CHAPTER
IX
THE
NEW ENGLAND CHURCHES
AMONG the members of the
Westminster Assembly, there were a few individuals, who harmonized in their
doctrinal sentiments with the other members, but rejected the Presbyterian
system of church organization and government, and advocated the principles of
Independency. Some time after the dissolution of the Assembly, a conference of
Independent, ministers and lay messengers from their churches met at the Savoy,
London, for the purpose of adopting standards of faith and order for their
churches. The document framed and published by this assembly thence received the
name of the Savoy Confession. This formulary, was merely the Westminster
Confession, slightly altered, in some places, so as to express, more distinctly,
the truth, on points on which later errors seemed to indicate the propriety of
more specific statements. Those chapters, also, were omitted which relate to
church order and discipline, instead of which one was inserted in accordance
with their own system. Of the doctrinal amendments, that on justification will
illustrate the character and tendency. Chapter eleven, section one, was made to
read as follows:
"Those whom God
effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness
into them; but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their
persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for
Christ's sake alone; nor, by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any
other evangelical obedience, to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing
Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience, in his
sufferings and death, for their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving and
resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of
themselves, it is the gift of God."
In this Savoy article, the
clause, "by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole laws and
passive obedience in his sufferings and death, for their whole and sole
righteousness," comes in the place of the following clause in the
Westminster Confession: "by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of
Christ unto them." This alteration has evident reference to the Neonomian
error, of which we have already given account; and was, therefore, very
offensive to Baxter, the great patron of that error. It illustrates the extent
of the difference between the Westminster and Savoy Confessions.
The Westminster Confession
had been adopted by a synod of the New England churches, at Cambridge, in 1648.
" We do judge it," said this Synod, " to be very holy, orthodox,
and judicious, in all matters of faith, and do, therefore, freely and fully,
consent thereunto, for the substance thereof; only, in those things which have
respect to church government, and discipline, we refer ourselves to the platform
of church discipline agreed upon by this present assembly,” the Cambridge
Platform.
After the publication of the
Savoy Confession, "it was twice publicly read, examined, and
approved;" at a Synod held in Boston, in 1680, "and some small
variations made from that of Savoy, in compliance with that at Westminster; and
so, after such collations, but no contentions, voted and printed, as the faith
of New England.
We have already mentioned,
that many of the early colonists of New England were Presbyterians; amounting,
in 1680, in Connecticut, to nearly one-half of the entire population. Early
efforts were made by them to organize themselves according to their Presbyterian
principles. But the government was against them; and its power was used, without
scruple, to suppress such attempts; so that they were never permitted to develop
the Presbyterian system of order.
Their influence, however,
was powerfully felt in the form early given to the constitution of the New
England churches. Cotton's book "Of the Keys," is stated by Mather to
have been, next to the Bible, the early platform of the New England churches;
and he quotes Rutherford, speaking of that treatise as "well sound in our
way, if he had given some more power to Assemblies, and in some lesser
points."
In the Cambridge Platform,
itself, of 1648, a system is described to which the same language may justly be
applied. " Of elders, (who are also in Scripture called bishops,)" it
states that "some attend chiefly to the ministry of the Word, as the
pastors and teachers; others attend especially unto rule, who are, therefore,
called ruling elders." "The office of the deacon is instituted in the
Church by the Lord Jesus Christ…The office and work of the deacon is, to
receive the offerings of the church, gifts given to the church, and to keep the
treasury of the church, and therewith to serve the tables, which the church is
to provide; as, the Lord's table, the table of the ministers, and of such as are
in necessity; to whom the deacons are to distribute with simplicity."
"Church government or
rule is placed by Christ in the officers of the Church." "Synods,
orderly assembled, and rightly proceeding according to the pattern, Acts xv., we
acknowledge as the ordinance of Christ; and, though not. absolutely necessary to
the being, yet many times, through the iniquity of men and perverseness of the
times, necessary to the well‑being of churches, for the establishment of
truth and peace therein." "The Synods' directions, so far as consonant
to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only
for their agreement therewith, (which is the principal ground thereof, and
without which they bind not at all,) but also, secondarily, for the power,
whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his
Word."
Mather, in his Magnalia,
written about the close of the seventeenth century, states the following, among
other points, determined "by a late assembly of our ministers at
Cambridge."
"Synods duly composed
of messengers, chosen by them whom they are to represent, and proceeding with
due regard unto the will of God in his Word, are to be reverenced, as
determining the mind of the Holy Spirit, concerning things necessary to be
received and practiced, in order to the edification of the churches therein
represented."
“The power of church
government belongs only to the elders of the church."
“There are yet certain
cases wherein the elders, in the management of their church government, are to
take the concurrence of the fraternity."
The Heads of Agreement of 1690, do not seem ever to have been formally
adopted by the New England churches at large. They have been recognized,
however, from their first publication, as true exhibitions of Congregational
principles. The Saybrook m. was
formed, in 1708, by a Synod of the Connecticut ministers; who, at the same time,
owned and consented to the Savoy Confession and the Heads of Agreement. These
three documents, thenceforth, became the standards of the Connecticut churches.
