In 1661, arose the debates concerning the right of the grandchildren of church members to the ordinance of baptism. The dispute began in Connecticut, several years before, in one of the churches at Hartford. It originated in the same cause, that has been already spoken of, the exclusion of all but church members from the privileges of freemen. This exclusion, little complained of at first, when few were to be found out of the pale of the churches, became regarded as a heavy grievance, when the number of those, thus excluded, was greatly increased by the arrival of new emigrants no longer actuated by religious considerations. It was therefore demanded, that all, who were not openly unworthy, should be admitted to the church without being required to profess a change of heart; and also all baptized persons, and all who had been members of churches elsewhere. As a step to the accomplishment of these ends, it was claimed, that all the children of those who had been baptized, upon owning the covenant, should themselves be baptized. It was apparent, that to yield to these demands, would be destructive to vital piety in the churches, and they were therefore strenuously opposed.

The colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut, contrary to the advice of the colony of New Haven, called a council, which met in 1657. In reply to a question respecting the subjects of baptism, it was decided by the council, that those who, being grown up to years of discretion, of blameless life, and understanding the grounds of religion, should own the covenant made with their parents, by entering thereinto in their own proper persons, should have the ordinance of baptism administered to their children.

This decision not being regarded as satisfactory, and the disputes raging more fiercely than ever: a synod was called at Boston, to which the same questions were propounded that had been previously discussed in the council. The answer respecting the proper subjects of baptism, was in substance the same; and it was held, that all baptized persons were to be considered members of the church, and if not openly dissolute, admitted to all its privileges, except partaking of the Lord's

Supper. This decision of the synod was strenuously opposed by Mr. Chauncey, President of Harvard College, Increase Mather, and others of the most distinguished ministers in the colonies. It was justly judged by them, that to admit unregenerate persons into the pale of the church, would be most pernicious to the interests of true religion.

The result seemed to justify their fears. In Hartford, in one month, 192 persons took the covenant, comprising almost all the young people in the congregation. The number of those in full communion was small.* "Correct moral deportment, with a profession of correct doctrinal opinions, and a desire for regeneration, came to be regarded as the only qualifications for admission to the communion. This innovation, though not as yet publicly advocated by any, there is conclusive proof, had become quite extensive in practice, previously to 1679. The churches soon came to consist, in many places, very considerably of unregenerate persons; of those who regarded themselves, and were regarded by others, as unregenerate. Of all these things the consequence was, that within thirty years after the commencement of the eighteenth century, a large proportion of the clergy throughout the country were either only speculatively correct, or to some extent actually erroneous in their religious opinions-maintaining regularly the forms of religion, but in some instances having well-nigh lost, and in others, it is to be feared, having never felt, its power."

One of the warmest defenders of the Half-way Covenant, as it was called, was Mr. Stoddard, minister at Northampton, who carried on a public controversy respecting it, with Increase Mather, of Boston. He maintained, that it was the duty of unconverted persons to come to the Lord's Supper, "though they knew that they had no true goodness, or gospel holiness." His grandson, President Edwards, at first adopted his opinions, but subsequently renounced them; and wrote with great ability to disprove them. The Halfway Covenant continued to be used for

• Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, article Congregationalists.

many years; but after a bitter experience of the pernicious consequences attending it, it was laid aside in all the orthodox Congregational churches.

After the restoration of Charles II. many of the ejected ministers sought a refuge in New England. For the twenty years previous, there had been but little emigration to the colonies, the Parliament tolerating at home all sects but the Episcopalians.

The persecutions against the Quakers still continuing, though with much less severity than at first, a letter was written in 1669, by Dr. Goodwin, and Dr. Owen, and others of the leading Independents in England, to Massachusetts, recommending them "to put an end to the sufferings and confinement of the persons censured, and to restore them to their former liberty; and to allow them to practise the principles of their dissent, if unaccompanied with a disturbance of the public peace." The tolerant counsels of this letter were not immediately complied with, but the severity of the laws was gradually mitigated.

In 1658 a Confession of Faith was adopted by the English Congregational churches, at a convention held in the Savoy which, with a few variations, was the same as that agreed to by the Westminster Assembly. This confession was approved of by a synod convened at Boston, in 1680, and is to this day considered a correct exposition of the opinions of the Congregationalists.

New articles of discipline were adopted by the churches of Connecticut, at an assembly of ministers and delegates held at Saybrook in 1708. The Saybrook Platform differs from the Cambridge Platform chiefly in the provision that it makes respecting councils and associations. This synod was held in pursuance of an Act of the Legislature, ordering it to draw up a form of ecclesiastical discipline. The expenses of the ministers and delegates were to be paid from the public treasury. The system agreed upon by the synod was presented to the Legislature, at their next session, by whom it was approved in the following terms: "This Assembly do declare their great approbation of such an happy agreement; and do ordain, that all

the churches within this government that are, or shall be, thus united in doctrine, worship, and discipline, be, and for the future shall be, owned, and acknowledged, and established by law; provided always, that nothing herein shall be intended or construed to hinder or prevent any society or church that is, or shall be, allowed by the laws of this government, who soberly differ or dissent from the United Churches, hereby established, from exercising worship and discipline in their own way, according to their consciences." The synod also gave their assent to the Confession of Faith adopted by the synod at Boston, 1680.

