The development of religious liberty in Connecticut

Front matter

TE TS aeseene Se = ee ae <a Aecrneeeammmeens en = Aenean

= : — a er nee Sher era = . | =

<oot y * HOUGHTON is ine ay O78 wha.

Preface

Tue following monograph is the outgrowth of three earlier and shorter essays. The first, ‘Church and State in Connecticut to 1818,” was presented to Yale University as a doctor’s thesis. The second, a briefer and more popularly written article, won the Straus prize offered in 1896 through Brown University by the Hon. Oscar S. Straus. The third, a paper containing additional matter, was so far approved by the American Historical Association as to receive honorable mention in the Justin Winsor prize competition of 1901.

With such encouragement, it seemed as if the history of the development of religious liberty in Connecticut might serve a larger purpose than that of satisfying personal interest alone. In

Connecticut such development was not marked, as so often elsewhere, by wild disorder, outrageous oppression, tyranny ‘of classes, civil war, or by any great retrograde movement. Connecticut was more modern in her progress towards such liberty, and her contribution to advancing civilization was a pattern of stability, of reasonvi PREFACE ableness in government, and of a slow broadening out of the conception of liberty, as she gradually softened down her restrictions upon religious and personal freedom.

And yet, Connecticut is recalled as a part of that New England where those not Congregationalists, the unorthodox or radical thinkers, found early and late an uncomfortable atmosphere and restricted liberties. By a study of her past, I have hoped to contribute to a fairer judgment of the men and measures of colonial times, and to a correct estimate of those essentials in religion and morals which endure from age to age, and which alone, it would seem, must constitute the basis of that “ultimate union of Christendom ” toward which so many confidently look. The past should teach the present, and one generation, from dwelling upon the transient beliefs and opinions of a preceding, may better judge what are the non-essentials of its own.

Connecticut’s individual experiment in the union of Church and State is separable neither from the New England setting of her earliest days nor from the early years of that Congregationalism which the colony approved and established. Hence, the opening chapters of her story must treat of events both in old England and in New. And because religious liberty was

PREFACE vil finally won by a coalition of men like-minded in their attitude towards rights of conscience and in their desire for certain necessary changes and reforms in government, the final chapters must deal with’ social and political conditions more than with those purely religious. It may be pertinent to remark that the passing of a hundred years since the divorce of Church and State and the reforms of a century ago have brought to the commonwealth some of the same deplorable political conditions that the men of the past, the first Constitutional Reform Party, swept away by the peaceful revolution of 1818.

For encouragement, assistance, and suggestions, I am especially indebted to Professor George B. Adams and Professor Williston Walker of Yale University, to Professor Charles M. Andrews of Bryn Mawr, to Dr. William G. Andrews, rector of Christ Church, Guilford, Conn., and to Professor Lucy M. Salmon of Vassar College. Of numerous libraries, my largest debt is to that of Yale University.

M. Louise GREENE.

New Haven, October 20, 1905.

fa

-

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE I. Tuer EVOLUTION OF EARLY CONGREGATIONALISM 1

Preparation of the English nation for the two earliest forms of Congregationalism, Brownism and Barrowism. — Rise of Separatism and Puritanism. — Non-conformists during Queen Mary’s reign.— Revival of the Reformation movement under Queen Elizabeth.— Development of Presbyterianism.— Three Cambridge men, Robert Browne, Henry Greenwood, and Henry Barrowe. — Brownism and Barrowism. — The Puritans under Elizabeth, her early tolerance and later change of policy. — Arrest of the Puritan movement by the clash between Episcopal and Presbyterian forms of polity and the pretensions of the latter. — James the First and his policy of conformity. — Exile of the Gainsborough and Scrooby Separatists. — Separatist writings. — General approachment of Puritans and Separatists in their ideas of church polity. — The Scrooby exiles in America.—Sympathy of the Separatists of Plymouth Colony with both the English Established Church and with English Puritans.

Il. Tur TRANSPLANTING OF CONGREGATIONALISM 41

Chapter I The Evolution Of Early Congrega- Tionalism

The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner. — PsALM exviii, 22.

