Columbia ©nitocrs^ttp 
 
 THE LIBRARIES 
 
THE SEPARATES 
 
 OR 
 
 Strict Congregationalists of 
 New England 
 
 BY 
 
 Rev. S. LEROY BLAKE, d. d. 
 
 Pastor of the First Church of Christ 
 New London, Connecticut 
 
 With aii Introduction! by. " ' 
 Prof. WILLiSTON .WAL.<E?^,„ D,;D. 
 
 BOSTON 
 CHICAGO 
 
iC 
 
 Copyright, 1902 
 By S. Leroy Blake 
 
Introduction 
 
 By Prof. Williston Walker, d. d. 
 
 Among the more important of the consequences 
 of that vast reHgious upheaval in eighteenth century 
 New England, of which Whitefield's preaching was 
 the most striking episode, was the revolt against the 
 conservatism, formalism and rigid ecclesiastical dis- 
 cipline of the established churches of these colonies, 
 tt) which the title, "Separatist Movement," has usual- 
 ly been given. The "Great Awakening," as the re- 
 vival in general has been called, well deserves its 
 fame as the most wide-spread and intense spiritual 
 quickening in New England history. No other 
 epoch of New England story has witnessed so gen- 
 erally diffused an interest in spiritual concerns or has 
 beheld so extensive a manifestation of the visible 
 working of the divine Spirit upon the hearts of men 
 as the years 1740, 1741 and 1742, when the revival 
 was at its height. It stands in retrospect Hke a 
 mountain peak in colonial religious history above the 
 monotonous level characteristic of the eighteenth 
 century. 
 
 But the "Great Awakening" is not remarkable 
 only for its accessions to the churches and its quick- 
 ening of the life of the spirit. In some respects its 
 methods and its characteristic manifestations were 
 
4 The Separates 
 
 unparalleled in New England history. It was distin- 
 guished far beyond any revival in this region beside, 
 by fervent appeals to the feelings resulting in emo- 
 tional excitement sufficient oftentimes to produce 
 striking physical effects, and by such a sense of the 
 divine presence and of the reality of unseen things as 
 led many who came under its power to claim visions 
 and spiritual gifts not granted to Christians in more 
 ordinary times. These more unusual and ex- 
 
 travagant manifestations were opposed, indeed, by 
 the vast majority of the ministry of New England; 
 but they were wide-spread and impressive among 
 the humbler and more ignorant subjects of the 
 "Great Awakening." 
 
 Born of the intenser manifestations of the revival 
 and emphasizing thus its more emotional and transi- 
 tory aspects, the Separatist movement had in itself 
 from the first the seeds of ultimate dissolution. Its 
 adherents laid weight on bodily effects as evidences 
 of the working of the Spirit of God. They denied 
 the necessity of an educated ministry. They be- 
 lieved themselves so gifted with the "key of knowl- 
 edge," as to be able to discern by spiritual intui- 
 tion who were truly Christians and who were not. 
 They regarded discipline as a prime duty. Holding 
 such opinions, prevailingly recruited from the more 
 ignorant and less well-to-do portion of the popu- 
 lation, and persecuted by the heavy hand of the 
 colonial government for many years, it is no won- 
 der that the Separatists as a whole ended in dis- 
 aster. 
 
Introduction 5 
 
 Yet these traits were far from exhausting the 
 characteristics of the Separatist movement, and had 
 they been all, that movement would have lost much 
 of the significance which properly belongs to it. 
 The Separatists were in large degree a protest 
 against the departure of eighteenth century Con- 
 greg^ationalism from its earlier ideals. The lapse 
 of a century since the planting of the New England 
 churches had resulted in greaJt modifications. The 
 dying out of the fire of the original spiritual zeal 
 in which the colonies were planted was followed 
 by a decreasing intensity of religious experience 
 and a diminishing emphasis in preaching on the 
 possibility and necessity of a conscious ''conversion," 
 such as had prevailed in early New England. Since 
 men had little of striking religious experience to 
 tell, the custom of ''relations" of God's dealings 
 with the soul passed into comparative disuse as a 
 condition of entrance into church-membership. 
 New England preaching, till awakened by the re- 
 vival, had been growing formal and increasingly 
 essay-like for two generations. And, in Connec- 
 ticut at least, a state-supported ecclesiastical organ- 
 ization, approaching Presbyterian government in 
 several of its features, had taken the place of the 
 freedom of earlier Congregationalism. 
 
 Most disastrous of all was the Half- Way Cove- 
 nant system. Begun by earnest pastors in the sev- 
 enteenth century in an honest desire to hold young 
 people under the watch and discipline of the 
 
6 The Separates 
 
 churches, it really lowered the spiritual tone of the 
 churches as a whole. It established a half-way house 
 between a neglect of Christian privileges and a full 
 acknowledgment of the claims of the gospel. Those 
 who had been baj^tized in infancy by reason of their 
 parents' Christian profession were now allowed and 
 encouraged to bring their own children for bap- 
 tism and a similar church-membership even if con- 
 scious themselves of no regenerative change. Such 
 imperfect members satisfied the conditions of their 
 "half-way" status if they gave intellectual assent 
 to the main doctrines of the Christian faith and 
 agreed to submit themselves to church discipline. 
 The chief evil of the system was that it encouraged 
 men and women to do something to which they and 
 the church alike ascribed value; but something, nev- 
 ertheless, far short of a full consecration to Christ 
 and his service. Having "owned the covenant" and 
 entered into "half-way" membership, they too easily 
 satisfied themselves thalt they had done all possible 
 for themselves and their children. 
 
 Against all these serious modifications of earlier 
 Congregationalism the Separatists protested. They 
 were not the only ones in our churches who antag- 
 onized these evils. The more strenuous supporters 
 of the "Great Awakening" who never left the fel- 
 lowship of the established churches did so very 
 generally. But the Separatists were determined and 
 consistent opponents of these things, and in their 
 attitude they are amply justified by later Congre- 
 
Introduction 7 
 
 gaitional history. Whatever their errors and short- 
 comings in other respects, — and the following nar- 
 rative shows that these were fatally numerous, — ^the 
 Separatists were right in their opposition to many 
 serious spiritual declensions in the churches of their 
 day. 
 
 This movement, never told heretofore with the ful- 
 ness thajt it deserves, has found a painstaking and 
 sympathetic historian in Dr. S. L. Blake, and 
 students of eighteenth century New England re- 
 ligious story will welcome his narrative of the rise, 
 growth and decline of the Separatists. The epi- 
 sode is one well deserving the labor and care which 
 he has bestowed upon its presentation. 
 
A Foreword 
 
 In "Some Aspedts of the Religious Life of New 
 England," Dr. George Leon Walker, speaking of 
 the Separates of Connecticut, says, "The subject 
 deserves a fuller investigation than it has ever yet 
 received." He also speaks of it as "a chapter which 
 still awaits its proper treatment at the hands of some 
 painstaking and sympathetic historian." In pre- 
 paring the second volume of the history of the first 
 Church of Christ, New London, Connecticut, the 
 writer found a considerable wealth of material con- 
 cerning this unwritten chapter of ecclesiastical his- 
 tory in New England. He also became aware that 
 more was within reach, much of which had never 
 seen the light. He was led to further investigation 
 and found so much that he resolved to gather the 
 material into a volume. Besides, on studying the 
 subject, as it presented itself, the writer, while recog- 
 nizing the many foolish extravagances of the "New 
 Lights," as they were often called, yet found him- 
 self so in sympathy with many of tbheir contentions 
 that he seemed to himself so far forth to fulfil Dr. 
 Walker's condition of a "sympathetic historian." 
 
 The story is a somewhat thrilling one. It throws 
 a strange light upon religious liberty in Connecticut 
 between 1742 and 1784. The materials were gath- 
 
lo The Separates 
 
 ered from many sources. The following are the 
 principal authorities consulted : 
 
 Diary of Joshua Hempstead, covering the period 
 when the movement was in its strength. 
 
 Records of the First Church of Christ, New Lon- 
 don. 
 
 Original Records of the Separate Church in 
 Preston. 
 
 Original Memorial of the same church petitioning 
 the legislature for relief from taxation in support of 
 the Established Church. 
 
 History of the Preston Separate Church by A. A. 
 Browning, Esq., of Norwich. 
 
 History of the Newent (Lisbon) Separate 
 Church, in manuscript. 
 
 Colonial Records of Connecticut. 
 
 Annals of Saint James, New London, by R. A. 
 Hallam, d. d. 
 
 History of New London, by Miss Caulkins. 
 
 History of Norwich, by Miss Caulkins. 
 
 History of Windham County, by Miss Ellen D. 
 Earned. 
 
 Gleanings from the History of Windham County, 
 by the same author. 
 
 History of the Enfield, Conn., Separate Church, 
 by Rev. O. W. Means, ph. d., a most excellent 
 monograph. 
 
 History of Montville. 
 
 History of the Suffolk Congregational Associa- 
 
A Foreword ii 
 
 tion, Long Island, by Rev. William I. Chalmers of 
 Riverhead, L. I. 
 
 Contributions to Ecclesiastical History of Con- 
 necticitt. 
 
 History of Connecticut^ by Benjamin Trumbull, 
 
 D. D. 
 
 Early History of Christ Church Parish, Guilford, 
 by Rev. William G. Andrews, d. d. 
 
 Great Awakening, by Rev. Joseph Tracy. 
 
 Congregationalists in America, by Rev. A. E. 
 Dunning, d. d. 
 
 History of Congregationalism, by Rev. George 
 Punchard. 
 
 History of Congregationalists in Massachusetts, 
 by Rev. J. S. Clark, d. d. 
 
 Baptists in Norwich, by Denison. 
 
 History of Beneficent Church, Providence, R. L, 
 by Rev. J. G. Vose, d. d. 
 
 Some Aspects of the Religious Life of New Eng- 
 land, by Rev. George Leon Walker, d. d. 
 
 History of the Congregational Churches^ by Prof. 
 Williston Walker, d. d. 
 
 One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the 
 Soutii Congregational Church, Middletown, Conn., 
 by Rev. Frederick W. Green. 
 
 Journal of Rev. Jacob Eliot, Goshen, Conn., in 
 manuscript. 
 
 The New Englander, 1853, PP- ^95 f- 
 
 The Diary of Rev. Ezra Stiles, d. d.. Vol. I. 
 
12 The Separates 
 
 Backus' Church History. 
 
 Joel S. Ives' Address at the 250th Anniversary of 
 the church in Stratford. 
 
 S. L. B. 
 
Contents 
 
 Introduction 3 
 
 A Foreword 9 
 
 I 
 Their Rise and Cause 17 
 
 II 
 Their Final Separation 40 
 
 III 
 Their Doctrines 65 
 
 IV 
 Their Characteristics and Extrava- 
 gances 89 
 
 V 
 Their Persecutions 109 
 
 VI 
 Where They Were and What Be- 
 came OF Them 126 
 
 VII 
 Conclusion 199 
 
The Separates 
 
 OR 
 
 Strict Congregationalists 
 
 OP 
 
 New England 
 
I 
 
 THEIR RISE AND CAUSE 
 
 As a fruit of the Great Awakening of 1740 a 
 number of churches arose in southeastern Connec- 
 ticut, to which they were mostly confined, which 
 were seceders from the standing order, and were 
 called Separates, and New Lights. They were 
 Congregational in their principles and practices, 
 their polity and belief. But they flatly refused to 
 be governed by the Saybrook Platform, As this 
 was made the established order in Connecticut, 
 without redress after 1743, they put themselves into 
 open and pronounced antagonism to the State. They 
 stood on the original Cambridge Platform, and pre- 
 ferred to be called, as they called themselves, "Strict 
 Congregationalisltis." As such they could secure no 
 exemption, as did Baptists and Episcopalians, from 
 taxation to support the standing order. November 
 4, 1745, at the prolonged trial of its pastor. Rev. 
 Philemon Robbins, for alleged irregularities in his 
 ministerial conduct, the church in Branford stood 
 by him and voted, ''That we renounce the Saybrook 
 platform, and cannot receive it as a rule of govern- 
 ment and discipline in this church; that we declare 
 this church to be a Congregational church; that we 
 receive the scriptures of the Old and New Testament 
 as ithe only perfect rule and platform of church gov- 
 
 17 
 
1 8 The Separates 
 
 ernment and discipline; that though we receive the 
 scriptures as the only perfect rule, yet as we know of 
 no human composure that comes nearer to the scrip- 
 tures in matters of church government and discipline 
 than the Cambridgie platform, so we approve of that 
 for substance, and take it for our platform, agree- 
 ably to the word of God." Several other churches 
 in Connecticut took similar action. The Branford 
 church does not seem to have become a Separate 
 church, although other churches did which formally 
 adopted the Cambridge platform. 
 
 This religious movement seems to have begun at 
 New London, in 1742 and 1743, where a separate 
 society was organized March 6 of the latter year. 
 As this movement grew out of the Great Awaken- 
 ing, and the conditions preceding it, we naturally 
 look to these to find its immediate causes, for the 
 loose practices, from which this wide-spread spirit- 
 ual quickening was a rebound, were the primary 
 reason why this separation from the churches of 
 the established order took place. 
 
 To appreciate the full force and significance oi 
 the great spiritual movement in 1740, it will be nec- 
 essary to go back, and trace our way to it through 
 the spiritual dearth which came upon the churches 
 with ever deepening intensity during the last quar- 
 ter of the seventeenth and the first half of the eight- 
 eenth centuries. The period from 1630 to 1660, the 
 period during which the men and women who 
 planted New England were on the scene, has been 
 
Their Rise and Cause 19 
 
 called its golden age. Soon after the close of this 
 period we begin to hear of religious declension. In 
 1679 ^ synod called by the legislature of Massa- 
 chusetts left on record an acknowledgment of a 
 "great and visible decay of Godliness" in the church- 
 es. There had sprung up neglect of divine worship, 
 disregard of sacramental observances, pride, pro- 
 fanity. Sabbath-breaking, and kindred vices un- 
 known to the first generation of the inhabitants of 
 New England, who founded her colonies, her 
 churches, and composed their membership. They 
 were "strict in doctrine, in discipline, and in prac- 
 tice." A gentleman of eminent character, who had 
 lived in New England seven years, during its gold- 
 en age, said that he did not once hear an oath, or see 
 a drunken man. But as those who planted the col- 
 onies passed away, and a new generation came upon 
 the stage, there was a sensible decline in godliness. 
 The children did not inherit the virtues of the 
 fathers. As generation succeeded generation there 
 was a still greater decline. There was sound preach- 
 ing, much fasting and prayer, on the part of some 
 for the special influences of the Holy Spirit, yet there 
 was a general decline in the power of godliness, a 
 general ease and security in sin on the part of the 
 great mass of the people. This spiritual condi- 
 tion prevailed throughout the New England colo- 
 nies. Men who had the interests of God's kingdom 
 at heart were alarmed. 
 
 There were revivals of greater or less power in 
 
20 The Separates 
 
 a few places, but no general awakening. In North- 
 ampton there were several seasons of deepened and 
 quickened religious sensibility. The greater part of 
 the young people in the town were reached, and ex- 
 pressed concern for the salvation of their souls. In 
 1 72 1 the town of Windham, in Connecticut, under 
 the ministry of Rev. Samuel Whiting, was visited 
 by a work of grace, which resulted in gathering 
 eighty persons into the church. The whole town 
 w^as moved by a supreme joy. Persons of all ages 
 were reached, and came together to seek the Lord 
 their God. The First Church in New London 
 shared, to some extent, in this work. But while 
 some places were thus blessed, the larger part were 
 not; iniquity abounded; religion decayed through- 
 out the land. In many of the towns little change 
 was wrought in spiritual hfe, or in the moral tone 
 of society. These revivals were not of the sort that 
 reaches and remedies these radical evils. In some 
 cases, at least, there does not seem to have been that 
 deep conviction of sin which drives men to God, and 
 compels them to turn to him. They were of that 
 kind which arouses the sensibilities, but does not 
 change the will. Mr. Parsons, who was settled in 
 Lyme in 1 730, 'tells us that he urged his people much 
 to good works and to attend upon the Lord's Sup- 
 per. Many followed the pastor's suggestion, under 
 the impression that saving grace was in no sense 
 necessary to attendance upon that ordinance. Hence 
 no relation of experience and no experience of re- 
 
Their Rise and Cause 21 
 
 newing grace were required of those who came into 
 the church. Consequently numbers were received 
 who, in the searching Hght of the Great Awaken- 
 ing, were aroused to the fact that they were still in 
 their sins, and that their eternal hope was 
 resting on sand. The pastor was obliged to tell 
 ithem that he feared that few who had joined the 
 church hitherto under his ministry had been really 
 converted. Matters kept going from bad to worse 
 in the churches until 1740, when the Great Awak- 
 ening arrested the tide and profoundly stirred the 
 churches; men were convicted of sin and awoke to 
 the need of something deeper and more radical than 
 good works; — that radical change called the new 
 birth. 
 
 The immediate cause of this powerful movemenft 
 was the preaching of two sermons by Jonathan Ed- 
 wards, at Northampton in Massachusetts, upon 
 Justification by Faith. He took strong and decided 
 grounds against the doctrine of justification by 
 works, which had been preached, and had grown 
 and spread among the churches in the form of the 
 Half-Way Covenant, and the doctrine that the 
 Lord's Supper is a converting and saving ordinance 
 — a doctrine strenuously advocated by Solomon 
 Stoddard, the predecessor and maternal grand- 
 father of Edwards. This opinion gained distin- 
 guished advocates. Dr. Charles Chauncey, of Bos- 
 ton, said, "The divinely appointed way, in which 
 persons become members of the visible Church of 
 
22 The Separates 
 
 Christ, is utterly inconsistent with the supposition, 
 that, in order to their being so, they must be sub- 
 jects of saving faith, or judged to be so." This was 
 the HberaHsm of the eighteenth century, which gave 
 birth to the more advanced free thinking of the nine- 
 teenth century. Its presence in the churches, and its 
 wide acceptance by them between 1660 and 1740, 
 explain why the revivals of those years produced 
 so little radical change, and had so little power to 
 arrest the moral and religious decay. They also 
 help to explain why the Great Awakening itself met 
 with bitter opposition from some whom we should 
 expect to be its advocates, and why, in some cases, 
 so disastrous results followed, as in the Separate 
 movement. 
 
 Edwards' views of divine truth came into the pre- 
 vailing religious conditions, like a stream from a 
 divine fountain. All previous efforts to secure a 
 revival and to promote spiritual growth, had laid 
 special and almost exclusive emphasis upon outward 
 reform, without reference to a change of heart, till 
 the notion came to prevail that, by diligent atten- 
 tion to good works, men could, in an important 
 sense, merit and win the favor of God, without for- 
 mal and definite submission of the will to him. 
 When Jonathan Edwards appeared upon the scene 
 and, in the year 1734, boldly proclaimed the doc- 
 trine of justification by faith, and preached the abso- 
 lute necessity of a radical change of heart, as the 
 only way of securing salvation, the religious world 
 
Their Rise and Cause 23 
 
 was startled. The state of spiritual declension had 
 become alarming. Edwards' preaching, severe as 
 it seems to us of a later generation, was like re- 
 freshing showers coming after a long drought, to 
 refresh and gladden the thirsty earth. 
 
 To appreciate fully the low spiritual condition of 
 the churches, at the time when the Great Awaken- 
 ing began, it will be instructive to trace the steps 
 leading to this condition. 
 
 First of all is to be named the practice of the 
 Half-Way Covenant, by which the churches, and in 
 some cases the pulpits, became filled with people who 
 laid no claim to a change of heart. This was both 
 a fruit, and a cause, of the conditions upon which 
 the revival of 1740 broke, as the light breaks in upon 
 the darkness. It was a fruit, because the churches 
 of New England, founded upon the doctrine stated 
 by Hooker, that none but those who had experience 
 of renewing and regenerating grace were suitable to 
 become members of Christ's visible body, did not 
 depart from it until they had lost the deep spiritual 
 life of their founders. It was a cause, for after 
 the churches had adopted this looser practice their 
 spiritual decay became more rapid. The period of 
 its widest adop'tion was that in which the lowest 
 type of piety prevailed in the churches. Instead of 
 being, as it was originally intended, a means of re- 
 taining under watch and discipline of the church 
 those who were born of godly parents, but were slip- 
 ping away, it became the method of entrance into 
 
24 The Separates 
 
 covenant relations with the church for those who 
 could advance no claim of birthright even, much 
 less of personal experience of renewing grace. In 
 the seasons of religious interest previous to the 
 deeper, more radical work of the Great Awakening, 
 large numbers of persons who had a quickened sei'fse 
 of obligation were admitted to Half- Way Covenant 
 membership. Later on all restrictions were, in many 
 cases, removed, and such persons were admitted to 
 the privileges of full fellowship. Dr. George Leon 
 Walker says, ''But however conscientiously devised, 
 this scheme wrought inevitable mischief to the 
 spiritual life of the period" of the Puritan decline. 
 It was a sort of easy resting-place between utter 
 neglect of religion, and a full surrender to its claims. 
 So the descendants of the people, who, several gen- 
 erations before, had come out from home, and 
 church relationship, as a protest against formalism, 
 which destroyed the spiritual life and power of the 
 churches, dropped into the very same error. So 
 strongly intrenched in the practice of the churches 
 did the Half- Way Covenant become that, even under 
 the powerful influences of the Great Awakening, it 
 continued to hold open their doors to those to whom 
 Hooker would have refused admission. And it con- 
 tinued in a measure to determine their policy, with 
 reference to 'the admission of members, until the 
 nineteenth century. It was against this practice of 
 filling the churches with unconverted men and 
 women, and of installing men as pastors who had no 
 
Their Rise and Cause 25 
 
 experience of renewing grace, that the Separate 
 movement was a protest. Curiously enough, we 
 have here the spectacle of a separation from the de- 
 scendants and churches of the Separatists and Puri- 
 tans of New England, for the same reasons which 
 caused those Separatisits who came to Plymouth, 
 and those Puritans who, ten years later, came to 
 Salem and Boston with Endicott and Winthrop, 
 to separate from the Church of England. 
 
 Another cause of the religious decline was the 
 state of war in which the colonies were almost 
 without cessation for more than fifty years. The 
 French war broke out in 1689. The next year the 
 expedition against Quebec was undertaken, for 
 which the colonies furnished troops. Queen Anne's 
 war broke out in 1703, and with it the horrors of 
 Indian incursions and their awful atrocities. In 
 1 701 was the abortive expedition against Canada by 
 sea and land. In 1735 and later were other disturb- 
 ances of a similar character. Either the hostilities 
 of the Indians, or the assaults of the French kept 
 the colonies in a state of constant apprehension, 
 which was particularly annoying to Connecticut. 
 Although the peace of Utrecht, in 1713, put an end, 
 for the time, to active hostilities between the French 
 and English, yet the French continued to incite 
 the Indians, who pillaged the Eng^lish settlements, 
 and killed, or carried away captive many of the 
 settlers. The history of the colonies, from 1700, 
 and earlier, until the close of the Revolution, reads 
 
26 The Separates 
 
 like the story of a running fight, with only here 
 and there an important break in the narrative. 
 
 War, in whatever form, is never helpful in mat- 
 ters of religious growth. It awakens alarm. It 
 arouses the worst passions of men. It disturbs so- 
 ciety and engrosses men's thought with matters 
 which do not make for spiritual life. In this dis- 
 turbed state, of so long standing, religious life in 
 New England sank (to a low ebb. The churches 
 became an easy prey to those materialistic views 
 and practices which robbed them of their spirit- 
 ual power. 
 
 Civil strife was yet another cause of that de- 
 cline, of which a contemporary said, as early as 
 1 70 1, "It is too observable, that the Power of God- 
 liness is exceedingly Decaying and Expiring in the 
 Country." The attempts of Sir Edmund Andros 
 to bring all New England under his control in 
 1686; the attempted exercise of authority in Con- 
 necticut in 1687, in connection with which was the 
 hiding of the charter in the Charter Oak; the quar- 
 rel of Thomas Dudley with Massachusetts from 
 1702 to 171 5; the constant suspense in which the 
 people of Connecticut were kept by the controversies 
 with the neighboring colonies, over the boundary 
 lines, some of which were not settled till nearly 
 the middle of the eighteenth century, were not con- 
 ducive to the development of deep religious life. 
 Massachusetts lost her charter in 1684. Proceedings 
 looking to similar action against Connecticut were 
 
Their Rise and Cause 27 
 
 instituted in 1685. Political events of so serious 
 moment, which imperatively commanded men's at- 
 tention, and which so vitally concerned their ma- 
 terial interests were not favorable to that attention 
 to spiritual things, which is essential to high re- 
 ligious states. 
 
 Yet andther source of irritation was the in- 
 troduction into New England of the Established 
 Church of Old England — the very organization 
 from which the Separatists of Plymouth and the 
 Puritans of Massachusetts had come out. If the 
 efforts of "The Societv for the Propagation of the 
 Gospel," had been confined to its original purpose 
 — <to carry the gospel to the Indians of North 
 America — or if it had been content simply to plant 
 churches where there were members of its own 
 communion, the case would have been different, and 
 created less disturbance. But the society enlarged 
 its scope so that it became "A Society for Aiding 
 (the Church of England in America," and it soon 
 proceeded to plant its churches where the ground 
 was abundantly occupied, and supplied with the 
 ministrations of the gospel, though not after the 
 Episcopal order. 
 
 The first fruits of the efforts of the Propagation 
 Society in Connecticut was the founding of a mis- 
 sion in Stratford in 1706. Rev. Dr. Andrews of 
 Guilford says that this mission ''was undertaken 
 chiefly for the benefit of recent emigrants at Strat- 
 ford, who were already Episcopalians." For twenty 
 
28 The Separates 
 
 years this was the only mission of the Propaga- 
 tion Society in Connecticut. Samuel Johnson said, 
 "I never once tried to proselyte dissenters, nor do 
 I believe any of the other ministers did." However, 
 George Keith, a converted Quaker, the first mis- 
 sionary of the Propagation Society to come to 
 America, suggested measures which he believed 
 "would effectually contribute *to the proselyting of 
 the main body of the dissenting people to their An- 
 cient mother, the Church of England." And yet, 
 upon his representation, the Society came to re- 
 gard other parts of America as more in need of 
 their aid than the two Congregational colonies, which 
 were everywhere supplied with ministers and meet- 
 ing houses; so that as late as 1728 the Society had 
 but two missionaries in Connecticut, and three in 
 Massachusetts. But after this the Propagation 
 Society pushed its work with full vigor in the New 
 England colonies. 
 
 A startling result of the labors of the Propagation 
 Society was the conversion to Episcopacy, in 1722, 
 of Dr. Cutler, the rector of Yale College, and five 
 neighboring Congregational clergymen. This de- 
 fection caused deep and wide alarm. The belief 
 gained ground that there was a conspiracy among 
 some of the prominent clergymen to go over to 
 the Church of England, and take the people of 
 Connecticut with them. The fear was all the greater 
 because these efforts seemed to be backed up by gov- 
 ernmental and ecclesiastical authority from abroad. 
 
Their Rise and Cause 29 
 
 It also was justified by the fact that several promi- 
 nent divines had already taken this step, and many 
 more seemed about to do so. The secession of Sea- 
 bury and Punderson of North Groton, a few years 
 later, did not allay ithe fear. After Punderson had 
 been to England to receive orders, he returned to 
 North Groton, and established a Church-of -England 
 parish by the side of the Congregational church 
 of which he had been the pastor. His effort drew 
 so largely from the old church, that, at one time, 
 it seemed as if it would be obliged to suspend. 
 He claimed to have several hundred com- 
 municants on his roll. It looked dubious for a 
 time for the old Puritan church. It is not surpris- 
 ing that the hearts of the Congregationalists of 
 North Groton sank within them. However, the old 
 Puritan church remains, while Punderson's move- 
 ment left nothing behind it. 
 
 The action of Thomas Dudley, and an edict of 
 Queen Anne in 171 3, served to give impetus to the 
 work of the Propagation Society in Massachusetts, 
 which at once undertook to plant its churches in 
 several of the larger towns outside of Boston. Con- 
 necticut seems to have been favorable ground for its 
 operations, for the Society found it difficult to 
 meet the demands upon it. There was a growing 
 eagerness on the part of young men to take orders 
 in the English Church. This did not tend to allay 
 apprehension. Besides, the usage of the English 
 Church with respect to the sacraments of baptism 
 
30 The Separates 
 
 and the Lord's Supper, was directly contrary to orig- 
 inal Congregationalism, as expounded and prac- 
 ticed by Hooker, Davenport, and others of the 
 fathers of New England. Their view of church 
 order, as we have seen, debarred from the sacra- 
 ments a large body of people of exemplary lives 
 whom the Anglican Church considered as eligible 
 to them. This, says Dr. Andrews of Christ Church, 
 Guilford, "abundanltly justified the Society for the 
 Propagation of the Gospel in planting missions in 
 this Christian commonwealth." He adds, "that the 
 Church of England steadily increased in 'this com- 
 monwealth was due far less to 'aggressive work' on 
 the part of the Anglican clergy than to the fact that 
 the Anglican Church supplied what Puritanism had 
 taught men to value as their lives, and New Eng- 
 land Congregationalism, with an honorable, ^though 
 misguided zeal for the holiness of God's house, had 
 placed almost out of their reach." Dr. Andrews 
 speaks as a churchman who believes that men may 
 enter the kingdom of God by natural birth and nur- 
 ture. The New England Congregationalist was a 
 churchman who beheved originally that a man must 
 be born again, from above, to enter the kingdom of 
 God. He therefore insisted that all who sought ad- 
 mission to the Church and its sacraments should have 
 and relate a personal experience of renewing grace. 
 As we have seen, the looser practice of the Half- Way 
 Covenant had already obtained a foothold in some 
 of the leading churches, when Episcopacy appeared 
 
Their Rise and Cause 31 
 
 on the scene. But the great body of the New Eng- 
 land Congregational churches resisted it. Stod- 
 dard's theory that the Lord's Supper was a saving 
 ordinance, and that unregenerate men of reputable 
 lives ought to be admitted to it, aroused a storm 
 of opposition. Strong men were on both sides. 
 The time was favorable for Episcopacy. It offered 
 to men what the great body of the Congregational 
 Churches denied them. The controversy continued 
 until gradually these churches, wearied by the con- 
 flidt, yielded the ground, as an act of self-defence, 
 and as a measure of peace. 
 
 The feeling was deep. Discussions about church 
 order and discipline were heated. The defection of 
 leading men, like Dr. Cutler of Yale, added fuel to 
 the fire. The Propagation Society instructed its 
 clergy to reclaim dissenters "with a spirit of meek- 
 ness and gentleness." But some of the dissenters 
 refused to be reclaimed. And therefore these dis- 
 putes, and the defection of prominent men, distract- 
 ed the minds of the people, diverted them from their 
 obligations as professed disciples of our Lord, and 
 tended to lower their spiritual tone. 
 
 As some believed, all these controversies and dis- 
 turbances, and the tendency to less rigorous disci- 
 pline in the churches, which was gaining ground, 
 were introducing ''a grievous decay of piety" into 
 New England. Samuel Mather wrote in 1706, 'It 
 is a time of much degeneracy." In 1714, Samuel 
 Whitman of Farmington said, in his election ser- 
 
32 The Separates 
 
 mon, " 'Tis too Evident to be denied, that Religion 
 is on the Wane among us. 'Tis languishing in all 
 Parts of the Land." Dr. Increase Mather, who died 
 in 1723, wrote, ''There is a grievous decay of piety 
 in the land and a leaving of the first love, and the 
 beauties of holiness are not to be seen as they once 
 were. The very interest of New England seems 
 to be changed from a religious to a worldly one." 
 In 1730 William Russel of Middletown said in a 
 sermon, preached before the legislature, "The Coun- 
 try improveth in Knowledge and Skill in Worldly 
 business, but in Religious Knowledge, doth it not 
 manifestly decay?" In 1725 efforts were made to 
 have the legislatures of the colonies call a synod to 
 consider "What are the miscarriages whereof we 
 have reason to think the judgments of Heaven 
 upon us call us to be more generally sensible, and 
 what may be the most evangelical and effective ex- 
 pedients to put a stop unto those or like miscar- 
 riages." This effort was opposed by the Episcopal 
 clergymen of Boston, with Dr. Cutler in the lead, 
 and the synod was never held. This was a final 
 blow to all hopes of remedying spiritual evils by 
 the action of civil authorities. A similar effort had 
 been made in Connecticut in 17 14. The legislature 
 recommended that a strict enquiry into the state of 
 religion be made in every parish, to find out, if pos- 
 sible, "What are the sins and evils that provoke the 
 just majesty of Heaven to walk contrary to us in 
 the ways of His providence; that thereby all pos- 
 
Their Rise and Cause 33 
 
 sible means may be used for our healing and recov- 
 ery from our degeneracy." The picture is a dark 
 one. But there is too much reason to believe that 
 it is not overdrawn. Old church records preserve 
 melancholy evidence that too much cannot be said 
 of the degeneracy of those times. That the heated 
 religious controversy had not a little to do with 
 bringing such a sitate to pass cannot be doubted. 
 There was not then the breadth of mind to toleraltfe 
 so radical departures from the prevailing order, as 
 the introduction of other denominations, such as the 
 Baptists, Quakers, Methodists and Episcopalians. 
 It should be said, however, that the coming of other 
 denominations into New England rendered this ser- 
 vice to the Congregational churches; it put an end 
 to efforts to correct spiritual abuses and revive spirit- 
 ual life by an appeal to the legislature. 
 
 Another reason for the declining spiritual ^tate 
 of the churches, especially in Connecticut previous 
 to the Great Awakening, was the relation in which 
 they stood ito the legislature, which was a sort of 
 standing ecclesiastical body having in charge their 
 spiritual as well as material interests. For ex- 
 ample, the legislature of Connecticujt, called the Say- 
 brook Synod, which drew up the famous Platform, 
 called the convention at Guilford, whose action was 
 framed into the stringenlt legislation of 1742 and 
 1743; gave permission to bodies of people to be 
 constituted into churches; often took the lead in 
 settling church troubles, and performed similar ec- 
 
34 The Separates 
 
 clesiastical functions which are foreign to legis- 
 lative bodies to-day. Besides, after 1743, the 
 churches under the Saybrook Platform were a state 
 establishment as rigorous, exacting and unbending, 
 as that against which the Separatists of Scrooby 
 protested. 
 