About the year 1740, New England was blessed with a powerful revival, which embraced all the colonies. Some extravagances, which attended it in Connecticut, gave rise to an Act of the Legislature, by which ministers were forbidden to preach out of their own parishes, unless expressly invited by a clergyman and the major part of his church; and if any evangelist preached, without being requested to do so by the inhabitants, he was to he sent as a vagrant out of the limits of the colony. Two parties arose among the people and in the Legislature, frequently called the old and the new lights, who bestowed on each other the epithets of cold, dead preachers, formalists, and Arminians, on the one hand, and of enthusiasts and fanatics, on the other. Much opposition was manifested to the interference of the Legislature, as being contrary to the liberty of conscience.

As early as 1750 the principles of the Unitarians had been extensively adopted by members of the Congregational churches. There was not, however, between such, and those who held fast to the faith of their fathers, an open separation, until some years later. In 1785 several churches in Boston ceased from their confessions of faith, and many others. followed in their footsteps. Harvard College fell into the hands of the Unitarians, and is now under their control. But the Congregational form of church government is still retained by the Unitarian churches.

During the French, and still more during the revolutionary war, religion suffered much, great laxity of morals pre

vailed, and very many were avowed infidels. But the disastrous result of the French revolution opened the eyes of many to the insufficiency of human reason, as a guide in religion, and to the importance of Christianity, as the safeguard and preservative of all governments, especially of republics.

Great efforts were also made by the clergy to prevent the further progress of infidel principles; and a revival of religion which commenced in Connecticut, and spread throughout New England, was followed by the happiest consequences. At the present day, probably in no portion of the world, will fewer infidels, or openly immoral men be found, than in the New England states.

The connection that existed between the Congregational system of church polity, and the civil power, was severed in most of the colonies by the revolution. In none of the new constitutions was there any provision made for the support of any particular form of worship by law. It will be useful to glance at some of the early laws of New England, both because they have been much misrepresented and misunderstood, and because they may serve us as landmarks, by which we may judge of our progress in religious freedom.

Most of the religious, and many of the political disputes, which arose in the early history of New England, are to be traced to the unfortunate connexion that existed between the churches and the civil authorities. The manner in which the connection grew up, has been already alluded to. Both in Massachusetts and Connecticut all the citizens were obliged by law to support public worship, and church rates were collected in the same way as town rates. But to this there was one exception the salaries of the Boston ministers, down to 1700, were paid by voluntary contributions, collected after divine service, and given to them by the deacons every Monday morning. Every church first chose its own pastor, and, if the majority of the inhabitants of the town concurred, he was supported by an assessment upon the inhabitants. If the town did not concur, a council was held of the elders, or messengers of the three, or five neigh

boring churches, and if they approved of him, whom the churches had chosen, he was appointed their minister. Before a church could be gathered, it was necessary that the consent of the magistrates should be obtained, and if a minister preached to such a church, he was liable to a penalty. If the councils called to settle disputes did not agree, or if the contending parties were contumacious, "it was a common thing for the civil magis. trate to interfere, and put an end to the dispute." In Connecticut the interference of the Asssembly in religious matters was frequent.

All persons were obliged, under a penalty of five shillings for every neglect, to attend public worship on Sunday and other days set apart to devotional exercises. It was not, however, obligatory on any one to attend the Congregational churches. Every one was allowed to worship peacefully in his own way, by applying to the General Court, and declaring his wishes. Church censures were declared invalid to depose, or degrade any man from any civil office, authority, or dignity, which he should sustain in the colony.

In a declaration of the General Court, it is said: "That the civil magistrate had power and liberty to see the peace ordinances and rules of Christ observed in every church according to his word, and also to deal with every church member in a way of civil justice." So in Halbard's Survey of the Cambridge Platform: "Church government and civil government may very well stand together, it being the duty of the magistrate to take care of matters of religion."

The Congregational form of church government, although not in name, yet in effect, was the established ecclesiastical system of Massachusetts, and of New England generally. In the former colony, no other form was tolerated for the first fifty years, and towns were required to settle ministers of that denomination. The law afterwards became more favorable to the Quakers, Anabaptists, and Episcopalians. But at first, polls were alone exempted, while the estate was taxed for the support of the Congregational clergy.