THE colonists of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven were grounded in the system which became known as Congregational, and later as Congregationalism. At the outset they differed not at all in creed, and only in some respects in polity, from the great Puritan body in England, out of which they largely came.”

a “Our pious Ancestors transported themselves with regard unto Church Order and Discipline, not with respect to the Fundamentals in Doctrine.’’— Richard RPE Attestation to the Ratio Disciplina, p. 10.

“The issue on which the Pilgrims and Puritans alike left sweet fields and comfortable homes and settled ways of the land of their birth for this raw wilderness, was primarily an issue of politics rather than of the substance of religious life.” — G. L. Walker, Some Aspects of Religious Life in New Eng land, p. 19.

For more than forty years before their migration to New England there had been in old England two clearly developed forms of Congregationalism, Brownism and Barrowism. The term Congregationalism, with its allied forms Congregational and Congregationalist, would not then have been employed. They did not come into general use until the latter half of the seventeenth century, and were at first limited in usage to defining or referring to the modified church system of New England. The term “ Independent” was preferred to designate the somewhat similar polity among the nonconformist churches in old England.* Brownism and Barrowism are both ineluded in Dr. Dexter’s comprehensive definition of Congregationalism, using the term “ to designate that system of thought, faith, and practice, which starting with the dictum that the conditions of church life are revealed in the Bible, and are thence to be evolved by reverent commonsense, assisted but never controlled by all other a “ After the 17th century ‘ Independent’ was chiefly used in England, while’ ‘ Congregational’ was decidedly preferred in New England, where the ‘ consociation’ of the churches formed a more important feature of the system.”’ “ Congregational”’ first appeared in manuscript in 1639, in print in 1642. “ Congregationalist ” appeared in 1692, and “ Congregationalism,” not until 1716.— J. Murray, A New English Dict. on Hist. Principles.

sources of knowledge; interprets that book as teaching the reality and independent competency of the local church, and the duty of fraternity and co-working between such churches; from these two truths symmetrically developing its entire system of principles, privileges, and obligations.” 1 The “independent competency of the local church” is directly opposed to any system of episcopal government within the church, and is diametrically opposed to any control by king, prince, or civil government. Yet this was one of the pivotal dogmas of Browne and of the later Separatists ; this, a fundamental doctrine which Barrowe strove to incorporate into a new church

_ system, but into one having sufficient control over its local units to make it acceptable to a people who were accustomed to the autonomy and stability of a church both episcopal and national in character.

In order to appreciate the changes in church polity and in the religious temper of the people for which Browne and Barrowe labored, one must survey the field in which they worked and

1. See note 1, p. 2 of Notes. Notes are divided into explanatory and authoritative. The latter class, giving for the most part authorities only, have been grouped at the end of the volume, and throughout the text are indicated by Arabic numerals. The notes explanatory or expository in character are found as footnotes, and referred to in the text by letters of the alphabet.

note such preparation as it had received before their advent. It is to be recalled that Henry VIII substituted for submission to the Pope submission to himself as head of a church essentially Romish in ritual, teaching, and authority over his subjects. The religious reformation, as such, came later and by slow evolution through the gradual awakening of the moral and spiritual perceptions of the masses. It came very slowly notwithstanding the fact that the first definite and systematic opposition to the abuses and assumptions of the clergy had arisen long before Henry’s reign. As early as 1882, the itinerant preachers, sent out by Wyckliff, were complained of by the clergy and magistrates as teachers of insubordinate and dangerous doctrines. Thenceforward, outcroppings of dissatisfaction with the clergy appear from time to time both in English life and literature. This dissatisfaction was silenced by various acts of Parliament which were passed to enforce conformity and to punish heresy. Their character and intent were the same whether the head of the church wore the papal tiara or the English crown. Two hundred years after Wyckliff, in 1582, laws were still fulminated against “divers false and perverse people of certain new sects,” for Protestant England would support but one form of religion as the moral prop of the state. She regarded all innovations as questionable, or wholly evil, and their authors as dangerous men. Chief among the latter was Robert Browne. But before Browne’s advent and in the days of Henry the Eighth, there had been a large, respectable, and steadily increasing party whose desire was to remain within the English church, but to purify it from superstitious rites and practices, such as penances, pilgrimages, forced oblations, and votive offerings. They wished also to free the ritual from many customs inherited from the days of Rome’s supremacy. It was in this party that the leaven of Protestantism had been working. Luther and _ Henry, be it remembered, had died within a year of each other. Under the feeble rule of Edward the Sixth, the English reform movement gained rapidly, and, in 1550, upon the refusal of Bishop Hooper to be consecrated in the usual Romish vestments, it began to crystallize in two forms, Separatism and Puritanism.’ In spite of much opposition, the teachings of Luther, Calvin, and other Continental reformers took root in England, and interested men of widely different

