of Subst.i.tuting the Personal Righteousness of Men_, etc.; also by a sermon of Rev. Thomas Foxcroft, Dr. Charles Chauncy's colleague; and by Rev. Samuel Niles's _Vindication of Divers Important Gospel Doctrines_. Jonathan Mayhew, son of Experience, wrote his _Sermons_ (p.r.o.nouncedly Arian) in 1755, and in 1761 two sermons, _Striving to Enter at the Strait Gate_.

Other ministers were affected by these unorthodox views, notably Ebenezer Gay, Daniel Shute, and John Rogers. This religious development was cut short by the early death of the leaders and by the Revolutionary contest. Briant died in 1754, Jonathan Mayhew in 1766, and his father in 1758.--See W. Walker, _Hist. of the Congregational Churches in the United States_, chap. viii.

[m] Hopkins replied in 1765 to Jonathan Mayhew's sermons of 1761. Mayhew died before he could answer, but Moses Hemenway of Wells, Maine, and also Jedediah Mills of Huntington, Conn, (a New Light sympathizer), answered Hopkins's extreme views in 1767 in _An Inquiry concerning the State of the Unregenerate under the Gospel_. This involved Hopkins in further argumentation in 1769, and drew into the discussion William Hart (Old Light) of Saybrook, and also Moses Mather of Darien, Conn, (also Old Light). This attack upon Hopkins resulted in 1773 in his greatest work, _An Inquiry into the Nature of True Holiness_. The whole question at stake between the Old Calvinists and the followers of the New Divinity was how to cla.s.s men, morally upright, who made no pretensions to religious experience.

[n] West, in his _Essay on Moral Agency_, defended Edwards's _Freedom of the Will_ against the Rev. James Dana of New Haven in 1772, but his _Scripture Doctrine of Atonement_, published in 1785, was his best-known work. In his doctrinal views, he was greatly influenced by Hopkins. Both West and Smalley trained students for the ministry. The latter was the teacher of Nathaniel Emmons. Smalley was settled in what is now New Britain, Conn., from 1757-1820.

[o] Emmons died there, in 1840, at the age of ninety-five. Apart from his influence upon the development of doctrine, he did more than any other man to bring back the early independence of the churches and to create the Congregational polity of the present day.

[p] To fortify their position, this party cited various acts of Parliament and the Act of Union, 1707, wherein Scotland is distinctly released from subjection to the Church of England,--an exemption, they maintained, that had never formally been extended to the colonies.

[q] On January 30, 1750, Jonathan Mayhew preached a forceful sermon upon the danger of being "unmercifully priest-ridden."

[r] Rev. East Apthorpe, S. P. G. missionary at Cambridge, Ma.s.s., had replied to a newspaper criticism upon the policy of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in New England, in his _Considerations on the Inst.i.tutions and Conduct of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts_. Jonathan Mayhew published in answer his _Observations on the Character and Conduct of the Society_, censuring the Society not only for intruding itself into New England, but for being the champion of the proposed episcopate, which he denounced. This was in 1763. For two years the controversy raged. There were four replies to Mayhew. Two were unimportant, a third presumably from Rev. Henry Caner, and the fourth, _Answer to the Observations_, an anonymous English production, really by Archbishop Seeker. Mayhew wrote a _Defense_, and Apthorpe summed up the whole controversy in his _Review_.--A. L. Cross, _Anglican Episcopate_, p. 145 _et seq._; footnote 1, p. 147.

[s] John Adams's _Works_, x, 288.

[t] Dr. Charles Chauney attacked the S. P. G. as endeavoring to increase their power, not to proselytize among the Indians, but to episcopize the colonists. Dr. Chandler, of Elizabethtown, N. J., replied in _An Appeal to the Public_. Chauney retorted with _The Appeal Answered_, and Chandler with _The Appeal Defended_. The newspapers of 1768-69 took up the controversy.

[u] In 1767, Dr. Johnson in a letter to Governor Trumbull a.s.sured him that "It is not intended, at present, to send any Bishops into the American Colonies,... and should it be done at all, you may be a.s.sured that it will be done in such manner as in no degree to prejudice, nor if possible even give the least offense to any denomination of Protestants."--E. E. Beardsley, _Hist, of the Epis. Church in Conn._, i, 265.

[v] There were nine clergymen from Connecticut, and twenty-five from New York and vicinity.

