baptized persons as, without being prepared to come to the Lord's Supper, were of fair character and would own for themselves their baptismal obligations, it decided that they ought to be allowed to present their children for baptism; and that, on the other hand, should they refuse, when called upon, to assume those obligations, they were properly liable to the censure of the church. It would seem naturally to follow,- though that consequence was not admitted, that baptized adults of good character had a right to vote in the election of church officers, and in Massachusetts to be invested with the political franchise; for it would be unequal that participation in the liabilities of churchmembership should be disconnected from participation in its privileges. 1658. The decision of the Synod had no legal efficacy; no such efficacy was given to it by any General Court; and the dispute was imbittered rather than assuaged. The Hartford church, of which a majority adhered to Mr. Stone and approved the decision of the Synod, was proceeding to discipline its refractory members, when the General Court interposed in behalf of those March 11 magistrates who were imperilled, and commanded the church to desist, till measures of conciliation should be further attempted. They continued to be tried, to as little purpose as before. One ecclesiastical council after another was convened, but separated in disappointment and sorrow. Ministers came from Massachusetts, but could bring about no accommodation. The Federal Commissioners deprecated in vain "the sad effects and dreadful consequences of dissensions heightened and increased in a church of such eminence for light and love." 2 Stone stood upon his right, and the right of his church, to regulate their own affairs by their own discretion, and to execute ecclesiastical judg1 Conn. Rec., I. 312. Records, &c., in Hazard, II. 366. Stone. July 30. ments upon members of their ecclesiastical body with out regard to the offenders being the highest Magistrates of Connecticut. He was too strong for his oppoDeath of Mr. nents. He died before the conflict was over, 1663. but not before his vigor had determined what its issue must be. Mr. Cullick had already removed to Boston, while Governor Webster and others sought a new settlement on the river, forty miles above Hartford. In this enterprise, they associated themselves with a minority of the church of Wethersfield, who entertained similar views. Mr. Russell, the minister of that town, left his congregation in consequence of differences between them on the pending ques 1659. tions, and went with the emigrants to become pastor of the new church. In Massachusetts, the tendency of opinion on the disputed question had become well ascertained in the progress of the discussion which had taken place. A greater comprehension and liberality were widely desired. At the same time the threatening prospect in England suggested the question, whether something did not need to be done to give the churches a more mature organization, such as should make them capable of co-operating with more energy for the common welfare. The General Court directed the churches within the juris 1661. Dec. 31. diction to meet at Boston, by their ministers and messengers, for the consideration of two questions; namely, “1. Who are the subjects of baptism; 2. Whether, according to the word of God, there ought to be a Consociation of churches, and what should be the manner of it." "2 The Synod met accordingly. In respect to the sub 1 None of the early ministers of the two western Colonies survived Stone, except Davenport and Warham. 2 Mass. Rec., IV. (ii.) 38.—Mean while "the neighboring elders" were to consider whether other questions should be entertained. setts. 1662. September. Oct. 8. jects of baptism, they pronounced the same opinion as had been expressed by the score of Massa- Synod of chusetts and Connecticut divines five years be- Massachufore; and they gave an ambiguous and faint approbation to the scheme of a Consociation of Churches. Their Result was presented to the General Court of Massachusetts, which ordered it to be printed, with a Preface, for "the consideration of all the churches and people; "2 and here all legislative action on the matter ceased in that Colony. For reasons hereafter to be explained, the present relations of Connecticut towards New Haven, whose views respecting it were opposed to her own, were such as restrained her also from being active in pursuing it. As soon as the force of these reasons abated, her General Court strongly recommended to the churches the more liberal practice as to baptism which the Synod had approved; and even went so far as to invite "the several officers of the respective churches to consider whether it be not the duty of the Court to order the churches to practise according to the premises, if they do not practise without such an order." 3 1664. Oct. 13. This was as far as the General Court of Connecticut ventured to go; and a majority of the churches still resisted the innovation. In Massachusetts it was re pions of the other side were Richard 2 Mass. Rec., IV. (ii.) 60, 62. — The volume (in thirty-two pages quarto, besides the Preface) has the title, 1 For the Result of this Synod, see Mather, Magnalia, Book V. 64-76. Mather says it was adopted by a majority of "more than seven to one," in the Synod. (Ibid., 77.) Strong opposition to it was, however, immediately manifested in high quarters. Mr. Allin, of Dedham, wrote elaborately against it. President Chauncy at- "Propositions concerning the Subject tacked it in his " Anti-Synodalia Americana," and Mr. Davenport in "Another Essay for Investigation of the Truth." Among the eminent cham 66 of Baptism, and Consociation of Churches, collected and confirmed out of the Word of God," &c. Conn. Rec., I. 438. garded with more favor; but there too it had long to defend its ground against a steady opposition. The degree of irritation that prevailed is scarcely to be explained by a consideration of only the ostensible grounds of dispute. "From the fire of the altar," says Mather, "there issued thunderings, and lightnings, and earthquakes."1 The truth is, that political regards brought their explosive fuel to the flame. The preparation for this controversy had been long in progress. The primitive ecclesiastical system, whatever might have been its recommendations and deserts, was an exclusive one; and dissatisfaction with it had grown up in a series of quiet and prosperous years. It was before that repose was interrupted, that the wide-spread impatience was well developed, and that an earnest desire arose for the removal of what were felt by numerous persons of repute to be degrading distinctions and disabilities. On the other hand while it may be believed that there were those who more or less were influenced to maintain those distinctions by an unwillingness to weaken, by extension, what gave them personal importance, there can be no doubt that more honorable considerations had their full weight. There were many other persons, who were satisfied that the established practice was required by obedience to Scripture, and by regard to the purity of the Church; and who cared not to look further. And there were others yet, to whom the state seemed not so secure that it could prudently dismiss the pilotage which had steered it safe through such threatening storms, and to whom the tendency of the proposed changes to dissociate the Christian character from the prerogatives of citizenship was an honest and a conclusive objection to allowing them. The restoration of royalty in England must have increased 1 1 Magnalia, Book III. 117. the uneasiness felt by this class of patriots in relation to the proposed ecclesiastical reform; and though the tendency of thought in that direction had, when the King was brought back, become too strong to be resisted, the heat of the controversy was rekindled by the new danger that was thought to be disclosed. Relaxation of ecclesias ties. From the period, of which some events are related in this chapter, the severity exercised in New England against sectarian disturbers declines. Massachusetts, on whom, as the most powerful of the Colonies, lay the heaviest responsibility for tical severiher own safety and the safety of her allies, had used greater rigor than the rest in the maintenance of order, and in the removal of dissentients. But in thirty-five years she had grown powerful enough, and confident enough, to dismiss or to relax some of the securities which, in her early feebleness, had been thought essential.1 It may fairly be reckoned to the credit of her people, that they desisted from harsh measures, and were reconciled to the existence of dissent, in some proportion to their becoming well organized and safe, while too often it has been observable in other communities, that the stronger they felt them.selves, the less freedom they allowed. "Res dura et regni novitas," &c. 2 "Since our Jerusalem was come to such a consistence that the going up of every fox would not break down our stone walls, who ever meddled with 'em?" (Mather, Late Memorable Providences, 142.) 42 VOL. II. |