@ Separatism is commonly said to date from the year 1554. About 1564, the other branch of the reform party was nicknamed ‘‘ Puritan.” —G. L. Walker, History of the First Church in Hartford, p. 6.

classes. They stirred to new activity the scattered and persecuted groups, that, from time to time, had met in secret in London and elsewhere to read the Scriptures and to worship with their elected leaders in some simpler form of service than that prescribed by law. Under Mary’s persecution, these Separatists increased, and with other Protestants swelled the roll of martyrs. In her severity, the Queen also drove into exile many able and learned men, who sought shelter in Geneva, Zurich, Basle, and Frankfort, where they were hospitably entertained. Upon their return, there was a marked increase in the Calvinistic tone both of preaching and teaching in the English church and in the university lecture rooms, especially those of Cambridge. Among the most influential teachers was Thomas Cartwright, in 1560-1562, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. While having no sympathy with the nonconformist or Separatist of his day, Cartwright accepted the polity and creed of Calvin in its severer form. He became

@ Another noted preacher who left an indelible impression upon several early New England ministers was William Perkins, who was in discourse “strenuous, searching, and ultra- Calvinistic.” He was a Cambridge man, filling the positions of Professor of Divinity, Master of Trinity, and Chancellor of the University. — G. L. Walker, Some Aspects of the Religious Life in New England, p. 14.

junior-dean of St. John’s, major-fellow of Trinity, and a member of the governing-board. In 1565 he went to Ireland to escape the heated controversy of the period which centred in the “ Vestiarian”’ movement. He was recalled in 1569 to his former professorship, and in September, 1571, was forced out of it because, when controversy changed from vestments to polity, he took extreme views of church discipline and repudiated episcopal government.* While Cartwright was very pronounced in his views, his desire at first was that the changes in church polity should be brought about by the united action of the Crown and Parliament. Such had been the method of introducing changes under the three sovereigns, Henry, Mary, and Elizabeth. With this brief summary of the reform movements among the

@ Cartwright in 1574, the year of its publication, translated Travers’s Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae et Anglicanae Ecclesiae ab illa Aberrationis, plena e verbo Det & dilucida Explicatio, and made it the basis of a practical attempt to introduce the Presbyterian system into England. More than five hundred of the clergy seconded his attempt, subscribing to the principles that (1) there can be only one right form of church government, but one church order and one form of church, namely, that described in the Scriptures ; (2) that every local church should have a presbytery of elders to direct its affairs; and (3) that every church should obey the combined opinion of all the churches in fellowship with it. In this declaration lay a blow at the Queen’s supremacy. — H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism as seenin Lit. p..55.

masses and in the universities covering the years until Cartwright, through the influence of the ritualistic church party, was expelled from Cambridge, and Robert Browne, as a student there, came under the strong Puritan influence of the university, we pass to a consideration of Brownism.