 This relation of the churches to the legislatures of 
 the colonies is also seen in certain political functions 
 to which church membership was considered essen- 
 tial. In Massachusetts, in the early days of the 
 colony, a man could neither vote nor hold office un- 
 less he were a church member. Similar restrictions 
 were placed upon the right of franchise in the New 
 Haven colony previous to its union with the Con- 
 necticut colony in 1665; thalt is, certain civil privi- 
 leges were connected with religious observances. 
 This was an inheritance from the State churches of 
 Europe. For example, admission to the Lord's 
 table carried with it certain civil rights which were 
 infringed by exclusion from it. In some cases men 
 qualified for civil office by partaking of this sacra- 
 ment. Dr. Ezra Stiles, in his diary, tells 
 of one Mr. Moulton of Newport, who was not 
 a church member, but who ''to qualify for an office 
 had received the sacrament at an Episcopal church" 
 in Boston. Therefore, to exclude one from the 
 Lord's table was, in some cases, regarded as a penal 
 offence, for which the civil government inflicted 
 punishment on the church official who refused the 
 sacrament. This, in a measure, made the Church, 
 
Their Rise and Cause 35 
 
 which is the body of Christ, a part of the civil gov- 
 emment, and was ndt helpful to its spiritual life. 
 
 New England Congregationalism, at its birth, as 
 we have seen, was a vigorous protest against such 
 secularizing of the Church. The Cambridge Plat- 
 form of 1648 was strong on this point. The sev- 
 enteenth chapiter of that document affirms that "as 
 it is unlawfull for church officers to meddle with the 
 sword of the Magistrate, so it is unlawfull for the 
 Magistrate to meddle with the proper work of the 
 church." Then when the Separates, ninety years 
 after the Cambridge Platform, protested against the 
 interference of the civil authorities with the affairs 
 and discipline of the Church, they had behind them 
 the opinion and practice of the early New England 
 Congregationalists, especially in Massachusetts. 
 There was more of interference in ecclesiastical moX- 
 ters in Connecticut than in the Bay Colony, 
 throug^hout the eighteenth century. Consequently 
 the Separate movement was stronger and more pro- 
 nounced in the former, under the jurisdiction of the 
 Saybrook Platform, which was framed to express an 
 authoritative control and supervision in the disci- 
 pline of the church, which are repugnant to the spirit 
 of Congregationalism. Taking the view of church 
 order and discipline that they did, the Separates 
 pursued the only course open before them. As 
 time went on changes took place. Legislative su- 
 j>ervis)ion in ecclesiastical maitters assumed less and 
 less pronounced forms, and slowly died out; so 
 
36 The Separates 
 
 ithat before the Revolution this reason for the Sepa- 
 ate movement had practically ceased. The religious 
 limitations put upon civil rights and franchise came 
 to be things of a remote past. Men were eligible 
 to office irrespective of their church relations. 
 
 But with these changes came others also of a 
 more spiritual nature, as we have seen. The bars 
 which led into the church were let down, and oftten 
 little or no restriction was put upon entering into its 
 fellowship. The Boston Synod of 1662 had de- 
 cided that persons baptized in infancy, ''understand- 
 ing the doctrine of faith, and publicly professing 
 their assent thereto; not scandalous in life, and sol- 
 emnly covenanting before the church, wherein they 
 give themselves and their children to the LxDrd, and 
 subject themselves to the government of Christ in 
 the church," might have their children baptized, even 
 though they themselves were avowedly unregener- 
 ate. This practice in many churches soon grew in- 
 to the admission of such unregenerate persons to the 
 sacrament of the Lord's Supper. This was letting 
 down the last bar, and added its share to the spirit- 
 ual degeneracy, which, we have seen, came upon 
 the churches before the great Revival, and in not a 
 few cases continued after it. That is, some of the 
 churches, which the Fathers of New England 
 planted as a protest against such loose practices, 
 came to occupy the very ground against which they 
 had been planted as a protest. As early as 1657 it 
 had been maintained, in Connecticut, that "parishes 
 
Their Rise and Cause 37 
 
 in England, consenting to and continuing meetings 
 to worship God were true churches; and that mem- 
 bers of those parishes, coming into New England, 
 had a right tto all church privileges though they made 
 no profession of faith and holiness upon their 
 hearts/'* From that date on this view persistently 
 pushed its way for fifty years, knocking at t!he door 
 of the churches for admission, till the doors were 
 flung wide open. Tracy says, "The desire to enjoy 
 the credit and advantages of church-membership, 
 aided by Mr. Stoddard's influence, carried the day 
 at Northampton, and the practice soon spread ex- 
 tensively in other parts of New England." Add 
 to this state of things a state establishment, such as 
 existed in Connecticut, under the Saybrook Plat- 
 form, and we have the spiritual and ecclesiastical 
 conditions which the Separatists at Scrooby and 
 Gainsborough found confronting them in the first 
 decade of the seventeenth century. It would be 
 strange if in the eighteenth century, as in the seven- 
 teenth, there were found none to protest against the 
 same evils, and come out from them. 
 
 The tendency of the conditions which we have 
 considered, was to destroy all spiritual life. Men 
 came to regard conversion as not essential, and join- 
 ing the church as a saving act. They believed thalt: 
 they were to be saved by their own good works, rath- 
 er than through faith in the merits of a crucified Re- 
 deemer. Preparation for the kingdom of God, with 
 
 ♦Trumbull's Hist., Conn., Vol. I, p. 251. 
 
38 The Separates 
 
 most churches, was a matter of correct external con- 
 duct, rather than of beheving on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. The difference between the Church and the 
 world rapidly disappeared. Until Edwards came 
 upon the scene and preached his famous sermons on 
 justification by faith, the trend was downward, in 
 spite of every effort to arresit it. The degeneracy, 
 which had come upon the churches before the Great 
 Awakening, kept on after it. Governor Law, in 
 1743, called upon the people of Connecticut to con- 
 fess their sins, which, he said, were "the great neg- 
 lect and contempt of the gospel and the ministry 
 thereof, and the prevailing of a spirit of disorder 
 . . . and all other vices which prevail among 
 us." This was not the only voice raised in lamen- 
 tation over the spiritual conditions following the 
 Great Awakening. When it is remembered that 
 Governor Law's words were spoken concerning the 
 prevalence of sins subsequent to the Revival, we 
 shall see how deep-seated were the evils which had 
 crept into the churches before it, and how strong 
 was their hold upon them. Prof. Walker says, 
 "The half century following the Great Awakening 
 was a period of spiritual deadness." It was 
 
 against the Church as a state organization, and 
 against the prevailing loose methods of church or- 
 der and discipline, that the Separates protested. 
 Many of them were fruits of the Revival. Others 
 were professed disciples, who had received new im- 
 pulses and quickening. Neither class could consent 
 
Their Rise and Cause 39 
 
 to relapse into the cold formalism which seemed to 
 them to destroy the life of the churches. The only 
 way open to them was the way out, and they took it 
 
II 
 
 THEIR FINAL SEPARATION 
 
 We should naturally expect so wide and deep a 
 religious movement as the Great Awakening, to af- 
 fect favorably the spiritual condition of the churches, 
 and that they would all be deeply engaged in it. 
 But the contrary was too largely true. Among the 
 Episcopalians, Dr. Cutler, formerly rector of Yale 
 College, said, "It would be an endless atttempt to de- 
 scribe the scene of confusion and distturbance oc- 
 casioned by him [Whitefield] ; the divisions of 
 families, neighborhoods and towns, the contrariety 
 of husbands and wives, the undutifulness of chil- 
 dren and servants, the quarrels among teachers, the 
 disorders of the night, the intermission of labor and 
 business and husbandry, and gathering the harvest," 
 and much more of the same sort. Dr. Cutler in 
 the same paper describes the scenes attendant upon 
 the awakening as ''laughing, yelping, sprawling, 
 fainting." Of Gilbert Tennent he had similar 
 
 things to say, calling him '*a monster, impudent, 
 noisy." He called the preaching of this evangelist, 
 "beastly brayings." Dr. Charles Chauncey, pastor 
 of the First Church in Boston, led those in the Con- 
 gregational churches of Massachusetts who opposed 
 the revival. He published a volume entitled, 
 "Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in 
 
 40 
 
Their Final Separation 41 
 
 New England," in which he undertook faithfully to 
 point out "the things of a bad and dangerous ten- 
 dency in the late and present religious appearance 
 in the land." As early as 1741 a fierce controversy 
 broke out between the ''New Lights" and the "Old." 
 Ecclesiastical and legal methods were taken in Con- 
 necticut to repress the revival methods which were 
 then in use. But all this opposition tended rather 
 to fan the flames. August 11, 1741, the Hartford 
 Association voted that no weight was to be "laid 
 upon those screechings, cryings-out, faintings and 
 convulsions which sometimes attend ye terrifying 
 Language of some preachers and others, as evidences 
 of, or necessary, to a genuine Conviction of Sin, 
 humiliation, and preparation for Christ." Similar 
 action was taken by other associations, and thus the 
 challenge was thrown down, and the battle was soon 
 on in all its fury. Of course there were strong 
 men who entered into the work hearitily. Doubt- 
 less there was some occasion for criticism. The 
 promoters of the Great Awakening were often in- 
 discreet, sometimes censorious in their judgment of 
 others who did not reach their standard. White- 
 field was a man of intense emotions. He awakened 
 similar feelings in others. Because of his alleged 
 excesses the faculties of Harvard and Yale issued 
 testimonies against him. The opposition spread 
 in Connecticut. Backus says, "A great majority 
 of the ministers and rulers through the land dis- 
 liked this work, and exerted all tiheir powers against 
 it." 
 
42 The Separates 
 
 November 24, 1741, a general consociation of 
 the churches of the colony of Connecticut was con- 
 vened at the suggestion of the legislature, and at its 
 expense, at Guilford. This body consisted of 
 "three ministers and three delegates from each as- 
 sociation." Professor Williston Walker says, "This 
 body, of which the colony bore the expenses, met 
 at Guilford, November 24, 1741 ; and enjoys the dis- 
 tinction of being the last Congregational Synod rep- 
 resentative of the churches of a commonwealth called 
 under the auspices of the State." It was con- 
 vened to consider the practice, which was spreading, 
 much to the alarm of the government and the regu- 
 lar churches, of itinerating, or "going abroad and 
 preaching and administering the seals in another 
 parish without consent of the minister of the parish." 
 It was itinerating of this sort, which, as we shall 
 soon see, got Rev. Philemon Robbins of Branford 
 into trouble. To this convention, assembled at 
 
 Guilford in 1741, Rev. Mr. Whittlesey of Walling- 
 ford proposed the quesltion whether such itinerating 
 were disorderly. It promptly voted in the affirma- 
 tive. At the next session of the legislature, in May, 
 1742, this vote of the Guilford convention was 
 framed into the following "Act for regulating 
 abuses and correcting disorders in ecclesiastical af- 
 fairs," which made it a penal offence for one min- 
 ister of the Congregational order, or any layman, 
 or any foreigner, to go into the parish of any clergy- 
 man and preach without his invitation. The act 
 provided : — 
 
Their Final Separation 43 
 
 That if any ordained minister, or any other per- 
 son licensed as aforesaid, to preach, shall enter into 
 any parish not immediately under his charge, and 
 shall there preach or exhort the people, he shall be 
 denied and secluded the benefit of any law of this 
 colony, made for the support and encouragement of 
 the gospel ministry, except such ordained minister, 
 or licensed person shall be expressly invited and de- 
 sired to enter into such parish, and there to preach 
 and exhort the people, by the settled minister, and 
 the major part of the church and society within such 
 parish ; 
 
 That if any association of ministers shall under- 
 take tt) examine or license any candidate for the 
 gospel ministry, or assume to themselves the decision 
 of any controversy, or as an association to counsel 
 and advise in any affair that by the platform, or 
 agreement above mentioned, made at Saybrook, 
 aforesaid, is properly within the province and juris- 
 diction of any dther association, then and in such 
 case every member that shall be present in such as- 
 sociation so licensing, deciding or counseling, shall 
 be each and every one of them, denied and secluded 
 the benefit of any law in this colony, for the support 
 and encouragement of the gospel ministry; 
 
 That if any minister, or ministers, contrary to 
 the true intent and meaning of this act, shall pre- 
 sume to preach in any parish, not under his im- 
 mediate care and charge, the minister of the parish 
 where he shall so offend, or the civil authority, or 
 any of the committee of said parish, shall give in- 
 formation thereof, in writing, under their hands, to 
 the clerk of the parish or society where such offend- 
 ing minister doth belong, which clerk shall receive 
 such information, and lodge and keep the same on 
 
44 The Separates 
 
 file, in his office, and no assis'tant or justice of the 
 peace, in this colony, shall sign any warrant for the 
 collecting any minister's rate, without first receiv- 
 ing a certificate from the clerk of the society, or par- 
 ish, where such rate is to be collected, that no such 
 information as is above mentioned, hath been re- 
 ceived by him, or lodged in his office; 
 
 That if any person whatsoever, that is not a set- 
 tled and ordained minister, shall go into any parish, 
 without the express desire and invitation of the set- 
 tled minister of such parish, if any there be, and the 
 major part of the church, or if there be no such set- 
 tled minister, without the express desire of the 
 church or congregation within such parish, and pub- 
 licly preach and exhort the people, shall, for every 
 such offence, upon complaint made thereof to any as- 
 sistant or justice of the peace, be bound to his peace- 
 able and good behavior, until the next county court 
 in that county where the ofifence shall be committed, 
 by said assistant or justice of the peace, in the penal 
 sum of one hundred pounds lawful money, that he 
 or they will not again offend in the like kind; and 
 said counity court may, if they see meet, further bind 
 the said person or persons, offending as aforesaid, 
 to (their peaceable behaviour, during the pleasure of 
 the said court; 
 
 That if any foreigner or stranger, that is not an 
 inhabitant of this colony, including as well such per- 
 sons as have no ecclesiastical character, or license to 
 preach, as such as have received ordination or li- 
 cense to preach, by any association or presbytery, 
 shall presume to preach, teach, or publicly exhort, 
 in any town or society within this colony, without 
 the desire and license of the settled minister, and the 
 major part of the church of such town or society, or 
 
Their Final Separation 45 
 
 at the call and desire of the church and inhabitants 
 of such town or society, provided tha^t 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 assist- 
 ant or justice of the peace from constable to con- 
 stable, out of the bounds of the colony. 
 
 This extraordinary legislation had its origin, in 
 part, at least, in the New Haven Consociation, as ap- 
 pears from instructions given to their delegates, 
 whom they sent to the Guilford council. The sug- 
 gestions to the consociation came from Rev. Samuel 
 Whittlesey of Wallingford, who had a grievance, 
 and a point to gain. Further, the association of 
 New Haven, which met at \Vallingford, September 
 28, 1742, voted its unanimous thanks to be communi- 
 cated to the legislature to be convened at New 
 Haven, October 14, 1742, for having passed the act 
 just quoted, in May of the same year. The vote 
 reads as follows : — 
 
 To the Hon. General Assembly, etc., convened at 
 New Haven, October 14, 1742. — May it please this 
 honorable assembly to permit us, the Association of 
 the county of New Haven, regularly convened in the 
 first society of Wallingford, September 28, 1742, to 
 lay before you our grateful sense of the goodness of 
 the General Assembly in May last, in so caring for 
 our religious interests, and ecclesiastical constitu- 
 tion; and our just apprehensions of their wisdom, 
 in making the statute, entitled, An adt for regulating 
 abuses, and correcting disorders, in ecclesiastical af- 
 fairs; and pray that it may be continued in force. 
 
46 The Separates 
 
 All this points to the New Haven Association, 
 and to the Rev. Samuel Whittlesey as the origin of 
 the remarkable act just quoted. 
 
 This act held against exhorters, lay preachers, 
 evangelists, and all who separated themselves from 
 the established order, and practically abolished re- 
 ligious liberty in Connecticut. It all sounds very 
 strange to modern ears. It did not leave a loop- 
 hole. I't put a strong fortress around the estab- 
 lished order. But one aCt more needed to be taken 
 to destroy all religious liberty in the colony. And 
 that was taken in May, 1743. Trumbull well says, 
 ''The law was an outrage to every principle of jus- 
 tice, and to the most inherent and valuable rights of 
 the subject. It was a palpable contradiction, and 
 gross violation of the Connecticut bill of rights." 
 Baptists and Episcopalians were accorded privileges 
 which were denied to Congregationalists, who dis- 
 sented from the established order of the Saybrook 
 Platform, and were constituted under the Cambridge 
 Platform into separate churches. Trumbull says, 
 "Even in Connecticut, the Episcopalians were al- 
 lowed to preach and colledt hearers, and erect 
 churches, in any of the ecclesiastical societies, in op- 
 position to the established ministers and churches. 
 The Baptists were allowed to do the same. The 
 law w^s therefore partial, inconsistent, and highly 
 persecuting." As we have seen, the law of 1742 was 
 an enactmenit of the votes passed at Guilford the pre- 
 vious November. It was therefore, says Trumbull, 
 
Their Final Separation 47 
 
 an expression of the strong "opposition of heart 
 which there was in the Arminians and old lights, to 
 the work of God, and to the zealous and faithful 
 promoters of it." Those who, for doctrinal or 
 other reasons, separated themselves to form Separate 
 churches were made to feel the grip of the law. In 
 May, 1708, a statute of religious toleration had 
 been passed by the legislature, which was re- 
 affirmed by that body in October of the same year, 
 when the Saybrook Platform of September was 
 given legal authority. By this statute, those whose 
 sober consciences led them to dissent from that 
 Platform, could do so without being held to an- 
 swer therefor. In May, 1743, this act of May, 
 1708, was repealed. The legislature coupled this 
 repeal with a distinct promise to those who were not 
 Congregationalislts; but those who, while preferring 
 the Congregational faith and polity, wished to with- 
 draw from the established system, of which the Say- 
 brook Platform was the basis, and organize under 
 the more Congregational Cambridge Platform, were 
 now forbidden all right to do so. Thenceforward 
 the Saybrook Platform was made legally binding 
 upon all Congregationalists at least. Connecticut 
 was now under as rigorous an ecclesiastical establish- 
 menlt as that from whidh the Fathers had fled in 
 England. This continued until the act of 1743 was 
 repealed in 1784, and liberty of conscience was 
 granted to Christians of every name. 
 
 A few cases of the rigor with which the law was 
 
48 The Separates 
 
 enforced will suffice to show, on the one hand, how 
 bitter was the opposition which the Great Revival 
 awakened in the established churches, and on the 
 other hand how sorely those were made to suffer 
 who, for conscience' sake, withdrew from these 
 churches. The church in Salisbury was organized 
 in 1744, upon the Cambridge Platform, in defiance 
 of the vote of the legislature. Rev. Mr. Leaven- 
 worth of Waterbury, Rev. Mr. Humphrey of Derby, 
 and Rev. Mr. Todd of Northbury, were among those 
 who assisted at Mr. Jonathan Lee's ordination, as 
 the first pastor of that church. For this offence 
 these three men were suspended by the association 
 to which they belonged. Mr. Benjamin Pomeroy 
 of Hebron was brought before the Assembly because 
 he said that the late laws of the colony were calcu- 
 lated to encourage persecution, and to lead men to 
 break their covenants, while the law to prevent min- 
 isters from going into other towns to preach was 
 without reason, and contrary to the Word of God. 
 He was tried, and the Assembly sentenced him to 
 forfeit his lawful salary until the next session of 
 the legislature, and to pay the costs of his prosecu- 
 tion, £32, 19s., 8d., and give bonds in fifty pounds 
 for his good and peaceable behavior meanwhile. 
 The case of Rev. Philemon Robbins of Bran- 
 ford is another of like character. The Baptists of 
 Wallingford invited him to preach for them, as there 
 was a deep religious interest among them. He 
 agreed to go. A remonstrance was sent him by 
 
Their Final Separation 49 
 
 forty-two members of Mr. Whiittlesey's church. 
 Two ministers of neighboring churches wrote ad- 
 vising him not to go. He had promised to go. 
 The case seemed urgent. . He went. He was tried 
 by the consociation, and found guihy. He was 
 deposed from the ministry. Various charges were 
 brought against him, showing how deep was the 
 f eeHng among the estabHshed churches of the colony 
 against the state of things brought about by the 
 revival. The vote expelling Mr. Robbins from the 
 ministry was as follows : — 
 
 This consocia'tion do now upon the whole judge 
 and determine the said Mr. Robbins unworthy the 
 ministerial character and Christian communion; 
 and accordingly do, in the name of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, according to the word of God, and the pow- 
 ers invested in this consocia'tion by the ecclesiastical 
 constitution of this government, depose the said 
 Mr. Philemon Robbins from his ministerial office 
 and ministerial and pastoral relation to the first 
 church in said Branford, and debar and suspend 
 him from communion in any of the churches of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 The church, however, stood by their pastor, and 
 he continued to minister to them. 
 
 The attempt to enforce the Saybrook Platform 
 was vigorous and determined, but was not always 
 successful. Every possible measure was taken 
 
 both by the legislature, and by the leaders among 
 the clergy, the former usually following the lead of 
 the latter, to suppress zealous, experimental preach- 
 
50 The Separates 
 
 ers and people. Ministers were put out of associa- 
 tions and consociations; and men and women were 
 excluded from communion for the offence of g"oing 
 (to hear these preachers. Such facts show how 
 violent was the spirit of opposition aroused by the 
 Great Awakening. Further action of the legislature 
 in October, 1743, was taken in obedience to a purpose 
 to exclude all obnoxious preachers from abroad from 
 the colony. It was intended to prevent men like 
 Whitefield and Tennent from coming into Connecti- 
 cut. It provided that, if any foreigner or stranger, 
 not an inhabitant of the colony, should return into it, 
 after he had been transported out of it by order of 
 the courts, and should preach or teach or exhort in 
 any town or society within its borders, it should be 
 the duty of the proper officer of the law to cause the 
 offender to be arrested and brought before him, and, 
 in case of his guilt, to bind him '4n the penal sum 
 of one hundred pounds lawful money, to his peace- 
 able and good behavior, and that he will not offend 
 again in like manner." Then the offender should 
 be summarily ejected from the colony, and be re- 
 quired to ''pay down the cost of his transportation." 
 The repeal of the act ''for the ease of such as 
 soberly dissent" from the Saybrook Platform, in 
 May, 1743, left no relief for dissenters from the es- 
 tablished mode of worship, except upon application 
 to the General Assembly, which was growing more 
 rigorous in its enforcement of conformity. This 
 act of repeal gave liberty to sober dissenters to apply 
 
Their Final Separation ^1 
 
 for relief, and it was promised that they should be 
 heard. If they had any characteristics which dis- 
 tinguished them from Presbyterians or Congrega- 
 tionalists, they might expect indulgence upon taking 
 oath, and subscribing to the declaration provided for 
 such cases; but otherwise none need expect indul- 
 gence. Thus liberty of conscience was put within 
 the reach of Baptists, Episcopalians and others, who 
 were thus relieved from taxation to support the es- 
 tablished churches and their ministers. But for 
 dissenting Congregationalists there was no redress. 
 The adoption of the Cambridge Platform served 
 only to distinguish those who adopted it as Congre- 
 galtionalists, and liable to the full penalties of the 
 law. 
 
 Mr. John Owen of Groton was arrested for ut- 
 tering hard speeches against the laws and the offi- 
 cers of the government, and for advocating princi- 
 ples calculated to bring the government into con- 
 tempt. Mr. Owen and Mr. Pomeroy were brought 
 before the assembly in May, 1744, to answer to the 
 charges made against them. Mr. Owen made some 
 slight concessions and was dismissed on paying the 
 cost of his prosecution. Mr. Pomeroy, as we have 
 seen, did not come off so easily. These are ex- 
 amples, which might be considerably multiplied, of 
 the strenuous measures which were "(taken to sup- 
 press the zealous, experimental preachers and people, 
 both by the legislature and the leaders among the 
 clerg\%" many of whom, Trumbull tells us. were 
 
52 ^ The Separates 
 
 "preachers of a dead, cold morality, without any 
 distinction of it from heathen morality, by the prin- 
 ciples of evangelical love and faith." Zeal, ex- 
 perimental knowledge of religion, earnestness in 
 preaching, were termed enthusiasm, and enthu- 
 siasm was disorderly. While the civil authorities 
 were rigorously enforcing the laws, the clergy were 
 adoplting measures no less severe in suspending mem- 
 bers from their communion for the sin of going to 
 hear zealous preachers like Whitefield, Wheelock, 
 Pomeroy and others. Nor did these pastors always 
 stop to ask the churches, but in some cases sus- 
 pended offending members by their own act. In 
 some cases, Trumbull tells us, this suspension lasltfed 
 ten or twelve years, till the pastors were dead and 
 succeeded by others. In many instances consocia- 
 tions ordained men against the opposition of a large 
 majority, not only of Ithe church, but of the legal 
 voters, as will be seen later. Not only were mem- 
 bers expelled from churches, but also earnest, godly 
 ministers were put out of associations because of 
 their zeal. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that the action of the 
 New Haven Association in 1741 secured the calling 
 of the council at Guilford in November of that year. 
 The action of that council resulted in the rigorous 
 restrictive legislation of 1742, and finally, in 1743, 
 in removing all relief for dissenters from the estab- 
 lished order who were Congregationalists. The ac- 
 tion of the legislature in 1743 was taken with a view 
 
Their Final Separation 53 
 
 to suppress enthusiasm, and was directly the result 
 of action taken by the General Associaition at New 
 London, June 15, 1742. After recognizing the 
 fact that God had visited his people and stirred up 
 great numbers to ask what Ifchey must do to be 
 saved, and expressing thankfulness for this visita- 
 tion, and after expressing the belief that the enemy 
 of souls was very busy in efforts to destroy the 
 work of God, the Association said: — 
 
 We think it our duty to advise and entreat the 
 ministers and churches, of the colony, and recom- 
 mend it to the several particular associations, to 
 stand well upon their guard, in such a day as this, 
 that no detriment arise to the interest of our grealt 
 Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. 
 
 Particularly, that no errors in doctrine, whether 
 among ourselves or foreigners, nor disorders in 
 practice, do get in among us, or tares be sown 
 in the Lord's field. 
 
 That seasonable and due testimony be borne 
 against such errors and irregularities, as do already 
 prevajil among some persons ; as particularly the de- 
 pending upon and following impulses and impres- 
 sions made on the mind, as though they Avere im- 
 mediate revelations of some ^ruth or duty thai is 
 not revealed in the word of God : Laying too mudi 
 weight on bodily agitations, raptures, extasies, vi- 
 sions, &c. : Ministers disorderly intruding into other 
 ministers' parishes : Laymen taking it upon them, in 
 an unwarrantable manner, publicly to teach and ex- 
 hort : Rash censuring and judging of others : That 
 the elders be careful to take heed to themselves and 
 doctrine, that they may save themselves, and those 
 
54 The Separates 
 
 that hear them : Thalt they approve themselves in all 
 things as the ministers of God, by honor and dis- 
 honor, by good report and evil report: That none 
 be lifted up by applause to a vain conceit, nor any 
 be cast down by any contempt thrown upon them, 
 to the neglect of their work : and that they study 
 unity, love and peace among themselves. 
 
 And further, that thev endeavour to heal the un- 
 happy divisions that are already made in some of 
 the churches, and that the like for the future be 
 prevenlted : That a just deference be paid to the laws 
 of the magistrate lately made to suppress disorders : 
 That no countenance be given to such as trouble our 
 churches, who are, according to the constitution of 
 our churches, under censure, suspension, or depo- 
 sition, for errors in doctrine or life. 
 
 The hand of Eliphalet Adams, pastor of the 
 church in New London, was undoubtedly in the fore- 
 going. Davenport had branded him as unconverted, 
 to the great horror of all who knew him and his 
 godly life. A large separation from his church took 
 place the next November. He was moderator of 
 the meeting. The action taken as quoted above 
 seems to have been shaped by his experience and 
 that of others who had met with the same treat- 
 ment from Davenport. But whether his hand was in 
 the document or not, the sentiment embodied in 
 it naturally fits what we should expect him to say. 
 In any case the legislature took this action up and 
 framed it into rigorous staltute the following year. 
 
 It therefore appears that all the opposition to the 
 Great Awakening which took shajje in civil law, 
 
Their Final Separation 55 
 
 originated with the estabhshed churches. This can 
 be accounted for only by the fact that the deadening 
 effects of the practice of the Half -Way Covenanlt 
 for almost a century, still remained. Nor did the 
 revival put an end to the practice, so deeply had it 
 become rooted in the very life of the churches. 
 Rather, it limited the effect of the revival. In 
 churches which seemed to share most deeply in the 
 Awakening, the Half- Way Covenant continued 
 with unabated vigor after the revival ceased. If, 
 during the period of awakened sensibilities, the 
 practice was suspended, it reasserted itself, when the 
 period was at an end, in not a few churches, with 
 its old-time vigor. Mr. Edwards' church in North- 
 ampton was at the center of the religious interest. 
 Yet in 1749, when he preached his great sermon 
 on the proper qualifications for church membership, 
 so firmly imbedded in the belief and practice of the 
 church were the views which Stoddard had advo- 
 cated, that this revolutionary sermon cost Edwards 
 his pastorate in 1750. Most of the churches of the 
 council, his own church, and the whole town, were 
 against him. Stoddard had advocated *'the Right 
 of Visible Saints to the Lord's Supper, though they 
 be destitute of a Saving Work of God's Spirit on 
 their Hearts." Mr. Edwards, in his sermon, de- 
 fended the negative of the question, ''Whether, ac- 
 cording to the rules of Christ, any ought to be 
 admitted to the communion and privileges of mem- 
 bers of the visible church of Christ, in complete 
 
56 The Separates 
 
 standing, but such as are in profession, and in the 
 eye of the church's Christian judgment, godly or 
 gracious persons ?" The significant thing about the 
 conclusion of this controversy is, thait the council 
 was constituted of nine of the principal churches 
 in the neighborhood, — Enfield, Sheffield, Sutton, 
 Reading, Springfield First, Hatfield, Sunderland, 
 Hadley First, Pelhiam and Cold Spring. There 
 was but a minority to vote for Mr. Edwards and 
 his views. The Great Awakening had not been deep 
 and lasting enough in its effects to eradicate the 
 deleterious practice of the Half -Way Covenant. To 
 do that a strong and evangelical pastor, defending 
 Itihe truth as taught in the Word of God, and labor- 
 ing for the purity of the church, had to be sacrificed. 
 After the immediate results of the revival the re- 
 action was alarming. So tremendous was the sweep 
 of the decline that, in 1758, Rev. Benjamin Throop 
 in an election sermon said, "There is an awful 
 Decay of Religion . . . the fear of God is 
 amazingly cast off this day. While some are dis- 
 puting the Personality of the Godhead, and deny- 
 ing the Lord that bought them; others are ridi- 
 culing the important Doctrine of Atonement, and 
 casting contempt upon the efficacious Merits of a 
 Glorious Redeemer; many are exploding the Doc- 
 trine of free and Sovereign Grace and exalting 
 human Nature under all its Depravity to a sittiation 
 equal to all its necessities; thereby perverting the 
 Designs of the Gospel, and frustrating, as far as may 
 
Their Final Separation 57 
 
 be, the Means of our Salvajtion." The sweep of the 
 pendulum was backward, and it had not yet reached 
 the farthest point. The reHgious decay which had 
 preceded the revival of 1740 was again in full proc- 
 ess, and the Half -Way Covenant was yet to work 
 greater harm to tthe churches. 
 
 Such was the spiritual state of the churches 
 throughout Connecticut and New England. This 
 was the beginning of that schism which marked the 
 earlier years of the nineteenth century, and remains 
 in the Unitarian body. It was against these condi- 
 tions, and all that wenit with them, that the Separate 
 movement was a protest. It was attended, as will be 
 seen later, by many false estimates of what consti- 
 tutes a truly religious character, what is evidence of 
 being a child of God, by much ill-advised and ill- 
 tempered zeal, and by an unwarrantable censorious- 
 ness of spirit. But, on the other hand, the foregoing 
 narrative shows that there was not a little in the 
 condition and practice of the established churches 
 to awaken the deep solicitude of earnest souls. The 
 movement may have been ill-advised, but it can- 
 not be denied that there appeared to be good reasons 
 for it. Their alleged grounds for separation uni- 
 formly were: ''That the standing churches were 
 not true churches, but of anti-Christ; that hypocrisy 
 was encouraged in them, and they could have no 
 communion with hypocrites. They maintained that 
 the church should be pure, undefiled with hypocrisy, 
 and that no hypocrite could abide with them. Upon 
 
58 The Separates 
 
 this principle the Separate churches set out,'* says 
 Trumbull. Cer)tJainly no criticism of their action 
 can be made at this point. 
 
 Several statements of reasons for the movement 
 serve to shed light upon it; especially as they were 
 made by leaders in the movement. Solomon Paine, 
 of Canterbury, wrote a pamphlet on a "Short View 
 of the Constitution of the Church of Chris*, and 
 the difference between it and the church established 
 in Connecticut." In this pamphlet he attempted to 
 show that a church established by law is not a 
 church of Christ. He also gave a reason for sepa- 
 ration which is in accord with the views generally 
 held by the Separates. ''The cause," he says, "of 
 a just separation of the saints from their fellow 
 men in their worship, is not that there are hypo- 
 crites in the visible church of Christ, nor that some 
 fall into scandalous sins in the Church, nor because 
 the minister is flat, formal, or even saith he is a 
 minister of Christ, and is not, and doth lie; but it 
 is their being yoked together, or incorporated into 
 a corrupt constitution, under the government of an- 
 other supreme head than Christ, and governed by 
 the precepts of men, put into the hands of unbe- 
 lievers, which will not purge out any of the corrupt 
 fruit, but naturally bears it and nourishes it, and 
 denies the power of godliness, both in the govern- 
 ing and gracious effects of it." He went on to say 
 that he knew the established worship to be as idola- 
 trous as that of Nebuchadnezzer's golden image, 
 
Their Final Separation 59 
 
 and that he could no more support it than Israel 
 could Jereboam's priests which he had made for his 
 calves. Here is expressed the prevailing spirit of 
 the Separates in their withdrawal from the regular 
 churches. 
 
 This may be further illustrated by reasons 
 given by other individuals. One man in the North 
 Parish of New London said, "God's having left 
 [the regular church] was a sufficient warrant for 
 his leaving;" another said, "That there was no 
 more of God in the congregation than tihere was a 
 black dance;" another said "That his dissatisfaction 
 was our selling the Gospel for £400 a year, and his 
 darkness in attending this meeting, that the Spirit 
 told him he should have light upon his withdraw- 
 ing, and so he found it." A man in North Ston- 
 ington, where the Separate church and the old 
 church were happily reunited under Rev. Joseph 
 Ayer, in 1827, gave, as his reason for separation, 
 that the pastor discountenanced "public exhorting on 
 the Sabbath at the meeting-house;" that he checked 
 the outcries of the people in time of divine service; 
 that the pastor admitted to the pulpit persons whom 
 he looked upon as not experienced men. A woman 
 in Canterbury gave as her reasons for separation, 
 that Mr. Cogswell did not visit enough, and added 
 sixty-two Scripture texts as explaining her action, 
 among which were Solomon's Song i : 7, 8 and Acts 
 xiii-xv. Just how these were related to her action 
 it is difficult at this distance to see. But these are 
 
6o The Separates 
 
 examples of the reasons given for this movement. 
 Probably the most effective was their well ground- 
 ed aversion to an establishment in which the affairs 
 of the church were "governed by the precepts of 
 men, put into the hands of unbelievers," as stated 
 by Solomon Paine. Certainly, looking at things 
 from their point of view, no other course seemed 
 open to them but the one they took. 
 
