Litchfield County CT Archives History - Books .....Legal Church In Trouble 1882

***********************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ct/ctfiles.htm
***********************************************

************************************************************************
The USGenWeb Project makes no claims or estimates of the validity of the
information submitted and reminds you that each new piece of information
must be researched and proved or disproved by weight of evidence.  It is
always best to consult the original material for verification.
************************************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Joy Fisher sdgenweb@yahoo.com May 23, 2005, 1:40 pm

Book Title: HISTORY OF THE TOWNS OF NEW MILFORD AND BRIDGEWATER, CONNECTICUT, 1703-1882

CHAPTER XI.
THE LEGAL CHURCH IN TROUBLE. 
1748—1790.

JOYOUS are the ways, often, which cost the greatest sacrifice of personal
preferences, and the richer the rewards obtained, but the making of sacrifices
very costly, difficult or hard, by error or otherwise, for the purpose of
enhancing the reward, brings no profit here or hereafter. Religion is a costly
enterprise, but it brings its legitimate reward in every land and under every
form, just like all other enterprises. It is only when absolute truth is
received and obeyed, that true profit unto life eternal is obtained. The
struggle for truth is the great conflict in this world, whether the fact is
recognized or not by the actors. Truth,—the same truth, may take on many forms,
and the reality be unchanged; for if it were not so, then one church must be
right and all the others wrong; and one shower of rain would be right, and all
the others wrong; and one day's sunshine right, and all the others wrong.

  As we are to learn from the experiences of men, we may profit by the study of
their errors as well as their ways of wisdom. In view of this, the records of
the Half-way Covenant Church method are given a larger place in this history
than otherwise would have been conceded.

  As soon as the Rev. Nathaniel Taylor was ordained, he found himself in the
midst of several fires, which seemed ready to try his doctrine, courage, and
intellectual strength to the utmost. The Episcopalians stood ready to baptize
all the children of the community, if only granted the privilege, and the
division of sentiment in the First Church gave them larger opportunity than they
had previously possessed, and the disaffected Congregationalists were talking of
separation. He had received the settlement of one thousand pounds upon the
explicit information and agreement that, if he deviated in his faith and
practice from the Saybrook Platform, he would lose the one thousand pounds and
be dismissed. It was rather a close place. So long as he had no scruples as to
that platform, backed up by the political power of the General Court, there was
no trouble; but if, while preparing his sermons, he should discover that the
General Court might not be good authority in church government, down would come
the whip in the thought of losing the one thousand pounds, and the logic of that
argument had a strong influence to keep him sound in the topics of the day, if
he was like other men.

  Then he prepared his church record. A place was arranged for the Half-way
Covenanters, and another for the full sheep of the flock; but soon it was found
that the Half-way sheep column was filling up fast, while only now and then a
stray full sheep came in, except those who came from a neighboring flock; but no
matter—the one thousand pounds logic stood, as ever, square in the way.

  Among his sermons, still preserved, is one from Dr. Increase Mather's book, on
the right of baptizing infants of believers who had not joined the church; and
it must be confessed that Mr. Mather's logic and the one thousand pounds had
great affinity for each other. Then, in 1768, we find him paying some attention
to the Separates, from the text: "These be they who separate themselves,
sensual, having not the spirit."

  The Quakers had built their first meeting-house about or in 1741, and their
society or membership was increasing in numbers and influence.

  The Episcopalians had built their first house of worship in 1746, two years
before the settlement of Mr. Taylor, and the divided state of the Congregational
people made the situation for Mr. Taylor very difficult,—severely so to the
courage even of a young man.

  The records of the church show that he was a skillful manager, for, after the
difficulties began to accumulate, he, instead of taking an arbitrary course of
dictation, called together his church and secured action by them and their
committees, in the true Congregational way; which had the effect to relieve
himself of responsibility, and to bind the church in stronger bonds of unity.

  Hence the following records, made by himself:

  "Sept. 12,-1750. At a Church meeting legally warned to consider of several
things:

  "It was proposed whether the Church don't look upon it, that every one who has
acknowledged the covenant and been received under the watch and care of the
church are as liable to be dealt with for any misdemeanor as those who have been
partakers at the Lord's Table? Voted in affirmative, no one contradicting. [It
was simply arbitrary assumption to make persons subject to discipline who had
never consented to anything of the kind; but something must be done.]