Robert Browne was graduated from Cambridge in 1572, the year after Cartwright’s expulsion. The next three years he taught in London and “ wholly bent himself to search and find out the matters of the church: as to how it was guided and ordered, and what abuses there were in the ecclesiastical government then used.” ? When the plague broke out in London, Browne went to Cambridge. There, he refused to accept the bishop’s license to preach, though urged to do so, because he had come to consider it as contrary to the authority of the Scriptures. Nevertheless, he continued preaching until he was silenced by the prelate. Browne then went to Norwich, preaching there and at Bury St. Edmunds, both of which had been gathering-places for the Separatists. At Norwich, he organized a church. Writing of Browne’s labors there in 1580 and 1581, Dr. Dexter says: ‘ Here, following the track which he had been long elaborating, he thoroughly discovered and restated the original Congregational way in all its simplicity and symmetry. And here, by his prompting and under his guidance, was formed the first church in modern days of which I have any knowledge, which was intelligently and one might say philosophically Congregational in its platform and processes; he becoming its pastor.” ® Persecution followed Browne to Norwich, and in order to escape it he, in 1581, migrated with his church to Middelburg, in Zealand. There, for two years, he devoted himself to authorship, wherein he set forth his teachings. His books and pamphlets, which had been proscribed in England, were printed in Middelburg and seeretly distributed by his friends and followers at home. But Browne’s temperament was not of the kind to hold and mould men together, while his doctrine of equality in church government was too strong food for people who, for generations, had been subservient to a system that demanded only their obedience. His church soon disintegrated. With but a remnant of his following, he returned in 1583 by way of Scotland into England, finding everywhere the strong hand of the government stretched out in persecution. Three years later, after having been imprisoned in noisome cells some thirty times within six years, utterly broken in health, if not weakened also in mind, and never feeling safe from arrest while in his own land, Browne finally sought pardon for his offensive teachings and, obtaining it, reentered the English communion. Though he was given a small parish, he was looked upon as a renegade, and died in poverty about 1631, at an extreme old age. He died while the Pilgrim Separatists were still a struggling colony at Plymouth, repudiating the name of Brownists ; before the colonial churches had embodied in their system most of the fundamentals of his ; and long before the value of his teachings as to democracy, whether in the church or by extension in the state, had dawned upon mankind.

The connecting link between Brownism and Barrowism, whose similarities and dissimilarities we shall consider together, or rather the connecting link between Robert Browne and Henry Barrowe, was another Cambridge student, John Greenwood. He was graduated in 1581, the year that Browne removed to Middelburg. Greenwood had become so enamored with Separatist doctrines, that within five years of his graduation he was deprived of his benefice, in 1586, and sent to prison. While there, he was visited by his friend, Henry Barrowe, a young London lawyer, who, through the chance words of a London preacher, had been converted from a wild, gay life to one devout and godly. During a visit to Greenwood, Barrowe was arrested and sent to Lambeth Palace for examination. Upon refusing to take the oath required by the bishop, Barrowe was remanded to prison to await further examination. Later, he damaged himself and his cause by an unnecessarily bitter denunciation of his enemies and by a too dogmatic assertion of his own principles. Accordingly, he was sent back to prison, where, together with Greenwood, he awaited trial until March, 1593. Then, upon the distorted testimony of their writings, both men were sentenced as seditious fellows, worthy of death. Though twice reprieved at the seemingly last hour, they were hanged together on April 6, 1593.

Both Greenwood and Barrowe frequently asserted that they never had anything to do with Browne.‘ Yet it is probable that it was Browne’s influence which turned Greenwood’s puritanical convictions to Separatist principles. Barrowe had been graduated from Clare Hall, Cambridge, in 1569-70; Browne, from Corpus Christi in 1572. The two men, so different in character, probably did not meet in university days, and certainly not later in London, where one went to a life of pleasure and the other to teaching and to the study of the Scriptures. Greenwood, however, had entered Cambridge in 1577-78, and left it in 1581. Thus he was in college during the two years that Browne was preaching in and near Cambridge. It is safe to assume that the young scholar, soon to become a licensed preacher, and overflowing with the Puritan zeal of his college, might be drawn either through curiosity or admiration to hear the erratic and almost fanatic preacher. Later, when Browne’s writings were being secretly distributed in England, both Barrowe and Greenwood had come in contact with the London congregations to whom Browne had preached. The fact that many men in England were thinking along the same lines as the Separatists; that Browne had recanted just as Barrowe and Greenwood were thrust into prison ; and that they both disapproved in some measure of Browne’s teachings, might account for a denial of discipleship. Browne’s influence might even have been unrecognized by the men themselves. Be that as it may, during their long imprisonment, both Barrowe and Greenwood, in their teachings, in their public conferences, and in their writings strove to outline a system of church goyernment and discipline, which was very similar to and yet essentially different from Browne’s. Thus it happened that in the last decade of the sixteenth century two forms of Congregationalism had developed, Brownism and Barrowism. Neither Browne nor Barrowe felt any need, as did their later followers, to demonstrate their doctrinal soundness, because in all matters of creed they “were in full doctrinal sympathy with the predominantly -Calvinistic views of the English Established Church from which they had come out.”