The Saybrook Platform
provided that the elders of a particular church, with the consent of the
brethren, have power and ought to exercise discipline, in all cases within
that church. The churches, in each county, form a Consociation. The council of
this body consists of all the teaching and ruling elders of the churches; which
are, also, at liberty to delegate lay messengers, who are entitled to deliberate
and vote, as members; provided, however, that no matter shall be determined
without a majority of the elders. This court is empowered to try and decide all
questions of scandal coming up from any of the churches.
The Platform also appointed
that all the teaching elders in each several county, shall form a county
Association, with power to consult respecting the duties of their office, to
resolve questions submitted to them; to examine and recommend candidates for the
ministry, to enter proceeding, before the appropriate council, against any of
their number, for scandal or heresy; and to look after vacant churches, and take
measures to have them supplied. The Platform also provided for a General
Association, composed of one or two delegates from each county Association in
the State, to meet once a year. In the Associations, lay delegates were not
admitted.
In 799 the Old Hartford
North Association, in reply to certain inquiries, made the following statement,
as to the constitution of the Connecticut churches.
"This
Association gives information to all whom it may concern, that the constitution
of the churches in the State of Connecticut, founded on the common usages, and
the Confession of Faith, Heads of Agreement, and Articles of Church Discipline,
adopted at the earliest period of the settlement of the State, is not
Congregational, but contains the essentials of the government of the Church of
Scotland, or Presbyterian Church in America, particularly, as it gives a
decisive power to ecclesiastical councils; and a Consociation, consisting of
ministers and messengers, or a lay representation from the churches, is
possessed of substantially the same authority as a Presbytery. The judgments,
decisions, and censures in our churches and in the Presbyterian are mutually
deemed valid. The churches, therefore, in Connecticut, at large, and in our
district, in particular, are not now, and never were, from the earliest period
of our settlement, Congregational churches, according to the ideas and forms of
church order contained in the Book of Discipline, called the Cambridge Platform.
There are, however, scattered over the State, perhaps ten or twelve churches (unconsociated)
who are properly called Congregational, agreeably to the rules of Church
Discipline in the book above mentioned. Sometimes, indeed, the Associated
churches of Connecticut are loosely and vaguely, though improperly, termed
Congregational. While our churches, in the State at large, are, in the most
essential and important respects, the same as the Presbyterian, still, in minute
and unimportant points of church order and discipline, both we and the
Presbyterian Church in America acknowledge a difference."
In these facts, we have the
key to the circumstance that many of the churches of New England, are, to this
day, known by the name of "Presbyterian." And, of the many ministers
who, formerly, from New England, entered our church, Edwards was not, the only
one who could have written, as did he," I have long been perfectly out of
conceit of our unsettled, confused way of church government in this land; and
the Presbyterian way has ever appeared to me most agreeable to the Word of God,
and the reason and nature of things."
The identity of the theology
of the two denominations, and the comparative agreement on the subject of order
and government, early induced intimate and confidential relations between the
New England churches, and those of the General Synod. In Connecticut, so strong
were the tendencies toward a thorough adoption of Presbyterianism, as to
encourage the hope of actual union. In 1723, occasion of correspondence with the
Connecticut ministers having arisen out of difficulties in the church in New
York, the Synod appointed a committee to confer with them on that subject;
"and if the good ends proposed, relating to New York, be at the conference
happily accomplished, the Synod recommends it to those of their members afore
appointed to said conference, to treat with said ministers of Connecticut about
a union with us; and empower them to concert and conclude upon any methods that
may conduce to that end." The condition precedent failed, and the overture
for union does not seem to have been communicated. The middle of the eighteenth
century witnessed a time of much controversy and trouble in Connecticut, arising
out. of the Presbyterian tendencies which prevailed, and the anxious exertions
which were employed to prevent their acquiring general control.
The first stated intercourse
between the Synod and the New England churches, arose out of the question of the
American Episcopate, and the parties to it were, the General Synod and the
General Association of Connecticut.
Among the measures devised,
by the patrons of British supremacy in the colonies, with a view to secure
uniformity in religion, the general establishment of the Church of England, and
the entire subordination of the colonies to the British Government, one of the
most cherished was that of establishing, by act of Parliament, an American
Episcopate.
It was impossible that the
people of New England and the Presbyterian Church should regard such a project
with indifference. They had fled to this country, expressly, to find refuge from
the oppressions and persecutions which they had suffered in Great Britain, for
refusal to conform to that Church. They had realized, in the land of their
exile, enough of the same policy from that Church, to satisfy them, that only
the power was wanting to enact the English St. Bartholomew, and the oppressions
by which the Presbyterians of Ireland and Scotland had been trodden and peeled.