  "Also, proposed what methods we should take with those persons who were in
full communion with us and also with those who had withdrawn from us upon the
Sabbath? Voted, that an enquiring committee should be appointed to go and
enquire into the particular reasons of each one, and make their report to the
church. Accordingly, Dea. Samuel Canfield, Dea. Eleazer Beecher, and Leut. James
Hine were appointed.
                                NATHANIEL TAYLOR, moderator.

  "Some time after, Eleazer Beecher absented himself from us, and Dea. Canfield
and Leut. Hine enquired into things, and made report to the Church, and a
Church-meeting was warned February following. Eleazer Beecher and his wife,
Jonathan Buck and his wife, Ann the wife of Joseph Buck, David Beardsley and his
wife, Jonathan Botsford, Lemuel Bostwick and his wife, Ebenezer Hotchkiss and
Ellen Mackeny [twelve] were all cited to appear and give in their reasons for
their separations. Accordingly, they appeared and mentioned some things why, and
among the rest they fully denied the Say-Brook Platform.

  "But they urged that they had not had sufficient time for consideration and
desired further opportunity. Accordingly, it was granted them; the meeting
adjourned till the 26th of March; these our brethren promising that they would
appear without putting us to any further trouble, and give in the reasons for
their conduct in writing, and their articles. Accordingly the Church met upon
the 26th of March, 1751, but those people brought nothing in writing, neither
would they give their reasons, and cast very hard reflections upon the Civil and
Ecclesiastical authority; but at length agreed to meet a committee at my house
upon the last Tuesday in April; Dea. Canfield, Capt. Bostwick, Leut. Hine, Dea.
Bostwick and Roger Sherman were appointed the committee. It was adjourned till
the first Tuesday in May, and then appeared Jonathan Buck, Jonathan Botsford,
Eleazer Beecher, Ebenezer Hotchkiss and Anna Bostwick, and afterwards Elleanor
Mackeny and Frances Beecher, and signed some reasons offered in writing which
the Church judged to be no reasons at all, and returned them an answer in
writing together, with an admonition to return to us.

  "June 5th, at a Church meeting, voted that Lemuel Bostwick, David Beardsley
and his wife, Jonathan Buck's wife, and Joseph Buck's wife should be admonished
to return to us as those who refused to give any reasons; accordingly it was done.

  "Joseph Ruggles also having offended in the same form as the aforementioned
persons, but he removing to New Haven, could not with conveniency be attended
upon with the same steps as the others could, therefore was neglected some time
longer, till at length, some time in the winter, in the year 1752, he sought to
be recommended to the church at New Haven, under the pastoral charge of Mr.
Samuel Bird; but it was not granted by the Church, and some time in February,
he, the said Ruggles, appeared personally and desired a dismission, and gave in
these following reasons, viz.: 'Inasmuch as I have absented myself from your
communion, supposing you to be upon an anti-Christian power with respect to
government and discipline, and further I apprehend that the doctrines of grace
which I hold to, viz.: the Calvinist Doctrines, you are not strict enough in,
and therefore I desire you would dismiss me from your watch and care, as witness
my hand, JOSEPH RUGGLES.' But before he personally appeared, there was a Church
meeting warned, when it was concluded to send Mr. Ruggles a letter informing him
that the Church could not recommend him, giving these reasons: because they
judged his conduct had not been according to the gospel: he had absented himself
from the Communion of the Church and neglected the public worship of God upon
the Lord's Day, attending upon lay preaching, countenancing an unlawful and
unchristian separation and casting hard reflections upon the Church of Christ
and the standing minister; and also he was desired in the letter at the same
time to come and make suitable satisfaction. Accordingly, he came as above
mentioned, and refused to make any satisfaction at all, but insisted to be
either recommended or dimissed, leaving the above-mentioned reasons; upon which
another Church meeting was warned, and what he offered were esteemed to be no
sufficient reasons, because he never tried to get any of the difficulties
removed before he drew off in the manner above related. Besides, the platform
which he urged he was upon was right in the face of the reasons which he offered
with respect to discipline, viz.: that the difference of government in the
Cambridge and Saybrook Platforms should not break Communion: therefore it was
concluded to give him another opportunity to return and make satisfaction; upon
which a letter was sent to the said Ruggles informing him that his reasons were
not esteemed sufficient, admonishing and desiring him in a Christian, brotherly
manner to return and make satisfaction, otherwise the Church must proceed to
deal with him according to the nature of the crime, according to the direction
of our Platform, page 105. Upon which Mr. Ruggles sent us a letter and denies
doing anything to make up the difficulty, and has declared publicly to the
members of the Church that he will not. Upon which another Church meeting was
warned for April 20th, 1752; at which time it was voted that we had taken due
pains with Mr. Ruggles to retain him. Also voted that we should proceed
according to the afore-mentioned page of the Platform as soon as should be
convenient; which was done the 6th day of May following.
                               NATHANIEL TAYLOR, Pastor."