 A Separatist, or, a strict Congregational, Church 
 was gathered at Preston, March 17, 1747. Six per- 
 sons signed the covenant, and took the vows of 
 God upon them. The following statement of their 
 reasons for taking this step is quoted from their 
 records : 
 
 This Church is Caled ye Separate Church be- 
 cause ye first Planted ; in this : Came ovt from ye 
 old Church in ye Town. which caled iit Self Partly 
 Congregational & Partly Presbyterial ; who sub- 
 mitted to ye Laws of ye Government to Settle ar- 
 ticles of faith; to govern ye Gathering of ye Church 
 & Settlement & Support of its ministers build- 
 ing of meeting houses, Preaching Exhorting &c. : 
 as also ye Church Refuses ye members should Im- 
 prove there Gifts In Preaching & Exhorting 
 Publicly &c as also were offended at ye Powerful 
 opperations of ye Spirit of God, & did not make 
 Saving Convertion y« necessary terms of Com- 
 munion : but admitted unbelievers to Communion : 
 also made half members: Baptized there children, 
 &c. 
 
 This is a clear and explicit statement of the rea- 
 sons for the separate movement in Preston. There 
 
Their Final Separation 6i 
 
 were three: State control of the Church, refusal 
 to let the members exercise their gifts in preach- 
 ing and exhorting, and laxness in the requirements 
 for admission to the church. This statement applies 
 not only to the case of the Preston Separate Church, 
 but to all the others. 
 
 The following, also quoted from the records of 
 the Preston Church, recites, six years later, the local 
 causes which led to its organization: 
 
 "It pleased y^ Lord in ye yeare 1740 to visit this 
 Land with the Remarkable outpouring of his holy 
 Spirit: and ye Light break forth like ye morning: 
 and ye Create Declentions and Corruptions of y« 
 Churches of Newengland was Descovered, and 
 when it could not be Healed for Both ye true Dis- 
 cipline, Doctrine and Messenger were Rejected we 
 bare our testimony to them and came ovt from them 
 to Carry on ye Worship of God according to our 
 Knowledg of the will of God : and Gathered into 
 Church order : and ye Lord has Graciously owned 
 us ever Sence : which is now Six yeares : at our 
 first Covenan'ting there was Six: and now there is 
 neare Seventy members. 
 
 This record was entered on the books of the 
 Church in 1753-4, by Paul Park, who was minister 
 of the church from 1747 till his death in 1802, at the 
 age of eighty-two; a period of fifty-five years. The 
 records of the doings of this body are prefaced as 
 follows : 
 
 A Record of ye Discipline of a Congregational 
 Church of Christ Tn Preston; which ye Lord hewed 
 out of ye Mountains of wickedness and Bound to- 
 
62 The Separates 
 
 gether in ye Bands of Christian Love, & Called forth 
 to witness for his Grace and truth: By Declaring 
 what God had Don for there souls, and visibly Cov- 
 enanting and walking together in all External or- 
 dinances of ye Gospill. 
 
 These quotations from the records of this Sepa- 
 rate Church in Preston are instructive. They give 
 us a hint as to their views of church order and dis- 
 cipline, which were quite at variance with those 
 which prevailed among the established churches. 
 They evidently believed, as did the Separates of 
 England, a hundred and forty years before, that 
 the affairs of a local church should be managed 
 from within itself. As the established churches did 
 not believe, nor practice so, these people felt that 
 there was no fellowship for them within these 
 churches, and withdrew. Their views of the proper 
 qualifica'tions for church membership were so dia- 
 metrically opposed to those which were commonly 
 held by the regular churches that separation seemed 
 to ithem to be the only alternative. The separation 
 therefore took place in several of the towns of New 
 Lx)ndon and Windham Counties, to which it was 
 chiefly confined. In Hartford County something of 
 the same spirit existed in Windsor, Enfield, Suf- 
 field and Middletown. Trumbull says, ''Thus dif- 
 ferent were the principles, views, and feelings of the 
 two sorts of Christians. The one were humble, 
 docile, and wilHng to come to the light that their 
 works might manifest that they were wrought in 
 
Their Final Separation 63 
 
 God. They, like the primitive Christians, continued 
 stedfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, 
 and in breaking of bread together." These were 
 the established churches. Whether Trumbull's pic- 
 ture is true to life some might easily doubt after 
 reading all the facts. Of the Separatists he says, 
 "The others were haughty, bitter, censorious : dis- 
 affected to their teachers; disowned the churches 
 with which they had covenanted; and treated their 
 brethren rather as worshippers of Satan than as 
 followers of Christ." 
 
 Without doubt there was more or less of the 
 spirit, which justified these words of Trumbull, at 
 work to produce the Separate movement. There 
 was in it more or less misguided zeal and enthu- 
 siasm, not tempered by discretion. Nevertheless, 
 the abuses against which the Separates protested 
 actually existed. Their complaint that unconverted 
 people were admitted to the churches was well taken. 
 Probably they were not without reason for feeling 
 that the pulpit of the regular churches lacked power. 
 At any rate, these people withdrew because they saw 
 these evils in the churches, saw no other way to 
 escape them, and in so doing followed the example 
 of the Separatists of Scrooby, who could no longer 
 tolerate the abuses of the English church. Like the 
 latter, the Separates of New England believed that 
 Christ was the head and sole source of authority 
 of the Church, and therefore that the right of self- 
 government was vested in it. The only possible 
 
64 The Separates 
 
 issue of such a radical difference could be either a 
 retreat on the part of one party or the other, or a 
 separation. The latter was the result. 
 
Ill 
 
 THEIR DOCTRINES 
 
 When a body of people, following deep-seated 
 religious convictions, withdraw from those with 
 whom they had heretofore been in fellowship, we 
 naturally enquire as to their tenets. In general, it 
 may be said at this point, to quote Mr. Trumbull, 
 that "Exclusive of some peculiarities, more especial- 
 ly relative to the constitutions of the churches and 
 church discipline, they [the Separates] maintained 
 the doctrines contained in the Westminster Cate- 
 chism and Confession of Faith." The same author, 
 who cannot be suspected of a leaning towards 
 them, says, that, with respect to their alleged errors, 
 he does not find that they preached or propagated 
 them, and they never taught contrary to sound 
 doctrine, and were evangelical on the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity. "The Separatists in 
 Canterbury," says Rev. Robertt C. Learned, "re- 
 tained the same forms of profession and cove- 
 nant which had been in use in the original church, 
 and which were drawn in the sternest phrase of 
 Calvanism, and this was likewise adopted by the 
 'Separate Church in Windham.' " Their errors were 
 only such as they are liable to who let zeal outrun 
 discretion and judgment. The Separates did not 
 come out from the original churches on account 
 
 65 
 
66 The Separates 
 
 of doctrinal differences but chiefly on account of dif- 
 ferent views of administration. 
 
 The doctrines held by the Separates may be 
 learned from two sources. The one is what their 
 enemies say; the other is their own sitatements. 
 Let us first enquire what the churches from which 
 they came out, say about their views. They were 
 called errors. But they w^ere the beliefs of these 
 people. At this distance, when they can be judged 
 dispassionately, they will not all of them be branded 
 as errors. 
 
 In 1744 the Winham County Association appoint- 
 ed a committee to enquire into the case of the 
 Separates. As a result of their investigations 
 
 they addressed a letter, December 11 of that year, 
 "to the people of the several Societies in Said 
 County." In this address it was set forth that 
 "There has been of late, in a few years past, a very 
 great and merciful revival of religion in most of 
 the towns and societies in this county, as well as 
 in many other parts of the land." They also ex- 
 pressed the belief thalt the Prince of Darkness had 
 made this awakening an occasion to get in some of 
 his work, in order to destroy men's souls. In this 
 work the ways of tlie Holy Spirit, it was said, were 
 imitated as nearly as possible "both by setting on 
 imaginary frights and terrors, in some instances, on 
 men's minds, somewhat resembling 'the convictions of 
 the blessed Spirit and awakenings of the conscience 
 for sin, and also filling their minds with flashes of 
 
Their Doctrines 67 
 
 j'oy and false comforts, resembling somewhat, in a 
 general way, the consolations of the Holy Ghost." 
 The address goes on to say that this so-called work 
 of the evil one was not always plainly distinguished 
 from the real work of the Holy Spirit, for there 
 "was some times a mixture of such things with the 
 true experiences of the people of God." Owing to 
 violent and injudicious opposition of some who saw 
 bad things in it, there were those who rashly con- 
 cluded that the whole was of the devil; "while others, 
 on the other hand, looking on the good, and being 
 persuaded that it was a day of God's wonderful 
 power and gracious visitation, suddenly and weakly 
 concluded that there was little wrong in the ap- 
 pearances, beside mere human weaknesses and un- 
 avoidable infirmity." "In the progress of the 
 work," says Tracy, "they believed Satan had suc- 
 ceeded in instigating some to provoke persecution, 
 by which they were hardened more and more in 
 their errors." Many were drawn away after them, 
 partly out of pity for them, and by the wrong 
 conclusion that their sufferings were an evidence 
 that they were right, and partly out of opposition to 
 others whom they thought to be carnal and ungodly 
 men. The address goes on to state what, in the 
 opinion of the Windham County Association, were 
 some of the fundamental errors of the Separates : 
 
 I. "That it is the will of God to have a pure 
 church on earth, in this sense, that all the converted 
 sihould be separated from the unconverited." 
 
68 The Separates 
 
 From the point of view of the Half- Way Covenant 
 this was doubtless an error. But it is difficult to see 
 what other view could be held to-day by any evan- 
 gelical Congregational church. The error in this 
 case seems to attach to the plaintiff rather than to 
 the defendant. 
 
 2. ''That saints certainly know one another, 
 and know who are Christ's true ministers, by their 
 own inward feelings, or a communion between 
 them in the inward actings of their own souls." 
 
 There may have been some extravagance con- 
 nected with this belief that die power to discern re- 
 generate persons was given to the church for its per- 
 petual guidance. But if the principle involved is 
 wrong, then John must have been in error when 
 he wrote his first epistle; and Peter's conduct was 
 unaccountable when, on his miraculous escape from 
 prison, he made his way directly to the house where 
 he knew that the disciples were gathered in prayer 
 for him; and Christ's words were deceiving when 
 he said of his disciples, they "have known surely 
 that I came out from thee," ''they are not of the 
 world, even as I am not of the world." 
 
 3. "That no other call is necessary to a person 
 undertaking to preach the Gospel, but his being a 
 true Christian, and having an inward motion of the 
 Spirit, or persuasion in his own mind, that it is the 
 will of God that he should preach and perform 
 ministerial acts; the consequence of which is, that 
 there is no standing instituted ministry in the 
 
Their Doctrines 69 
 
 Christian church, which may be known by the visi- 
 ble laws of Christ's Kingdom." 
 
 This was in flat contradiction of the view held by 
 the established churches, and in open defiance of 
 the acts of the legislature of Connecticut, which 
 allowed none but regularly constituted ministers to 
 preach and perform the regular functions of the 
 gospel ministry. As Dr. Walker says, this was a 
 convenient view, for they had among them few per- 
 sons of superior cultivation. Nalturally they fell 
 under the guidance of illiterate persons, chosen from 
 among themselves, whom they ordained as minis^ 
 ters of the Word. This became one great source of 
 their weakness, and very materially limited the 
 sphere of their influence. 
 
 In some particulars their view was correct. It 
 is essential that a preacher be *'a true Christian;" 
 that he have '*an inward motion of the Spirit or 
 persuasion," ithat it is the will of Gk)d that he should 
 preach, and much more that is not specified. If by 
 denying that there is in the Church a standing, in- 
 stituted ministry, they meant a clerical order, such 
 as is found in prelatical churches, their view was 
 certainly not uncongregational. 
 
 4. 'That God disowns the ministry and the 
 churches in this land, and the ordinances as ad- 
 ministered by them." 
 
 5. 'That at such meetings of lay preaching and 
 exhorting they have more of the presence of God 
 than in his ordinances, and under the ministration 
 
70 The Separates 
 
 of the present ministry, and the administration of 
 the ordinances in these churches." 
 
 These last items are matters of opinion. The 
 Separates had a right to theirs, for holding which 
 they were not wholly without reason. In proof of 
 these errors the case of Mr. Elisha Paine was cited 
 in the address. He was a man "of much superior 
 ability to the others." It was alleged thait he lacked 
 clear ideas of the Trinity, and sometimes used lan- 
 guage tinctured with Sabellianism. On the con- 
 trary, Trumbull says, ''With respect to the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, they preached no'thing, I believe, 
 contrary to sound doctrine." In the matter of ad- 
 mitting members they were more strict than the 
 standing churches. It was also alleged, in the ad- 
 dress of the Windham County Association, that 
 Mr. Paine said that ''it was made manifest to him 
 that Christ was about to have a pure church, and 
 that he had not done his duty in time past in pro- 
 moting separaltions and divisions among the people, 
 and that for time to come he should endeavor to 
 promote and encourage separations; and that like- 
 wise Christ's own ministers would have their 
 churches rent from them by reason of their not 
 doing their duty in that respect." By this he said 
 that he meant the separation of "those who were 
 converted from the unconverted in the church." 
 
 Certainly the contention that uncon\'erted persons 
 and h}qxjcrites ought not to be in the church would 
 strike the average Congregational mind of the 
 
Their Doctrines 71 
 
 present as quite within the bounds of reason. In 
 State estabHshments, where all who have been bap- 
 tized, and live orderly lives, are considered eligible 
 to church membership, the opposite view might pre- 
 vail. The fact that it did prevail widely in Connec- 
 ticut, shows how strong was the trend toward the 
 very form of church order from which the Pil- 
 grims and the Puritans revolted. 
 
 This is the state of the case against the Separates 
 as presented by tihe plaintiff. If these are the most 
 considerable errors which were to be found, there 
 is nothing which would be taken seriously to-day. 
 At least, one holding them would not be likely to 
 come under ecclesiastical censure. As the Windham 
 Association entered upon the enquiry with no pur- 
 pose to screen the Separates, we may believe that 
 their statement is the strongest which could possibly 
 be made. It is then difficult, at this distance, to see 
 why the enginery of the law, and the ecclesiastical 
 machinery of the established churches of Connec- 
 ticut, should have been brought to bear against the 
 Separates as apostates from a pure faith. There can 
 be but one explanation, namely, that the charges of 
 the Separates against the established churches had 
 too much truth in them. The simple fact is that 
 these people, in many respects, occupied advanced 
 ground, which, at a later date, the churches which 
 sat in judgment upon them came to hold. 
 
 The foregoing is the plea of the Windham County 
 churches, which felt the movement directly. The 
 
*j2 The Separates 
 
 pastors of these churches were so deeply concerned 
 that they called a convention, or consociation, in 
 Scotland, January 13, 1747, to take these matters 
 into consideration, and to hear the report of a com- 
 mittee appointed to enquire into these "divisions 
 and errors." They summoned Mr. Elisha Paine, 
 Mr. Solomon Paine, Deacon Marsh, and Mr. 
 Thomas Stevens, leading Separates in Canterbury, 
 Mansfield and Plainfield, to appear before them 
 and give their reasons for withdrawing from the 
 regular churches. Whether the summons was an- 
 swered by the presence of the gentlemen named we 
 do not know. But the consociation met and rec- 
 ommended the churches of the county to keep the 
 second Tuesday in the following February as a day 
 of solemn fasting and prayer, "to seek the Divine 
 direction in that day of division and error, and to 
 supplicate the pouring out of God's holy spirit upon 
 the people." They then adjourned to the second 
 Tuesday in February, the eleventh, when they met 
 again. The facts in the case, the confession of 
 faith, and the Covenant of the Separates were con- 
 sidered. They decided that the confession of faith 
 was, in general, orthodox, but deficient in respect to 
 the offices, work and mediation of Christ, the nature 
 of saving faith, the institutions and ordinances of 
 the gospel, and the worship of God in church as- 
 semblies. The consociation also found that, in all 
 cases where the Separates had deviated from the 
 confessions of faith of the regular churches, they 
 
Their Doctrines 
 
 73 
 
 had marred the sense, or perverted the doctrine of 
 Scripture, so that they had opened the door to the 
 entrance of ''Moravian, Antinomian, Anabaptistical, 
 and Quakerish errors : and that under a pretence of 
 congregational discipHne, they had set up as abso- 
 lute an independency as ever was heard of in the 
 church." The consociation was in error here, as 
 the reader will see, when he reads the statement of 
 the Separates themselves, whose church polity was 
 more nearly in accord with modern Congregational- 
 ism than the Presbyterial plan of the established 
 churches of Connecticut could possibly be. The 
 consociation also remarked upon the ignorance of 
 the teachers of the Separates, their need to be taught 
 the first principles of the oracles of God, and their 
 utter unfitness to expound the Scriptures, and act 
 as officers and teachers in the church. In most 
 cases this contention w^as just. But the force of it 
 was very much diminished by the successful efforts 
 of the regular churches to put a stop to the schools 
 which the Separates endeavored to establish for the 
 purpose of raising up an educated ministry. 
 
 The consociation then proceeded to pass a reso- 
 lution to the following effect: — First they declared 
 their own adherence to the Westminster Confession 
 of Faith, and that there was no just ground of 
 separation from the regular churches. Then they 
 resolved that the Separates had not taken gospel 
 measures to convince the churches of their alleged 
 errors, before separating from them; that the sepa- 
 
74 The Separates 
 
 ration had not been effected in a way to promote 
 peace; that they had manifestly departed from the 
 true faith, and from the ordinances of the gospel; 
 that their separation was unchristian, and divisive, 
 rending the visible body of Christ; that the regular 
 churches ought to look upon those who continue 
 in these errors, as scandalous and disorderly, and 
 therefore to withdraw communion from them. 
 This would not, it was added, preclude any church 
 from taking measures to reclaim particular persons, 
 if it should be judged a duty. But the Separate 
 churches were practically disfellowshiped. 
 
 Before listening to the statement of the Sepa- 
 rates themselves, we will examine the state of the 
 case between the regular churches and those who 
 were disaft'ected, as it is stated by the following 
 resolutions passed by the General Association in 
 
 1744: 
 
 Whereas, at all times, but more especially at this 
 time, sundry persons unjustly disaffected to, and 
 prejudiced against either the minister or church, or 
 both, to which they belong, under the influence of 
 such disaffection, withdraw from their worship and 
 communion; and although as yet they are under no 
 censure, yet we think that other ministers and 
 churches receiving such disaffected persons to privi- 
 leges, serves to encourage and strengthen them, in 
 their unjust disaffection and unreasonable separa- 
 tion; which, to prevent, it may be proper that the 
 minister, by himself, or in conjunction with some of 
 the brethren of such church, from which tfliere is 
 such a separation, to write to the minister or minis- 
 
Their Doctrines 75 
 
 ters of such churches, to which the aforesaid dis- 
 affected members repair for privileges, and in a 
 brotherly and kind manner, represent to them the 
 true state of such members and churches, desiring 
 them to discountenance and prevent such separa- 
 tions. And in case a minister, or ministers, so in- 
 formed or applied to, shall still receive and encour- 
 age such persons, that then the complainant lay the 
 matter before the association to which that minister 
 doth belong, and that the association deal with him 
 as the nature and circumstances of the case doth 
 require. And inasmuch as we judge that such sepa- 
 rations, countenanced as above, are the source and 
 origin of much difficulty, and a practice big with 
 many mischiefs, we earnestly recommend the affair 
 to the particular associations, that in this, or some 
 other way, they provide against so great an evil, that 
 it may be, by the divine blessing, soon and easily 
 cured. And that ministers should be very cautious 
 of entertaining such disaffected persons, and of 
 hearing and countenancing tiheir reports of or 
 against their ministers and churches. 
 
 That the entering of a minister, or of a number 
 of ministers, into any established parish in this gov- 
 ernment, and there gathering a church of members, 
 that had before disorderly separated themselves from 
 the church to which they belonged, and some of them 
 actually under ecclesiastical censure, is just matter 
 of offence. 
 
 That requiring persons particularly to promise to 
 walk in communion with that church of Christ into 
 which they seek admission, conscientiously attending 
 and upholding the public worship of God in that 
 place, until regularly dismissed therefrom, is not a 
 hard or unreasonable term of communion. 
 
76 The Separates 
 
 That it is not advisable to admit a person to 
 communion, who refuseth to submit to the above 
 mentioned terms, but insists on liberty to go to other 
 places, when and where he pleaseth, to attend public 
 worship and ordinances. 
 
 In the foregoing vote the General Association 
 took direct issue with the Separatists, who held that 
 they had a right to worship God according to the 
 dictates of their own consciences, and at such times 
 and in such places as they pleased. They therefore 
 ignored all acts, civil or ecclesiastical, which inter- 
 fered with this liberty. This, they claimed, was the 
 ground on which the Pilgrims acted, and the only 
 one on which their separation from the Church of 
 England could be justified. But the laws were 
 against them, and were executed, as we shall see, 
 with all their severity. The foregoing plan of dis- 
 cipline adopted by the General Association was in- 
 tended to force the Separatists back into conform- 
 ity. But it failed. These people may have been 
 wrong in regarding too lightly their covenant obli- 
 gations, and wrong in their disorderly method of 
 separation; but otherwise they were as right, in 
 their position and action, as were the Separatists of 
 England. And if the established church of Con- 
 necticut was as persistent and severe as the Es- 
 <tabHshed Church of England in refusing the rights 
 of conscience to dissenters, the Separatists of Con- 
 necticut pursued the only course open to sober 
 consciences. It is not a question whether they were 
 
Their Doctrines yy 
 
 actuated by misguided enthusiasm and mistaken 
 zeal, but what did their consciences compel them to 
 do ? Foolish they may have been, but when we come 
 to consider the treatment which they received, we 
 shall see that self-respecting consciences had no 
 other alternative. 
 
 . We now come to consider the defendant's state- 
 ment of the case. October 9, 1745, a Separate 
 church was organized at Mansfield. Its confession 
 of faith may be taken as the Separatists' own declar- 
 ation of their views upon the questions in debate. 
 We quote the articles bearing upon the points at 
 issue. It will be noticed in reading them that the 
 doctrinal basis does not differ materially from that 
 of other Congregational churches of those times : — 
 
 Article 15. We believe we are of that number 
 who were elected of God to eternal life and that 
 Christ did live on earth, die and rise again for us 
 in particular; that he doth now, in virtue of his own 
 merits and satisfaction, make intercession to God 
 for us, and that we are now justified in the sight 
 of God for the sake of Christ, and shall be owned 
 by him at the great and general judgment; — which 
 God hath made us to believe by sending, according 
 to his promise (John 16) the Holy Ghost into our 
 souls, who hath made particular application of the 
 above articles. 
 
 18. That all doubting in a believer is sinful, be- 
 ing contrary to the command of God, and hurtful to 
 the soul, and an hindrance to the performance of 
 duty. 
 
 20. We believe, by the testimony of Scripture 
 and by our own experience, that true believers, by 
 
78 The Separates 
 
 virtue of their union to Christ by faith have com- 
 munion with God, and by the same faith are in 
 Christ united to one another; which is the unity of 
 the Spirit, whereby they are made partakers of each 
 other's gifts and graces, without which union there 
 can be no communion with God, nor with the 
 saints. 
 
 21. That whoever presumes to administer or 
 partake of the seals of the covenant of grace with- 
 out saving faith, are guilty of sacrilege, and are in 
 danger of sealing their own damnation. 
 
 This took direct issue with the practices of the 
 established churches under the Half- Way Covenant, 
 by which persons who could lay no claim to experi- 
 ence of renewing and sanctifying grace were admit- 
 ted at first to the privilege of baptism for their 
 children, and afterwards to the privileges of full 
 church membership. It is difficult to say that the 
 contention of the Separates was wrong. The es- 
 tablished churches held that all should be admitted 
 to the church as believers who were not "proved 
 to be otherwise." The Separates contended that the 
 doors of the church should be kept carefully closed 
 against such as could not give satisfying evidence 
 of their piety. And they based this contention upon 
 their belief that saints have certain knowledge of 
 each others' piety. Their position was impregnable. 
 The separation did not take place, as we have said, 
 on account of doctrinal differences. The Separates 
 were as Calvinistic in their beliefs as the established 
 church. The whole difficulty lay in their decided 
 
Their Doctrines 79 
 
 and just protest against admitting to church privi- 
 leges unconverted men — a matter about which there 
 would be no controversy now. The consensus of 
 evangelical Christian opinion now would unani- 
 mously support the contention of the Separates. 
 The Half-Way Covenant was the ploughshare 
 which was driven through the churches of the 
 eighteenth century, and started the cleavage which 
 divided the churches of the nineteenth century. If 
 their movement had been supported and balanced 
 by education and intelhgence of the same high 
 order as the purpose which actuated them, it would 
 have been only second in importance and far-reach- 
 ing results to the movement of the Separatists of 
 1608 at Scrooby. It would have done much to pre- 
 vent the discussions which ended the eighteenth 
 century and resulted in the Unitarian defection in 
 (the nineteenth. 
 
 The difference in the matter of church order and 
 discipline between the Separates and the estab- 
 lished churches was far wider and more radical. As 
 we have seen by quotations from the records of the 
 Preston Separate Church, the Separates regarded 
 the regular churches as ''partly Congregational 
 and partly Presbyterial." They themselves claimed 
 tto be strictly Congregational, insisting that each 
 church had the right to regulate its own internal 
 affairs; settle its own articles of faith; choose, call 
 and settle its own minister; build its own house 
 of worship, without interference of the civil author- 
 
8o The Separates 
 
 ities. The twenty-second article of the Confession 
 of Faith adopted by the Separate Church of Mans- 
 field had several sections which related to church 
 order and discipline, viz. : 
 
 That true believers, and they only, have a right 
 to give up their children to God in baptism. 
 
 That at all times the doors of the church should 
 be carefully kept against such as cannot give a 
 satisfying evidence of the work of God upon their 
 souls, whereby they are united to Christ. 
 
 That a number of true believers, being thus es- 
 sentially and visibly united together, have power to 
 choose and ordain such ofticers as Christ has ap- 
 pointed in his church, such as bishops, elders and 
 deacons; and by the same power to depose such 
 officers as evidently appear to walk contrary to the 
 Gospel, or fall into any heresy. Yet we believe, in 
 such cases, it is convenient to take advice of neigh- 
 boring churches of the same constitution. 
 
 We believe that all gifts and graces that are be- 
 stowed upon any of the members, are to be improved 
 by them for the good of the whole; in order to 
 which there ought to be such a gospel freedom 
 whereby the church may know w^here every particu- 
 lar gift is, that it may be improved in its proper 
 place and to its right end, for the glory of God and 
 the good of the church. 
 
 That every brother that is qualified by God for the 
 same has a right to preach according to the meas- 
 ure of faith, and that the essential qualification 
 for preaching is wrought by the Spirit of God; 
 and that the knowledge of tongues and liberal 
 sciences are not absolutely necessary; yet they are 
 convenient, and will doubtless be profitable if rightly 
 
Their Doctrines 8i 
 
 used; but if brought in to supply the want of the 
 Spirit of God, they prove a snare to those that use 
 them and all that follow them. 
 
 It would be difficult to find an association of 
 evangelical ministers to-day who would take issue 
 with this statement of dodtirine. They believed that 
 it was the will of God to have a pure Church. This 
 is not saying, by any means, that the Separatists 
 reached their ideal. But their ideal was high, noble 
 and correct. 
 
 The church in Canterbury took its stand upon the 
 Cambridge Platform and dissented from the Say- 
 brook Platform as follows : — 
 
 From the discipline set up and expressed therein 
 — it appearing to us to be contrary to the authority 
 of Chrisit set up in his Word, which we look upon as 
 complete and none can pretend to amend or add to it 
 without casting open contempt on Christ and his 
 Holy Spirit. The said Saybrook Platform takes 
 the power from the brethren of the Church and puts 
 an absolute and decisive power in the Consociation 
 contrary to Cbrisf,, and also has created an Associa- 
 tion not warranted by Christ in his word. These 
 ^tlhings the church looks upon to be anti-Christian, 
 unscriptural, and leading to papal usurpation over 
 the consciences of God's people. Also, there being 
 no half members in Christ, this church covenants 
 to admit none to own the covenant that will not 
 come to full communion, it being inconsistent with 
 the covenant, nor will we admit any to baptism but 
 true believers and their seed. 
 
 This declaration of the Canterbury church is a 
 clear and explicit statement of principles common to 
 
82 The Separates 
 
 all the Sq)arates. It put them into open antago- 
 nism to the practices of the churches under the Say- 
 brook Platform. Their Congregationalism was of 
 the primitive order and above challenge. It was 
 nearly that of Robert Browne. Their doctrine of 
 the church and its officers is Scriptural. Their 
 recognition of the fellowship of neighboring 
 churches of the same constitution in advisory coun- 
 cils was sound. Their views of the ministry and of 
 qualifications for it, are worth consideration. They 
 were wide apart from the established churches of 
 Connecticut in this matter of church order, but were 
 in close sympathy with the views which now prevail. 
 For example. Dr. Dexter says, "A true church must 
 be composed of those who believe themselves to be, 
 and publicly profess to be. Christians." This is 
 precisely the contention of the Separates in the ar- 
 ticles of faith quoted above. Dr. Dexter also says 
 that *'tlie right and duty of choosing all necessary of- 
 ficers, of admitting, disciplining and dismissing 
 members, and transacting all other appropriate busi- 
 ness of a Christian church," are vested in its mem- 
 bership. This is precisely the ground taken by the 
 Separates. The same authority says that while 
 every church is independent of any outward juris- 
 diction or control, yet when difficulties arise, or im- 
 portant matters are to be decided, as when a pastor 
 is to be settled or dismissed, or a creed is to be 
 adopted, or organic life is to be commenced, "it is 
 proper that the advice of other churches should be 
 
Their Doctrines 83 
 
 sought and given in council." These are almost 
 Ithe exact words used in the Mansfield articles of 
 faith. In the records of the Preston Separate 
 church are many instances in which a delegate was 
 sent with the pastor to serve neighboring churches 
 upon councils summoned to give advice in important 
 cases. Other comparisons might be made which 
 would show the agreement of the Separates' views 
 of ecclesiastical polity with those which are held by 
 Congregationalists now. They were strict Con- 
 gregationaliaits, and were really in advance of their 
 times, in Connecticut, at least. 
 
 It would nolt be far wrong to say that they were, 
 in many respects, the advance-guard of modem 
 Congregationalism. They certainly had something 
 to do with bringing to an end forever the connection 
 between church and state in Connecticut. They 
 flatly refused to be taxed to support the established 
 order, and, as good Congregationalists are bound to 
 do, resented any intermeddling with the internal af- 
 fairs of the local church, beyond the friendly and fra- 
 ternal advice of sister churches. Advice they ac- 
 cepted and followed; authority they rejected. They 
 believed in the autonomy of the local church. The 
 ground which they took was that taken by Dr. 
 Nathaniel Emmons, when he declared that a Con- 
 gregational church is ''a pure democracy, which 
 places every member of the church upon a level, and 
 gives him perfect liberty with order," and that the 
 pastor of such a church "stands upon the same 
 
84 The Separates 
 
 ground as the private brother." They insisted, and 
 rightly, that a Congregational church is self-gov- 
 erned, and, to use the words of Dr. Emmons, that 
 *'One church has as much power as another." So 
 the Separate movement was a distinct and radical 
 break with Connecticut Consociationism, which Dr. 
 Emmons asserted ''leads to Presbyterianism," and 
 that ''to Episcopacy," and that "to Roman Cathol- 
 icism, and Roman Catholicism is an ultimate fact." 
 Emmons being of Connecticut stock, having been 
 born in East Haddam in 1745, and having graduated 
 from Yale College twenty-two years later, knew the 
 workings of Connecticut Consociationism and its 
 trend. The Separates believed with modern Con- 
 gregationalists in "the absolute democracy of a Con- 
 gregational church." The statement of the Preston 
 Separalte church, giving reasons for their withdrawal 
 from the regular church, which is quoted in the pre- 
 vious chapter, proves this. Their claim to the title, 
 "Strict Congregationalists," cannot be disputed. 
 
 The Separates, as a body, held to the doctrine of 
 infant baptism, with tenacity. Bult on this question 
 they were divided, many holding to the Baptist faith 
 in this regard, and ultimately leaving the former 
 and joining the latter. In 1753 the church in 
 
 Preston withdrew fellowship from Samuel Palmer, 
 who had joined during the previous year, because he 
 declared his conviction that "infant baptism was not 
 of God." The churdh pursued the usual course of 
 discipline, admonished him of his error, and tried in 
 
Their Doctrines 85 
 
 vain to win him back. Later, after various confer- 
 ences, he seems to have been restored to fellowship; 
 for in 1757 his name appears among those who were 
 dismissed for differences in doctrine. But he never 
 joined the Baptists, because he opposed close com- 
 munion. 
 
 In 1752 Zerviah Lamb withdrew from the com- 
 munion of the Separates because she "declared her 
 belief that infant baptism or sprinkling was nothing 
 but a tradition of men." In 1755 Daniel Whipple, 
 who had joined the Preston church in 1751, "asked 
 to be dismissed from the church because it held to 
 the doctrine and practice of infant baptism." Sam- 
 uel Claslie and his wife held to "what they called 
 believer's baptism, viz. : that baptism was not 
 baptism if administered before faith, and that no re- 
 ligious covenant obligation is any obligation, or 
 ought to be looked upon as binding, if made before 
 conversion and faith; which principles y^ church 
 looked upon as corrupt." Failing to reconcile these 
 differences, ithe church, in 1757, ''by a testimonial let- 
 ter to all the disaffected members," dissolved its 
 covenant relations with them. There were nine 
 who departed and embraced "ye Baptist principles of 
 baptism." The testimonial addressed to these peo- 
 ple, who were separating from the Separates of 
 Preston, ends as follows : — 
 
 But now Brethren and Sisters, inasmuch as you 
 are gone out from us as afores<i we cannot give you 
 fellowship, nor dare we bid you Godspeed (as to 
 
86 The Separates 
 
 the cause of your going) , yet inasmuch as you plead 
 conscience, and we would by no means pretend to 
 govern any man's conscience, for God and his word 
 only are Lord of y^ conscience; therefore we leave 
 you to stand or fall to your own master. And we 
 look upon ourselves as discharged from our special 
 wa)tch over you, and the visible covenant relations 
 dissolved between us and you. 
 