The objection was not to the enjoyment, by those who preferred them, of the
rites of religion according to the order of the Episcopal Church. But it was, to
the power of Parliament to assume jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical affairs
of the colonies. That this was the point where the whole question hinged, is not
only apparent, on the entire face of the discussions on the subject, but is
demonstrated by two facts; first, that
the great body of
Episcopalians, themselves, were as active in opposition to the scheme as any
others, and second, that as soon as the Revolution had obviated any
apprehensions from Parliament, all opposition was withdrawn, and the
consecration of the first American bishops was hailed, with general
congratulations, by the other denominations in America.
Of the controversy on this
subject, John Adams, writing to Dr. Morse, Dec. 2, 1815, says, that “the
apprehension of Episcopacy contributed, fifty years ago, as much as any other
cause, to arouse the attention, not only of the inquiring minds, but of the
common people, and urge them to close thinking on the constitutional authority
of Parliament over the colonies."
"The objection was not
merely to the office of bishop, though even that was dreaded; as, to the
authority of Parliament, on which it must be founded. The reasoning was this:
The archbishops and bishops, in England, can neither locate and limit dioceses
in America, nor ordain bishops, in any part. of the dominions of Great Britain,
out of the realm, by any law of the kingdom, or any law of the colonies, nor by
any canon law acknowledged by either. The king cannot grant his conge
d'elire (permission to elect) to
any people out of the realm. There is no power, or pretended power, less than
Parliament, that can create bishops in America. But, if Parliament can erect
dioceses, and appoint bishops, they may introduce the whole hierarchy, establish
tithes, forbid marriages and funerals, establish religion, forbid dissent make
schism heresy, impose penalties extending to life and limb, as well as to
liberty and property."
Such
considerations excited universal apprehension, when it was known that Archbishop
Seeker had been zealously laboring to secure the obnoxious measure.
In Virginia, a convention of
the clergy was called, to consider the propriety of petitioning for a bishop.
But twelve out of one hundred attended; and, of these, four protested against
the petition; whereupon the house of burgesses tendered the protesters their
unanimous thanks, "for the wise and well‑timed opposition they had
made to the pernicious project of a few mistaken clergymen, for introducing an
American bishop."
It was with a view to the
exertions, at this time, making on this subject, that the General Synod, in
1766, addressed a letter to the brethren in Connecticut, proposing a convention
of delegates from the two churches. The Synod, at the same time, appointed eight
commissioners to act on its behalf, in such convention.
Mr. Rodgers, one of these
commissioners was pastor of the church in New York, which at this very time, was
making a renewed but unavailing effort to secure a charter. The opposition of
the Episcopal clergy had prevented its obtaining this privilege; which had been
pursued by repeated applications, beginning as early as 1719. The last petition
was now pending, before the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, in
London. Before them the Bishop of London appeared, personally, in opposition,
and defeated the petition, which, after long delay, was rejected, in August,
1767. Such facts stimulated the zeal of the colonists against the increase of
Episcopal power. It was not until after the Revolution that a charter was
obtained by that Church.
The
proposal for a convention was accepted by the General Association of
Connecticut. At the first meeting, a plan of intercourse between the
two churches, was agreed upon, which was adopted by both. It provided for an
annual convention of delegates from the two bodies; which should, however, have
no power over pastors, churches, or any of the internal affairs of the churches.
They were to remain entire and independent of each other. The objects prescribed
to the convention were, "to gain information of the public state of this
united cause and interest; to collect accounts relating. thereto; to unite our
endeavors for spreading the gospel and preserving the religious liberties of our
churches; to diffuse harmony and keep up a correspondence throughout the united
body, and with our friends abroad; to recommend, cultivate and preserve, loyalty
and allegiance to the king's majesty; and, also, to address the king or the
king's ministers, from time to time, with assurances of the unshaken loyalty of
the pastors comprehended in this union, and the churches under their care; and
to vindicate them, if unjustly aspersed."
Aspersions of their loyalty
were, at that time, rife; and were employed in resisting such applications as
that of the New York church.
The plan provided for
inviting the other New England churches, and the Reformed Dutch brethren to join
the convention. They do not; however, seem to have acceded to it. The
convention, at once, opened correspondence with influential parties in Britain,
and maintained a vigilant watchfulness over the interests of the churches, as
involved in the policy of the British government, the Society for propagating
the gospel in foreign parts, and the advocates of the American Episcopate. The
last meeting was held in 1776, when the independence of the United States
precluded the apprehensions out of which they had originated, and they ceased to
meet.
After the Revolution, stated intercourse with New England was not resumed until 1791. In that year, the General Assembly made overtures, for correspondence, to the Congregational churches. They were immediately accepted, by the General Association of Connecticut; and, ultimately, by all the New England churches. The plan, first adopted with the Connecticut Association, provided that the two parties should, each, annually appoint three delegates to attend the sessions of the other, with a right to deliberate on all questions coming before the body, but not to vote. In 1794, the Assembly proposed, and the Association agreed, that the delegates be allowed to vote; and the plan, thus amended, was adopted in the subsequent treaties with the other New England churches.