  " Some time after, Ann, the wife of Joseph Buck, and David Beardsley returned
and made satisfaction and were accepted by the Church. Some time after, David
Beardsley's wife returned and was accepted.
                                        N. TAYLOR, Pastor."

  Notwithstanding all these efforts, the Separate Congregational Church was
organized in May, 1753, and the spirit of rivalry took full possession of the
Congregational people, as to themselves, as well as in regard to the other two
churches in the community. The forlorn consolation drawn from these facts is
that sometimes rivalry saves a community from stagnation. What is more pitiable,
this church was now acting against doctrines and principles under which, twenty
years later, they were most anxious to place themselves, as will be seen hereafter.

A New Meeting-house.

  Mr. Taylor was ordained in the old meeting-house, which stood above Elm street
on Aspetuck hill, just in the rear of the present barn of Mr. Levi S. Knapp, and
which house began to need repairing. Consequently in December, 1748, the town
voted "to raise the sum of twelve pound money to repair the meeting-house, upon
the Presbyterian order." With the repairs, whatever they were, the old
meeting-house continued to be used six or seven years longer.

  In a town meeting in January, 1751, an adjournment was made to the
meeting-house, where they voted that "all those persons of said Church of
England and the Friends shall be freed from paying any dues towards the building
of or repairing any meeting-house."

  "At the same meeting, voted that they would build a new meeting-house in said
New Milford."

  In the next February another town meeting was held, and a very considerate and
sensible vote was passed, that: "Whereas there was a vote by said society taken
on ye 14th of January last, for erecting a new meeting-house for the public
worship of God, and there are some branches of said town may be likely to be set
off into societies by themselves so as not to be benefited by the meeting-house
now to be erected for said town; it is voted by said town that the inhabitants
of such part or parts of said town as shall obtain liberty of ye Honbl General
Assembly of this Colony to be a society or societies by themselves, or to gather
with any of ye inhabitants of other towns at or before the expiration of four
years next ensuing, that then they shall have paid to them by said town towards
the building of a meeting-house or meeting-houses within their society or
societies, so much money as was paid on their list towards the meeting house now
to be built for said town. Voted in the affirmative by a clear majority."

  Upon this another vote was taken whether the meeting-house should be built,
the result being fifty-two in the affirmative, and twenty-four in the negative,
and the following building committee was appointed: Capt. Joseph Bostwick,
Azariah Canfield, Joseph Canfield, Lieut. John Warner, and Ens. John Hitchcock.

  "Voted, that said meeting-house shall be built in New Milford, fifty-six feet
in length, and forty-four feet in width. Thirty votes in the affirmative, and
two in the negative.

  "Voted that there shall be a rate raised of twelve pence on the pound upon the
present list, to be laid out in preparation to build the aforesaid meeting-house.

  "Voted that there shall be a memorial preferred to the General Assembly to
pray for a land tax upon the non-resident proprietors of New Milford, of two
pence per acre proclamation money, to continue four years."

  The vote to return money upon the formation of other societies was occasioned
by a petition from the South Farms (now in Brookfield), in 1743, for society
privileges, to which New Milford had consented, and although it had not been
granted was likely to be, in a few years; and another movement of the kind which
had already been started at what is now New Preston.