“¢ Browne, first of all English writers, set forth the Anabaptist doctrine that the civil ruler had no control over the spiritual affairs of the church and that State and Church were separate realms.”® In the beginning, Browne’s foremost wish was not to establish a new church system or polity, but to encourage the spiritual life of the believer. To this end he desired separation from the English ehurch, which, like all other state churches, included all baptized persons, not excommunicate, whether faithful or not to their baptismal or confirmation vows to lead godly lives.® Moreover, as Browne did not believe that the magistrates should have power to coerce men’s consciences, teaching, as he did, that the mingling of church offices and civil offices was anti-Christian,’ he was unwilling to wait for a reformation to be brought about by the changing laws of the state.8 He further advocated such equality of power? among the members of the church that in its government a democracy resulted, and this theory, pushed to a logical conclusion, implied that a democratic form of civil government was also the best.* Browne roughly draughted a government for the church with pastors, teachers, elders, deacons, and widows. He insisted, however, that these officers did not stand between Christ and the ordinary be-— liever, ‘though they haue the grace and office of teaching and guiding. . . . Because eurie one of the church is made Kinge, and Priest and a Prophet, under Christ, to vpholde and further the kingdom of God.”

Browne and Barrowe both made the Bible their guide in all matters of church life. From its text they deduced the definition of a true church as, « A company of faithful people gathered by the a “ Browne’s polity was essentially, though unintentionally, democratic, and that gives it a closer resemblance in some features to the purely democratic Congregationalism of the present century, than to the more aristocratic, one might almost say semi-Presbyterianized, Congregationalism of Barrowe and the founders of New England. His picture of the covenant relation of men in the church, under the immediate sovereignty of God, he extended to the state ; and it led him as directly, and probably as unintentionally, to democracy in the one field as in the other. His theory implied that all governors should rule by the will of the governed, and made the basis of the state on its human side essentially a compact.”— W. Walker, Creeds and Platforms, pp. 15, 16. See also H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism as seen in Lit., pp. 96-107 ; 285-39; 351; R. Browne, Book which Sheweth, Def., 51.

Word unto Christ and submitting themselves in all things ;”’ of a Christian, as one who had made a “willing covenant with God, and thereby did live a godly and Christian life.” This covenanting together of Christians constituted a church. From their interpretation of the New Testament, Browne and Barrowe held that this covenanting included repentance for sin, a profession of faith, and a promise of obedience. Moreover, to their minds, primitive Christianity had insisted upon a public, personal narration of each covenanter’s regenerative experience.. From sacred writ they derived their church organization also.! Their pastors were for exhorting or “ edifying by - all comfortable words and promises in the Scriptures, to work in our hearts the estimate of our duties with love and zeal thereunto.” Their teachers were for teaching or “delivering the grounds of Religion and meaning of the Scriptures and confirming the same.” Both officers were to administer baptism and the Lord’s supper, or “ the Seals of the Covenant.” The elders included both pastors and teachers and also “ Ruling Elders,” all of whom were for “oversight, counsel, and redressing things amiss,” but the ruling elders were to give special attention to the public order and government of the church. According to both Browne and Barrowe, these officers were to be j the mouthpiece of the church in the admission, censure, dismissal, or readmission of members. They were to prepare matters to be brought before the church for action. They were also to adjust matters, when possible, so as to avoid overburdening the church or its pastor and teacher with trivial business. In matters spiritual, they were to unite with the pastor and teacher in keeping watch over the lives of the people, that they be of good character and godly reputation.