 This transaction sheds light not only upon the 
 methods of discipline of the Separates, but also their 
 loyalty to the tenets which they held to be essenltial. 
 For in spite of the defection, the church still con- 
 sistently followed the practice of infant baptism, and 
 adhered to the method of sprinkling as a Scriptural 
 method of administering the rite. Three hundred 
 and sixty-two children were baptized in the pale of 
 the Preston Separate Church. This may be taken 
 as an example of the views and practice of tihe whole 
 Separate body. 
 
 The Separates and Baptists agreed on all poinfts 
 of doctrine, worship and discipline, save the mode 
 and subjects of Baptism. For a time this was no 
 bar 'to fellowship. But the agreement was of short 
 duration. The Baptists were unwilling to com- 
 mune with those whom they considered unbaptized. 
 The Separates, who held the Abrahamic covenant 
 as the foundation of their faith, would not rebaptize 
 those w'ho v/ere sprinkled in infancy. A council was 
 held to reconcile these differences. Certain agree- 
 ments and concessions were made. But some of 
 the churches refused to ratify the action of their eld- 
 
Their Doctrines 87 
 
 ers, and what bade fair to be a harmonious union 
 ended in failure. The whole matter came up again 
 at the ordination of Oliver Prentice over the North 
 Stonington Separate church, May 22, 1752. Solo- 
 mon Paine had assisted at the ordination of Stephen 
 Babcock at Westerly. But at North Stonington 
 Mr. Babcock refused to act with Solomon Paine, be- 
 cause in Mr. Babcock's view, he was not baptized. 
 The next year Paine and Babcock called a general 
 meeting of Separate and Baptist churches to effect 
 a gospel settlement of the differences. "Twenty- 
 four churches in Connecticut, eight in Massachu- 
 setts, seven in Rhode Island, and one on Long Island 
 were represented in this notable gathering, May 29, 
 1754," says Mr. Browning. The convention sat 
 three days. Reconciliation failed. The alliance of 
 Separates and Baptists, as religious bodies, was at an 
 end. Individuals left the former to join the latter. 
 But no church of the former forsook its pedobaptist 
 principles. 
 
 Thus the Separate movement was the emphatic 
 protest of sincere and earnest souls against what 
 they believed to be the corrupt practices of the es- 
 Itiablished churches. They doubtless went to ex- 
 tremes. Reactions are liable to. But many of 
 them were men and women who were in advance of 
 their times in spiritual experiences, and in their 
 views of the truth. They could not endure a church 
 order which made no distindtion between the regen- 
 erate and the unregenerate. They began to fight 
 
88 The Separates 
 
 the battle between justification by faith, and by good 
 works. Their protect against practices which 
 
 brought spiritual death into the church came none 
 too soon. They were often violent in their speech 
 against those whom they believed to be in error. 
 But they were in dead earnest, and such earnestness 
 is not always cool. They overdid things. Bult 
 they felt, as a fire burning in their bones, that things 
 were being grossly and notoriously underdone. Nor 
 can it be said that they had no reason for this con- 
 vidtion. 
 
IV 
 
 THEIR CHARACTERISTICS AND EX- 
 TRAVAGANCES 
 
 That the Separate movement was attended by 
 great excesses and extravagances, goes without 
 saying. These v^ere a sign of weakness and not of 
 power. They betrayed a total lack of that balance 
 and poise which are essential to give permanency and 
 weight to a movement. Their disposition was to 
 make religion consist in emotions, in outcries, in 
 bodily agitations, in great fears and excessive joys, 
 in zeal and talk. They claimed that the power of 
 godliness lay in such outcries, and that bodily mo- 
 tions were the outward manifestation of the inward 
 spirit, and that where the former were lacking, the 
 latter did not exist. They insisted that to repress 
 these outward tokens was to grieve the Spirit. They 
 also claimed the right denied them by the established 
 churches, to exercise their gifts in public, as the 
 Spirit moved them, whether by praying, exhorting, 
 expounding or preaching, as they felt impressed to 
 do. This was one of the reasons stated by the Pres- 
 ton church for coming out from (the established 
 church in town. They preferred to hear their own 
 exhorters rather than the regular ministers, and de- 
 clared that more souls were converted under the ex- 
 hortations of the former than under the preaching of 
 
 89 
 
90 The Separates 
 
 the latter. They even went so far as to affirm that 
 men and women who did not have such experiences 
 as they professed to have, had not been converted. 
 It was declared of such men as Eliphalet Adams of 
 New London, and David Jewett of the North Par- 
 ish, New London, whose godliness was proverbial 
 throughout the county, that they had never been con- 
 verted, because they had none of these ecstasies 
 which the Separates declared ito be essential to con- 
 version. If they did not feel a minister's preaching, 
 as they expressed it, they declared that he was un- 
 converted; or that he was legal and dead, and did 
 not preach Christ with power. They would hear 
 none of the standing ministers, except "such as they 
 called converted, lively, powerful preachers." By 
 these they meant those preachers who, like White- 
 field, were deeply emotional, and aroused corre- 
 sponding emotions in their hearers. They paid 
 great attention to trances and visions, in which some 
 of them would lie for hours. On coming to them- 
 selves they would have wonderful things to relate; 
 declaring that they had seen the future world and 
 that certain persons, if dead, were in heaven or hell; 
 and that certain others, who were still alive, were 
 going to the one place or the other. 
 
 Two men were associated with this movement at 
 its inception in New London, whose relation to it 
 was such that they demand special mention. They 
 were Rev. James Davenport of Southold, L. I., and 
 Rev. Timothy Allen of West Haven. The latter 
 
Their Characteristics and Extravagances 91 
 
 was pastor of the regular church in West Haven. 
 He was an able and zealous preacher. His Calvin- 
 ism was unimpeachable. But his consociation was 
 displeased with some of his imprudences, as they 
 termed them, and deposed him from the ministry. 
 The immediate cause of this adtion was that he was 
 alleged to have compared the Bible to an old al- 
 manac. But the head and front of his offending 
 was that he had entered actively inlto the Great 
 Awakening. For he offered ample apology for his 
 unguarded remark, but without avail. What ht 
 actually did say was, that "the reading of the Holy 
 Scriptures without the concurring influence and 
 operation of the Holy Spirit will no more convert a 
 sinner than the reading of an old Almanack." 
 Though it was true that no external means would 
 convert a sinner, yet Mr. Allen admitted that tihe 
 manner of expression was wrong, and so confessed 
 to the consociation. But they refused to listen. 
 His dismission followed. The council which per- 
 formed this deed boasted that it had blown out one 
 ''new light," and that they would blow them all out. 
 He came to New London to take charge of the Sep- 
 arate movement in 1742. For Mr. Hempstead says 
 in his diary, July 10, 1742, ''I was at Mr. Miller's 
 with the Rest of the Authority [Mr. Hempstead was 
 justice of the peace] to speak with Mr. Allen, a Sus- 
 pended minister who is come here from N Haven, 
 West Side and sets up to preach in private houses." 
 This was against the law, but in New London the 
 
92 The Separates 
 
 Separates obtained the privilege of holding such 
 services from the County Court, and were not mo- 
 lested. Mr. Allen remained about a year in New 
 London. He resided in a house, still standing in 
 1902, fitted up for the purpose, and known as the 
 Shepherd's Tent. He kept a school for the initiates 
 in the upper part, where young men were trained 
 for the Separate ministry. After a brief service he 
 left town, and ultimately reentered the Congrega- 
 tional ministry, and served the church in Ashford 
 from October, 1757, to January, 1764, and after- 
 wards churches in Massachusetts, until he died in 
 1806, at the age of over eighty years, and after a 
 ministry of sixty-eight years. 
 
 James Davenport, who was the founder of the 
 Separate church in New London, was the great- 
 grandson of the founder of the New Haven colony. 
 He was pastor of a church in Southold, Long Island. 
 Whitefield had been preaching in various places in 
 New England and elsewhere. A profound inter- 
 est in spiritual things was awakened. Reports of 
 his labors reached the ears of Davenport. He 
 
 visited the great evangelist, who received him warm- 
 ly, and afterwards expressed a very high regard for 
 his abilities and personal character. Rev. Andrew 
 Croswell, in a pamphlet prepared in Davenport's de- 
 fence said, "Mr. Whitefield declared in conversa- 
 tion, that he never knew one keep so close walk with 
 God as Mr. Davenport." Others concurred in this 
 view, as for example, Gilbert Tennent, Parsons of 
 
Their Characteristics and Extravagances 93 
 
 Lyme, and Owen of Groton. Mr. Owen said that 
 ''the idea he had of the apostles themselves scarcely 
 exceeded what he saw in Mr. Davenport." Mr. 
 Croswell said that there was not a minister in all 
 Connecticut, zealously affected in the cause of the 
 kingdom of God, who would not be inclined to re- 
 ceive Mr. Davenport "almost as if he was an angel 
 from heaven." 
 
 These extravagant statements do not express the 
 view which a majority of the clergymen of Connecti- 
 cut held about Mr. Davenport. Mr. Adams of New 
 London, Mr. Fitch of Stonington, Mr. Jewett of the 
 North Parish and others, had reason to hold very dif- 
 ferent opinions. Yet ithe fact is that Davenport 
 was a man of piety, of strong religious sentiments, 
 of a good degree of ability and persuasive in his pul- 
 pit efforlte. During the four or five years of 
 his most erratic conduct, he seemed to be swept off 
 his feet, and to be under the stress of a misguided 
 and unrestrained religious enthusiasm, which bor- 
 dered closely on insanity, and led him into those ex- 
 cesses for which he afterwards made due acknowl- 
 edgment. 
 
 His sltrange career began in his own parish of 
 Southold, L. L He gathered his people together at 
 his lodgings, after his visit to Whitefield, and ad- 
 dressed them for almost twenty-four hours together. 
 It is not unlikely, says Tracy, that those physical 
 conditions had begun, at that time, which tempora- 
 rily affected his soundness of mind. He believed that 
 
94 The Separates 
 
 many in his church were unconverted, and set him- 
 self up as judge of regenerate and unregenerate 
 character. Accordingly he made distinctions, ad- 
 dressing those whom he considered regenerate, as 
 "brother," and the others as ''neighbor." Soon he 
 forbade the ''neighbors" to come to the Lord's 
 table. This created no small stir among his people. 
 Not long after he comm.enced his itinerancies. 
 July 1 8, 1 74 1, he came to New London, and held 
 meetings in the meeting-house in the evening. Mr. 
 Joshua Hempstead gives in his diary the following 
 description of the scene at Davenport's first appear- 
 ance in that place : — 
 
 Divers women were terrified and cried out exceed- 
 ingly. When Mr. Davenport had dismissed the 
 congregation some went out, others stayed. He 
 then went into the broad alley, which was much 
 crowded, and there screamed out, "Come to Christ! 
 Come to Christ! Come away! Come away!" 
 Then he went into the third pew on the women's side 
 and kept there, sometimes singing, sometimes pray- 
 ing; he and companions all taking their turn, and 
 the women fainting and in hysterics. This con- 
 tinued till ten o'clock at night, and then he went off 
 singing through the streets. 
 
 Similar scenes were enacted in the North Parish, 
 in Stonington and in Groton. In Stonington it is 
 said that about one hundred were struck under con- 
 viction by his first sermon. In Groton, Hempstead 
 tells us that immense audiences waited on his preach- 
 ing. "About 6o were wounded; many strong men 
 
Their Characteristics and Extravagances 95 
 
 as well as others." Wherever he went he de- 
 nounced, as unconverted, not only professing 
 Christians, but clergymen held in high esteem for 
 their piety, such as Mr. Adams of New London, Mr. 
 Eells of Stonington, Mr. Jewett of the North Parish 
 in New London. In Stonington his attacks upon 
 Mr. Eells were so unreasonable that the people were 
 indignant, and his congregations soon left him. 
 Tracy says, ''Among tlhose whom he condemned 
 was the venerable Eliphalet Adams of New London, 
 Connecticut, whose faithful labors had been the prin- 
 cipal means of preserving the flame of piety in that 
 region from extinction, and under whom there had 
 been a happy revival in 1721, the period of deepest 
 darkness in New England. Here his influence in 
 alienations and divisions is said to have been pecul- 
 iarly unhappy, though no particulars are given ; and 
 the report of the injusitice done to a man so exten- 
 sively known and revered, and the injury done to his 
 people, produced a deep sensation throughout the 
 country." Reference is here made to the defection 
 from Mr. Adams' church which Davenport was in- 
 strumental in causing. Particulars will be given 
 when we speak of the constituting of the Separate 
 church in New London. The same year he went to 
 New Haven, in September, and preached in the 
 church of Mr. Noyes, at the latter's invitation, un- 
 til he called the pastor an unconverted man, when 
 he was excluded from the pulpit. 
 
 Mr. Davenport's proceedings were so gross and 
 
96 The Separates 
 
 disturbing to the peace, that complaint was entered 
 against him to the colonial legislature in May, 1742. 
 After due trial it was decided that "the behavior, 
 conduct and doctrines advanced by the said James 
 Davenport do, and have a natural tendency to, dis- 
 turb and destroy the peace and order of this govern- 
 ment. Yet it further appears to this Assembly, 
 that the said Davenport is under influence of enthu- 
 siastical impressions and impulses, and thereby dis- 
 turbed in the rational faculties of his mind, and 
 therefore to be pitied and compassionated, and not 
 to be treated as otherwise he might be." It was 
 therefore ordered that he be sent home to Southold. 
 On hearing the decision he said, 'Though I must go, 
 I hope Christ will not, but will tarry and carry on 
 his work in this government, in spite of all the pow- 
 er and malice of earth and hell." About four 
 o'clock in the afternoon, on the third day of June, a 
 sheriff with two files of men, armed with muskets, 
 conducted him to ithe banks of the Connecticut in 
 Hartford, and put him on board a vessel whose 
 owner agreed to carry him to his home. 
 
 On the 29th of June he was in Boston. Here his 
 conduct soon brought him under censure of the as- 
 sociation of minisiters in that city, most of whom he 
 had declared to be unconverted. This body drew 
 up a ''Declaration with regard to Rev. Mr. James 
 Davenport and his conduct." This was signed by 
 the ministers of Boston, and published on the first 
 of July, 1742. He was consequently excluded from 
 
Their Characteristics and Extravagances 97 
 
 ithe pulpits of Boston; whereupon he repaired to 
 the Common, and preached to decreasing audiences. 
 Here and at Copp's Hill the disturbances complained 
 of were repeated. All the time he was in Boston 
 he was in itrouble because of his violent eccentrici- 
 ties. Matters came to such a pass that the grand 
 jury took the case up. One of the witnesses testi- 
 fied that he heard Davenport say, "Good Lord, I will 
 not mince the matter any longer with thee; for thou 
 knowest that I know that most of the ministers of 
 Itlhie Town of Boston and of the country are uncon- 
 verted, and are leading their people blindfold to 
 hell." The grand jury set forth in their present- 
 ment, August 19, 1742, that: — 
 
 One James Davenport of Southold — under 
 pretence of praying, preaching, exhorting, at di- 
 vers places in the towns of Boston and Dorchester, 
 and at divers times in July last and Augnst current — 
 did — in the hearing of great numbers of the sub- 
 jects of our Lord the King, maliciously publish, 
 and with loud voice utter and declare many slander- 
 ous and railing speeches against the godly and faith- 
 ful ministers of this province, but more particularly 
 against the ministers of the gospel in the town of 
 Boston aforesaid — viz. : that the greatest part of said 
 ministers were carnal and unconverted men; that 
 they knew nothing of Jesus Christ, and that they 
 were leading their people blindfold, down to hell, and 
 that they were destroying and murdering souls by 
 thousands; the said James Davenport, at the same 
 time, advising their hearers to withdraw from said 
 ministers, and not to hear them preach; by means 
 
98 The Separates 
 
 whereof, great numbers of people have withdrawn 
 from the pubhc worship of God and the assemblies 
 by law required." 
 
 This presentment of the grand jury was sustained 
 by twenty-one out of twenty-three jurors. One of 
 the two who dissented was an ignorant exhorter ; the 
 other was a Quaker whose conscience would not let 
 him vote on such matters. The finding of the jury 
 was issued Thursday. 
 
 On Saturday, August 21, Mr. Davenport was 
 arrested, and, on refusing offered bail, he was 
 committed for trial. On Tuesday, August 24, he 
 was tried. Several clergymen addressed a 
 
 ndte to the court, asking that no severity 
 should be used on their account, but that 
 the matter should be treated with all the 
 leniency oonsistenit with justice and the pub- 
 lic peace. The court decided, ''that the said James 
 Davenport uttered the words laid in this present- 
 ment, except these words, 'that they (viz., the min- 
 isters) knew nothing of Jesus Christ;' and that, at 
 the time when he uttered these words, he was non 
 compos mentis, and therefore that the said James 
 Davenport is not guilty." 
 
 After this he seems to have returned to Southold, 
 and spent the winter of 1742 and 1743 with his 
 people. October 7, 1742, a council met at Southold 
 which severely censured him for his irregular ab- 
 sences from his church. In the latter part of the win- 
 ter Mr. Hempstead was in Southold, on a visit to his 
 
Their Characteristics and Extravagances 99 
 
 son, Robert. He went to hear Mr. Davenport 
 preach February 2y, 1743, and on that date made 
 this entry in his diary : — 
 
 I went to town to hear Mr. Davenport, but it was 
 scarcely worth the bearing, — the praying was with- 
 out form or Comliness. It was difficult to distin- 
 guis:h between his praying and preaching, for it 
 was all a meer confused medley. he had no text 
 nor Bible visible, no Doctrines, no uses, nor Im- 
 provement, nor anything else that was Regular 
 forenoon nor afternoon, and the last Sabbath be- 
 fore by Report was of ye same piece tho not on the 
 same subject. for itiben it was the hand of the Lord 
 is upon me Over and over many times, then leave 
 off and begin again the Same words verbatim. 
 Now it was (in addition to telling of his own Reve^ 
 lation and others Concerning the Shepherd's Tent 
 [in New London] and other such things) he called 
 the people to sing a new song &c. forevermore 30 
 or 40 times Immediately following as fast as one 
 word could follow after another 30 or 40 times or 
 more and y" Something else and then over with it 
 again. I can't relate the Inconsistence of it. 
 
 This seems to have been at the climax of Mr. 
 Davenport's erratic course. For on Wednesday, the 
 second day of March following he came to New 
 London, and on the next Sabbath, March 6, 
 he organized the Separates who had seceded from 
 Mr. Adams' church into a society. They had held 
 meetings about a year. Davenport said that he had 
 come 'to deliver a message from God with a view 
 to purify the company of Separates from certain 
 
lOO The Separates 
 
 evils which he declared had crept in among them. 
 He preached one of his fervid, zealous sermons, in 
 which he dwelt with great emphasis upon the need 
 of a pure church. In order to have such a church 
 it would be necessary to destroy and burn every idol 
 of whatever sort. He denounced certain religious 
 books which had been read as spiritual guides, and 
 were regarded as standards of faith, but which he 
 declared contained false and hurtful doctrines. 
 Among the condemned books, says Tracy, "were 
 Beveridge, Flavel, Drs. Increase Mather, Colman, 
 and Sewall, and that fervid revivalist, Jonathan 
 Parsons of Lyme." He called upon those who were 
 to be constituted into a church, to renounce all such 
 idolatry. It was proposed that each, with his idol, 
 whether of books, or jewels, or clothing, should re- 
 pair to a certain place and make a bonfire of Ithe 
 whole collection, and utterly consume them. The 
 people responded with alacrity, and there were 
 brought to his room, so that he might, by solemn 
 decree, consign them to the flames, a great collec- 
 tion of books, sermons, wigs, cloaks, breeches, 
 hoods, gowns, garments of various sorts, jewels, 
 and similar articles which those who brought them 
 valued. When all was ready they repaired to the 
 place agreed upon. Dr. Hallam, in his Annals of 
 Saint James, identifies the spot as follows : "The 
 wretched scene was exhibited in front of Mr. Chris- 
 tophers', at the head of what is now Hallam Street." 
 The articles brought were thrown together in a pile. 
 
Their Characteristics and Extravagances loi 
 
 and set on fire and consumed. Mr. Trumbull gives 
 the following account of this strange proceeding : 
 
 "In New London they carried it [their enthu- 
 siasm] to such a degree, that they made a large fire 
 to burn their books, clothes, ornaments, which they 
 called their idols; and which they now determined 
 to forsake and utterly put away. This imaginary 
 work of piety and self-denial they undertook on the 
 Lord's Day, and brought their clothes, books, neck- 
 laces and jewels together in the main street. They 
 began with burning their erroneous books; drop- 
 ping them one after another into the fire, pronounc- 
 ing these words, 'If the author of this book died in 
 the same sentiments and faith in which he wrote it, 
 as the smoke of this pile ascends, so the smoke of 
 his torment will ascend forever and ever. Hal- 
 lelujah. Amen.' But they were prevented from 
 burning their clothes and jewels. John Lee, of 
 Lyme, Itiold them his idols Were his wife and chil- 
 dren, and that he could not burn them; it would 
 be contrary to the laws of God and man; that it 
 was impossible to destroy idolatry without a change 
 of heart, and of the affection." 
 
 This sitrange constitution of the Separate church 
 in New London seems to have sounded the knell of 
 its early dissolution. Mr. Allen left soon after, and 
 they were unable to agree upon his successor. The 
 burning of books, whose authors were esteemed and 
 noted for pidty, was regarded as almost sacrilegious. 
 The strange performance seems to have startled the 
 
102 The Separates 
 
 ''New Lights" themselves, and to have brought 
 ithem to a more rational mood. From this on they 
 were guided by more sober sense and discretion. 
 Some, at least, of the leaders returned to the church 
 from which they came out. Others joined the 
 Baptists. March 30, 1743, twenty-four days af- 
 ter the bonfire, some of those who took part in the 
 scenes were tried for profanation of the Sabbath, 
 and were fined ''five shillings each and the cost) of 
 prosecution." 
 
 The burning of the books, and other articles, in the 
 middle of Main street in New London, seems to have 
 marked the climax of Mr. Davenport's erratic ca- 
 reer; for in the following summer, 1744, he came 
 to himself. In July of ithat year he published re- 
 tractions which he sent to Rev. Solomon Williams of 
 Lebanon, Conn., and to Rev. Mr. Prince of Boston, 
 for publication. Mr. Williams said, in a letter ac- 
 companying the document, "He is full and free in it, 
 and seems to be deeply sensible of his miscarriages 
 and misconduct in those particulars, and very de- 
 sirous to do all he possibly can to retrieve the dis- 
 honor which he has done to religion, and the in- 
 justice to many ministers of the gospel." The "Re- 
 tractions," are a clear, candid, straightforward ac- 
 knowledgment of error "in the various particulars 
 in which he had offended." Some of the particu- 
 lars mentioned were afiinning that minisHers were 
 unconverted, and advising and causing separations. 
 He adds, "And here I would ask the forgiveness 
 
Their Characteristics and Extravagances 103 
 
 of those ministers whom I have injured in both these 
 articles." He further deplores, "following impulses 
 or impressions, as a rule of conduct" and ''great stiff- 
 ness in retaining these aforesaid errors a great 
 while." The man was sincere, but unbalanced. 
 Twice he was judged insane. He was a useful man, 
 and, except during the four or five years when he 
 was beside himself, his life was passed in honor and 
 peace. 
 
 The scenes just described shed some light upon 
 the tendency of these f>eople to be carried away 
 with enthusiasm. They were influenced more by 
 impressions than by calm and clear views of the 
 truth. Trumbull says, "They laid great weight 
 upon itheir lively imaginations, or views of an out- 
 ward Christ, or of Christ without them, whether 
 they had a view of him in heaven, on a throne sur- 
 rounded by adoring angels, or on a cross, suffering, 
 bleeding, dying, and the like. Some looked on this 
 as a precious, saving discovery of Christ." 
 
 Some of their extravagances were of a divisive 
 character, and were carried to hurtful exitremes. Dr. 
 Walker says, "Something more than indiscretion 
 characterized utterances whose direct influence was 
 to alienate congregations from their pastors, and to 
 stimulate and encourage whatever was extravagant 
 in the emotions of their hearers." Their preaching 
 was of the hortatory sityle, and indulged in imagery 
 borrowed from the Bible. It took on a kind of 
 apocalyptic strain, and was calculated to arouse the 
 
104 The Separates 
 
 emotions; so that there was naturally more or less 
 of excitement in their religious experiences. There 
 can be no doubt about the sincerity of the motives 
 which actuated these people. It was an endeavor 
 to reach a more fervid type of piety. Persuaded, 
 and often too justly, of the secularized character of 
 the churches to which they had belonged, they took 
 the decisive step, separated themselves and formed 
 churches which would represent their own convic- 
 tions and religious experience. The cry that rang 
 through the eastern part of the colony was, "Come 
 out from among them and be ye separate;" ''come 
 out from ithese dead and corrupted churches; from 
 the abominable tyranny of those unchristian and un- 
 godly Civil Constitulttions, and rejoice in the liberty 
 wherewith Christ has made us free." 
 
 In keeping with the original motive behind the 
 Separatist movement, they were very strict in their 
 discipline and exercised great caution in admitting 
 members to their fellowship and communion. Here 
 they often overshot the mark. A censorious spirit 
 and mutual criticism, together with extravagance in 
 church discipline sometimes destroyed the peace of 
 their churches. Mr. Hempstead gives the follow- 
 ing case which occurred in New London, and illus- 
 trates what we mean. February 2, 1743, he made 
 the following entry in his diary : — 
 
 Nath. Williams of Stonington lodged here. he 
 went over in the evening to Mr. Hills's alias alien's, 
 at the house that was Samuel Harris's (now the 
 
Their Characteristics and Extravagances 105 
 
 Shepherd's tent) and there Related his Christian 
 Experiences in order to have their approbation, be- 
 hold the Quite Contrary, for they upon examina- 
 tion, find him yet in an unconverted estate, and he 
 confesses the justice of their Judgement, and says 
 that he hath judged others Divers times, and altho 
 he is unwilling to believe it, yet like others he is 
 forced to bear it. 
 
 The practice of relating one's experience, upon en- 
 tering the church, which the standing churches, un- 
 der the Half -Way Covenant, had pretty generally 
 abandoned, the Separates insisted on, and contin- 
 ued, as a necessary safeguard against the admission 
 of unconverted persons into their fellowship. Be- 
 lieving, as they did, that the power of discerning re- 
 generate character was given to the people of God 
 for their habitual guidance and defence, they insisted 
 the more strenuously upon these narrations of expe- 
 rience of renewing grace. Trumbull says, "As to 
 admission of persons to their communion and church 
 discipline, they were as strict as the standing 
 churches, at that time, if not more so. They as 
 much insisted on sanctification and a holy life that 
 men might be saved, as did the standing ministers 
 and churches." The fact is that they were far more 
 strict in these particulars. Indeed, as the incident of 
 Mr. Williams, quoted above, and councils called to 
 adjust quarrels between members who once infallibly 
 knew each other to be saints, show, their strictness 
 in judging often became censor iousness of spirit. 
 Another of the peculiarities of these people, and 
 
io6 The Separates 
 
 one which robbed their movement of the influence 
 and power which it might have had, was their belief 
 that the guidance of the Holy Spirit superseded the 
 need of "book learning," or careful preparation to 
 preach the Word. The movement, therefore, natu- 
 rally fell into the hands of ignorant and well-nigh il- 
 literate leaders. Trumbull says, ''Because min- 
 isters studied their sermons, they called their exer- 
 cises, preaching out of the head, and declared that 
 they could not be edified by it. They maintained 
 that there was no need of anything more than com- 
 mon learning, to qualify men for the ministry; that 
 if a man had the Spirit of God, it was no matter 
 whether he had any learning at all." The Sepa- 
 rates of North Stonington, as we shall see, claimed 
 to have received revelation of things not revealed in 
 the Scriptures. In less than a year, by special reve- 
 lation, they chose their first minister, ordained him, 
 silenced and cast him out of the church, and gave 
 him over to Satan. When Paul Parke of Preston 
 was ordained, ''He was solemnly charged not to pre- 
 meditate or think beforehand what he should speak 
 to the people ; but to speak as the Spirit should give 
 him utterance." Consequently they had a zeal, not 
 tempered with knowledge, which led them off into 
 many extravagances of ignorance. 
 
 However, they did, in at least one instance, and 
 probably in others, seek to establish schools for the 
 training of young men for their ministry. The 
 "Shepherd's Tent," in New London, to which refer- 
 
Their Characteristics and Extravagances 107 
 
 €nce has already been made, was both a dwelHng for 
 Rev. Timothy Allen during his brief sojourn in New 
 London, and a school for the instruction of Separate 
 preachers. Other similar attemj^ts seem to have 
 been planned, if they were not actually undertaken. 
 But, as we shall see, the legislature, with its custom- 
 ary promptness, put an end to all such plans of the 
 Separates, which looked toward a more liberal edu- 
 cation, by an act passed in October, 1742, which for- 
 bade the establishment of such schools without per- 
 mission of the Assembly; which the Assembly was 
 careful not to give. 
 
 Nevertheless, some of their teachers were of no 
 mean order, and held their places for many years. 
 Elisha Paine, one of their number, was a man of su- 
 perior education and sound judgment — qualities 
 which enabled him to be, in some measure, a leader 
 among them, and to control the contending elements. 
 The Windham County Association of ministers ex- 
 amined him, and gave their opinion ''that he was 
 qualified, and that it was his duty to preach the Gos- 
 pel." But he refused to subscribe to the Saybrook 
 Platform, and was therefore debarred by law from 
 preaching. But he preached and was put in jail for 
 doing what the Windham County Association had 
 said he w^as qualified to do and ought to do. He 
 was looked up to by the Separates as their Moses. 
 After suffering divers persecutions for his faith, he 
 accepted a call to a Separate church at Bridgehamp- 
 ton, L. I., and passed there the evening of his days 
 ministering to their spiritual needs. 
 
io8 The Separates 
 
 Paul Parke was pasftor of the Preston Separate 
 church from June i8, 1747 till he died in 1802, 
 and with him the Preston Separate Church; al- 
 though it continued a struggling existence till 181 7. 
 The last entry on its records was made July 
 2y of that year. Mr. Parke was one of 
 the half-century ministers of Connecticut. John 
 Palmer of Brunswick preached for fifty-eight years. 
 Rev. David Rowland of Plainfield, whose position 
 as pastor of the esltlablished church was such as to 
 make him obnoxious to the Separates, said of the 
 minislter of the Separate church in that town, Rev. 
 Mr. Stevens, that he was ''a very clear and power- 
 ful preacher of the gospel." This is unbiased testi- 
 mony. But these were the exceptions. Igno- 
 rance, coupled with the belief that they could judge 
 unerringly of the Christian character of others, led 
 to wrong judgments, which often ended in bitter 
 controversies which councils were called to settle. 
 The peace of God that passeth understanding did 
 not always keep their minds and hearts. Councils 
 called to assist in settling difficulties in local churches 
 are proof that the ideal church, which they hoped 
 to realize when they withdrew from the standing 
 churches, was ever an eluding ignis fatims. 
 
THEIR PERSECUTIONS 
 
 The peculiar characteristics of the Separates 
 exposed them to persecultion. For their views led 
 them to pursue courses which were directly con- 
 trary to the laws of the colony. Baptists, Episco- 
 palians and Quakers were allowed the benefit of the 
 Adt of Toleration. But the legislature declared 
 that ''those commonly called Presbyterians or Con- 
 gregfationalists should not take the benefit of these 
 Acts; and only such persons as had any distinguish- 
 ing character by which they might be known from 
 Presbyterians or Congregationalists, and from 
 Consociated churches, might expect indulgence." 
 The Separates claimed to be Congregationalists, and 
 were made to feel the keen edge of the law. 
 
 Their sitory is one of opposition, hardship and per- 
 secution paralleled, in these later times, only by the 
 persecutions of the Separatists of the early part of 
 the seventeenth century in England. At every point 
 they found themselves confronting a law which had 
 been framed to oppose them, so that they could not 
 miake a move without incurring its penalty. We 
 have spoken of their attempt to establish schools in 
 order to supply their churches with an educated min- 
 istry. Certainly this was a laudable purpose, and 
 one to be encouraged by the law. If it had been 
 
 109 
 
no The Separates 
 
 carried out it probably in time would have eliminafted 
 from the movement its fatal element of ignorance. 
 Bult in 1742 the legislature met this purpose with 
 "An act relating to and for the better regulating 
 schools of learning." It was a blow aimed directly 
 at the efforts of the Separates tto provide a certain 
 amount of education for their preachers. It for- 
 bade the establishment of such a school or academy 
 for the education of young persons, without per- 
 mission of the Assembly, under severe penalties; a 
 permission certain not to be granted to the Separates. 
 If such a school were established, the officers were to 
 make inspedtion and proceed with such scholars and 
 teachers according to the law relating to transient 
 persons. The same act provided that no person 
 who had not graduated at some Protesitant college 
 should take the benefit of the laws of government 
 respecting the settlement and estate of ministers. 
 That is, there must be an educated ministry. But the 
 legislature would not allow the Separates to estat>- 
 lish schools for that purpose. Their young people 
 were not allowed in the schools sanctioned by the es- 
 tablished churches unless they ceased to be Sepa- 
 rates. Every effort which they put forth to secure 
 for their preachers even a modicum of education, was 
 headed off by the civil authorities. The only course 
 left open to them was, either to defy the law, or be 
 content with an uneducated ministry. 
 