  But it required much more than votes to build a meeting-house in a town so
sadly divided in religious sentiments and principles of church government, and
therefore the matter passed until April 27, 1752, when another vote was taken to
build the house: fifty-eight votes in the affirmative, and eighteen in the
negative; and a committee was appointed to call on the County Court for a
committee "to affix a place to build a meeting-house upon." Thus the question
rested until the 21st of November, 1752, when they put the matter in a shape to
have something done.

 "It was voted in said meeting that there shall be a meetinghouse for the public
worship of God built in and for said town, sixty feet long, and forty-four feet
wide, and twenty-seven feet the height of the posts."

  "Voted, that Nathaniel Bostwick, Esq., Capt. John Warner, jPaul Welch, Esqr.,
Sergt. Daniel Bostwick, Ens.Joseph Canfield, Lieut. James Hine, and Mr. Amos
Northrop shall be a committee to go forward with the building of said
meeting-house." These men were not to be stopped by trifles, being the
generally-admitted leaders in the town, and all having wealth of their own.

  Roger Sherman was appointed treasurer to raise the money, by a tax of two
shillings, old tenor, on the pound, and pay out the same upon the order of the
committee. Also, at the same time, they "Voted, that the shingles for covering
the roof of said meeting-house, shall be eighteen inches long, five inches wide
one with another, and three-quarters of an inch thick.

  "Voted, that the clapboards shall be white oak, and be four feet and two
inches long, and lie out four inches wide, being sufficiently lapt, and also be
half an inch thick on the back, lap being taken out.

  "Voted, that there shall be part of the money to be raised by the aforesaid
rate, used for repairing the old meeting-house in said town."

  At the next session of the Assembly, (May, 1753,) a petition was presented, to
obtain help in building this house, and in it the difficulties and situation is
cleary stated; and the petition bears the evidences of the work of Mr. Nathaniel
Taylor. Daniel Bostwick, and Bushnell Bostwick were appointed to present this
petition to the Assembly.

  To the Honorable General Assembly of his majesties English Colony of
Connecticut, in New England, to be holden at Hartford, in the County of
Hartford, on the Second Thursday of May, A. D., 1753.

  The memorial of Stephen Noble, Samuel Canfield, & Paul Welch, Inhabitants of
the town of New Milford in the County of Litchfield, and the rest of the
Inhabitants of said New Milford—Humbly sheweth:

  "That there is need of Building a New Meeting-House for the Publick Worship of
God in said New Milford for the Professors of the Presbyterian-Congregational
order, as established by the Laws of this Colony; And your Memorialists, having
taken such measures as the Law directs for affixing and ascertaining the Place
whereon to Build said Meeting-House, have proceeded to Raise a Tax on the
Inhabitants of said town, of two shillings on the pound in the common List
toward Defraying the charges of Building the same; And your Memorialists would
humbly beg leave to inform your Honrs that there is about one-third part of all
the Lands within the Bounds of said Township which belong to Non-resident
Proprietors and lye unimproved: so that the Burthen of Supporting the Ministry &
Defraying other-Publick charges is much greater on the present Inhabitants of
said Town, than it would be if those Lands were Inhabited and improved and the
owners of such Lands have had their Estates greatly advanced by means of said
Towns being settled and Inhabited without their bearing any part of the Burthen
and Cost of settling the same (except a small Rate when the former Meeting
House, and ye Minister's House were Built about thirty Years ago,) and a Right
of Land in said Township, which, at the time when said Town first began to be
settled, was valued at but about five pounds, would now, without any Labour done
on it, sell for Three thousand pounds or more: and your Memorialists would
farther beg leave to Inform this Honble Assembly that there are many, of the
Inhabitants of said New Milford who dissent from the way of Worship Established
by the Laws of this Colony & are by Law exempted from paying Rates for the
Building of Meeting-Houses and maintaining of Ministers. So that the Burthen
will be very great on ye Memorialists if they must be at the whole cost of
Building said Meeting-House; And ye Memorialists humbly conceive that it is
highly Just and reasonable that the Non-resident Proprietors aforesaid should
bear some of the Cost & Charge of Building said House, because of the advantage
that will accrue to them thereby in Enhancing the value of their Lands, and when
those Lands shall be settled and Inhabited, it is likely that the persons that
shall settle thereon will be benefited by said Meeting-House as well as the
present Inhabitants of said Town. Wherefore your Memorialists humbly Pray that
this Honble Assembly will be pleased to Enact & Decree that all the Unimproved
Lands within the sd Town of New Milford, which belong to Persons not Residing in
said Town,—excepting such Farms as have on them Buildings and improvements voted
in ye list,—shall be taxed at one penny Lawfull money on the acre annually for
four years next ensueing. to be paid by the owners of sd Lands (in Lawfull money
or Bills of Publick Credit Equivalent thereto), toward Defraying the charges of
Building said Meeting-House, or that said Lands may be taxed at such other Rate,
and for such other term of time as your Honrs in your Great Wisdom shall think
fit, for the use aforesaid, or some other way Grant Relief to your Memorialists
who as in Duty Bound shall Ever Pray.
New Milford, May the 14th, A. D. 1753.
                                       STEPHEN NOBLE,
                                       SAMUEL CANFIELD,
                                       PAUL WELCH.