It is evident to every thinking man, that any connexion between the state and the church, is utterly hostile to the genius of Congregationalism. Indeed, the term church, in the sense in which it is used, when we speak of the Church of England, or the Presbyterian Church, is wholly inapplicable here. Any body of men, uniting together for religious purposes, constitutes a church, perfect and complete in all its parts. It is therefore that we speak of the Congregational churches, as we speak of the United States; each having an independent existence, and still sovereign, except so far as it has given up its rights by the act of union. That there may be a union between the state and church, the latter like the former must be an organized body, harmonious in its parts, and pervaded by a principle which is the law of its being, imperative, permanent, and universal. Such can never be the case with the Congregational churches; for there is no common law, other than the scriptures, to which they are obedient. Between the states and such a multitude of isolated independent communities there can be no union; and that any connection ever existed between them was owing to that peculiar combination of circumstances, which for many years made them one; a unity, rather than a union of distinct bodies. In 1801, a plan of union was adopted between the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church and the General Association of Connecticut, with a view "to promote union and harmony in those new settlements which are composed of inhabitants from those bodies." By this plan, a Congregational church, if they settled a Presbyterian minister, might still conduct their discipline according to Congregational principles; and on the other hand, a Presbyterian church with a Congregational minister retained its peculiar discipline. Under these regulations many new churches were formed, which after a time came under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly.

In 1837, this plan of union was abrogated by that body, as unconstitutional; and several synods, which had been attached to it in consequence of the plan, were declared to be out of the ecclesiastical connexion.

The principles of the modern Congregationalists, as has been already said, differ but little from those held by John Robinson and the church at Leyden. The foundation and fundamental principles of their church polity is this: that a church is a company of pious persons, who voluntary unite together for the worship of God. From this definition, as a starting point, their whole system may logically be deduced. It is a voluntary union in this, that every individual exercises his own judgment respecting the church with which he shall connect himself, acting in obedience to that law of God which commands all his children to become members of some visible church. Being, then, in a sense, self-created, each church is entirely independent of every other, except so far as it is bound by those laws of Christian intercourse which govern societies equally with individuals. It has the power to elect its own officers, to admit and to exclude members; in short, to do all those acts which are recognized in the scriptures as coming within the province of a Christian church.

To the scriptures the Congregationalists appeal, as their only guide in all matters both of faith and polity. They believe that this system of church government is taught in the sacred writings, and sanctioned by the usage of the Apostles and the early Christians. Creeds and confessions of faith, though used as formularies, are never to be regarded as tests of orthodoxy. They are merely compendiums of all the essential doctrines to which every one is expected to subscribe: convenient guides in the examination of candidates, but not standards of religious truth. In this light

are the various confessions of faith, which at different times have been adopted by synods, to be regarded. No one of them has any further authority than as being the expression of the opinions of good and wise men. They have no claim to infallibility. By the Bible they are to be measured, and no doctrine which cannot be found in it is to be received, however endeared to us by its associations, or venerable by its antiquity. This strict adherence to the scriptures, as the only rule of faith and practice, must necessarily prevent many of those erroneous opinions, and that

are too apt to characterize those who follow the Bible only at second hand. Probably no part of the Congregational polity has been so much misunderstood, as the union which exists between the individual churches. The idea of a central legislative and judicial power, which marks all other ecclesiastical systems, is here unknown. Councils and synods are merely advisory bodies, composed of delegates from the various churches, within certain local limits. They are, so to speak, a kind of congress, where the representatives of independent churches meet, to consult with each other respecting matters of general interest. But they become parties to no articles of union, which make the decisions of their representatives, thus convened, of binding authority. Each church is at liberty to accept or reject their decisions. As the judgments of impartial, wise, and good men, they will deservedly have great influence with all who are unprejudiced; but they are mere recommendations, not laws.

These councils are sometimes mutual, sometimes ex parte, and sometimes standing, or permanent. A mutual council, as the term denotes, is one called by the consent of both parties; an ex parte council, one which either party in the dispute may call, without the concurrence of the other. These councils are usually composed of the pastor and a lay delegate from each of the neighboring churches; the disputing parties, by letters missive, designating the churches whose c unsel they desire, and each of the churches thus addressed electing its own delegate.

Standing, or permanent councils are almost entirely confined to Connecticut. By the articles of discipline adopted at Saybrook, all the churches are consociated for mutual assistance in their ecclesiastical concerns. The pastors and churches of a county usually form one or more consociations; and all cases, which cannot be determined without the aid of a council, are brought before this body. Mutual and ex parte councils have therefore, in great measure, gone into disuse in that state.

ed. Some advantages are doubtless possessed by this system over the others, especially as offering a speedy termination to disputes; but it must be admitted that consistency demands that every church should be its own judge in the last resort.

If a church should refuse to follow the advice of a council, and the case should be such as to warrant it, the other churches would withdraw their fellowship from it. Such a step would only be justifiable when its offences are such as no longer to permit the other churches to recognise it as a Christian church.

Difficult as it may seem in theory, for so many independent sovereignties to preserve uniformity in doctrine and harmony in action: yet it is believed that no religious denomination, for the last two hundred years, has swerved less from the principles of its early defenders, or maintained more perfect harmony amongst its members. This, no doubt, in a great measure, is to be ascribed to the constant appeal to the Bible as the guide in all matters of controversy.

The only church officers now recognised by the Congregationalists are pastors and deacons. In this respect they differ from the early churches, who admitted five orders, pastors, teachers, ruling elders, deacons, and deaconesses. The office of deaconess was soon dropped. Those of teacher, and ruling elder, were longer retained. According to Cotton Mather, the churches were nearly "destitute of such helps in government" about the year 1700. The office of elder went into disuse in the church at Plymouth in 1745.