 To the government of the GDlony of Connec'ticut 
 the New Lights were simply outlaws, excluded from 
 
Their Persecutions iii 
 
 the privileges granted to other dissenting bodies. 
 They were rebels against the standing order. The 
 severest measures were therefore taken against them, 
 and were executed with unsparing vigor; the officers 
 of the law forgetting that they were descended from 
 men who had suffered like persecutions at the hands 
 of another Establishment in England. Both the leg- 
 islature and the clergy joined hands as had been 
 done more than a hundred years before in England, 
 in efforts to suppress zealous preachers, as if to pre- 
 sent the truth directly to men's consciences were a 
 crime. Trumbull says, "Experimental religion, 
 
 and zeal and engagedness in preaching, and in serv- 
 ing God were termed enthusiasm." And because 
 of the errors which were developed, and because of 
 unreasoning opposition these were called the work 
 of the devil. The clerg)^ persuaded the legislature 
 to brand itinerating, or preaching in other than the 
 appointed places or by any but regularly ordained 
 preachers, or in the parish of another minister wilth- 
 out his consent, a misdemeanor, liable to punishment. 
 Men were suspended from the communion of the 
 regular churches, sometimes by volte of the church, 
 often by the act of the minister alone who did not 
 take the trouble to consult the church, because the 
 offending members had been 'to hear some of the zeal- 
 ous preachers. David Brainerd was expelled from 
 Yale college for the alleged crime of casting reflec- 
 tions on the religious character of his tutor, 
 Chauncey Whittlesey, and for attending a Separate 
 
112 The Separates 
 
 meeting. Justices of the peace, and other officers 
 of the law, who were known to be "New Lights," or 
 favorable to them, were summarily deprived of their 
 offices. Men of substance and character, who were 
 elected by their townsmen to represen/t them in the 
 legislature, were refused their seats if it were found 
 that they were connected with the 'Rebellious" 
 Separaltes. The clergy excluded from their pulpits 
 men to whom, in ordination, they had given the 
 right hand of fellowship — men sound in doctrine, 
 correct in life, zealous in preaching — ^because they 
 preferred the Cambridge to the Saybrook Platform. 
 Men were put in prison and kept there because they 
 refused to pay the minister's rate. Often helpless 
 women and children were left in destitute circum- 
 stances, with no means of support, because the hus- 
 band and father had been hurried off to jail to suffer 
 the penalty for failing to pay the minister's rate. 
 Frequently a poor man's only cow, or the winter's 
 supply of food, was taken by the merciless collector, 
 and the family of young children were left to suffer 
 hunger and cold. Elisha Paine, the most educated 
 and cultivated of the Separate preachers, removed to 
 Long Island. On returning, in mid- winter, for his 
 goods and stock, he was seized and put in confine- 
 ment for months in Windham county jail because 
 he had not paid the rates due the minister of the 
 esltablished church in Canterbury. In Milford, Rev. 
 Samuel Whittlesey was settled over the regular 
 church, against the protest of a large part of the 
 
Their Persecutions 113 
 
 members. They withdrew, and called themselves 
 Presbyterians. They sent to New Jersey for Rev. 
 Samuel Finley to become their minister. This was 
 against the law. Several times he was arrested and 
 transported from the colony as a vagrant. The 
 character of the man may be judged from the fact 
 that he was afterwards president of Princeton Col- 
 lege. For twelve years the people who separaJt^ 
 from Mr. Whittlesey's church were compelled to 
 pay rates to him, and for repairs on the meeting- 
 house which they never entered. "The Association 
 of New Haven County took up the matter, and for- 
 mally resolved that no member of the Presbytery of 
 New Brunswick should be admitted into any of their 
 pulpits, till satisfaction had been made for sending 
 Mr. Finley to preach within their bounds." The 
 principal cause of this summary proceeding against 
 Mr. Finley significantly points out the spiritual state 
 in which the churches of New Haven Association 
 were. It was said that his preaching was ''greatly 
 disquieting and disturbed the people." One can- 
 not but call to mind the commotion which Paul's 
 preaching caused at Thessalonica, among the Jews 
 of the established order. The great apostle was hur- 
 ried out of town as a vagrant. Vigorous, direct, 
 plain preaching is apt to disquiet and disturb people. 
 The high-handed manner in which the 
 Separates of Canterbury were treated is a 
 most conspicuous illustration of the intolerant, 
 bigoted and unreasonable spirit which then 
 
114 The Separates 
 
 prevailed in the established churches. But 
 
 one incident will be cited here. The rest of the 
 sitory will be told in narrating the organization of 
 the Separate church in that place. Mr. Cleaveland 
 was a man of prominence and note in that town. As 
 a member of the regular church, he opposed the 
 selttlement of Mr. Cogswell, in 1744. He, with a 
 majority of the members, withdrew from the old 
 church, and they instituted worship by themselves. 
 Mr. Cleaveland had two sons in Yale College. In 
 1744, while at home during the summer vacation, 
 the sons most naturally attended divine service with 
 their father. One of the sons, who was a member 
 of the regular church, partook of the Lord's Sup- 
 per. On their return to college, they were expelled 
 for the crime of attending a Separate meeting with 
 their parents. This was done in accordance with a 
 vote of the legislature in May, 1742. This action 
 was taken November 19, 1744. Three reasons were 
 recited for taking it; all of them based upon the 
 action of the people in Canterbury to which 
 Mr. Cleaveland's sons were not even remotely 
 a party. But because the rector of the Col- 
 lege and the tutors judged that Mr. Cogswell was 
 the sufficiently qualified preacher in Canterbury; 
 and because they, the faculty, could see no good 
 reason why the Separates of Canterbury should re- 
 fuse to hear Mr. Cogswell ; and because the faculty 
 judged that no one "in any parish or society have 
 any right or warrant to appoint any house or place 
 
Their Persecutions 115 
 
 for worship on the Sabbaith distinct and separate 
 from and in opposition to the meeting-house, the 
 place appointed by the general assembly, and the par- 
 ish," therefore it was judged "by the rector and tu- 
 tors, that the said John and Ebenezer Cleaveland . 
 . in attending upon the preaching of lay exhort- 
 ers, as aforesaid, have acted contrary to the rules of 
 tt'he Gospel, and the laws of this Colony, and the 
 college, and thalt the said Cleavelands shall be pub- 
 licly admonished for their faults; and if they shall 
 continue to justify themselves, and refuse to make 
 acknowledgemenit, they shall be expelled." In about 
 a week John Cleaveland presented a reply in 
 which he said that he did not know that 
 he was transgressing any law of God, of the 
 colony, or of the college, and he begged 
 that his ignorance might be accepted as his 
 apology. But this did not suffice. The faculty could 
 see nothing in his apology but justification of his 
 wrong-doing. The law of the college provided 
 "that no scholar upon the Lord's day, or another 
 day, under pretence of religion, shall go to any pub- 
 lic or private meeting, not esitablished or allowed 
 by public authority, or approved by the president, 
 under penalty of a fine, confession, public admoni- 
 tion, or otherwise according to the state and de- 
 merit of the ofifence." These young men ought to 
 have known better, if they did not. Therefore they 
 were expelled. If they had noit sinned, the people 
 in Canterbury had. The faculty could not make an 
 
Ii6 The Separates 
 
 example of the people in Canterbury, but they could 
 of the young men. 
 
 The expulsion of these students for their alleged 
 offence, created pretty wide and deep indignation. 
 Their treatment was considered partial, severe and 
 unjust. It was believed by a good many that men 
 had a right to worship God in such manner, at such 
 times, and in such places, as they pleased. This was 
 what the Separates stood for. It was for this right 
 that they were persecuted at the instigation of an 
 establishment as iron-handed, as merciless, as nar- 
 row and as bigoted and cruel as the Puritans and 
 Pilgrims of the seventeenth cerOtury encountered in 
 England. 
 
 These people took issue with the state at another 
 point, and stubbornly maintained it till their view 
 gained the day. They denied, and would not submit 
 to the right of the civil authorities to tax them for 
 the support of the churches whose worship they did 
 not attend and whose benefits they did not enjoy. 
 They denied the right of the steate to exercise juris- 
 diction in matters of conscience and of religious 
 convictions. Therefore they did not believe in a 
 State Church, nor in compulsory taxation for the 
 support of any church. In this respect they were 
 far in advance of their times. They stedfastly re- 
 fused to pay rates for the maintenance of the es- 
 tablished churches. In ithis it must be said that they 
 followed the example of the Separatists of the seven- 
 teenth cenltury. And, in the treatment which they 
 
Their Persecutions 117 
 
 visited upon the Separates of Connecticut, the de- 
 scendants of those of the seventeenth cenltliry imi- 
 tated the men who persecuted their fathers and 
 drove them out of England. 
 
 Because they refused to pay the church rates their 
 property was often seized and sold under the ham- 
 mer, often ruining families and stripping them of 
 all their worldly estate. In a letter dated May 13, 
 1752, addressed by some of (the Separates to the 
 general assembly of the Colony, they say : 
 
 We are of that number who soberly dissent from 
 the Church established by Connecticut and though 
 we have no design to act in contempt of any lawful 
 authority, or to disturb any religious society, but on- 
 ly to worship God according to rules he has given us 
 in his word in that way now called Separation, yet 
 have we suffered the loss of much of our goods, par- 
 ticularly because we could not in conscience pay 
 minister's rates, it appearing to us very contrary 
 to the way that the Lord hath ordained even the 
 present way in which the ministry are maintained — 
 Poor men's estates taken away and sold for less than 
 a quarter of their value, and no overplus returned, 
 as hath been the case of your Honor's poor inform- 
 ers; yea, poor men's cows taken away when they 
 had but one for the support of their families, and 
 the children crying for milk and could get none, be- 
 cause the collector had taken their cow for minister's 
 rates. 
 
 Not only so, but when the property was not suf- 
 ficient, men were seized and cast into prison, where 
 they were compelled to lie for weeks and often 
 
ii8 The Separates 
 
 monlths at a time, while their famiHes were left to 
 suffer. They were not far wrong in saying that it 
 could not have been in the mind of God that the 
 gospel of peace should be supported by methods so 
 cruel, so high-handed and so outrageous. It is said 
 of one of these men that, though abundantly able 
 to pay the tax, he refused, because he insisted that 
 it was wrong, and said that he would rot in jail be- 
 fore he would violate his own conscience and pay 
 the abominated rate. After a time, however, when 
 it seemed that he would rot in jail, because neither 
 he nor the authorities would yield, his wife paid the 
 rate and he was released. The laws enacted and 
 executed to suppress Separaltism were, Trumbull 
 tells us, severe and unprecedented. "There were no 
 such laws in any of the other colonies, nor were 
 there in Great Britain." 
 
 After much endurance of the severe and un- 
 reasonable execution of the law, compelling all Con- 
 gregationalists lo accept the Saybrook Platform and 
 pay rates to support the stated ministry, or suffer 
 the penalty, the Preston church took the lead in ad- 
 dressing the colonial legislature to plead for exemp- 
 tion and redress. The memorial was as follows : — 
 
 To the Honourable ye General Assembly of ye 
 Colony of Connecticut to be convened at New Haven 
 In sd Colony on the Second itbirsday of October A. 
 D. 1 75 1 the Memorial of John Avery and others 
 the Subscribers hereunto Humbly Shueth that your 
 Memorialists live Some of us within the first, and 
 
Their Persecutions 119 
 
 some of us within the Second Eccleciastical So- 
 cietys In the Town of Preston Some few within the 
 Second Society In Groton and Some few within the 
 South Society in Norwich and Some In the Second 
 Society of Stonington, that we are that one of the 
 Very Many Sects of Professors of Christianity that 
 are Commonly Called Separates that we Have truly 
 and Contientiously Desented and Separated from all 
 the Chirches and Religious Societyes within whose 
 limits we live That we are Setteled according to the 
 Present Establishment of this Government, 
 that our Habitations are Generally Compact 
 none of us liveing more than 7 or 8 miles 
 from the Place of our Public worship most 
 of us wiithin Two Miles, that the Number 
 of families Is About forty and the Number of Soules 
 about 300, of which there are more than fifty Church 
 Members all belonging to our Communion and of 
 our Profession that we Have at our own Cost Set- 
 tled a Minister & bult a Meeting House for Divine 
 worship & have long since been Imbodied Into 
 Church Estate that Nevertheless we are Compelled 
 to pay towards Whe Support of the Ministry & for 
 the bilding of Meeting Houses In these Societyes 
 from which w^e have Respectively Sepperated and 
 Desented as aforses^ and for our Neglect to Make 
 Payment of Such Raltes we have Many of us been 
 Imprisoned others have had their Estates Torn & 
 sold to the olmost ruining of some familyes where- 
 fore we Intreat the attention of this Honnourable 
 Assembly and Pray Your Honnours to Suffer us to 
 Say that we always have & for the future most 
 Chearfully Shall Contribitfe our Proportion toards 
 the Support of Civil Government & we not only 
 Prise & value but Humbly Claim and Chalenge our 
 
120 The Separates 
 
 Rite In the Immunities of the Present Constiitiution. 
 
 Our Religion or Principles are no ways Subver- 
 sive of GovernmenJt and we are not only Inclining 
 but Engaging to Support It — and their Is no Dif- 
 ference between us and other Members of the Com- 
 munity but wha't is Merely Ecclesiastical In which 
 Respect also they Differ one from another & the 
 Whole Christian World no less. 
 
 Our Religious Sentiments and way of worship 
 No ways affect the State. 
 
 We are as Industerous In our business and as 
 Punctual in our Contracts as If we were Anabap- 
 tists or Quakers and we Challenge to hold enjoy and 
 Improve what Is our own by the Same Rules and 
 Laws as all other Denominations of Christians Do. 
 
 And we Suppose their is (In the nature of things) 
 no Reason we Should maintain & Support any 
 Religion or way of worship but what we our Selves 
 Embrace and Propose to receve the advantage of 
 and that No body has rite to Impede or Hinder us 
 In that way of worship which in our Contienses we 
 think (to be Right for us In all matters Civil we are 
 accountible to the State So in all Matters of wor- 
 ship we are accountible to him who Is the object 
 of It, to whom alone we must stand or fall and on 
 these Principles are founded all acts of Toleration. 
 Your Memorialists therefore humbly Intreat the In- 
 terposition and Protection of this honnourable 
 Assembly that your honnours would order and 
 Grant that your Memorialists and all such as ad- 
 here to or shall be Joined & attend the Publick 
 worship with them may for the future be Released 
 and Exemted from Paying Taxes for the Bulding 
 of Metinghouses or for the Support of the min- 
 istry in any of the Societyes from which we have 
 
Their Persecutions 121 
 
 Sepperated (wi'thin the compas of eight miles from 
 the place of Publick worship or Such other Lim- 
 mits as your honnours Shall See fit) or that your 
 honnours would grant us the Same Ease and 
 Liberty as by law is Provided for the Ease of Ana- 
 baptists and Quakers or otherwise Grant Such 
 Relief as in your wisdom you Shall Judge Just 
 and your Memorialists are Ready to QuaHfy them- 
 selves according to the act of Toleration. 
 
 And as In Duty Bound Ever Pray. 
 
 Dated ye loth Day of Sepltember A. D. 1751. 
 
 This document is signed by thirty-three memor- 
 ialists, eight of whom were descendants of Thomas 
 Park, originally of New London, who was a char- 
 ter member, and one of the first deacons of the old 
 church in Preston. As we read this document at 
 this distance, no good reason appears why the 
 legislature should not have granted the prayer of 
 the memorialists. By a document dated Septem- 
 ber 26, 1 75 1, the sheriff was diredted to summon 
 the inhabitants of the parishes, or societies named, 
 to appear before the General Assembly at New 
 Haven, "on the Tuesday Next after S'd thirsday," 
 itkD show, if there were any reason, why the prayer 
 of the foregoing memorial should not be granted. 
 He was also directed to put "a tru and attested 
 Copy" of the memorial into the hand of the Clerk 
 of each society named in it. Nothing in the Co- 
 lonial Records as published shows whether this 
 memorial was presented. If it was it was evidently 
 refused and the relief sought was not obtained. 
 
122 The Separates 
 
 For the memorialists did not come within the limits 
 of those who might expedt indulgence. In Massa- 
 chusetts, a hundred years before, the Quakers and 
 others suffered for their non-conformity. Now, 
 in Connecticut, the 'tables were turned. The 
 Quakers and others secured indulgence, while 
 Congregationalists, whose chief sin was that they 
 took the Cambridge rather than the Saybrook Plat- 
 form, suffered severe persecutions, and felt the 
 sharp edge of the law, and the sharper edge of 
 ecclesiasticism turned againsit them. 
 
 But the Preston Separates had the courage of 
 their convictions. They were not to be discour- 
 aged by a single denial. So, January 17, 1753, 
 another effort of like character was made. For 
 the church met to consult ''whether we ought not 
 to send to our Cyvil Rulers : to Request them to put 
 an end (to the oppression : for it is very Create and 
 Many Suffer." A meeting of representatives of the 
 various Separate churches was held at Norwich, 
 March 21st of the same year. It was the unanimous 
 opinion that it was "their Duty to Send first to our 
 General Assembly : and if Not H^ard to Send to 
 England. Ye Chhs Chose men as overseers to 
 Prepare a Memorial according to what was Pur- 
 posed to lay before y^ assembly Next May : y^ over- 
 seers were Solomon Paine; Ebenezer Frothing- 
 ham (Wethersfield:) Jedediah Hyde: Elexander 
 Miller and Paul Parke." A formal memorial was 
 accordingly presented to the legislature of the col- 
 
Their Persecutions 123 
 
 ony in May, signed by the representatives of more 
 than twenty Separate churches. In it they de- 
 
 clared that it was against their consciences "that 
 minislters salaries be dependent on human laws." 
 They further said "we pray for the benefit of the 
 Toleration act: we are imprisoned, our property is 
 taken, from which burdens w^e pray to be released." 
 Again this most reasonable and just pdtition was 
 denied. The thumb-screws were given an extra 
 turn. The persecution went on without relenting. 
 The purpose to appeal to the throne was carried 
 out. In June, 1754, Solomon Paine and Ebenezer 
 Frothingham were chosen messengers to go to Eng- 
 land and present the memorial at the Court of 
 George II. Paine died in October of that year. 
 The mission was delayed. Another fruitless appeal 
 was made to the General Assembly of the colony. 
 Finally, in 1756, new messengers were appointed 
 who took the appeal for toleration to England and 
 submitted it to the parliamentary "Committee for the 
 Dissenters." The last reference to the matter in the 
 records of the Preston church is the following : 
 
 December 29th, 1756. This ch*h met by appoint- 
 ment — first heard a Proclamation appointing a fast 
 in those O^'h that agreed to send to England; a 
 petition for liberty &c. by these agenlts : Mr. Bliss 
 Willobey, and Mr. Moses Mars— ye. C'hh agreed to 
 keep this day. 
 
 But the mission failed in great measure. The 
 committee, to w^hom the petition was submitted, 
 
124 The Separates 
 
 expressed great surprise that the sons of the men 
 who had fled from persecution in England should 
 have framed a similar and an equally galling yoke 
 for dissenters from the established church of 
 Connecticut. This was deemed a violation of the 
 charter rights of the colony. It was feared that if 
 the petition were presented to the king, the charter 
 would be withdrawn. The messengers returned, 
 bearing a letter from the chairman of the Parlia- 
 mentary committee censuring the colonial govern- 
 ment. This, together with the disturbance of the 
 French and Indian war, secured a modification of the 
 action of the colonial government, so that the 
 memorialists did not bring a suit for their rights 
 as ^they were advised to do. A petition for exemp- 
 tion from paying rates to the old society was first 
 accorded to the Separates of South Killingly in 
 1755. Thenceforward relief was grudgingly grant- 
 ed, until, in 1784, the obnoxious act, making the 
 Saybrook Platform obligatory, was repealed. 
 
 But this leniency was too late to save the move- 
 ment. Its leaders were gone. Its churches were 
 wasited. The people were demoralized. A few 
 churches struggled on and kept their organized life 
 into the nineteenth century. But for the grealt body 
 of them the end was a bitter defeat. Their san- 
 guine hope for a pure church ended in disappoint- 
 ment. They made a heroic stand for a correct 
 principle. Their battle was fought for what was 
 right. But it soon degenerated into a quarrel with 
 
Their Persecutions 125 
 
 the tax collector, with tJhe odds all against them. 
 Their conflict deserved a better result, which it 
 would have reached if there had been weightier in- 
 fluences behind it. Their failure by no means 
 proves that their position was wrong. The move- 
 ment would have reached farther, and accomplished 
 more, if it had been freer from the extravagances 
 which aititached to it, like barnacles to a ship, and if 
 it had had a more intelligent leadership. 
 
 The Connecticut Separates were not always wise 
 or broad, bu't they were not the lawless men and 
 women, defiant of law and order, which their treat- 
 ment might lead us to suppose them to have been. 
 They simply stood for conscientious convictions, for 
 which they could give a reason. They hoped and 
 labored for a pure church. Said Dr. Button, of New 
 Haven, their "motive was, to say the least, honor- 
 able to their Christian zeal and devotion." Their 
 worship was called irregular. But it was so only 
 because the law, which was a gross violation of 
 human rights, chose to call it so. None of the 
 Connecticut Separates suffered martyrdom like 
 those of a century and a half before in England. 
 But they suffered about everything else. If the 
 blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, we 
 may say that the persecution of the Separates, with 
 their simple and free polity, was the germ of that 
 New England CongregationaHsm which is to-day 
 our pride. 
 
VI 
 
 WHERE THEY WERE AND WHAT 
 BECAME OF THEM 
 
 The principal scene of this movement was in 
 Connecticut, after about 1741. But before this date 
 there were not wanting evidences of protest against 
 the practice of the Half- Way Covenant in the divi- 
 sion of churches over it. The principles of the 
 Separates had been in the air for more than three 
 quarters of a century when the decisive cleavage 
 came. 
 
 One of the earliest instances of protest against 
 the practice of 'the Half-Way Covenant was in 
 Bran ford in 1665, seven'ty-five years before the 
 real Separate movement, but which was yet of the 
 same spirit. After the union of the New Haven 
 and Connecticut colonies, under the charter recently 
 obtained from Charles, "Mr. Pierson and almost his 
 whole church and congregation," says Trumbull, 
 "were so displeased that they soon removed into 
 Newark, New Jersey. They carried off the records 
 of the church and town, and after it had been settled 
 about twenty-five years left it almost without inhabi- 
 tant." No pastor was sefttled in Branford to take 
 the place of Mr. Pierson for more than twenty 
 years. The reason for this exodus was, tbat, 
 
 126 
 
Whore They Were, etc. 127 
 
 in the Connecticut colony, the Half -Way Covenant 
 was approved by the civil authorities, and Mr. Pier- 
 son and his people refused to live under such juris- 
 diction. 
 
 About 1667 the church in Windsor became divid- 
 ed over the settlement of a colleague for the pastor, 
 Rev. Mr. Warham, who had become advanced in 
 years. Hot words passed between the contending 
 parties. Matters came to such a pass thajt permis- 
 sion was given by the legislature to the minority to 
 form a distinct church. Mr. Benjamin Woodbridge 
 was called and settled in 1668. After twelve years 
 Mr. Woodbridge was dismissed by order of the 
 court, and the church was disbanded to unite with 
 the First Church, and thus the breach was healed. 
 
 In 1670 the Second Church in Hartford with- 
 drew from the First Church, under the lead of Rev. 
 John Whiting. The cause of the separation was a 
 difference between the views of Rev. Mr. Haynes 
 and Rev. Mr. Whiting as to the question, who are 
 fit subjects for membership in the visible church. 
 Mr. Whiting and his followers were zealous for the 
 sitrict Congregational way of Hooker and 
 others of the early New England clergy, namely, 
 "that visible saints are the only fit matter, 
 and confederation the only form of a visible church; 
 that a competent number of visible saints, (with 
 ftOieir seed) embodied by a particular covenant, are 
 a true, distinct, and entire church; that such a par- 
 ticular church, being organized, or having furnished 
 
128 The Separates 
 
 itself with those officers which Christ hath appoint- 
 ed, hath all power and privileges of a church be- 
 longing to it." The special particulars in which 
 the seceders claimed ''all power and privileges of 
 a church," were, in admitting and receiving mem- 
 bers, in dealing with offenders and in administering 
 and enjoying within itself "all other ecclesiastical 
 ordinances." They also held to the autonomy of the 
 local church, to the communion of churches, and to 
 the Congregational doctrine of seeking the advice 
 of neighboring churches, ''in cases of difficulty." 
 As Mr. Haynes, the junior pastor, and a majority 
 of the First Church of Hartford held to the less 
 strict Congregational way, Mr. Whiting, the senior 
 pastor, and thirty-one members withdrew amicably 
 and formed the Second Church of Hartford. It 
 will be noticed that the principles upon which Mr. 
 Whiting and his followers withdrew from the 
 parent church were similar to those given by the 
 Separates seventy-five years later. 
 
 About the same time a controversy over the Half- 
 Way Covenant divided the church in Stratford. It 
 broke out on the occasion of securing a colleague 
 for Rev. Mr. Blackman, the first pastor. A ma- 
 jority of the church and town chose Mr. Israel 
 Chauncey, son of the President of Harvard Col- 
 lege, to be their pastor, and he was ordained, says 
 Trumbull, in 1665. A large minority were opposed 
 to his ordination, and they chose Mr. Zechariah 
 Walker as their pastor, who was ordained in the 
 
Where They Were, etc. 129 
 
 regular way about 1667 or 1668. Both ministers 
 conducted public services in the same house, at dif- 
 ferent hours. But it was found th^t two captains 
 were too many for one ship. All attempts at re- 
 conciliation failed. A Second Church at Stratford 
 was organized and maintained till 1672. They were 
 at length excluded from the meeting-house and met 
 for worship in a private dwelling. Finally a new 
 township was granted them, and they were 
 authorized to begin a plantation at Pom- 
 peraug, now Woodbury. About 1673 ^^^ majority 
 of the new church removed thither and became the 
 First Church of Woodbury. This gave peace to 
 Stratford, and the new church walked in harmony 
 among 'tihemselves and with their sister churches. 
 
 There may have been other cases of separation 
 for similar reasons in which new churches were 
 formed. But these are the most conspicuous. They 
 did not belong to the Separate movement. For there 
 was, then, no Saybrook Platform, and no estab- 
 lished order. Further, these separations were, for the 
 most part, amicably effected. Nor was the sepa- 
 rating church compelled to pay taxes for the sup- 
 port of the church which it had left. But these 
 cases show that the principles and spirit of Separa- 
 tion, as we find it in the middle of the eighteenth 
 century, were in the air. And these local instances 
 of division, as it now appears, were a prophecy o^ 
 the deeper, wider cleft which would split asunder 
 the body of the colonial churches when aroused 
 
130 The Separates 
 
 and stirred by the mighty power of the Great 
 Awakening. 
 
 Elsewhere than in Connedticut, the Separate 
 movement gained a foothold, and its churches were 
 established. But they were largely fruits of the pro- 
 tesit of the Separating churches of the colony of 
 Connecticut against the loose practices of the 
 churches of the regular order. Before we study the 
 case at the storm center, let us notice the effects at 
 the outermost edges. 
 
 Separate Churches were formed in Rhode 
 Island. In 1724-5, as a result of the labors of Sam- 
 uel Moody, a celebrated revivalist of York, Maine, 
 the First Congregaltional Church in Providence was 
 formed. Sixteen persons constituted its member- 
 ship. Its first pastor was Rev. Josiah Cotton, a 
 lineal descendant of the famous Rev. John Cotton 
 of Boston. For about nineteen years his pastorate 
 was prosperous and happy and his people were 
 united. After the excitement which followed the 
 preaching of Whitefield and others, in the Great 
 Awakening, about 1740- 1743, some of his people 
 began to be dissatisfied. They charged him with 
 "not being evangelical enough." They said that he 
 was *'an opposer of the work of God's spirit;" 
 probably because he did not enter into the revival 
 with such zeal as it seemed to them to demand. 
 They also declared that he was ''a preacher of 
 damnable good works." The church itself they 
 styled ''Babylon, Egypt, and Anti-Christ, whom 
 
Where They Were, etc. 131 
 
 God would destroy." They furthermore declared 
 that all good men ought "to come out from among 
 them and be separate." This they proceeded to do, 
 and the church was rent in twain. It was so weak- 
 ened that in about four years Mr. Cotton gave up 
 (the vain struggle, resigned his pastorate and left 
 the town. March 7, 1743, the half of Mr. Cotton's 
 church which had seceded were organized into a 
 ^'Second, or Beneficent Congregational Church of 
 Providence." Punchard says, ''This seems to have 
 been what was known in those days as a 'Separate' 
 or 'New Light' Church." They formally adopted 
 ffche Cambridge Platform, in 1745, by which they 
 signified their entire dissent from the ecclesiastical 
 principles of the Saybrook Platform. They first 
 called Elisha Paine, of Canterbury, Conn., to be- 
 come their pastor, but he declined the call. In 1745 
 they gave their approbation to Joseph Snow, 
 Jr., one of their own number, as a preacher. 
 October 20, 1746, they called him to the 
 pastorate. But he was not ordained till Feb- 
 ruary, 1747. He served the church for fifty-seven 
 years. He was a carpenter by trade, and took the 
 lead in erecting a house of worship. It was vari- 
 ously called, "The New Light Meeting House," 
 "The Tenement Church," "Mr. Snow's Meeting 
 House." "Mr. Snow was not a liberally educated 
 man," says Dr. Vose. "He was a man of one book, 
 and that the Bible." But he was a man of deep 
 piety and of great good sense. He was acquainted 
 
132 The Separates 
 
 with works of theology, was sound in doctrine, and 
 carefully improved his talents and opportunities. 
 He was an earnest preacher, and ''had a bodily pres- 
 ence and strength of lungs sufficient to enforce his 
 preaching -to the utmost." He died in 1803, aged 
 eighty-nine, after a ministry of nearly fifty-eight 
 years. 
 
 Dr. Stiles says of Mr. Snow, in his diary, that 
 he was a private, illiterate brother of Mr. Cotton's 
 church, and that, "in 1746 he headed a large separa- 
 tion which almost broke up that church." The year 
 was 1743 and not 1746. Dr. Stiles also said of Mr. 
 Snow, "He is loud and boisterous, but delivers many 
 sound truths, and pretty well understands the gos- 
 pel of grace, and is of a sober, serious, exemplary 
 life." "In 1793," says Rev. J. G. Vose, d. d., 
 "Father Snow withdrew from the church over which 
 he had prayerfully watched for half a century." 
 The reason for ithis withdrawal seems to have been 
 that he did not like the doctrines of his successor, 
 who was more of a Methodist than a Calvinisit. 
 Hard words and severe measures followed. Mr. 
 Snow rebuked the church, and the church retaliated 
 by suspending him from the ministry. Efforts to- 
 ward a settlement of the trouble were unavailing. 
 Mr. Snow, "followed by some faithful friends and 
 most excellent people," withdrew, "calling them- 
 selves the true church and taking with them the 
 records, which were Mr. Snow's private property, 
 as no clerk had ever been appointed." Professor 
 
Where They Were, etc. 133 
 
 Dexter, in a foot-note on page 114, volume I, of 
 Dr. Stiles' diary, says that "The church thus sep- 
 arated is now represented by the Union Congrega- 
 tional Church," of Providence. 
 
 Under date of January 2, 1769, the Beneficent 
 church, of which Mr. Snow was the pastor, passed a 
 vote which points to the method of material support 
 adoplted by it in those early days. "The church con- 
 sidered it as the duty of each male member, to give 
 in a proper and honest account of their worldly 
 circumstances unto the said seven brethren," whom 
 the church had chosen for that purpose, "to pro- 
 portion, according to each member's circumstances 
 and abilities," the amount which each ought to pay 
 for the support of the minister and the poor of the 
 church. This "New Light" church is still, as it al- 
 ways has been, in the ranks of our Congregational 
 churches. 
 
 During the ten years between 1740 and 1750, 
 forrby-five Congregational churches were formed in 
 Massachusetts. Rev. Joseph S. Clark, d. d., says, 
 ''Eight or nine had their origin in this spirit of 
 Separatism; while more than twice as many others 
 originating in the same spirit, grew at length into 
 Baprftist churches." Rev. George Leon Walker, 
 D. D., says, "The number of such churches in Massa- 
 chusetts is uncertain, but the best known among 
 them were those of Attleboro, Rehoboth, Middle- 
 boro, Bridgewater, Grafton, Sunderland, Norton, 
 Wrentham, Charlestown and Sturbridge." We 
 
134 The Separates 
 
 have definite information about part of these Massa- 
 chusetts Separate churches. The church in Middle- 
 borough became divided over the choice of a pastor 
 to succeed the Rev. Peter ThaJtcher, the third pastor, 
 who died April 22, 1744. The church "voted to 
 hear Mr. Sylvanus Conant four Sabbaths upon pro- 
 bation." The parish committee hired another man 
 to preach in the meeting-house on the same days. 
 The church met in another place till Mr. Conant's 
 probation was ended, when they chose him for pas- 
 tor and presented their choice to the parish. The 
 parish negatived the choice of the church. How- 
 ever, the latter called a council of five other churches, 
 by whose help Mr. Conant was ordained as its pas- 
 tor, March 28, 1745. The parish, with "less than 
 a quarter of the church called themselves the stand- 
 ing part of it, and went on and ordained another 
 minister, the next October, and held the old house 
 and ministerial lands, and taxed all the parish for his 
 support." — Backus. The church built another 
 meeting-house, and supported their own minister. 
 For several years they were able to get no relief 
 from the legislature. This church seems to have 
 become the First Baptist Church in Middleboro, 
 January 16, 1756, over which the pastor, under the 
 old regime, was insitalled June 23 of the same year. 
 
 In 1749 more than sixty of the members of the 
 Separate church in Sturbridge, including all their 
 officers, were baptized, and espoused the Baptist 
 faith. In 1751 the pastor and others of the Sepa- 
 
Where They Were, etc. 135 
 
 rate church in the joining borders of Bridgewater 
 and Middleboro were baptized and became idenlti- 
 fied with that denomination. About the same time 
 several were immersed in Raynham. In some cases 
 those who had joined the Baptist fold continued to 
 commune w^ith their former pedobaptist brethren, 
 until it was decided that, by such communion, they 
 recognized sprinkling as baptism, which they could 
 not do without violating their own consciences.* 
 
 A disposition to criticize ministers was developed 
 among some who were most deeply affected by the 
 Great Revival. In this they were encouraged by 
 Gilbert Tennent, whose speech was not always 
 flavored and sweetened by honey from Hymettus, 
 when he spoke of the clergymen who did not enter 
 heartily into the religious awakening. Sentiments 
 of this kind led to the dismission of Rev. Samuel 
 Mather from the Second, or North Church in Bos- 
 ton in December, 1741. He, with ninety-three 
 members, withdrew and formed a new organization, 
 over which he was installed July 19, 1742. Dr. 
 Joseph S. Clark says that this w^as the tenth Con- 
 gregational church in Boston, and that they "built 
 a meeting house on the corner of North Bennett 
 and Hanover Streets." Mr. Mather was accused of 
 vagueness in preaching some of the cardinal doc- 
 trines, and with discouraging conversions. The 
 real complaint, however, was Mr. Mather's lack of 
 sympathy with some feaJtures of the revival. In 
 *I am indebted to Backus for these facts. 
 