  The tax was allowed for two years.

  The record of the town meetings gives no certainty as to when the
meeting-house was completed, but a vote, passed in December, 1754, returning the
money collected from Newberry and New Preston societies, which societies had
been formed according to anticipation, indicates the certainty of the house
having been built in 1754. And the town also voted liberty for the "Sabbada
house" to be built near the meeting-house, and that the old meeting-house should
be sold for the benefit of the town.

  In the historical sermon of Rev. Mr. Griswold, delivered in 1801, are found
the following corroborating statements:

  "The house in which we are now assembled, being the second meeting-house, was
built in the year 1754, about forty-seven years ago. The first Episcopal church
was built in the year 1746; the second, which is the one now standing, began to
be built in the year 1765, was raised in 1766, about thirty-five years ago. It
was finished and consecrated A.D. 1793. The Strict Congregationalists, usually
called Separates, erected their house of worship in the year 1761, forty years
ago, which is now standing. The Friends, commonly called Quakers, built their
meeting-house not far from the year 1742, now standing, though in another place
than where it was first set. Another communion of Friends, followers of Jemima
Wilkinson, built a house of worship in the north end of the town about fifteen
or twenty years ago [1784], but it is now owned and occupied by the
Episcopalians of New Preston. The Baptists erected a house of worship in the
south end of the town called the Neck, eleven or twelve years ago, but it is
sold and now used for another purpose."

  From the records of the First Ecclesiastical Society, which begin in 1753, we
learn something further about the second meeting-house.

  "Feb. 7, 1754. Voted, that the meeting-house . . . shall be erected in the
town street, east from Joseph Northrop's dwelling-house and west from Samuel
Comstock's well, where there is a heap of stones erected."

  The well spoken of is still in existence, although covered; it being under the
sidewalk, directly in front of the new Episcopal Church, at the corner of Main
street and Whittelsey avenue.

  "May 24, 1754. Voted, that the inhabitants of this society will raise the
meeting-house (which they are about to build) .by free-will offering.

  "Voted, that the committee shall provide what liquors they shall think
necessary to be used at the raising of the meetinghouse, at the cost of the
society."

  A vote was passed Sep. 17, 1754, that the society would "take the steeple of
the new meeting-house into their care, and carry it on, and finish the same,
with the rest of said house," indicating that the house was raised, and that the
ecclesiastical society, which had been organized but a few months, accepted the
work, and would finish the house which had been commenced by the town.

  The accompanying plan represents the arrangement of seats in this the Second
Congregational meeting-house. The numbers show the "dignity" or classification
of the people as they sat in church. No complete list of the names of classified
persons of this date can be found. The gallery of the house was not finished
until the summer of 1763, just ten years from the time they began to build the
house.

  "Dec. 24, 1756. Voted, that the old meeting-house which belongs to this
society shall be disposed of as follows, viz.: Three-quarters of the body seats
and two pews shall be given to the Church of England, and the remainder of the
body seats to the Quakers in this society, and the pulpit to those of Newbury,
and the gallery seats to those of New Preston society which belong to New
Milford, and the remainder to be disposed of and the avails of it improved
toward the new meeting-house in this society."