[w] The a.s.sociation had sent pet.i.tions in behalf of the Baptists to the legislatures of Ma.s.sachusetts and Connecticut. Both were refused. For its Circular Letter of 1776, see Hovey's _Life of Backus_, p. 289; also p. 155.

[x] This year the Royal Society awarded him the Copley medal for his discovery that lightning was a discharge of electricity.

In 1761 the medal of the Royal Society was also awarded to the Rev. Jared Eliot of Killingworth, Conn., for making iron and steel from black ferruginous sand.

[y] John Trumbull, b. 1750, d. in Michigan, 1831; Joel Barlow, b. 1754, d. in Poland, 1812; Gen. David Humphreys, b. 1752, d. in New Haven, 1818. These Yale men, together with Dr. Lemuel Hopkins, were the leadjng spirits in the club known as "The Hartford Wits."

Dr. Dwight was a fellow collegian with them. Trumbull and Dwight did much to interest the students in literature. The latter was also tutor in rhetoric and professor of belles-lettres and oratory.

[z] Conn. Col. Rec. xii, Appendix. This was drawn up by the Governor and three members of the General a.s.sembly, May, 1761.

[aa] With grim humor, he turned to one of his escort, saying that he at last realized the description in Revelation of "Death riding a white horse and h.e.l.l following behind."

[ab] The latter half of the t.i.tle was omitted about 1775.

[ac] Foster replied: "One man is not to be called a 'heretick,' purely because he differs from another, as to the articles of faith. For either we should all be 'hereticks' or there would be no 'heresy'

among us.... Heresy does not consist in opinion or sentiments: it is not an error of head but of will."--Foster, _A Defense of Religious Liberty_, p. 47.

[ad] This revision of the laws was in charge of Roger Sherman and Richard Law.

[ae] Quakers and Baptists frequently crossed the state line to attend services in Rhode Island.

[af] There was only an occasional Romanist; Unitarians first took their sectarian name in 1815; Universalists were few in number until the second quarter of the new century.

[ag] This sect received its name from Robert Sandeman, the son-in-law of its founder, the Rev. John Gla.s.s of Scotland. Sandeman published their doctrines about 1757. In 1764, he left Scotland and came to America, where he began making converts near Boston, in other parts of New England, and in Nova Scotia. He died at Danbury, Connecticut, 1771. The members of the sect are called Gla.s.sites in Scotland, where the Rev. John Gla.s.s labored. He died there in 1773. See W. Walker, in _American Hist. a.s.soc. Annual Report_, 1901, vol. i.

CHAPTER XII

CONNECTICUT AT THE CLOSE OF THE REVOLUTION

The piping times of peace.

During the fifteen years following the ratification of the Const.i.tution of the United States by Connecticut, January 9, 1788, no conspicuous events mark her history. These years were for the most part years of quiet growth and of expansion in all directions, and, because of this steady advancement, she was soon known as "the land of steady habits" and of general prosperity.

Even in the dark days of the Revolution, Connecticut's energetic people had continued to populate her waste places, and had carved out new towns from old towns.h.i.+ps,--for the last of the original plats had been marked off in 1763. In 1779-80, the state laid out five towns; from 1784 to 1787, twenty-one,--twelve of them in one year, 1786. [a]

Tolland County was divided off in 1786 as Windham had been in 1726, Litchfield in 1751, and Middles.e.x in 1765. These, with, the four original counties of Fairfield, New Haven, Hartford, and New London, made the present eight counties of the state. The cities of Hartford, New Haven, New London, Middletown, and Norwich were incorporated in 1784. They were scarcely more than villages of to-day, for New Haven approximated 3,000 inhabitants, and Hartford, as late as 1810, only 4,000. The Litchfield of the post-Revolutionary days, ranking, as a trade-centre, fourth in the state, was as familiar with Indians in her streets as the Milwaukee of the late fifties, and "out west" was no farther in miles than the Connecticut Reserve of 3,800,000 acres in Ohio which, in 1786, the state had reserved, when ceding her western lands to the new nation. Thither emigration was turning, since its check on the Susquehanna and Delaware by the award, in 1782, to Pennsylvania of the contested jurisdiction over those lands, and of the little town of Westmoreland, which the Yankees had built there. [b] After the decision new settlements were discouraged by the bitter feuds between the Connecticut and Pennsylvanian claimants to the land.