136 The Separates 
 
 tlhis case the seceders were not people unduly stirred 
 by religious enthusiasm, but the opposite. How- 
 ever, the Separation was brought about by the same 
 spirit which led the more zealous to come out from 
 the forma], legal and lifeless churches. But in this 
 case it was the other man's ox which was gored. 
 They continued separate worship till Dr. Mather 
 died in 1785. In accordance with his dying request 
 the flock returned lt!o their former fold. In 1744 
 there was a small secession from the first church in 
 Plymouth, which returned in 1776. Whether 
 these separations were on account of religious 
 scruples, such as often prompted such movements, 
 is not stated. But, as the spirit of separa- 
 tion from the churches of the "standing or- 
 der" was in the air, it is probable that 
 such was the case. January 3, 1746, nineteen 
 disaffected members of the First Church in New- 
 bury withdrew and formed a separate organization. 
 It is now the First Presbyterian Church in New- 
 buryport. May 22, 1746, "a large secession from 
 the Second Church in Ipswich (now Essex) was 
 effected." But in 1774 they returned to the church 
 which they had left. A similar occurrence took 
 place in 1747 in Woburn, the seceders returning 
 after a few years. 
 
 There was not the same persecution in Massa- 
 chusetts which we find in Connecticut. Peo- 
 ple were taxed to support the churches of the 
 "standing order." This was not a matter of 
 
Where They Were, etc. 137 
 
 choice. Parish despotism was not waniting. But 
 the protests of the SeparaJtes finally helped to liberate 
 the churches from this despotism. Religious lib- 
 erty made great gains. The burdens imposed by 
 (the ''standing order," by which ''all w^ho were not 
 Baptists, or something else known as a distinct de- 
 nomination," were compelled "to pay taxes for the 
 support of the 'able, learned. Orthodox minister/ 
 whom the major part of the voters had settled over 
 them," were at last removed, in Massachusetts, and 
 all the Separates either became Baptists, or returned 
 to the folds which they had left. The controver- 
 sies were not so bitter in the Bay Colony, and the 
 Separating brethren were not so widely alienated 
 as in the Connecticut colony, so that the return 
 to the original fold was, in most cases, not so dif- 
 ficult. 
 
 There were also a few Separate churches in New 
 Hampshire, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. About 
 1666 some thirty families emigrated to New Jersey 
 from Milford, in the New Haven colony, and began 
 a Christian plantation. The union of the New 
 Haven and Connecticut colonies was the immediate 
 cause. In New Haven it was held that only church 
 members should be voters; in Hartford the op- 
 posite view was held. In New Haven the Half- 
 Way Covenant was repudiated; in Hartford it 
 was practiced. These differences of opinion 
 operated powerfully on the minds of the New Haven 
 Christians. The dissatisfaction was so great that 
 
138 The Separates 
 
 fthey preferred to leave the colony and settle again in 
 the wilderness. Accordingly, settlements were 
 
 made and churches planted in New Jersey, which 
 remained Congregational churches of the strictest 
 sort, until, in most cases, they became Presbyterian. 
 
 May 26, 1758, Mr. Elisha Paine, one of the Con- 
 necticut Separates, and a leader in the withdrawal 
 of the Canterbury church from the established or- 
 der, organized the ''First Strict Congregational 
 church of Southold," afterwards called Riverhead, 
 L. I. In 1783 Daniel Youngs was ordained pastor of 
 this church by ''the Strict Congregational Conven- 
 tion of Connecticut," which seemed to exercise juris- 
 diction in Long Island. In 1785 Mr. Youngs or- 
 ganized a second SeparaJte church at Riverhead. In 
 November, 1787, the Connecticut convention or- 
 dained Rev. Jacob Corwin as its pastor. In Octo- 
 ber, 1788, the same body ordained Rev. Noah Hal- 
 lock as an evangelist on Long Island. In Septem- 
 ber, 1790, Rev. Paul Cuffee, an Indian of the Shin- 
 necock tribe, was ordained as pastor of the Strict 
 Congregational churches at Canoe Place and Poose- 
 petauk, composed mostly of native Indians. This 
 connection of these churches of Long Island with 
 the Strict Congregational churches of Connecticut 
 continued till 1791. August 26 of that year, after 
 much prayer and consideration, it was decided to 
 form "the Long Island Convention of Strict Con- 
 gregational Churches," separate from, but like the 
 Connecticut body. Revivals blessed these churches. 
 
Where They Were, etc. 139 
 
 and large additions were frequently made to them. 
 Nearly two hundred were added to the first Strict 
 Congregational church at Riverhead during the min- 
 istry of Rev. Daniel Youngs. In 1839 there were 
 nine churches and five ministers connected with the 
 Long Island Convention, and there was an aggre- 
 gate of about one thousand members. From Long 
 Island "the movement spread to other places and 
 some churches in New York and New Jersey trace 
 their origin to it." These churches, as we have 
 seen, were organized in 1791, into the "Long Island 
 Convention." Then there was formed a body known 
 as ''The Long Island Association of 1836-40." In 
 1840 it was proposed to form another "ecclesiastical 
 body which should unite in one all the Congregation- 
 al churches and ministers in the county" of Suffolk. 
 Accordingly, in March, 1840, "The Long Island 
 Consociation" was formed, which "absorbed the two 
 bodies then existing;" that is, the Convention and 
 the Association. This, in 1873, gave place to "The 
 Suffolk Association of Congregational churches and 
 ministers." This accounts for the Separate 
 churches on Long Island, which sprang from the 
 Connecticut convention. 
 
 Eastern Connecticut was the principal scene of 
 the events narrated in the preceding chapters, and 
 of the origin of the Separate movement of 1740 to 
 1750. In a few towns in other parts of the colony, 
 Separate worshiping assemblies were gathered. 
 They were mostly confined, however, ito about thirty 
 
140 The Separates 
 
 towns in New London and Windham Counties. 
 They finally were organized into an ecclesiastical 
 body, known as "The Strict Congregational Conven- 
 tion of Connecticut." 
 
 In 1740 there were a few "New Lights" in 
 Tolland who withdrew from the communion of the 
 church. In 1760, Mr. Robert C. Learned says, 
 there were but few of them remaining. There is no 
 evidence that they were formed into a church. 
 There were separations from the regular church in 
 Ashford, but no society was organized. The 
 dissenters joined either the Baptists or neighboring 
 Separate churches. There was also a considerable 
 separation in the second church of Pomfret, now 
 Brooklyn. In 1 741-2 a considerable number were 
 added to the church. Among them were some who 
 were eager to exercise their liberty of laboring and 
 exhorting, and who were in full sympathy with the 
 revival. These people went so far in the assertion 
 of their rights, as they termed it, that they destroyed 
 the peace of the church. The matter was taken up 
 for discipline. A meeting of the consociation was 
 called by the church for advice. Ten ministers, 
 with their delegates, met October 10, 1743, in re- 
 sponse to the summons of the church, at the house 
 of Rev. Ephraim Avery, the pastor. The separat- 
 ing brethren were invited to appear before them 
 and give their reasons for the course which they had 
 taken. They, however, believing that they had 
 gone in the path of duty, "and not seeing wherein 
 
Where They Were, etc. 141 
 
 the constitution of the Consociation was granted by 
 the Word of God, could not in conscience comply." 
 Admonition followed admonition, but to no purpose. 
 The final issue was that fourteen of these brethren, 
 refusing to retract or ask the church for mercy, were 
 publicly excommunicated. Eleven others were 
 
 tried for persisting in separation, and were formally 
 admonished April 13, 1748. None of them, how- 
 ever, were present to hear the admonition; and 
 when it was carried to their homes some refused to 
 touch it, others cast it into the fire. These 
 Separates were not gathered into a society, but most 
 of them united with the church in Canterbury. 
 Some of the more prominent ones were finally taken 
 back into the fellowship of the regular church. 
 This defection did not seriously affect the strength 
 and prosperity of ithe Mortlake Parish, as the Second 
 Church of Pomfret was called. 
 
 Rev. Jacob Eliot of Goshen had some trouble in 
 his parish with the ''New Lights." I am indebted 
 to Rev. John Avery of Norwich for the following 
 facts taken from Mr. Eliot's diary: Mr. Eliot, in 
 April, 1742, speaks of two of his parishioners, — a 
 man and his wife, being "distracted by New 
 Light." And, on a loose scrap of paper, which 
 was probably drawn up about the same time, he gives 
 a somewhat lengthy chapter of Remarkables in 
 time of New Lights. In it he speaks of their 
 "remaining in church on the Sabbath, singing and 
 exhorting, after the pubHc service was closed"; of 
 
142 The Separates 
 
 their being affected with ''trances and extraordinary 
 fits, jumping up at full length"; of their pretending 
 to ''read in the dark"; of their claiming that "the 
 devil had appeared in Colchester;" of one "Deni- 
 son's laying his hands upon a man's head and his 
 falling down and lying apparently dead at his feet 
 for a while"; of "a man in Norwich hearing a voice 
 telling him that if he would fall in with these ex- 
 traordinary things he would be as good a Christian 
 as any of them, and a contrary voice in the other 
 ear not to mind the devil but read I Jn 4: i"; of 
 "one of his own parishioners telling him audibly be- 
 fore many that he (Mr. Eliot) was an opposer of 
 the work of God, and of the kingdom of Christ, and 
 knew in his own conscience it was so, and that there 
 never was such a pope in the world." 
 
 "Mr. Eliot's trouble with the New Lights seems to 
 have been located for the most part in the north part 
 (now Exeter) of his parish, whose inhabitants he 
 habitually speaks of as 'The North Enders.' Here 
 undoubtedly was felt in some degree the influence 
 of Pomeroy of Hebron and Wheelock of Lebanon 
 Crank (now Columbia), both of whom, probably, 
 were about as much inclined to wink at even the un- 
 justifiable proceedings of the New Lights as Eliot 
 was to frown upon them." 
 
 In several other communities there were similar 
 cases of the separation of individuals from the regu- 
 lar churches, but not in sufficient numbers to war- 
 rant the organization of a church. For example, 
 
Whei^e They Were, etc. 143 
 
 take the case of Nathan Cole of Kensington, who af- 
 terwards united with the church in Middletown, now 
 the South Congregational Church of that city. In 
 his "Spiritual Travels," he tells how he was deeply 
 moved by the preaching of Mr. Whitefield, to hear 
 whom he traveled all the way from Kensington 
 to Middletown, on horseback, with his wife. He 
 was profoundly moved by the sermon. He speaks 
 of being deeply convicted of sin : "I was loaded 
 with the guilt of sin, I saw I was undone 
 forever," and much more of the same sort. At last 
 he saw light and found a measure of peace, and he 
 cried out, 
 
 "Jesus and I shall never part 
 
 For God is greater than my heart." 
 
 Then followed some of those "imprudences and 
 irregularities" of which Trumbull speaks, as having 
 injured the work of the revival, and awakened the 
 opposition of many of the leading regular churches. 
 Nathan Cole tells us that after his conversion he 
 had a vision of "the form of A Gospel Church, 
 and the place where it was settled and Angels 
 hovering over it, saying, the Glory of the town, 
 and strangers that came passing by had the same 
 to say." Then he began to see that the standing 
 churches were not of the gospel order; he saw Icha- 
 bod written on the old church of which he had been 
 a member for fourteen or fifteen years, "for they 
 held several things contrary to the gospel," for 
 example, "that unconverted men had a divine right 
 
144 ^^^^ Separates 
 
 to come to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, and 
 to give themselves up in covenant to the Lord; 
 whereas the Lord says to the wicked, *what hast 
 those to do to take my covenant into thy mouth.' " 
 This he called lying unto God, ''on both sides," that 
 is, by the church, and by those who joined it. He 
 saw but one course open to him and took it, as 
 others had done in other communities. "Then I 
 came out and separated or dissented from them, for 
 I could not see them to be a Gospel Church, or 
 Christ's spouse, Christ's bride, Christ's beloved one, 
 or Christ's garden well enclosed." So he says that 
 he was called on to become as ''the offscouring of 
 the Earth, and to lose my own life, as it were, in 
 the world, for my religion." He tells us that the 
 step was hard to take, "was like death to the flesh, 
 but God gave me grace according to my day ; and in 
 a little time, he made every bitter thing sweet." 
 The date of his separation from the regular church 
 he gives as follows : 'T Nathan Cole Separated 
 from the Saybrook Church in y^ year 1747, & 
 kept meetings in my own house on ye Sabbath with 
 a few others, that came to me and sometimes we 
 bad preachers come to us." This went on till Fri- 
 day, June 29, 1764, when he joined "Mr. Froth- 
 ingham's Congregational Church in Middletown." 
 This, he tells us, at considerable length, he believed 
 to be the Gospel Church of which he had had a 
 vision nearly twenty years before. 
 
 This case of Nathan Cole is given as an ex- 
 
Where They Were, etc. 145 
 
 ample of very many individual separations from, 
 or protests against, the Saybrook Platform, which 
 never resulted in an organized church. This case 
 also illustrates the sincere spirit of the whole move- 
 ment; although to some it may seem to have been 
 ill-advised. 
 
 Probably the first distinct case of separation took 
 place in New London in 1742. These people, who 
 came out from Mr. Adams' church, at this time, 
 were among the first in the colony to be organized 
 into a Separate socidty. I have been able to find 
 no definite instance that was earlier. In that case 
 the Separate movement had its beginning in the 
 First Church of Christ, New London. In 1741 
 there were signs of the approaching event. Mr. 
 Parsons preached for Mr. Adams in June of that 
 year. He said that he found rising jealousies which 
 soon ripened into ''open separation." In the follow- 
 ing February, David Brainerd preached for Mr. 
 Adam.s, and found the condition of ithings in "wild 
 confusion." Matters grew worse till the autumn of 
 1742. November 29 was communion Sabbath. It 
 was noticed that several of the prominent members 
 of Mr. Adams' church were absent. This was the 
 nucleus of a company of people who met, at first, at 
 each other's houses. They, with others, to the num- 
 ber of about one hundred, associated themselves into 
 a Separate Society, and were qualified by the county 
 court to hold meetings and worship together with- 
 out molestation. This seems to have been done as 
 
 10 
 
146 The Separates 
 
 early as July; for Hempstead, who was the legal 
 officer, speaks, in his diary, of going, July loth, to 
 confer with Mr. Allen about preaching in private 
 houses. Evidently, Mr. Allen, of whom mention 
 has been made in a previous chapter, was on the 
 ground at that time, and Separate meetings were 
 being held. No record exists of the regular or- 
 ganizaltion of a Separate church further than has 
 been stated. But there was a ''Separate Society," 
 and a worshiping assembly, who had Mr. Timothy 
 Allen as teacher, and Mr. Jonathan Hill as ex- 
 horter, in the year 1742. If a church was regularly 
 organized, it probably was done in connection with 
 the strange scene of burning the books, etc., already 
 described. And it may be said that there is as much 
 evidence, as in most of the cases, that a Separate 
 church was organized here. But it soon disap- 
 peared; for Mr. Allen did not remain long after 
 that ebullition of zeal, and the Separate congrega- 
 tion of New London had no leader after he left. 
 Most of those, especially tihe principal ones, who had 
 separated from the regular church, returned to it. 
 The rest, under the leadership of Nathan Howard, 
 adopted Baptist principles, and joined in forming 
 what is now the First Baptist Church of Water- 
 ford, in 1748, and Howard became its pastor, and 
 remained so until his death. 
 
 The church in Canterbury became Separate in 
 1744. This has been called the first Separate church 
 in Connecticut and probably in New England. 
 
Where They Were, etc. 147 
 
 This claim does not mean that Separate gatherings 
 for worship were held here first, nor that churches 
 of this order had not been organized elsewhere 
 before this date, bult, to quote Miss Larned, 
 that "the church in Canterbury was the first 
 in Connecticut, and perhaps in New England, 
 in which the church as a body, by a large major- 
 ity, adopted *New Light' principles." It is quite 
 true, as will be seen, that the Windham County 
 Consociation pronounced judgment against them, 
 and recognized the minority as the church. But this 
 minority never held the original records, which the 
 majority took with them. Undoubtedly, the major- 
 ity was the church. In this view Ebenezer Froth- 
 ingham was right when he remonstrated with the 
 worn-out Separates for seeking society privileges, 
 and recalled that glorious day "when the first visi- 
 ble church of Christ in the colony took up Christ's 
 sweet cross," referring to the Canterbury church. 
 The story of the origin of this Canterbury church 
 is an interesting and a significant one. The regular 
 or established church was organized June 11, 171 1. 
 January 2^, 1743, the question was raised whether 
 the church would accept the Saybrook Platform, 
 or the Cambridge Platform of 1648. It voted 
 unanimously that the latter "is most agreeable to 
 the former and designed practice of this church 
 (except their having ruling elders or district offi- 
 cers) and most agreeable to the Scriptures." This 
 vdt'e repudiated the authority of the consociation, 
 
148 The Separates 
 
 and took issue squarely with the vote of the legis- 
 lature in the following May, which made the Say- 
 brook Platform obligatory upon all Congregation- 
 alists or Presbyterians. In 1741 Rev. Mr. Wads- 
 worth was dismissed from the church. He went 
 out under a cloud. The church was left in a low 
 spiritual state. Through the preaching of Mr. 
 Buel, a noted revivalist, a quickened interest was 
 awakened in many. Among them were Elisha and 
 Solomon Paine. As this church had never adopted 
 the Saybrook but the Cambridge Platform, a com- 
 mittee was appointed to enquire into the former con- 
 stitution of the church and report. The legislation 
 of May, 1742, put a new face on affairs. Matters 
 were in worse confusion. The religious interest 
 divided the town into two parties. The one was 
 bitterly opposed to the revival, and sought, in every 
 possible way, to rob it of its fruits. This party 
 was the minority of the church. The other party 
 was composed of those who had been deeply moved 
 by the revival under Mr. Buel, and were called 
 fanatics, zealots, etc. The leader of the former 
 party was Colonel Dyer. The leader of the latter 
 party was Elisha Paine. Colonel Dyer and his party 
 admitted that the Cambridge Platform was most 
 agreeable to the "former and designed practice" of 
 the church, and so voted, when the committee, ap- 
 pointed to enquire into the matter, so reported. But 
 they bitterly denounced and opposed the evangel- 
 istic measures which were favored by Elisha 
 
Where They Were, etc. 149 
 
 Paine and his party. As we have seen above, the 
 vote here referred to was taken January 27, 1743. 
 The crisis came in the matter of calHng a pastor 
 to succeed Mr. Wadsworth. The first party, com- 
 posed of a minority of the church, seventeen of 
 whom were under censure, or had been excommuni- 
 cated, together with a majority of the society, voted, 
 in 1744, to call Rev. James Cogswell. The major- 
 ity of the church were not pleased with him, be- 
 cause his preaching seemed to them cold, formal and 
 legal. After hearing him a few Sabbaths they 
 protested against calling him, and refused to hear 
 him preach. However, the climax of the difficulty 
 was not reached, and the separation made final, until 
 an effort at agreement had been made. The mi- 
 nority of the church, led by Colonel Dyer, and 
 the Society, summoned the Consociation of Wind- 
 ham County to their aid. By this act they accepted 
 the authority of the consociation, and declared 
 themselves to be under, and virtually adopted, the 
 Saybrook Platform. Yet only the year before 
 these very persons had voted unanimously, 
 with the church, that they were under the Cam- 
 bridge Platform. Deacon Backus, Solomon Paine, 
 Obadiah Johnson, and others of the opposite party, 
 — a majority of the church, — were invited to join 
 in laying >their difficulties before the consociation. 
 But the church had adopted the Cambridge Plat- 
 form, and through its special committee had de- 
 clared that it still stood upon it. They therefore 
 
150 The Separates 
 
 refused to recognize the authority of a body con- 
 stituted by the platform, which the church had 
 unanimously repudiated twelve months before. 
 However, they called a council of sister churches 
 to sit in judgment upon their difficulties. Both 
 bodies, the consociation and the council, met Decem- 
 ber 12, 1743. The former held its sessions in the 
 meeting-house, of which Colonel Dyer's party held 
 the custody of the keys. The Council met at the 
 house of Captain John Wadsworth. After due de- 
 liberation both bodies counseled peace, and recom- 
 mended thalt either Mr. Lee or Mr. Cogswell be 
 called. Solomon Paine and his party accepted the 
 advice of the council which they had summoned, 
 and attended upon the preaching of Mr. Cogswell 
 for some time. But after hearing him a few Sab- 
 baths they were constrained to renew their oppo- 
 sition to him. " Nevertheless, at a meeting held Nov- 
 ember 27, 1744, the society and the minority of the 
 church, to the number of sixteen, led by Colonel 
 Dyer, voted, as has been said, to call Mr. Cogswell. 
 In this vote, at the suggestion of Colonel Dyer, those 
 who extended the call declared themselves to be un- 
 der the Saybrook Platform, and so to be under the 
 authority of the consociation. 
 
 Those who had called, and were now to settle 
 Mr. Cogswell, declaring themselves to be the First 
 Church in Canterbury, though largely in the mi- 
 nority, and, some of them under its censure, sum- 
 moned the Consociation of Windham County to 
 
Where They Were, etc. 151 
 
 meet for the ordination of Mr. James Cogswell, 
 and to decide between them and the majority, who 
 dissented from the action taken in calling Mr. Cogs- 
 well, as to which were entitled to be called the First 
 Church in Canterbury. The consociation met 
 December 26, 1744. They decided "that those who 
 on that day [January 27, 1743] voted themselves 
 Congregational according to the Cambridge Plat- 
 form, are to be esteemed by that explicit act to have 
 denominated themselves another church, and sepa- 
 rated themselves from those who adhered to the 
 Saybrook Regulations," and were therefore "Sepa- 
 rators;" that those who called Mr. James Cogs- 
 well, November 27, 1744, although they had joined 
 in the vote of January 27, 1743, adopting the Cam- 
 bridge Platform, were, nevertheless, "The Church 
 of Canterbury." The consociation proceeded to 
 ordain Mr. Cogswell against the protest of the large 
 majority of the church, in accordance with a minor 
 volte of the church with a major vote of the society. 
 This act was unconstitutional according to the Plat- 
 form under which they acted. For that documenJt 
 expressly stated that, in the ordination of a minister, 
 as pastor of a church, there shall be consent of a 
 majority of its members. This is an example of the 
 high-handed measures which were taken, both by 
 the legislature and the leading clergymen, to force 
 the Saybrook Platform upon the churches in Con- 
 necticut, and to repress "zealous experimental 
 preachers and people." And yet no act was more 
 
152 The Separates 
 
 disorderly, according to the Saybrook Platform, 
 than the ordination of Mr. James Cogswell in spite 
 of the protest of a large majority of the church. 
 These, who were declared to be "Separates," "schis- 
 matics," and "violaters of the standing order," com- 
 prised about fifty families, were largely in the 
 majority, had the records of the church, and there- 
 fore its organization. By every law of ecclesiastical 
 procedure the majority who refused to assent to the 
 settlement of Mr. Cogswell were the church. How- 
 ever, the consociaition decided against them, pro- 
 ceeded to ordain him and denounce the remonstrants 
 as "Separates." These people, who were really the 
 church, being thus ostracized by the ecclesiastical au- 
 thority which had the law of the colony behind it, 
 proceeded to hold meetings by themselves, in private 
 houses, and elsewhere, which was contrary to the 
 law. Their exhorters conducted public worship and 
 preached, which was in defiance of the act of May, 
 1742. Many of them were arrested, fined and im- 
 prisoned. In some cases they lay in jail for months, 
 and their families suffered for the necessities of life. 
 The course which they took was in open violation 
 of the statute. But the question arises whether the 
 statute was not unjust and in violation of every 
 man's constitutional right; in open violation even 
 of the charter of the colony itself. 
 
 About 1782 this church was reorganized. Its 
 house of worship was removed from where it stood 
 near "the green," and set up in the north part 
 
Where They Were, etc. 153 
 
 of the town, where it stood till about 1853. The 
 church became known as ''the North Church in Can- 
 terbury, Separated Dec. 1744." As such it was 
 received into the communion of the regular Congre- 
 gational churches. Their first preacher was Solo- 
 mon Paine, who was settled over it in 1746. Joseph 
 Marshall was the next. His ministry began in 
 April, 1759, five years after the death of Mr. Paine. 
 He was dismissed in 1768. William Bradford and 
 others followed till 1831, when the church had 
 virtually become extinct. Being the majority of the 
 church at the time when the consociation declared 
 them to be Separates, they always affirmed them- 
 selves to be the original church. They retained the 
 records, and the communion service. Undoubtedly 
 they were the church. However, the church which 
 ordained Mr. Cogswell remains, while that body 
 which refused assent to his call and ordination is 
 extinct. There were bodies of dissenters in several 
 places before Canterbury. But admitting their 
 claim, as we must, the church in Canterbury 
 was the first to espouse Separate principles as a 
 church. 
 
 A Separate Church was organized in Lisbon, 
 which at that time was a portion of Norwich, 
 known as Newent. As to the date of this organi- 
 zation a manuscript history of the church in Lis- 
 bon says that it took place soon after the organiza- 
 tion of the Separate church in Canterbury, and that 
 it was "made up of disaffected but undismissed 
 
154 The Separates 
 
 members of this," the regular church. The chroni- 
 cler adds, 'The original Newent church kindly treat- 
 ing and treating with members who unkindly and 
 by breach of covenant had broken out from its fold, 
 so learned why these took the course they did." 
 The reasons alleged for the separation were, to 
 quote further from the chronicler, "want of edifi- 
 cation from the church's minister; this church 
 lacked gospel order, as having no ordained ruling 
 elders and no ordained deacons; owned Christ in 
 words, but in deeds denied him; held external pro- 
 fessions to be evidences of a gracious state; con- 
 tained unconverted men; and held in covenant per- 
 sons not in full communion." January 17, 1746, 
 the regular church proceeded ''to riddle these rea- 
 sons, taking up each separately" and voted, with 
 regard to each, "Not sufficient." It also voted 
 to "call upon them to retract and return 
 to this church with proper reflection on themselves 
 publicly, according to gospel rules, which warning 
 is to be given them publicly by the Pastor after the 
 lecture preparatory to the next sacrament notifying 
 them to appear. The which warning if they refuse 
 to hearken to, the church agree to suspend them 
 from Communion in special ordinances after due 
 warning." Fifteen persons appeared before the 
 society and agreed to pay "this year's rates of those 
 that appear to be sober and conscientous Sepa- 
 rates." 
 
 But the warning of the church was not heeded. 
 
Where They Were, etc. 155 
 
 The Separate society was formed. Jeremiah Tracy, 
 Jr., was called to be the pastor of the seceders, and 
 administered the ordinances to them. A record of 
 the regular church says, ''By credible information, 
 Jeremiah Tracy, Jr., has taken upon him to be a 
 preacher, a calling which we don't apprehend God 
 has called him to." 
 
 Dr. Stiles in his diary says that Mr. Thomas 
 Denison was called to the ofifice of teacher in this 
 Newent Separate church. As there was some doubt 
 expressed asito his previous (Baptist) ordination, he 
 was reordained by several whom he himself had 
 ordained. Among them was Mr. Hovey of Mans- 
 field. "This," says Dr. Stiles, ''was about 1747." 
 
 Mr. Bliss Willoughby was called, in 1753, to suc- 
 ceed Jeremiah Tracy, Jr., as pastor of the church. 
 A meeting-house was built which, the chronicler 
 declares, stood "longer than any occasion for using 
 it appeared." It was taken down in 1765, and its 
 timber was used in the construction of a barn which 
 was standing after the nineteenth century began. 
 
 When the Separate society was formed "there 
 were not more, or at most scarcely more than a score 
 that Separated from the Newent Church." The 
 same chronicler adds that "most, if not all, who 
 were specially of worth," were won back to the old 
 church. The chronicler continues, "The Separatist 
 church were as sheep without a shepherd. Mr. 
 Willoughby, after supervising them two or three 
 years, and after visiting England as an agent of 
 
156 The Separates 
 
 Separatists generally had recrossed the ocean and 
 having gone to another denomination, preached at 
 Bennington, Vt." Mr. Amos A. Browning says 
 that nearly all the members of the Newent Separa- 
 rate church emigrated to Bennington, Vermont, 
 where they formed a settlement, "and gathered 
 again as the same church," where they finally be- 
 came identified with the regular Congregational 
 churches. Of those who remained, "a considerable 
 number of the disbanded [Separate church of 
 Newent] became members of the Brunswick 
 Church." November 19 and 20, 1770, a meeting of 
 the regular church in Newent was held. "Some of 
 those who had been of ye Separate 0^^ gave an ac- 
 count of their experimental acquaintance with 
 Christ," and "joined in a Solemn Renewal of Cove- 
 nant and in Receiving and Consenting to the Con- 
 fession of faith Contained in ye Records of this 
 Chh-" At this meeting eight "heads of agree- 
 ment" were unanimously adopted. The chronicler 
 adds, "Those heads accepted as specially needful for 
 this church at that time are in every respect ad- 
 mirable for clear discrimination and manly asser- 
 tion of civil rights, as well as for decisive applica- 
 tion of Christian principle in that Christian spirit 
 which protects the claim of conscience by honoring 
 the claim of God." Among the eight heads of 
 agreement were these, which were a distinct 
 concession to the Separates : "It is not according to 
 the rule of Christ's house to admit any to transact 
 
Where They Were, etc. 157 
 
 in the ordinance of baptism, who are not at the 
 same time apparently quaHfied by the Lord's Sup- 
 per; nor to bring their children to baptism till they 
 are actually in the communion of the church;" ''that 
 it is not expedient nor for the health of this church 
 to compel any by civil power contrary to their 
 minds, to pay anything to the support of the gospel ; 
 but that all [should] be left to do it in such voluntary 
 way as they shall think proper." The chronicler 
 adds, ''that fourth head was instantly effectual in 
 killing here the halfway covenant." As these points 
 of agreement covered the chief reasons for the 
 original secession, this was the end of the Separate 
 movement in Lisbon. 
 
 A Separate church, of thirty male members, was 
 organized in Norwich, at Bean Hill, in 1745. It 
 was made up of persons who seceded from the First 
 Church, of which the Rev. Benjamin Lord was, at 
 the time, pastor. This event seems the more 
 strange for several reasons. Mr. Lord was regarded 
 as a very earnest evangelical preacher. His style 
 of delivery was impressive — of the kind which 
 was supposed to be pleasing to the New Lights. 
 The church had refused to accept the Saybrook Plat- 
 form, which was so obnoxious to the Separates, so 
 strenuous was the First Church in its hold on in- 
 dependency. When the pastor sought permission to 
 join the New London Association, none of whose 
 members had assented to the Saybrook Platform, 
 the church granted permission, on condition that 
 
158 The Separates 
 
 the act did not compromise the independency of the 
 church nor imply consent ito the New Platform 
 as a mode of discipline. The association, on re- 
 ceiving Mr. Lord, expressly voted that his joining 
 it would not be construed as assent ''to the articles 
 of church discipline established by this Colony and 
 as binding him and his church to be governed by 
 them." 
 
 But in spite of all this, the ''New Lights" were 
 not satisfied. They insisted that, because he had 
 joined the Association, he and his church had for- 
 saken the old platform for the new — the Cambridge 
 for the Saybrook. But the futility of this objection 
 appears from the fact that February 20, 1744-5, 
 the church revoked the permission which they had 
 granted, and protested against their pastor at- 
 tending meetings of the association in the future; 
 at the same time reaffirming "their attachment to 
 the Platform of the Fathers of 1648, 'not only in 
 respect to doctrine and truth and form of cove- 
 nant, but in respect of order and exercise of church 
 discipline.' " Here, then, there was no ground for 
 separation, for this vote was taken about the time 
 the "New Lights" withdrew. 
 
 But there was another grievance. The church 
 had voted : "Though it is deemed a desirable thing 
 that persons who come into full communion offer 
 some publick relation of their experience; yet we do 
 not judge or hold it a term of communion." Mr. 
 Lord had also declared himself as decidedly averse 
 
Where They Were, etc. 159 
 
 ''to making a relation of experience a term of com- 
 munion." The Separates were strenuous upon this 
 point, as necessary to the maintenance of a pure 
 church. This was a radical point of difference. 
 They were not satisfied. Withdrawal was the only 
 course which they saw open before them, and they 
 withdrew. 
 
 On February 19, 1744-5 was the first sign or 
 evidence that a separation from Mr. Lord's church 
 had taken place. The leaders in it were Hugh 
 Caulkins and Jedediah Hyde. The first Separate 
 meetings were held in the house of Mr. Caulkins, 
 near Yantic bridge. A committee of the church 
 was appointed to find out the reasons for their with- 
 drawal, and, if possible, bring them back into the 
 church. Thirteen were cited to appear and give 
 the reasons for continued absence from the church 
 and its ordinances, and attending Separate meetings 
 on the Sabbath. Some would not discuss the mat- 
 ter; others frankly gave their reasons. The gen- 
 eral reason was, "the gospel better preached else- 
 where;" from which it seems that these people dis- 
 sented from the general esteem in which Mr. Lord 
 was held as a preacher. Jedediah Hyde's objection 
 to the church was, "not making regeneration the 
 only term of communion;" "opening the door too 
 wide, letting in all sorts of persons without giving 
 any evidence of their faith in Christ, and repent- 
 ance towards God." Here was their strong point 
 of objection, and it was not taken without cause. 
 
i6o The Separates 
 
 Later the reasons given were stated as follows : 
 ''Neglect of church discipline," ''coldness and want 
 of application in preaching," "the qualifications 
 necessary to church membership," "private brethren 
 being debarred the privilege of exhortion and 
 prayer," "the laws of the state." These reasons 
 were deemed insufficient by the church. The 
 separation was declared to be "uncharitable and un- 
 warrantable; an offence to Christ the Head of the 
 Church, and a disorderly walking." The thirteen 
 offending members were suspended. 
 
 The Separate church began, as has been said, at 
 the house of Hugh Caulkins, February 19, i745- 
 Octcl>er 30, 1747, Jedediah Hyde was ordained as 
 its pastor. A house of worship was erected at Bean 
 Hill. For reasons, which are nowhere recorded, 
 Mr. Hyde was deposed September 22, 1757. Mr. 
 John Fuller was ordained in his place August 17, 
 1759, and was succeeded by Mr. Reynolds, who was 
 ordained December 22, 1762. November 8, 1766, 
 he embraced Baptist principles. Under his teach- 
 ings the church languished and died. Meetings 
 were held, however, till March 15, 1788, when the 
 remnant met as Universalists. This was the end 
 of the Bean Hill Separate church. They suffered 
 the usual persecutions visited upon their kind; im- 
 prisonment, distraint of property, and various other 
 penalties inflicted for alleged violations of the law 
 regulating public worship, and providing for the 
 support of the gospel. One of the most noteworthy 
 
Where They Were, etc. i6i 
 
 cases is that of the widow EHzabeth Backus, who 
 refused to pay the ministerial rates, and was put in 
 jail for thirteen days, till General Jedediah Hunt- 
 ington, her grandson, pledged himself to pay her 
 rates annually for the support of the minister of the 
 regular church. 
 