  The second Congregational meeting-house having been erected in 1754, and
completed in 1763, Mr. Taylor had occasion to be encouraged, although still in
the midst of conflicting denominational interests. In 1761 the Separates built
their house of worship, and began to make greater inroads into the old society
and church.

  Seven years later (in 1769) the effects of the Half-way Covenant had become so
visible that the pastor and his church seem to have become really alarmed on
that account, and assembled in a church meeting for some action as a matter of
relief. We are told that, "after long conference," the church came to several
resolves, the first of which, viz.: "that there is no half-way covenant,"
appears to be in reality a denial of the principles on which the church had
practiced for more than forty years, and a claim that all half-way covenant
members should be admitted to the communion.

  Then, in 1772, the church voted, "that all who are in covenant have a right to
vote in the church meetings," which was virtually the making them members
without having ever admitted them as such, and without any profession of
experience in grace; and on this platform the church continued to practice,
apparently, the membership growing less and less in number until the settlement
of Mr. Stanley Griswold.

  The church decisions and enactments are:

  "Mar. 8, 1769. At a church meeting legally warned to enquire of those who bad
owned ye covenant, the reasons why they did not come to ye Lord's Supper, and to
attempt to remove their scruples and to know our sentiments with regard to
admission: after long conference upon these subjects, the Church came to the
following resolves:

  "l. Voted, that this church looks upon it that there is no half-way covenant,
but those who renew the covenant have a right to privileges in full.

  " 2. Voted, we look upon it the duty of the Church to use their influence and
endeavors to convince persons of their duty and obligations to attend the
ordinances of the Gospel understandingly.

  "3. Voted, if any in covenant remain unconvinced of their duty to come to the
Table, we out of tenderness to their tender consciences will allow them baptism
for the children.
                             "NATHANIEL TAYLOR, Moderator"

  Not only did this subject assume a more and more difficult and unsatisfactory
form in regard to those who owned the covenant for the sake of securing baptism
for their children, but the relation of such baptized children to the Church was
a question of increasing importance and difficulty. The Episcopal church, with
its well-founded claims of acknowledged care over and for baptized children, was
being introduced with considerable success into different communities in the
Colony, and unless something should be done, appearances indicated much calamity
to this Congregational church in New Milford, and therefore another church
meeting was held.

  "Dec. 9, 1772. At a church meeting properly notified to be at the close of a
lecture to converse upon, and attempt to settle some differences with regard to
admission of members; and also to come into some friendly measures with regard
to admonishing baptized persons after they are of age, guilty of misconduct and
some other things proper to be considered.

  " After some conversation, the meeting was adjourned till Thursday, the 17th
of the present month. Meeting according to adjournment, the meeting opened by
prayer.

  "1. Voted, that all who are in covenant have a right to vote in the church
meetings.

  "2. Voted, that this Church look upon it a duty to take notice of, and in a
friendly manner, to admonish baptized persons guilty of misconduct, with a view
to bring them to make Christian satisfaction.

  "The meeting adjourned to Wednesday, the 3Oth of the present month. Met
according to adjournment, and the meeting opened by prayer. Nothing concluded
with regard to admission of members different from former votes.

  "With regard to presons withdrawing from our communion, without giving the
church any information of their uneasiness, it was:

  " 1.Voted, that this Church looks upon it, that such conduct is wrong."

  " 2. Voted, that an enquiring committee should be appointed to converse in a
friendly manner with those persons who have withdrawn from us, and report their
reasons to the church. The committee appointed for the purpose were Dea.
Bush-nell Bostwick, Dea. Benjamin Gaylord, Capt. Sherman Boardman, Mr. Abel
Hine, and Lieut. Elizur Warner, with the pastor of the church.

                                    " NATHANIEL TAYLOR, moderator."