Browne taught that the church had power which it shared with its officers as fellow-Christians, but which lifted it above them and their office. It lay with the church to elect them. It lay with the church to censure them. Barrowe also maintained that the church was “ above its institutions, above its officers,” #2 and that every officer was responsible to the church and lable to its censure as well as indebted to it for his election and office. But he further maintained that the members of the church should render meek and submissive, faithful and loving obedience to their chosen elders. Barrowe thus taught that guidance in religious matters should be left in the hands of those to whom by election it had been delegated. The elders were to be men of discernment, able to judge ‘“ between cause and cause, plea and. plea,” to redress evil, and to see that both the people and their officers® did their full duty in accordance with the laws of God and the ordinances of the church. Barrowe had seen the confusion and disintegration of Browne’s church, and he planned by thus introducing the Calvinistic theory of eldership to avoid the pitfalls into which the Brownists had plunged while practicing their new-found principle of religious equality. Barrowe hoped by his system to secure the independence of the local churches and also to avoid the repellent attitude of a nation that was as yet unprepared to welcome any trend towards democracy.’ Having devised this system

@ Barrowe wrote, “Though there be communion in the Church, yet is there no equality.” This is in strong contrast to Browne’s, “ Every one of the church is made King and Priest and Prophet under Christ to uphold and further the kingdom of God.’’ Barrowe continues, ‘‘ The Church of Christ is to obey and submit unto her leaders. . . . The Church knoweth how to give reverence unto her leaders.” In his True Description there is a hazy attempt to define how far the membership of the church may judge its elders. This authority of the elders was defined more clearly and elaborated by Barrowe’s followers in their True Confession, published in Amsterdam in 1596-98.— H. Barrowe, A True Description; Discovery of False Churches, p. 188; A Plain Re/utation of Mr. Gifford, p- 129 (ed. of 1605).

b ‘‘ Traces of this (Barrowe’s) innovation on apostolic Congregationalism have been aptly characterized as a Presbyterian heart within a Congregational body, and are seen long after the denomination grew to be a power in New England.” — A. E. Dunning, Congregationalists in America, p. 61.

of compromise, Barrowe made a futile attempt to interest Cartwright, but the latter regarded the reformer as too heretical. Yet Cartwright himself, tired of waiting for the better day when his desired reforms should be brought about through the operation of Parliamentary laws, was attempting in Warwickshire and Northamptonshire to test his system of Presbyterianism.

To the list of church officers already enumerated, both reformers added deacons and widows. The deacons were to attend to the church finances and all temporal cares, and, in their visiting of the sick and afflicted, they were to be aided by the widows. The latter office, however, soon fell into disuse, for it was difficult to find women of satisfactory character, attainments, and physical ability, since, in order to avoid scandal or censoriousness, those fillmg the office had to be of advanced years.”

With respect to the relation of the churches among themselves, Browne and Barrowe each insisted upon the integral independence and self-governing powers of the local units. Both approved of the “ sisterly advice” of neighboring churches in matters of mutual interest. Both held that in matters of great weight, synods, or councils of all the churches should be summoned ;

« Barrowe says, “ over sixty.”

that the delegates to such bodies should advise and bring the wisdom of their united experience to questions affecting the welfare of all the churches, and also, when in consultation upon serious cases, that any one church should lay before them. Browne insisted that delegates to synods should be both ministerial and lay, while Barrowe leaned to the conviction that they should be chosen only from among the church officers. Both reformers limited the power of synods, maintaining that they should be consultative and advisory only. Their decisions were not to be binding upon the churches as were those of the Presbyterian synods,* whose authority both reformers regarded as a violation of Gospel rule. The church system, outlined by these two men, became, in time, the organization of the churches of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connectieut, and New Haven. The character of their polity fluctuated, as we shall see, leaning sometimes more to Barrowism and sometimes, or in some respects, emphasizing the greater democracy which Browne taught. In England, and because of the pressure of circumstances among English a The first English Presbytery was organized in 1572. Among its organizers, there wag the seeming determination to treat the Episcopal system as a mere legal appendage. — F. J. Powicke, Henry Barrowe, p. 139.

exiles and colonists, Barrowe’s teachings at first gained the stronger hold and kept it for many years. Moreover,as Barrowe’s almost immediate followers embraced them, there was no objection to the customary union of church and state. And furthermore, if only the state would uphold this. peculiar polity, it might even insist upon the payment of contributions, which both Browne and Barrowe had distinctly stated were to be voluntary and were to be the only support of their churches. Though Barrowism was more welcomed, eventually — yet not until long after the colonial period — Brownism triumphed, and it predominates in the Congregationalism of to-day.