 A letter written by Mrs. Backus to her son, dated 
 at Norwich, November 4, 1752, gives some idea of 
 the temper of these people under their sufferings. 
 It is as follows : 
 
 Dear Son : — I have heard something of the trials 
 among you of late, and I was grieved till I had 
 strength to give the case up to God, and leave my 
 burthen there. And now I would tell you some- 
 thing of our trials. Your brother Samuel lay in 
 prison twenty days. October 15, the collector came 
 to our house, and took me away to prison about nine 
 o'clock, in a dark rainv night. Brothers Hill and 
 Sabin were brought there next night. We lay in 
 prison thirteen days, and then were set at liberty, 
 by what means I know not.'*' Whilst I was there, 
 a great many people came to see me ; and some said 
 one thing, and some another. O the innumerable 
 snares and temptations that beset me, more than I 
 ever thought of before! But, O the condescension 
 of Heaven ! Though I was bound when I was cast 
 into this furnace, yet was I loosed, and found Jesus 
 in the midst of the furnace with me. O, then I 
 could give up my name, estate, family, life and 
 breath, freely to God. Now the prison looked like 
 a palace to me. I could bless God for all the laughs 
 
 *The reason, as stated above, was, in her case, that her 
 grandson agreed to pay her annual rates; apparently with- 
 out her knowledge. 
 
1 62 The Separates 
 
 and scoffs made at me. O the love that flowed out 
 to all mankind. Then I could forgive, as I would 
 desire to be forgiven, and love my neighbor as my- 
 self. Deacon Griswold was put in prison the 8th of 
 October, and yesterday old brother Grover, and are 
 in pursuit of others; all which calles for humilia- 
 tion. This church hath appointed the 13th of No- 
 vember to be spent in prayer and fasting on that ac- 
 count. . . . 
 
 These from your loving mother, 
 
 Elizabeth Backus. 
 
 This letter from this widow of fifty-four years 
 shows what it often cost the Separates to stand by 
 their convictions. 
 
 Denison, in his notes on the Baptists in Norwich, 
 and their principles, gives the following account of 
 the final end of the Bean Hill Separate meeting- 
 house : 'The meeting house of the Separate Church 
 in Norwich was for a time used for a female acad- 
 emy taught by Dr. Morse, the author of Geogra- 
 phies and Gazeteers ; it was afterwards occupied for 
 a time by the Methodists till they entered their 
 chapel in 1834. The house was finally taken down 
 in 1843 to make place for the new school house." 
 
 October 9, 1745, the Separates in Mansfield em- 
 bodied themselves into a church, solemnly covenant- 
 ing together as such, without letters of dismission 
 from the churches from which they withdrew. Sev- 
 eral were under censure, probably for the offence of 
 listening to ''New Light" preachers. A brief ac- 
 count of the regular church in Mansfield says, that 
 
Where They Were, etc. 163 
 
 ''the early part of Dr. Salter's ministry was em- 
 barassed and tried by the conduct of some of the 
 members of his church who were the radicals of the 
 memorable revival of 1740. These denounced the 
 Church and Pastor as dead, hypocrites, and devoid 
 of all spiritual religion, and went out from them 
 in a disorderly manner, and formed a separate 
 church. The Church, after bearing with them for 
 a time were constrained to cut them off." The se- 
 ceders chose Deacon Thomas Marsh to be their pas- 
 tor. January 6, 1746, was set apart for his ordina- 
 tion, as their teaching elder. A number of ministers 
 of the neighboring churches of the established order, 
 hearing of the proposed ordination, met with a view 
 of discoursing with them, and, if possible, of dis- 
 suading them from their purpose. But it was with- 
 out avail. But Mr. Marsh was not ordained; for 
 the day before that appointed for his ordination he 
 was arrested and put in jail for the crime of preach- 
 ing without a license. A great company of people 
 gathered on the appointed day. Elisha Paine 
 preached. The ministers of the regtilar churches 
 were present to protest. Their reception was 
 tumultuous, and their protest vain. The Separates 
 met again in February, 1745-6, to ordain John 
 Hovey, who had meanwhile been chosen as pastor. 
 This service was attended with some difficulty be- 
 cause an ordained person could not be found to per- 
 form it. At length they secured the assistance of 
 Thomas Denison, formerly a Baptist elder, who had 
 
164 The Separates 
 
 recently been ordained by Ebenezer Moulton of 
 Brimfield, and who traced his ministerial succes- 
 sion back to three noted Congregational ministers 
 of Boston. So Mr. Hovey was ordained pastor of 
 the Mansfield Separate church. He continued in of- 
 fice many years. He died October 28, 1775. Deacon 
 Marsh was kept locked securely in Windham County 
 jail until July, when he was released, and the church 
 at once ordained him as colleague of Mr. Hovey. In 
 1765 the church had wasted so that there were 
 but tv/o men and two women who remained 
 members. These obtained 'liberty of communion" 
 with the church in South Killingly, till the Lord 
 should provide for them some other way. Thus 
 the movement in Mansfield came to an end. The 
 Canterbury church retained its original covenant. 
 So the articles of faith of the Mansfield church, 
 twenty-two in number, referred to in a previous 
 chapter, were the first known elaborate and care- 
 fully framed statement of doctrine and practice pub- 
 lished by the Separate leaders. 
 
 The revival in Plainfield, as in other places, 
 resulted in a division of the church. A mi- 
 nority of this body became uneasy at the 
 practice of admitting members without a 
 narration of their experience, and of baptiz- 
 ing children whose parents were not members of the 
 church. Mr. Coit, the pastor, was old and cautious, 
 and unwilling to make changes or concessions. At 
 length the uneasy minority withdrew from the 
 
Where They Were, etc. 165 
 
 standing church, and organized as a church on the 
 Cambridge Platform. This was accompHshed in 
 1746. They called, as was the usual custom of 
 the Separates, one of their own number to the min- 
 istry, and he was ordained September 11, as appears 
 from a letter missive to the Canterbury church, in- 
 viting them to assist at the ordination. The move- 
 ment, at the start, was very flourishing. It soon 
 became evident that the Separates carried the town. 
 Mr. Coit was aged and infirm and unable to cope 
 with the new and powerful influences which were at 
 work. Mr. Stevens, the "New Light" preacher, 
 though a young man of less than common education 
 was earnest and fervent. Large numbers were at- 
 tracted to his ministry. The old church and the town 
 roughly set aside the disabled pastor, withdrew his 
 salary, and proceeded to elect a new pastor. The 
 choice finally fell upon Mr. David Rowland of Fair- 
 field, who graduated from Yale in 1743. At first 
 he pleased all parties in town, and he was called 
 July 13, 1747. But on conference with him it was 
 found that he favored the Saybrook Platform. 
 While the majority of the church were pleased, the 
 town, which was controlled by the votes of those 
 in sympathy with the Separates, refused to proceed 
 further with Mr. Rowland, but to look for a new 
 candidate. Finally, however, the friends of Mr. 
 Rowland succeeded in securing a majority at a 
 legally called meeting, and at once proceeded to 
 issue a call to Mr. Rowland, December 3, 1747. The 
 
1 66 The Separates 
 
 Separates were thus outgeneraled, and Mr. Row- 
 land was ordained March 15, 1748. It is said that 
 his ''ministry was in troublous times on account of 
 the Separate movement." He accepted the call, 
 fully understanding the difficulties of the situation. 
 Mr. Stevens, who was in charge of the Separate 
 church, was, as Mr. Rowland himself testified, a 
 man of native ability. He died November 15, 1 755. 
 He was succeeded, in 1758, by Alexander Miller, 
 who came from the church in Voluntown. He 
 ministered, till his death, to the Separates in Plain- 
 field. Both the old church, and that of the "New 
 Lights," were on the wane. In their feeble state 
 there arose in both a desire for a reunion. This de- 
 sire was accomplished February, 1769, by the 
 settlement of Rev. John Fuller, a 'Separate preacher, 
 as pastor of the reunited churches, in which office 
 he continued to minister until his death in October, 
 1777. Thus a happy reunion was effected after a 
 separation of twenty-five years, and a more delight- 
 ful ending of the Separate movement was reached 
 in Plainfield than can be recorded of many other 
 places. 
 
 In South Killingly, as in Plainfield and else- 
 where, the great revival gave birth to a Separate 
 movem.ent. The people in this section of the town 
 adopted Separate principles, and were organized 
 into a distinct church. This was in 1746. In 
 December of that year Stephen Spalding was chosen 
 clerk, and in the following February he was chosen 
 
Where They Were, etc. 167 
 
 deacon. April 27, 1747, say the records, ''John 
 Eaton was also chosen deacon, and Samuel Wads- 
 worth our pastor by vote." Mr. Wads worth ac- 
 cepted, and "June 3, 1747 was set apart for fasting 
 and prayer, on purpose to ordain our pastor and 
 deacons." His ordination is said to have been of 
 a regular and most satisfactory character. The 
 leading Separate ministers were present. Rev. 
 Matthew Smith of Stonington preached the ser- 
 mon; Rev. Joseph Snow of Providence gave the 
 charge; Ebenezer Cleaveland of Canterbury gave the 
 right hand of fellowship. Isaac Backus, the histo- 
 rian, and Oliver Prentice of Stonington assisted in 
 the laying on of hands. The exercises were so pro- 
 longed that the ordination of deacons was deferred 
 till the following week. Mr. Wads worth continued 
 in office till he died in 1762. He was followed by 
 Eliphalet Wright who was ordained, says Rev. 
 Robert C. Learned, May 16, 1765. He died August 
 4, 1784. June I, 1785, Israel Day was ^ordained 
 as his successor, and continued in office till his dis- 
 missal May 2^, 1826, a period of forty-one years. 
 During Mr. Day's ministry he was received into the 
 Windham County Association by a special vote. It 
 was probably during his ministry that the church, 
 after many years as a Separate body, returned to 
 the churches which it had left, and by their vote 
 was received into their fellowship. After Mr. Day 
 left the church it was supplied by various ministers. 
 Rev. Joseph Ayer began preaching March, 1849, 
 
1 68 The Separates 
 
 and was installed January, 1851. These Separates 
 were allowed to pursue their own way withouit moles- 
 tation, save that they were obliged to pay rates for 
 the support of the established preacher. The church 
 itself has long been feeble and dependent on Home 
 Missionary aid. But it still remains. In 1755 this 
 church appealed to the legislature for relief from 
 taxation for the support of the established churches. 
 Its petition was finally granted. From that time 
 the case of the Separates in Connecticut was not so 
 severe. 
 
 A Separate society was also organized in Nor- 
 wich Farms, now Franklin. Thomas Denison was 
 ordained as its pastor October 29, 1747. He con- 
 tinued in office till about 1759, after which the 
 church does not appear to have existed. Of him it 
 is said that he appeared at various times and places 
 in the history of the Separate churches. 
 
 In North Stonington a Separate church of thirty- 
 one members was organized September 11, 1746. 
 Matthew Smith was chosen as pastor, as appears 
 from the records of the church, November 2"^, 1746. 
 He was ordained December 10, of the same year. 
 August 3, 1749, he was excommunicated by a coun- 
 cil. Mr. Smith's own account of the affair furnishes 
 the only known reason for so summary action; 
 which, by the way, was not without its parallel in 
 the history of the Separate churches. He says, 
 ''Soon after I was ordained at Stonington I preached 
 to the people from Ephes. II, 22, in a clear line of 
 
Where They Were, etc. 169 
 
 gospel truth; all on a sudden I perceived that the 
 church did not give me fellowship." This caused 
 some talk on that day. ''We parted in great confu- 
 sion," continues Mr. Smith, and adds, "We must 
 see eye to eye, or my lips w\\\ be forever sealed. 
 The laboring point could not be gained. I took a 
 tour into the country — returned before sacrament 
 day. The church desired me to proceed as usual. 
 I objected and refused. Then the church called a 
 council and charged me with negledt of duty." Yet 
 the church said to the council, "We have nothing 
 against Brother Smith, and so every man went to 
 his tent. After a few Sabbaths my mouth was quite 
 stopped that I could not speak for want of fellow- 
 ship." Soon after Mr. Smith removed to Mansfield. 
 In about a year the church in North Stonington 
 called a council in the case, and summoned Mr. 
 Smith to appear before it and answer to the charges 
 against him. He says, "I attended it and they had 
 a full hearing of the matters alledged against me. 
 The Moderator turning to me says, there is some 
 accursed thing with you, that you, by your softness, 
 hide from us ; and for which I now, in the Name of 
 the Lord Jesus, declare you unworthy to have a 
 standing in his house, and hereby cut you off from 
 all priviledges in the same, and deliver you over to 
 the buffetings of the devil." Another of the council 
 declared that Mr. Smith was not fit "to walk the 
 streets of the New Jerusalem," and therefore cast 
 him out of the same and set him "down in the cold 
 
I/O The Separates 
 
 shades of Antichrist and the dark lanes of Babylon, 
 to be buffeted by the devil, and eat no more of the 
 children's bread." Another said, ''As you are now 
 excommunicated by the Holy Ghost you will soon 
 feel and curse like a Devil." And so Mr. Smithes 
 ministry came to an end for reasons which do net 
 appear. 
 
 He was succeeded by Oliver Prentice who was 
 ordained May 22, 1753. He died in office October 
 iSj 1755- Nathan Avery followed him, and was 
 ordained April 25, 1759. He continued in office till 
 he died September 7, 1780, after a ministry of over 
 twenty-one years. After a brief interval he was 
 followed by Christopher Avery who was ordained 
 November 29, 1786. He ministered to the church 
 till his death, July 5, 18 19, nearly thirty-three years. 
 The Separates continued their organization over 
 eighty years. At the end of 'that period they so 
 far united with the old society as to build a house 
 of worship for joint occupancy, with certain limit- 
 ations. In 1824 Rev. Joseph Ayer was employed by 
 both churches to supply their alternate worship. 
 The next step was the reunion of the two churches, 
 March 15, 1827, and thus, after nearly eighty-one 
 years of separation, (this Separate church became 
 extinct as an organization. 
 
 It may be added here that while there was no 
 Separate church as such in Stonington, there was 
 a new society formed, during Mr. Rossiter's minis- 
 try over the First Church, called the East Society. 
 
Where They Were, etc. 171 
 
 This new enterprise built a new house of worship, 
 and Mr. Nathaniel Eels was settled as its pastor. 
 At the death of Mr. Rossiter in October, 1762, Mr. 
 Eels was chosen as his successor in the pastorate of 
 the First Church. The East Society gave up their 
 Separate worship and became united with the First 
 Society — a union which still continues. 
 
 A Separate church was organized in Lyme, and 
 December 25, 1746, John Fuller was ordained as 
 its pastor. In 1759 he removed to Norwich and 
 became pastor of ithe Bean Hill Separate church, 
 where he remained but two or three years. He after- 
 wards became pastor of the united church in Plain- 
 field, February, 1769, where he ministered till his 
 dea.th, October, 1777. We have no account of what 
 became of the church at Lyme after he left it. 
 
 In the summer of 1746 a very respectable part of 
 the church in Scotland embraced Separate princi- 
 ples, and sought certain liberties from the pastor, 
 Rev. Ebenezer Devotion. He was strongly attached 
 to the Saybrook Platform, and refused their re- 
 quests, because he deemed them contrary to good 
 order; whereupon, to the number of about twenty, 
 they withdrew from the stated services of the stand- 
 ing order, and held Separate meetings in private 
 houses. January 22, 1746, the offending members 
 were cited to appear before the pastor and the 
 church, and give their reasons for separating for a 
 long time from the ordinances and worship 'Svhich 
 God had set up among them." Eight reasons were 
 
172 The Separates 
 
 given, as follows: that this was not a church of 
 Christ in regular standing; that Mr. Devotion broke 
 a divine rule in signing a paper against Elisha 
 Paine, and reading it to his congregation, and much 
 more; that Mr. Devotion did not preach Christ ac- 
 cording to their understanding, and other similar 
 charges; that the church admitted unconverted per- 
 sons to communion; that Mr. Devotion was not, in 
 their view, a faithful minister, and that the church 
 was anti-Christ; that they did not enjoy Mr. Devo- 
 tion's preaching, but did Lawyer Paine's and 
 others. Of course the reasons alleged were de- 
 clared to be insufficient. An admonitory paper was 
 prepared by vote of the church, calling upon the se- 
 ceders to return, and warning them of their danger. 
 A committee of fifteen was chosen to take this paper 
 to the refractory members, endeavor to convince 
 them of their error, and then read it to them. March 
 17, 1746, the church declared that, as these persons 
 had withdrawn for insufficient reasons, and had said 
 defamatory things about the church and pastor, for 
 which they ought to be asharned and make humble 
 acknowledgments, until such time as they manifest 
 their repentance, ''this church does by the command 
 of our Lord Jesus, solemnly withdraw from them as 
 disorderly walkers, and renounce communion with 
 them as persons who cause divisions and contentions 
 contrary to doctrines which we have heard and 
 learned — hereby debarring them of all powers to act 
 in church affairs, and depriving them of all right to 
 the special ordinances of the gospel." 
 
Where They Were, etc. 173 
 
 These brethren, thus excommunicated, organized 
 as a Separate church in the summer of 1746. There 
 were at first about twenty of them. Their organi- 
 zation was known as "The Brunswick Church." 
 They adopted appropriate articles and confession of 
 faith. In these they declared Christ to be the in- 
 stitutor of his church; the door by which all enter 
 in; the head of the church, which is his spiritual 
 house, and to which he gives laws and ordinances of 
 worship, and which no human power can build or 
 give laws or rules to govern it. They declared 
 their belief that the Scriptures are a perfect rule to 
 walk by, and the only rule of faith and practice in 
 religion. They declared their belief in the Trinity, 
 in foreordination, in general and special provi- 
 dences, in Christ as alone possessing su- 
 prem.e and lordly power in all the churches upon 
 earth of which he is the sole Head. They affirmed 
 that the government rests upon his shoulder, and that 
 his sovereiign power is exercised by himself in calling 
 his Church, instituting its ordinances, and giving 
 laws for ordering the ways of his people and his 
 house. The power granted by Christ to his Church 
 is exercised by them in admitting members, choos- 
 ing and ordaining their own officers, removing them 
 from office and from fellowship. They declared 
 that the ministry of the gospel is to be supported 
 apart from the ''civil sword," and without coercion. 
 They also declared their duty and purpose to be 
 obedient to civic magistrates as God's ministers in 
 
174 The Separates 
 
 civil affairs. These declarations are in keeping 
 with what has been stated in a previous chapter con- 
 cerning their beliefs. 
 
 The Scotland Separate church soon gained a very 
 respectable position, and drew to itself some of the 
 leading members of the parish. Various proceed- 
 ings were instituted against it by the consociation. 
 But it kept on in its chosen way. If the members 
 were persecuted and imprisoned, this only served 
 to increase their zeal. The only pastor of the 
 
 church was Mr. John Palmer, who was ordained 
 May 17, 1749, and continued in his charge until his 
 death, August 13, 1807, at the age of eighty-six, 
 and after a pastorate of fifty-eight years. The 
 Separates built a meeting-house southeast of Scot- 
 land Village, known as the Brunswick meeting- 
 house. They found no difficulty in supporting 
 preaching by voluntary subscriptions. 
 
 Mr. Devotion was never reconciled to this intru- 
 sion into his diocese. Every Sunday he was ac- 
 customed to send his negro servant with a paper for- 
 bidding Mr. Palmer, or any person, to preach in the 
 Brunswick meeting-house that day. This pro- 
 hibition served only to increase the number of at- 
 tendants upon the preaching of Mr. Palmer, and fan 
 the spirit of separation and opposition into a brighter 
 flame. 
 
 After the death of Mr. Palmer the church wasted 
 away till, in 18 13, it was dissolved by a vote of its 
 remaining members, most of whom went to the 
 
Where They Were, etc. 175 
 
 church in Canterbury, where part of them lived. 
 The meeting-house stood till 1850, says Rev. Robert 
 C. Learned. 
 
 The Preston Separate church, as we have already 
 seen, was organized March 17, 1747. Their reasons 
 for separating from the regular church, their state- 
 ment of principles, their memorials to the legislature, 
 praying for legal recognition and right to hold meet- 
 ings, and for exemption from taxation to support 
 the regular Congregational churches within whose 
 parishes the memorialists lived, and the part it acted 
 in appealing to the crown for relief, have been stated 
 in a previous chapter. It remains to add a word 
 about its origin and final disappearance. A separa- 
 tion from the church in Preston City had taken 
 place prior to March 14, 1744, but it did not issue in 
 an organized church till three years later. De- 
 cember II, 1745, a meeting of the regular church 
 was held. Rev. Hezekiah Lord of Griswold 
 was present by vote of the church to as- 
 sist in the deliberations. The question was 
 whether the church should proceed to discipline 
 "such members as offenders who separated 
 from the communion of it in special ordinances, and 
 attended a separate assembly on Lord's days, while 
 Rev. Mr. Treat was pastor and continued to do so 
 since: Voted in the affirmative." Accordingly 
 the Separating brethren were summoned to appear 
 at a church meeting to be held May 18, 1746. 
 Twenty-three men and women were cited. Evi- 
 
176 The Separates 
 
 dently they were dismissed, if not excommunicated; 
 for their names appear on the roll of the Separate 
 church among its charter members. 
 
 June 18, 1747, the ''church manifested their evi- 
 dence" that Paul Park was chosen to the pastoral of- 
 fice. He was ordained July 15, 1747. Trumbull 
 says that when he was ordained "it was enjoined 
 upon him, by no means ito study or premeditate what 
 he should say in public, but to speak as the Spirit 
 should give him utterance." This church, like all 
 the Separate churches, followed the Cambridge 
 Platform, ''with some alterations and amendments." 
 Mr. Park continued in office and kept the records of 
 the church till he died June 25, 1802, in the eighty- 
 second year of his age, and the fifty-fifth of his min- 
 istry. With his death the church, which he had 
 served so long, practically died. Meetings which 
 had become irregular during his last days, became 
 more so after he v/as gone. Occasionally, Elder 
 Christopher Avery, or Deacon Amos Avery, or some 
 other preacher, would hold services in the old meet- 
 ing-house, or in the neighborhood. After Feb- 
 ruary, 1 80 1, only two members were received in 
 1806, and three in 1807. An effort was made to 
 revive the church in 181 5. Twelve new members 
 were received. Benjamin F. Park was chosen 
 
 clerk, and Amasa Standish deacon. It was voted 
 to ordain Amos Avery as their minister. He was 
 an aged man ; and the ceremony seems never to have 
 occurred. By July 27, 18 17, the date of the last 
 
Where They Were, etc. tyy 
 
 entry in the records, the church seems to have be- 
 come extinct. Of the famiHes who had worshiped 
 at the Separate church, some returned to the regular 
 church at Preston City, some became Methodists, 
 some baptists and some UniversaHsts. 
 
 Elder Park preached a half -century sermon in 
 1797. It is said that large audiences gathered to 
 hear him. It is also said that several Sundays were 
 occupied in the delivery. This can easily be be^ 
 lieved; for the experiences through which he, in 
 common with the other Separates, passed, must have 
 afforded material too abundant to be disposed of in 
 one or even two discourses. It was the early cus- 
 tom of the church to ordain their deacons. The 
 record of the ordination of Elisha Fitch in 1765, 
 found upon the book of the church, illustrates its 
 early practice. "Mr. Fuller of Norwich preached 
 a sermon on the occasion; then the church by their 
 vote filled up their presbytery by adding Mr. Fuller 
 and Deacon Avery; then proceeded: Deacon 
 Avery made the first prayer, our pastor gave the 
 charge, and Mr. Fuller the last [prayer] ; the young 
 deacon read a psalm; we sang and dismissed." As 
 this was one of the leading Separate churches, this 
 event may be taken to represent the custom which 
 usually prevailed on such occasions. It is certain 
 that with them the church, composed of redeemed 
 persons, was the final authority. This ordination 
 of Deacon Fitch reads like an echo from the sixth 
 chapter of the Acts. Elder Park was a descendant 
 
 12 
 
178 The Separates 
 
 of Thomas Park, the first deacon of the church at 
 Preston City. 
 
 A small Separate society was gathered in the 
 southeastern part of the North Parish, New Lon- 
 don, now Montville, in 1747, during the ministry 
 of Rev. David Jewett. Like some other of the 
 *'New Lights," they held the doctrine of baptism by 
 immersion, but were opposed to close communion. 
 Their first leader was Dyer Hyde. He succeeded 
 in drawing away many from the regular Congrega- 
 tional churches to which they belonged. May 17, 
 1750, Joshua Morse, a resident of the North Parish, 
 was ordained their elder. They erected a house of 
 worship which outlasted their organization. They 
 kept together about thirty years. In 1779 Elder 
 Morse removed to Sandisfield, Massachusetts, and 
 the church which he had kept together so long, soon 
 ceased to exist. Out of the remnant of it was or- 
 ganized, in 1788, whaJt came to be known as the 
 Palmer Baptist church. 
 
 There was a secession from the First Society of 
 Windham about 1747. If organized at all, it did 
 not have a long life. Backus, the historian, says 
 that Elihu Morse, (Elisha Marsh, says Miss Lamed, 
 who is probably right,) was ordained there October 
 7, 1747, and that he afterwards became a Baptist. 
 Probably this ended whatever there had been at 
 Windham as a Separate society. The Baptist fold 
 proved a convenient and an agreeable refuge for 
 many Separates on the breaking up of their own 
 churches. 
 
Where They Were, etc. 179 
 
 What is now the South Congregational Church in 
 Middletown, Conn., was organized at Wethersfield, 
 January 7, 1747. It was formed, says the pastor, 
 Rev. Frederick W. Green, *'as a Separaltist, or as they 
 preferred to be called. Strict Congregational church." 
 Like almost every Separate church, it grew out of 
 the Great Awakening. Mr. Green traces its origin 
 back directly to (the preaching of Whitefield on the 
 South Green in Middletown, during his first visit in 
 New England. Its original members came from 
 towns "all the way from Suffield on the north, to 
 Middletown on the south." There were a number 
 of towns along the Connecticut River, where the 
 "fire of Separatism" seemed to burn, where the Say- 
 brook Platform, and its Semi-Presbyterianism, and 
 the Half- Way Covenant were repudiated, and where 
 a consecrated, rather than educated ministry, was 
 emphasized. 
 
 This church, which was formed at Wethersfield, 
 seems not to have been an offshoot from any other 
 church, but an independent movement, with a mem- 
 bership scattered up and down the Connecticut 
 River. Yet several, if not all, of the original mem- 
 bers, twenty or thirty in number, separated from the 
 established churches in the towns where they lived. 
 It. seems to have been gathered at the first in the 
 house of Mr. Ebenezer Frothingham, who was a 
 leading spirit in the movement, and who was or- 
 dained, by the church itself, as its first pastor, Octo- 
 ber 28, 1747. The spirit which animated these 
 
i8o The Separates 
 
 people was as old, they believed, as the prophets, 
 apostles and martyrs. Nathan Cole said, "Why, 
 look in the Bible, and you will find that all the 
 prophets of the Old Testament and all the apostles 
 in the New Testament and even Christ himself, the 
 Son of God, with the martyrs, were all Separatists." 
 Frothingham, the first pastor of the Middletown 
 church, states the case in his book, "The Key of 
 Knowledge," as follows: "The main thing which 
 I have in view ... is free liberty of con- 
 science, the right of thinking, choosing and acting 
 for oneself in the matters of religion, which respect 
 God and conscience, and to contend for this impor- 
 tant privilege, I nor any other person should not be 
 ashamed to do." 
 
 The South Church in MiddlertLown thus had its be- 
 ginnings in Strict Congregational methods; 
 methods which were quite in keeping with the usages 
 of the present. Of the early years in Wethersfield 
 little is recorded. It is not known whether or not 
 the law compelling them to pay for the support of 
 the regular church was so rigidly enforced that they 
 could not endure it. "But for some reasons," says 
 Mr. Green, "several of the leading brethren moved 
 to New York, and at the end of about seven years' 
 struggle with the authorities it was thought best to 
 remove Mr. Frothingham's home, and with it the 
 seat of his ministry to Middletown, and here he was 
 re-installed over them in 1754." This location may 
 have been chosen because there were more members 
 
Where They Were, etc. i8i 
 
 of the church in Middletown, and because the op- 
 position of the town and church was not so violent 
 as in Wethersfield. During 'the first part of Mr. 
 Frothingham's ministry in Middletown, the church 
 still worshiped in his house. His pastorate con- 
 tinued forty-five years. He, like Solomon Paine of 
 Canterbury, stood high in the esteem of the churches 
 of the Separation. 
 
 Although it started out as a Separate church, it 
 is to-day one of the leading churches of the Congre- 
 gational order. Rev. Robert C. Learned says that it 
 was reorganized in 1816. The only churches still 
 remaining which were organized as Separate bodies 
 are the church in South Killingly, the church in 
 Torrington, according to Dr. McEwen, the Benefi- 
 cent Church, Providence, R. I., and the South Con- 
 gregational Church, Middletown. Of the last the 
 pastor says, "Which still in its financial and corpo- 
 rate capacity is known as the Strict Congregational 
 Society of Middletown." Dr. George Leon Walk- 
 er, speaking of the final issue of the Separate move- 
 ment says, "Some of them returned to communion 
 with the churches from which they came out. A 
 few of them — like the Second Church in Middle- 
 town, Connecticut, which still retains the name of 
 The Church in ithe Strict Congregational Society' — 
 developed into strong churches in connection with 
 the general Congregational fellowship. A few passed 
 over into the Baptist communion." The remainder 
 died. It may also be added here, that these churches 
 
1 82 The Separates 
 
 preserved pure and simple Congregationalism, and 
 rescued it from the Presbyterianizing tendency of 
 such documents as the Saybrook Platform. If for 
 nothing else, modern Congregational churches owe 
 them a debt of gratitude for keeping alive their his- 
 toric polity, in the midst of ecclesiastical influences 
 setting strongly toward central authority, and away 
 from the strict autonomy of the local church. 
 
 Mr. Joshua Hempstead says in his diary that a 
 Separate church was formed in East Lyme, over 
 which Ebenezer Mack was ordained as pastor, Jan- 
 uary 12, 1749. They erected a house of worship 
 in 1755. Mr. Mack and a majority of his church 
 became Baptists, and were received into fellowship 
 with other churches of that order, although they 
 continued ithe practice of open communion until 
 1795. This was the origin of what is now known 
 as the First Baptist Church of East Lyme. 
 
 April 18, 1750, Joseph Hastings was ordained 
 pastor of a Separate church which was then organ- 
 ized in Suffield. They built a house of worship in 
 1762. The church soon became divided. Mr. 
 Hastings became a Baptist, and, in 1769, pastor of 
 the Baptist church in Suffield, into which a portion 
 of his Separate church had been organized. The 
 remainder of the Separates then chose Mr. Israel 
 Holley as Itheir pastor, and he was ordained in that 
 office, June 29, 1763. He was afterwards dis- 
 missed, and preached in Granby and Cornwall. This 
 church came to an end about 1784. The members 
 
Where They Were, etc. 183 
 
 who had not already become Baptists, returned to 
 the old church. 
 
 A Separate Society seems to have been formed in 
 Colchester. Jabez Jones was ordained as its pastor. 
 It is probable that this separation was due to the re- 
 fusal of Mr. Little, the pastor of the regular church 
 in Colchester, to allow Mr. Pomeroy of Hebron, a 
 neighboring town, to preach in his church. A 
 lecture had been appointed for Mr. Pomeroy, ap- 
 parently with Mr. Little's consent. Supposing that 
 he was going to the aid of a brother minister, Mr. 
 Pomeroy set out from home. For some reason Mr. 
 Little forbade his going into the meeting-house. A 
 large congregation had assembled. Mr. Pomeroy 
 conceived it to be his duty to address them, thinking 
 that some might be reached and saved. Accord- 
 ingly he retired a little from the meeting-house and 
 preached to a large and attentive company. Com- 
 plaint was made against him for preaching contrary 
 to the law, and for seven years he was deprived of 
 his stated salary. It is not certain that this was 
 the beginning of causes which operated to bring 
 about the organization of a Separate church at Col- 
 chester. But it might have been. At any rate, 
 it was one of many like instances, showing the utter 
 lack of religious liberty in Connecticut, from 1742 
 to 1784, which frequently did result in such protests 
 as separation from the churches of the standing or- 
 der. 
 
 The date of the formation of the Separate church 
 
184 The Separates 
 
 in Enfield is not certain. But there are evidences 
 which seem to point to its existence as early as 1751. 
 The causes which led to separations from the estab- 
 lished churches elsewhere, were operative in En- 
 field as early as that year. There is, therefore, rea- 
 son to believe that the separation took place then. 
 The evidence which seems to establish this date, 
 1 75 1, beyond a reasonable question, is furnished by 
 correspondence, recently discovered, between the 
 Separate church in Enfield and the Separate church 
 in Canterbury. Five letters were written from En- 
 field. The first bears date of ''November 28, Anno 
 1 751". It begins "to the Church of Christ at 
 
 Canterbury (greeten) Beloved in the Lord for 
 help I wright to you by an agreement with the 
 Church in Enfield." The letter goes on to state the 
 difficulties in whose adjustment the assistance of the 
 church in Canterbury is sought. It says, "There 
 is the mystery of enecyty Got into this Church 
 where as if it is not Searched out it will Destroy this 
 body of Saints as a Church here." It is signed by 
 Joseph Markham. The meeting was to take place 
 December 18. Two days later, ''Solomon paine, 
 paster of the Church of Christ at Canterbury, and 
 thomas Stevens paster of the Church of Chris^t at 
 plainfield" gave their decision on the case in ques- 
 tion. It was addressed "to the Church at Enfield, 
 greeting wishing grase, &c." It was signed by 
 Solomon Paine and Thomas Stevens. Three other 
 letters of a similar character show, not only that the 
 
Where They Were, etc. 185 
 
 Separate church in Enfield was in existence as early 
 as 1 75 1, but also that it was seriously rent by inter- 
 nal dissensions, and that the dream of the Separates 
 for a pure church was as yet far from realization. 
 
 Nathaniel Collins was the first pastor of this 
 church. He was a son of Rev. Nathaniel Collins 
 who, in 1699, had become pastor of the regular 
 church in Enfield. The oldest formal document of 
 this church bears date of April 13, 1762. A meet- 
 ing was held "on that day at the house of 
 the Widow Abigail Markham in order to consult 
 matters relative to the Glorious Redeemers vizable 
 Kingdom and interest in the world." A consider- 
 able number were granted permission "to Renew and 
 come into Covenant with God and one with an- 
 other." This meeting was adjourned to April 27 
 to consider other matters affecting the church. One 
 was as follows : "Some consideration Pasd be- 
 tween the church and Assembly and our brother 
 Nath'l Collins of Westfield who was then present 
 for that Purpose by our Desire Relative to his Com- 
 ing and settling with us and Improving his gifts as 
 god shall inable him." On the loth of May follow- 
 ing, "the church on their Part Plumptly Desired him 
 to come to their help as above mentioned and he on 
 his Part manifested Resignation to the Will of God 
 in that Respect." August 20 -the church was again 
 assembled to adjust certain difficulties; it seemed to 
 be in hot water most of the time. At that time Mr. 
 Collins "made a gospel Dedication of him selfe to us 
 
1 86 The Separates 
 
 as on his part Ready to Comply with that Call 
 Which Seamed so Evidently from God and Man.'* 
 At the same meeting a declaration was made which 
 reads like a statement of doctrine. Probably this 
 is the date of the beginning of Mr. Collins' ministry. 
 The statement by the church, or renewal of their 
 covenant, is as follows : — 
 
 We do now as in the Presence of the Great Eter- 
 nal Omnicient god who Knows the Secrets of all 
 hearts and in the presence of angels and men ac- 
 knowledge our Selves to be under the most Solemn 
 Covenant with the Lord (to be for him and no other 
 and we Do now Renew our Covenant with him. 
 