  In regard to the above remark that "nothing concluded with regard to admission
of members different from former votes," it is proper to observe that since the
Half-way Covenant had been fully adopted, in 1749, over 24 years, 153 persons,
according to the Church Record, had been admitted to church "fellowship," (not
communion) by the Half-way Covenant, and were now declared to have the right to
vote in church meetings, and how could anything be done contrary to former
votes? Would a hundred persons condemn themselves by voting against themselves
as to improving privileges in the church which they generally believed they
ought not to enjoy? So far as the record shows, only a very few of these 153
persons had joined the church in full communion by "renewing their covenant." It
is not surprising, then, that as the church began to make efforts to recover
control of itself, matters grew worse instead of better.

  "Jan. 20, 1773. At a church meeting properly notified, when the committee
before appointed reported to the church the reasons of the following persons who
had withdrawn from our communion; viz.: Samuel Comstock, Joseph Hartwell,
Stephen Chittenden, John Wilkinson, Moses Johnson, Caleb Terrill, Jr., Capt.
Isaac Bostwick and his wife, and Anna, the wife of Israel Camp. When, after much
conversation, the matter was referred for further consideration.
                                  NATHANIEL TAYLOR, moderator.

  "March 17, 1773. At a church meeting properly notified to be at the close of a
lecture, it was proposed whether the church would reconsider the votes passed,
Mar. 8, 1769, with regard to admissions? Voted very full that they would not.

  "2. Voted, that the desires of persons to renew the covenant should be
mentioned two Sabbaths successively, before their admission; and as this church
don't think the reasons given by those who have withdrawn from us sufficient,
are of the opinion it is most expedient for every private member, as he has
occasion, to use all mild measures to reclaim them, as the reasons they offered
were very general; such as: the civil authority is too much blended with our
ecclesiastical constitution and the lax method of receiving members, and that
none but gracious persons should be admitted.
                                   NATHANIEL TAYLOR, moderator.

  "April 1, 1779. At a church meeting duly notified, it was agreed that a
committee should be chosen to assist the pastor in examining persons who are
inclined to renew the covenant before their desire is proposed, when the
Deacons, Capt. Nathaniel Batchford, Capt. Sherman Boardman, Mr. Reuben Booth,
Capt. Elizur Warner, Mr. Caleb Bennett, and Mr. David Hitchcock were chosen for
the above purpose. At the same time it was agreed that public notice be given
that at the close of each lecture, before the sacrament, the above committee
should attend for, the above purpose, and if anything special, would attend at
other times, and that two at least of the committee might act if no more could
conveniently attend, all which was voted.
                                          NATHANIEL TAYLOR."

  Mr. Taylor made the records in the church book as follows. In a certain part
he entered the names of those who owned the covenant for the purpose of having
their children baptized thus:

  "An account of some who owned the covenant after June 29,1748. Gilead Sperry
and his wife owned the covenant, and Zadock Noble and his wife, Asahel Noble and
his wife, Gideon Noble and his wife, Ebenezer Picket and his wife, and Samuel
Brownson.

  "Nov. 29, 1750. Benjamin Ruggles and his wife owned the covenant.

  "June 2, 1751. Abigail, the wife of Nathaniel Seely, owned the covenant.
Israel Camp and his wife owned the covenant."

  In this way he continued, the last entry of the kind being July 28 [1790,
probably], the last previous to this date being September 20, 1789.

  The membership of the church he recorded on pages in alphabetic order,—half a
page to a letter; and in these records there are two forms of words used; the
one is "admitted to church fellowship," the other is "admitted to church
communion," or "admitted to full communion," or "joined in full communion."

  Persons were received "to full communion by letter," and "by acknowledging the
covenant," but never is it said,"by profession of faith"; that is a phrase
adopted since his day, so far as this record shows. The last record of the
reception of members was: "Sep. 20, 1789, Kason Knapp and his wife admitted to
church fellowship." The last before this, was: "April 28, 1782. John Clark and
Elizabeth his wife admitted to church fellowship by letter from Milford. Samuel
Wales, pastor."

  From the year 1770 to 1790, only thirty-four persons are recorded as having
united with the church in "fellowship" and "full communion"; that is, besides
those who owned the covenant in order to have their children baptized. The whole
number who united as members in communion with the church during Mr. Taylor's
ministry of forty-two years was 130. The number who owned the covenant, and
thereby were half-way members, was 228.

  He recorded the baptisms with much care, the last he made being in 1796; and
by comparison of the lists it is seen that whenever parents owned the covenant,
their child or children were baptized. Having owned the covenant once, their
children were baptized from time to time without re-owning the covenant.

  Such were some of the consequences of having a church established and governed
by the enactments of the state, for in the settlement of Mr. Taylor it was
distinctly specified that he was to conduct the church according to the law of
the state, or lose his settlement of £1,000; but, before twenty years had
passed, the calamity of the Half-way Covenant was so great, that he and his
church were almost desperate in their efforts to save themselves from
threatening ruin, and therefore voted that the Half-way Covenant members should
come to the communion and vote in church meetings.

  There is a curious conjunction of two votes upon record, passed in town
meeting in the midst of the controversy in New Milford upon the questionable
propriety of the Half-way Covenant, which seems almost to have been designed as
an amusing illustration of the calamitous effects of obedience to erroneous
principles. The votes stand thus: "Dec. 14, 1761. Voted that there shall be a
committee to divide the books called Saybrook Platform according to the sundry
sects and parties in said town. Capt. Hitchcock, Mr. George McEwen, Amos
Northrop, Gaius Talcott, Nathan Gaylord, James Terrill, and Capt. Ruggles are
chosen a committee to divide said books as their sundry lists arise in the list.

  " At the same time, Voted, that every person that shall kill a wild-cat any
time in the year ensuing and within the bounds of New Milford, and produce the
skin of the head and ears on it before any of the authority of said town, they
shall have six shillings lawful money out of the town treasury."

  The most worthy Legislature had, doubtless, sent these books, printed by
benefit of the public taxes, to be distributed gratuitously (in proportion to
the tax-list), to instruct the people, who apparently were in need of something
of the kind different from what they had learned as to the beneficence of the
Half-way Covenant; but the inquiry arises with some force, how should the
subject of "wild-cats" be associated so closely with those books? Had the
principles of these books, which had been dealt out by the appointed teachers,
been like wild-cats among the people? While offering a premium for the animal
wild-cat, were they sending forth moral and religious wild-cats a thousand times
worse than the former? Certainly, if the conclusions, or votes of the church
meetings under the direction of Mr. Taylor mean anything, they reveal an
unsettled state of religious opinions on this subject, well illustrated by the
thought of wildcats upon the mountains.

  It may further be stated that from 1770 to 1790, Mr. Taylor received into the
church 34 persons only; 9 of these were received (as he wrote) "to communion"
and 25 were received "to church fellowship." If these terms meant the same thing
then the church membership was increased in twenty years by 34 persons only.

  Of the 130 who had united during 42 years (from 1748 to 1790), how many had
died or removed there is no means of knowing (except by gravestone dates), for
no revision of the church record took place until after Mr. Griswold removed,
but we know that according to the measure of human life a large proportion must
have departed.

  It should be remembered that during and immediately after the Revolutionary
War the Connecticut Congregational churches gave up the Half-way Covenant to a
large extent; some of them as early as 1776, dropping all the names of Half-way
Covenanters, and adopting the method of the Strict Congregationalists— to admit
none except upon a profession of "change of heart." Mr. Griswold in his writings
disapproved of the Half-way Covenant (at one time, at least), but made no issue
with the aged senior pastor, and therefore the matter was neglected or allowed
to pass without attention until Mr. Taylor's decease, in 1800, and Mr.
Griswold's removal in 1802.

  A very natural inquiry arises, whether, when Mr. Griswold was settled here,
this church then had one hundred members who had formally united in full
fellowship with the church.


Additional Comments:
Extracted from:

HISTORY OF THE TOWNS OF NEW MILFORD AND BRIDGEWATER, CONNECTICUT, 1703-1882,
BY
SAMUEL ORCUTT

AUTHOR OF THE HISTORIES OF TORRINGTON, WOLCOTT, AND DERBY, AND THE INDIANS OF
THE HOUSATONIC AND NAUGATUCK VALLEYS, CONNECTICUT.

HARTFORD, CONN.: PRESS OF THE CASE, LOCKWOOD AND BRAINARD COMPANY.







File at -- http://files.usgwarchives.net/ct/litchfield/history/1882/historyo/legalchu43gms.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ctfiles/

File size: 39.0 Kb