 1. We take the one only Living and True god 
 to be our god one God in three Persons the father — 
 Son and holy Ghost. 
 
 2. we take the Holy Scriptures old and New 
 Testament to be the Reveld mind and will of god 
 and promise Through the helpe of the holy Spirit Ito 
 make them the Rule of oure Life acknowledging 
 ourselves by Nature children of wrath and oure hope 
 of mercy with god is only through the Riteousness 
 of Jesus Christ apprehended by Faith. 
 
 3. We now Call Heaven and Earth to Witness 
 that without ye last reserve we Doo give up oure 
 Selves Soule and Body and all that we have and are 
 to one god through Jesus Christ to be Entirely at his 
 Disposal both oure Selves oure Names and Estates as 
 god shall See most for his own glory and that we 
 will Doo Faithfully by the help of gods Spirit what 
 So ever our Conscience Influenced by the word and 
 Spirit of God Directs us ito be Duty though it be 
 Never so Contrary to Nature both as to Duties to 
 
Where They Were, etc. 187 
 
 god and man, and we do also by the assistance of 
 Divine grace unitedly give up oure Selves one to an- 
 other in Covenant promising by the Help of gods 
 grace to act Towards one another as Brethren in 
 Christ watching over one another in ye Love of god 
 and espicially to watch against all Jesting Lightness 
 and foolish Talking which is ndt Convenient and 
 everything that Does not Become the Followers of 
 the holy Lamb of god and to Seek ye good of each 
 other and of the Church universal for the glory of 
 God and to hold Communion together in the Wor- 
 ship of god and in the ordinances and Discipline of 
 Christ in this Church of God According to Christ's 
 visible . . . [not legible]. And submitting 
 oure selves to the Discipline of Christ in this Church 
 as part of his mystical body according as we shall 
 be guided by the word and spirit of god, and by help 
 of Divine grace Still to be looking for more light 
 from god which is contained in the sacred script- 
 ures beleaving that their is greater mysteries to be 
 solved and further Light to Shine in ye Church be- 
 yond what they have ever yet attained to. Looking 
 and watching for the glorious Day when the Lord 
 Jesus will Take to himself his great power and Reign 
 from Sea to Sea and from ye rivers to ye ends of 
 the Earth and this Covenant we make with the free 
 and full consent of our soules Beleaving [not leg- 
 ible] ratified in heaven before the throne of god 
 and the Lamb. 
 
 Even so come Lord Jesus Amen and Amen. 
 Neh. 9-38 — and chap 10-28-29, 2d Chron. 15-12 
 Isa. 5-5." 
 
 This remarkable document is signed by fifty per- 
 sons, male and female, with the name of Nathaniel 
 
1 88 The Separates 
 
 Collins, who was henceforth the pastor, at the head 
 of the column. This is the earliest known paper in 
 existence which points directly to the organization 
 of a Separate church in Enfield. But as it was de- 
 clared to be a renewal of "our Covenant with him," 
 it clearly points to an organization already effected, 
 and justifies the view already stated that the church 
 had been in existence since 1751. It seems rea- 
 sonable also to infer that this restatement of faith, 
 and renewal of Covenant, was made August 20, 
 1762, upon the occasion of the church's taking to 
 itself Mr. Collins as pastor. 
 
 As a statement of belief it sheds additional light 
 upon the views held by the Separates of Connecticut. 
 As far as it goes its onthodoxy cannot be ques- 
 tioned. Its Trinitarianism is pronounced. Its be- 
 lief in the Word of God as a rule of faith and prac- 
 tice is unequivocal. The covenant promises all 
 that could be asked. The difficulty was, as appears 
 from frequent councils called to settle disputes, they 
 did not live up to i(t. These internal dissensions, by 
 which this church was torn, hastened its decline. 
 
 Seven years after the above reorganization the 
 Enfield Separates petitioned the legislature for re- 
 lief from taxation to support the established church, 
 and for legal right to exist as a religious society. 
 The memorial was granted in May, 1770, and so, af- 
 ter more than twenty years of existence the Separates 
 of Enfield had legal status as The Second Society 
 of Enfield. The memorial was opposed by the First 
 
Where They Were, etc. 189 
 
 Society; but in vain. The leg^islaiture had already 
 granted a similar memorial of the church in South 
 Killingly, and adopted a more liberal policy towards 
 those who dissented from the established order. 
 
 Eighty names were affixed to the memorial, show- 
 ing a considerable growth within the seven years 
 since the reorganization referred to. But their 
 
 trials as to the support of the gospel were not at an 
 end. It was easier to promise than to pay. The 
 Separates were not so very unlike other Christians. 
 So they, like other churches, had to have meetings 
 and they chose commiittees "to Treat with those Per- 
 sons that Refuse to pay itheir Respective Sums," or 
 "to Collect the Nessessaries of Life for the Rev^ Mr. 
 Collins." This was as late as 1777. The theory 
 of a gospel supported by the free gifts of the people 
 was one thing; to get these gifts was quite an- 
 other thing. And the Separates were, some of 
 them, at least, compelled to resort to the very 
 methods against which they had protested. At any 
 rate, they found that absolutely free-will offerings 
 did not meet the necessities of the case. After mak- 
 ing proper allowance for the financial straits which 
 were due to commercial and other disturbances of 
 the Revolutionary War, iit is evident from the records 
 of the church, as Dr. Means well remarks, ''that 
 the members of this (the Enfield) church had not 
 attained to their own professed ideal — that the main- 
 tenance of a church should be voluntary. Their 
 theory in this respect was in advance of their time, 
 
190 The Separates 
 
 while their practice failed to exemplify their theory." 
 As we have seen, the First Parish opposed 
 granting the memorial of the Separates. One 
 
 Peter Reynolds was chosen to represent it ''at the 
 Assembly to Defend against said petition." Bu't 
 not only was the second, or Separate, Society legal- 
 ized by act of the legislature; also a portion of the 
 land originally set apart for the support of the min- 
 istry in Enfield was taken from the firsit society 
 and given to this. Naturally there was more or 
 less of friction, but the relations between the two 
 churches were as friendly as could have been ex- 
 pected under the circumstances. 
 
 The first meeting of the new society after the leg- 
 islature had granted it legal existence, was held 
 November 22, 1770. But the future was not all 
 smooth. Social problems perplexed them as well 
 as other churches. There were the petty jealousies 
 which arose from the "common practice of assigning 
 seats in the meeting house in accordance with the 
 supposed rank or worth of the Congregation." As 
 was the custom in other churches, the duty of ''seat- 
 ing the meeting house" was assigned to a commit- 
 tee. 
 
 How long Mr. Collins served as the pastor of the 
 Enfield Separate church we do not know. There 
 are no explicit records concerning the settlement of 
 ministers to succeed him. There were others, of 
 whom Rev. George Atwell was one. It is likely 
 
Where They Were, etc. 191 
 
 that there were intervals of considerable duration 
 when the church had no pastor. The one bond 
 which held them together was ''their common feel- 
 ing of opposition to the First Church." That such 
 was their bond of fellowship is demonstrated by the 
 fact that, when all reason for further hostility was 
 removed through their own legal incorporation as a 
 church, then radical elements of discord and disrup- 
 tion appeared among themselves — elements which 
 ended in the extinction of the church. 
 
 From this Separate church a number withdrew, 
 who joined the Shaker Community which was being 
 formed in 1786. Joseph Markham, who seems to 
 have been a disturbing factor among the Separates, 
 was among those who withdrew. The remaining 
 members of the church lived a checkered life. Dis- 
 putes and divisions destroyed their spirituality and 
 very malterially weakened the force of the church. 
 After a varied life of over fifty years this Separate 
 Society of Enfield merged into a Baptist church in 
 1806. Some of the original Separates moved from 
 town; others died. Five men who signed the 
 memorial of 1769 returned to the church from which 
 they had gone out more than thirty years before. In 
 1806 the land and church and parsonage of the 
 Separates became the property of the Baptists. In 
 1842, when the Baptist society ceased to exist, the 
 property passed into the hands ''of what is now 
 known as the Adventist Society of Enfield." Thus 
 
192 The Separates 
 
 ended this chapter in the story of the Separate move- 
 ment in Enfield.* 
 
 April 15, 1 75 1, Alexander Miller was ordained 
 over the Separate church in Voluntown. He min- 
 istered to it till his removal to Plainfield about 1758, 
 when its members returned to the church which they 
 had left. This united church is known as ''the 
 church in Voluntown and Sterling." 
 
 In North Groton, now Ledyard, there was a small 
 body of Separates. At what time the society was 
 gathered we do not definitely know. But Rev. 
 Mr. Tuttle, in a sermon preached on the forty-eighth 
 anniversary of his settlement in Ledyard, says it was 
 probably sometime between 1742 and 1748. Na- 
 thaniel Brown, Jr., probably a native of the town, 
 was ordained as pastor of the church, November 14, 
 1 75 1, and held the office about four years. His suc- 
 cessor was Park AUyn, who was born in Ledyard in 
 1733. Mr. Tuttle says, ''Elder Allyn was, by a 
 council, deposed from the ministry on account of al- 
 leged immorality, and his church was left to be scat- 
 tered. Some of the members were living when I 
 came (in 181 1) to this place, and a few of them 
 united with this church after it was formed." Rev. 
 
 *I am indebted for the principal facts relative to the Sepa- 
 rate church in Enfield to Dr. Oliver William Means, pastor 
 of the First Church in Enfield, whose "sketch of the Strict 
 Congregational Church in Enfield" gives the complete story of 
 the movement from 1751 to 1842, and is a valuable contribu- 
 tion to the ecclesiastical history of Connecticut. It is pub- 
 lished by the Hartford Seminary Press, and the reader is re- 
 ferred to it for details which could not be given here. 
 
Where They Were, etc. 193 
 
 John Avery says, 'The Separate church edifice stood 
 about a mile west of the Congregational. It was 
 removed to Gales Ferry in 1803; and for more than 
 fifty years, standing where the Methodist church 
 now stands, was occupied by the Methodist people 
 as their place of worship. The old church edifice, 
 which was about as large, I think, as an old-time 
 country schoolhouse, was standing at Gales Ferry 
 and used as a barn several years after I began my 
 ministry in Ledyard," in 1881. 
 
 Mr. Allyn died, February 13, 1804. After he 
 was deposed the church does not seem to have had 
 any pastor, or even stated supply. It kept along 
 for some time, probably till about 181 1. But just 
 how long its organization continued we do not 
 know; for if it ever had any records, they have not 
 come down to us. It is likely that neighboring 
 Separate ministers preached for it occasionally. 
 Those who did not join Mr. Tuttle's church became 
 scattered. 
 
 In this connection it may be said that about 1745- 
 50 Elder Park Avery, a Separate minister, fitted up 
 a large room in the house, on Poquonock plain, 
 which James Avery had built in 1656, and used it 
 for public worship. "There he and the church 
 
 which he had gathered held public service for a great 
 many years." When these gatherings ceased the 
 Separate worship came to an end in Groton. 
 
 A Separate Society was formed in the "Long So- 
 ciety," Preston. In her history of Norwich, Miss 
 
194 ^^^^ Separates 
 
 Caulkins says, ** Meetings were held in that society, 
 but it is not known that a church was organized/' 
 Since she wrote, the original records of the Preston 
 Separate church have come to light. In these 
 records, under date of May 17, 1752, it is stated 
 that a Idtter had been received from the Long So- 
 ciety, desiring the Preston church to send messen- 
 gers "to assist in ordaining a pastor." June 5, 
 this messenger reported that "The Evidence 
 was Clear that Jonathan Storey Was Called of 
 God and Chosen by ye Church to ye office 
 of a Pasltor who was ordained by ye laying on O'f 
 hands by ye Churches' Presbyters: namely: Elder 
 Hide [Norwich Town] : Eld^ John Palmer [Scot- 
 land] : Eld Paul Parke and Joseph Elderkin Broth- 
 er." This record points to a church in the Long 
 Society and fixes the date of Mr. Story's ordina- 
 tion between May 17 and June 5, 1752. August 
 5, 1752, the Preston church met with the church 
 in the Long Society, to consider the case of Sam- 
 uel Gore who had communed with the former 
 church but refused to do so more, giving as a 
 reason his disbelief in infant baptism. Two years 
 later the Preston church sent delegates to the 
 church in the Long Society on the occasion of the 
 ordination of a deacon. May 21, 1758, the Preston 
 Church again responded to a letter from the church 
 in the Long Society, and sent messengers "to Give 
 them advice Respecting there Broken Scatred Con- 
 dition." May 19, 1765, the Preston church records 
 the admission of Mrs. Nathaniel Giddings to its 
 
Where They Were, etc. 195 
 
 communion. She had formerly been a member of 
 the Separate church in the Long Society, '*and when 
 that Qi'h was broek and Dissolved she with others 
 were Recommended by a Council to any Chh they 
 were minded to join with of ye same Constitution." 
 These minutes show conclusively that a Separate 
 church was organized in the western part of Pres- 
 ton, known then as East Norwich, or the Long 
 Society; that its pastor was ordained in 1752; that 
 it existed about thirteen years; and that its remain- 
 ing members were scattered among the neighbor- 
 ing Separate churches, upon the recommendation of 
 the Council that dissolved the church. This whole 
 proceeding, and the records of the Preston church 
 touching its sister church, have an exceedingly 
 sitrong flavor of modem Congregationalism. 
 
 There was also a Separate movement at Bozrah, 
 then called Norwich Plains. Bliss Willoughby was 
 probably ordained its pastor in 1756. Of its fur- 
 ther history we have no knowledge. The move- 
 ment was of short duraJtion. 
 
 A Separate church was organized in Somers in 
 1769. The First Church, on the death of Mr. Leav- 
 itt, in 1 76 1, became greatly distracted, and was 
 divided. Part became Separates and built a meeting- 
 house. Mr. Ely became their pastor from 1769 to 
 1774. He afterwards was prominent in Shay's re- 
 bellion in western Massachusetts, and died in 
 prison. For thirteen years after the death of Mr. 
 Leavitt the First Church was pastorless. In Au- 
 
196 The Separates 
 
 gust, 1774, Dr. Backus became the pastor. Under 
 him the two churches became one again, the Sepa- 
 rates returning in great harmony to the fold 
 whence they had gone out. 
 
 In Prospect, a Separate church was organized be- 
 tween 1770 and 1780. Benjamin Beach was pastor 
 for several years. In 1798 the present church was 
 formed. The Separates were unable to support the 
 gospel, alone, and most of them united with the 
 new church. The old Separate meeting-house was 
 occupied, at first, by the new society, having been 
 repaired in 1801. 
 
 In 1786 a Strict Congregational society was 
 formed in Torrington by several members who 
 withdrew from the regular church. They com- 
 menced the erection of a house of worship. In 
 March, 1787, by vote of the church, Lemuel Haynes, 
 a colored preacher, a man of great shrewdness and 
 wit, and who ministered to various white congre- 
 gations for about fifty years, was chosen pastor. 
 Though not installed he held this office about two 
 years. In 1791, by the aid of a council the two 
 churches adopted new articles of faith and a cove- 
 nant, and were reunited. 
 
 In Bethlehem, in Coventry and in New Milford 
 the spirit of Separation manifested itself to some 
 extent, but not to such a degree as to crystalize into 
 Separate societies. In Haddam there were move- 
 ments towards Separation. A society was formed 
 in 1785. In 1792 they professed Baptist principles, 
 
Where They Were, etc. 197 
 
 %nd were received into the fellowship of that de- 
 nomination. 
 
 These are the principal instances of separation 
 from the standing order. Several returned to the 
 fellowship of the churches from which they had 
 gone out. Three still remain in Connecti- 
 cut: South Killingly, the South Church in 
 Middletown, and the church in Torrington. Of 
 the last two Dr. McEwen says that they 
 "as churches . . . became Separates," but 
 soon reverted to their original connection with 
 Congregationalists. It seems, however, that the 
 church in Middletown was gathered as a Separate 
 church, as we have already seen. In several cases 
 the church became Baptist. In one or two in- 
 stances a Universalist church resulted. In one case 
 a colony of Shakers was the final issue. The 
 church in Canterbury, it is claimed, became Sepa- 
 rate as a church. But it became extinct. Only 
 two or three survived into the ninteenth century. 
 That in Preston seems to have been the last to dis- 
 appear. The church in Canterbury, during its com- 
 paratively brief life, seems to have been the leading 
 church of the order. 
 
 In Massachusetts, as we have seen, a number of 
 the Separates embraced the Baptist faith. Backus 
 says 'that "more than threescore members of the 
 Separate church in Sturbridge, including all their 
 officers were baptized in 1749." In September of 
 the same year Elder Ebenezer Moulton of Brim- 
 
198 The Separates 
 
 field baptized several in Bridgewater and in Rayn- 
 ham, who left the Separate churches in those towns. 
 He adds that Baptist elders "baptized many in the 
 Separate churches of Connecticut, and it seemed as 
 though all those churches would become Baptists." 
 But, as we have seen, it was impossible for the Sepa- 
 rates, who believed in sprinkling and infant bap- 
 tism, to unite with the Baptists, who did not be- 
 lieve in these ordinances, and so there were few 
 cases in which Separate churches went over to that 
 communion. 
 
 A council of Separate churches was held at South 
 Killingly, September 19, 1781, to agree upon mat- 
 ters of discipline, a confession of faith, and other 
 questions pertaining to the welfare of the churches. 
 This seems to have been the inauguration of the 
 custom of holding yearly meetings on the third 
 Thursday in September. It was also, without doubt, 
 the beginning of the ''Strict Congregational Con- 
 vention of Connecticut," which, as we have seen, 
 exercised jurisdiction in Long Island till a conven- 
 tion was organized there in 1791. The decay of the 
 churches which comprised it soon brought an end 
 to the convention. As but two or three societies 
 survived the century, it is reasonable to conclude 
 that the Convention did not. The last general meet- 
 ing, of which the records of the Preston church 
 make mention, was held in 1797. 
 
VII 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 The foregoing chapters tell the story of a relig- 
 ious movement which took place chiefly between 
 1740 and 1755. A few societies were former later, 
 but they did not reach any considerable size or 
 influence. The movement, for reasons which will 
 suggest themselves, never spread far beyond its 
 original limits, within which it was mainly confined. 
 As has been seen, it began in eastern Connecticut 
 as an indirect result of the great revival; as a direct 
 protest, on the part of earnest men and women, 
 against the loose practice and discipline of the 
 churches established under the Saybrook Platform. 
 The movement was attended with not a few extrava- 
 gances; yet we cannot bur sympathize with the 
 motive that w^as behind it. The Separates believed, 
 with the early Fathers of New England, and with 
 Hooker of Hartford, and with Davenport of New 
 Haven, that only regenerate persons were eligible 
 to church estate. They therefore stopped all who 
 sought admission thereto, at the door of the church, 
 to enquire as to their religious experience, and as 
 to the evidence which they gave of regenerate char- 
 acter. In this important particular the established 
 churches, as we have seen, had grown exceedingly 
 remiss; and this remissness the Separates could not 
 
 199 
 
200 The Separates 
 
 endure. Dr. Oliver W. Means, in his story of the 
 Strict Congregaltional Church of Enfield, says, "A 
 careful study of the inner life of the Separatist 
 Church of Enfield will lead to the conclusion that, in 
 common with other churches of the same order, this 
 church stood in stubborn opposition to certain 
 worldly practices that had gathered about the estab- 
 lished churches of that day." 
 
 The Separates also believed, as is shown by their 
 declarations of belief and practice, that Christ alone, 
 and not any civil power, of any sort whatsoever, 
 was the source of all authority in the church, and 
 therefore that the church, as his body, was com- 
 petent to manage and direct its local affairs, without 
 the interference of the State. Here they certainly 
 occupied ground held by the Separatists of Scrooby, 
 more than a century and a quarter before, by the 
 Fathers of New England, and by the Congregational 
 churches of to-day. In both these contentions we 
 must take sides with them as against the civil 
 power and the churches arrayed against them. 
 They simply stood on the ground on which the 
 churches of New England were originally organ- 
 ized. The fact that almost, if not quite, without 
 exception, these churches adopted the Cambridge 
 Platform of 1648, proves that their ecclesiastical 
 polity was an expression of primitive New England 
 Congregationalism. And as their idea of the church 
 was in so complete accord with views so generally 
 prevalent now, we must admit that they were, at 
 
Conclusion 201 
 
 least in this one respect, a hundred years in ad- 
 vance of their time. Their break with the old 
 Puritan idea of a parish, which was a legacy in- 
 herited from the State establishments of Europe, 
 was none too emphatic and came none too soon. 
 A civil body, organized to manage the affairs of 
 Christ's visible Church, was their peculiar aversion; 
 and with good reason. The modern movement to 
 enable churches to manage their own material 
 affairs, without the intervention of a parish, often 
 constituted of men of the world, in no sympathy 
 wi'th the Church, is only an effective expression of 
 the idea of the Separates of Connecticut, more than 
 a hundred and fifty years ago. 
 
 It is in Puritanism in New England that we find 
 the first beginnings of some of the views which 
 are perpetuated in modern Unitarianism. First 
 was the view, which found formal expression in 
 the Half -Way Covenant, that a personal experi- 
 ence of the new birth was not necessary to church 
 membership if the life were outwardly correct. 
 Next was the view which magnified the parish at 
 the expense of the church. The Separates preserved 
 the traditional theories and Congregationalism of 
 the Pilgrims, and insisted that the church, with- 
 out a secular helm, the parish, was autonomous in 
 both financial and spiritual management. In this 
 respect also they were in advance of their day. 
 
 The Saybrook Platform, as it was endorsed by 
 the Connecticut legislature, October, 1708, was ac- 
 
202 The Separates 
 
 companied by the toleration act, of the previous 
 May, entitled "for the ease of such as soberly dis- 
 sent." But, as we have seen, this act was repealed, 
 in May, 1743, and all liberty was gone for all who 
 could show nothing- to dififerentiate them from Con- 
 gregationalists or Presbyterians. The ecclesiastical 
 establishment in Connecticut was as rigorous and 
 unsparing as that from which the Fathers had fled 
 in 1608 and 1630. It continued till 1784, when 
 the Saybrook Platform, by act of the legislature, 
 ceased to be binding. It cannot be denied that the 
 Separate churches were, in their simple ecclesias- 
 tical polity, more in accord with the democratic 
 character of our modern Congregational churches, 
 than those which adopted the Presbyterial provi- 
 sions of the Saybrook Platform. The name which 
 they chose for themselves — Strict Congregational 
 Churches — shows that they claimed to ad- 
 here strictly to the democratic form of church or- 
 ganization, while they charged against the State 
 churches, and not without reason, that they were 
 partly Presbyterial. 
 
 In view of these facts the collapse of the whole 
 movement within half a century creates surprise, 
 and awakens the suspicion that there was in it some 
 fatal structural weakness. A movement in which 
 was so much to commend could not so completely 
 disappear, leaving scarcely anything but its history 
 behind it, unless there were some radical defects 
 in it. The course of the Separates was in 
 
Conclusion 203 
 
 open defiance of law, and, as we have seen, 
 broughit upon them most bitter persecution, 
 as well as arrayed against them all the powerful 
 social influence of the established churches. 
 But their decay was due to deeper causes, inherent 
 in the movement itself. Persecution and opposition 
 did not crush out the Separatists of Scrooby, nor 
 the Puritans who settled around Massachusetts Bay. 
 Further, the most rapid decline of the Separates 
 of Connecticut dates from the year when the legis- 
 lature grudgingly granted the petition of the church 
 at South Killingly to be relieved from taxation to 
 support the minister of the regular church. But the 
 relief came too late. Their original leaders were 
 dead in most cases, and they were cast down by 
 discouragement. They were torn by internal dis- 
 sensions. In many cases there were irreconcilable 
 differences upon the question of baptism, which 
 could have but one issue. Soon after the death of 
 Solomon Paine the Canterbury church ceased. In 
 twenty years the Mansfield church had run its 
 course. In 1806 the Enfield church had come to an 
 end. The Preston church owed itself to Paul Park, 
 its pastor for over fifty years. Its length of life 
 and growth were due to his industry and influence. 
 Though it existed several years after his death, 
 living an irregular, lingering life, till about 181 7, 
 it practically died with him. 
 
 Something is radically wrong in any church 
 whose life and vigor are so dependent upon any per- 
 
204 The Separates 
 
 son. Several causes may be pointed out in the 
 Separate movement, which Hmited its influence and 
 its hfe. It often began and continued in a kind of 
 emotional excess. These people confounded relig- 
 ious experience with certain sensuous emotions, and 
 judged the former by the degree of the latter. They 
 regarded certain bodily contortions as necessary 
 evidences of the presence and the workings of the 
 Spirit. They measured zeal by the violence of one's 
 action, and accused ministers, who were moderate 
 in their style of preaching, with lacking unction. 
 The doctrine of perfection, in its objectionable, 
 fleshly form, crept in among some of them. In 
 some cases they went to even greater excesses than 
 when Davenport was their leader. Some of them, 
 says Tracy, became, "in their own esteem too holy 
 to receive the ordinances from any such minister 
 as was then on earth, and therefore baptized each 
 other." In some cases, narrated by Backus, they 
 ignored the obligation of the marriage vows, and 
 scandalous results were notorious. Happily, such 
 instances were rare. But those which existed 
 showed the danger of a false zeal, which defeats 
 itself. The extravagances of the movement, and 
 in which those concerned in it persisted, helped to 
 deprive it of much of the power and influence which 
 otherwise would have attended it. 
 
 The weakness of the movement was, in a meas- 
 ure, attributable to another cause. We refer to 
 the illiteracy and lack of education on the part of 
 
Conclusion 205 
 
 both its leaders and its rank and file. The charge 
 given to Paul Park, when he was ordained over the 
 Preston church, not to premeditate what he should 
 say, when preaching, illustrates the prevalent spirit 
 of the Separates. They believed that human learn- 
 ing, especially as related to declaring the truth of 
 God, was a snare and a delusion, liable to lead men 
 into error. They professed, therefore, to rely solely 
 and directly upon the enlightenment of the Holy 
 Ghost. This contempt of learning, not only in the 
 people themselves, but also in their leaders, brought 
 forth the natural fruits of ignorance, coupled with 
 false zeal and a certain degree of superstition. It 
 resulted, often, in a strange misunderstanding of the 
 Bible. Their leaders were usually men taken from 
 their own membership, and ordained as their pas- 
 tors, without any preparation for their work. As 
 a consequence they usually attracted to themselves 
 the less stable portion of the community, and those 
 persons who love to run after novelties in religion. 
 Naturally, their hold was not strong upon a vigor- 
 ous and permanent life. Nor were they able always 
 to exert a commanding influence in the communi- 
 ties where they were planted. There were, of 
 course, here and there exceptions. But these were 
 of a character to prove the rule. 
 
 Their claim to what they called "the key of knowl- 
 edge," was still another source of weakness. By 
 this they meant that Christ had given them the gift 
 of the Spirit in such measure that they could infalli- 
 
2o6 The Separates 
 
 bly tell a Christian from one who is not, as readily 
 as "a sheep may be known from a dog," and that 
 those only "with whom they held communion in the 
 inward actings of their own souls were Christians." 
 Doubtless there are tests, given in the Word of 
 God, by which disciples may be known. But the 
 fact that councils were called with great frequency, 
 by many of the Separate churches, to settle cases 
 of discipline, proves that sometimes their ''key of 
 knowledge" did not fit the lock. A good many of 
 these churches, like the one in Enfield, were per- 
 petually in trouble, because the brethren did not 
 dwell together in unity. Besides, their claims to an 
 intuitive knowledge of Chrisitian character led them 
 into great extravagances in church discipline. Their 
 excessive zeal for a pure church often overdid the 
 matter. Their tests were frequently more sentiment- 
 al than real. An excess of joy, an outward view of 
 Chrisit, visions which some of them claimed to have, 
 and similar proofs were applied and depended 
 on by them, to determine whether men had been 
 born again. The success of this method is best told 
 by their oft recurring cases of discipline, which kept 
 churches in a constant turmoil. Miss Larned, in her 
 history of Windham County, says, "But it was when 
 turned upon themselves that the 'Key of Knowledge' 
 did the greatest injury. 'Absolute certainty' of the 
 spiritual condition of another on admission to the 
 church membership did not prevent extreme dis- 
 trust afterward. If a brother or sister did not feel 
 
Conchtsion 207 
 
 a positive interflowing of sympathy and affection 
 with some particular person, some hidden sin was 
 the cause, which must be sought out, detected, con- 
 fessed, and brought to judgment before they could 
 commune together at the Lord's table." The result 
 was that, to the detriment of the church, the most 
 trivial (things were made occasions of complaint and 
 discipline. No other cause more rapidly hastened 
 the decay and disintegration of the Separate 
 churches. As an example, take the complaint of 
 Joseph Markham against the church in Enfield. 
 The charge, as appears in the finding of Solomon 
 Paine of Canterbury, and Thomas Stevens of 
 Plainfield, to whom the case was referred, was that, 
 "BenJ Simons servant to me the Subscriber has left 
 the servis of me his S^ master to the Damig of my 
 outward Estate and to the wounding of the cause 
 of Christ, and this Church of Christ at Enfield has 
 Countenanced the S^ benjamin in the leving of my 
 Sd servis and fellowshiping with him in leving my 
 sturidship hereby I shew my dislike and Requier the 
 Sd Church to make gospel Sattisfaction for their 
 So doing." It was further complained that, while 
 Markham was in prison, the said Benjamin married 
 contrary ito Markham's advice, which, it was 
 claimed, the church encouraged him to do, to the 
 great detriment of the said Markham. This is given 
 as an example of the trivial cases of discipline which 
 were constantly rending these churches, weakening 
 their power, and hastening their final disintegration. 
 
2o8 The Separates 
 
 Manifestly their "Key of Knowledge" was as little 
 successful in securing the pure church of their 
 dreams, as the loose practices of the standing 
 churches, against which they protested. 
 
 There may have been other elements of weakness 
 in the movement, but these were the principal ones, 
 which were sure, soon or late, to bring it to grief. 
 There was another reason for the final disappear- 
 ance of these churches, which was not inherent in 
 them. The loose practices, against which the Sepa- 
 rates protested, finally disappeared, state control 
 came to an end, and the religious liberty for which 
 they contended was restored. The powerful preach- 
 ing of Edwards, and the bold stand which he took 
 against admitting to church membership any but 
 regenerate persons, while it cost him his pastorate 
 at Northampton, yet dealt a blow to the Half- Way 
 Covenant and its practice, from which it never re- 
 covered. While it continued through the last half 
 of the eighteenth century, it did so with a con- 
 stantly diminishing hold upon the churches. The 
 revivals with which that century closed, and the 
 nineteenth century opened, finished the work, and 
 the regular churches came back into the ways for 
 which the Separates contended, both in discipline 
 and in methods of support — the original Congrega- 
 tional ways of the Separatists of Scrooby. There 
 was, therefore, no further reason for their separate 
 organization. The end which they had in view was 
 gained. It can hardly be said that the Separate 
 
Conclusion 
 
 209 
 
 movement contributed very largely to the change 
 in practice and discipline which finally took place in 
 the regular churches. There was in it too little of 
 real strength, and too much of structural weakness. 
 Nevertheless, there is good reason for the words of 
 the pastor of the South Congregational Church in 
 Middletown, Conn. : "The Congregational church 
 of to-day is stronger and better able to do its work, 
 and has more faith in its own polity, unmixed with 
 any stronger form of government because of the 
 lesson which she so unwillingly learned from the 
 Separatists." 
 
 Rev. Robert C. Learned, in The New Englander 
 for 1853, calls this movement a "sad mistake." 
 From some points of view it was. But the same 
 spirit which led the men of Scrooby to leave the 
 Established Church of England in the early part of 
 the seventeenth century, led the Separates of New 
 England to leave the churches of the "standing 
 order," in the middle of the eighteenth century. 
 The mistake of the latter was the mistake of the 
 former, which we must forever be glad that they 
 made. 
 
 The Separates of New England were for the 
 most part sincere, honest, pious men and women. 
 This was shown in their life and death. In many 
 things their views were more correct than those of 
 their opponents. The chief charge against them 
 was their separation. Edwards, and those who 
 agreed with him among the clergy, advised the 
 
210 Th e Sep ara tes 
 
 course of the old Puritans, who sought to reform 
 the Church of England from within. The Sepa- 
 raites took issue here, followed the men of Scrooby, 
 and came out. Puritanism, with its parish, led 
 straight back to the evils to be corrected. We in- 
 cline to think that they took the only course open to 
 them. 
 
 It was a decisive step, we think, in the right 
 direction, and was not wholly without results. It is 
 to be regretted, however, that a movement in w^hich 
 there were so great possibilities was defeated in 
 large measure because those engaged in it, while 
 honest and sincere, allowed themselves to be carried 
 to such unreasonable extremes. There was abun- 
 dant occasion for such a movement. The principles 
 of liberty, expressed in the simple polity of Congre- 
 gationalism, and that polity itself, were threatened 
 by the oppressive and Presbyterianizing measures 
 of the older and established churches of Connecti- 
 cut, under the Saybrook Platform. Tracy very truly 
 says, "From a candid consideration of the whole 
 subject ... it appears . . . that the pre- 
 valence of Separatism, and its concomitant errors 
 and evils, was far less extensive than it has usually 
 been represented; that the amount of evil fairly 
 chargeable to this source in the whole country, has 
 been greatly overestimated, while the good which it 
 aided to accomplish, has not been acknowledged." 
 So then the Separate movement served its purpose, 
 had its influence, gave in its testimony for a pure 
 
Conclusion 211 
 
 church, helped to save primitive CongregationaHsm, 
 contributed considerably to the building up of the 
 churches of the Baptist order, and made an inter- 
 esting and instructive chapter in the ecclesiastical 
 history of New England. 
 
Pliiii 
 
 mm 
 mm 
 
 
 m 
 
 iliii 
 
 11!