presbyterians had arrived.2 In another place, when speaking of the union
Congregationalism. Such was the intimate union between church and state, established in the New England provinces, that it was hardly possible, that different ecclesiastical organizations could exist without producing confusion and difficulty. This union between presbyterians and congregationalists was, doubtless, the more readily effected, inasmuch as with the exception of the first colony from Holland, the emigrants had not enjoyed any separate ecclesiastical organization at home. They were almost all members of the established church. The ministers were with rare exceptions, beneficed clergymen of the Church of England, who had been suspended for want of conformity, generally, in relation to matters of ceremony. Whatever, therefore, might have been their individual preferences, they had not become wedded by habit to any particular system.
It might be confidently inferred from the opinions of the English puritans, as stated above, and from the circumstances which led to their emigration, during the reigns of James I. and Charles I., that many of them would bring with them a preference for presbyterianism. It is estimated that about twenty-one thousand two hundred emigrants arrived in New England before 1640. Cotton Mather tells us that previous to that same year four thousand presbyterians had arrived.2 In another place, when speaking of the union effected between the congregationalists and presbyterians in London, about the year 1690, he says, the same union and on the same terms, had subsisted between these two denominations in New England, for "many decads of years;" that is, almost from the very first settlement of the country. This mixed character of the people, seems also to be recognized in the address of Increase Mather to king William. He begged him to consider that, "in New England they differ from other plantations; they are called congregational and presbyterian, so that such a governor will not suit with the people of New Eengland, as may be very proper for other English plantations."4 Of the two thousand presbyterian ministers cast out of the Church of England, by the act of uniformity in 1662, a considerable number, it is said, found a refuge in New England. The colony of Connecticut, in writing at an early
period to the lords of trade and plantations, tell them "the people here are congregationalists, large congregationalists, and moderate presbyterians, the two former being the most numerous." This form of expression evidently implies, that the latter class bore a large proportion to the former. The principal friends and patrons of this colony in England were presbyterians; particularly lord Say, an original patentee of the colony, to whom they often express their obligations, and to whose influence, and to that of the earl of Manchester, another leader of the presbyterian party, they were in a great measure indebted for the restoration of their charter. Trumbull, speaking of the Assembly which drew up the Saybrook platform, says, "Though the council were unanimous in passing the platform of discipline, yet they were not all of one opinion. Some were for high consociational government, and in their sentiments nearly presbyterians; others were much more moderate and rather verging on independency."2 The result of their labours proves that the former class had greatly the ascendency.
The influence of presbyterian principles in New England is, however, much more satisfactorily proved by the nature of the ecclesiastical systems which were there adopted, than by any statements of isolated facts. These systems were evidently the result of compromise between two parties, and they show that the presbyterian was much stronger than the independent element. The two leading points of difference between presbyterianism and congregationalism, particularly as the latter exists at present, relate to the mode of government within the congregation, whether it should be by elders or the brotherhood, and to the authority of synods. As to both these points the early discipline of the New England churches approached much nearer to presbyterianism than it does at present. Elders, indeed, were a regular part of the organization of the churches of the independents, even when totally disconnected with presbyterians. A tendency, however, soon manifested itself on the part of the brethren to dispense with their services, and take the keys into their own hands. Mr. Wilson, one of the first ministers of Boston, lamented, on his death-bed, as among the sins of the
people, opposition to elders, and "the making light of, and not subjecting to the authority of synods, without which the churches cannot long subsist."2 The venerable Elliot entertained the same opinions. "There were specially two things, which he was loth to see, and yet feared he saw, falling in the churches of New England; one was a thorough establishment of ruling elders in our churches;" and the other "a frequent repetition of needful synods." In the Cambridge platform, which was drawn up in 1648, it is said, "The ruling elder's office is distinct from the office of pastor and teacher." He is "to join with the pastor and teacher in those acts of spiritual rule, which are distinct from the ministry of the word and sacraments committed to them," &c. In a subsequent synod, it was agreed, 1. "The power of church government belongs only to the elders of the Church." 2. "There are certain cases, wherein the elders in their management of their church government, are to take the concurrence of the fraternity;" namely, in elections, and admissions, and censures. 3. "The elders of the church are to have a negative on the votes of the brethren," &c.
As to synods, the Cambridge platform denies to them in sec. iv. ch. 16., the right to perform any act of "church authority or jurisdiction;" but adds in sec. v., "The synod's directions and determinations, 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." This is very near the presbyterian doctrine, which teaches that the decisions of synods are binding on those voluntarily connected with them, when made in reference to things within their jurisdiction, and not contrary to the word of God, or any constitutional stipulations. The subsequent Assembly which met at Cambridge, carried the power of synods fully up to the presbyterian doctrine, if not beyond it. The second proposition on this subject, determined in that body, is in these words: "Synods duly composed of messengers chosen by them, whom they are to
represent, and proceeding with a due regard to the will of God in his word, are to be reverenced as determining the mind of the Spirit concerning things necessary to be received and practised, in order to the edification of the churches therein represented." The third proposition is, "Synods being of apostolic example, recommended as a necessary ordinance, it is but reasonable that their judgment be acknowledged as decisive, [in or of] the affairs for which they are ordained; and to deny them the power of such judgment is to render a necessary ordinance of none effect." Here it is evident that the presbyterial element in those churches predominated.2 May it not without offence be asked, whether it would not have been better, in conformity with this doctrine, to allow the church to govern itself, instead of referring so much power to the civil magistrate, as was done by the great and pious men who founded Massachusetts? Their memory deserves to be held in perpetual veneration, and their errors should be treated as the errors of a parent. Filial piety, however, permits us to learn wisdom from the mistakes of our fathers. Those excellent men ought not to be quoted, as is so often done in our days, as the advocates of the independence of each separate congregation. They had suffered so much from the tyranny of ecclesiastical rulers at home, that they went to the extreme of denying to church courts, armed with nothing but moral and spiritual censures, their legitimate authority. But feeling the necessity for some authority superior to that of a single congregation over itself, they devolved it upon the magistrate. The Cambridge platform, which denies the binding force of the decisions of a synod, declares that not only idolatry and blasphemy, but heresy and open contempt of the word preached, "are to be restrained and punished by the civil authority." And farther, "If any church, one or more, shall grow schismatical, rending itself from the communion of other churches, or shall walk incorrigibly and obstinately in any corrupt way of their own, contrary to the rule of the word; in such case the magistrate is to put forth his coercive power, as the matter shall require." The very same rules, enforced by mere ecclesiastical censures, which the presbyterian synod were so much reproached for making, and which led to the schism of
1741, were made in Connecticut by the legislature and enforced by civil penalties. The controversy, therefore, between the fathers of the New England churches and those of the American Presbyterians, would be not as to the necessity of a general authority in the Church, but as to where it should be lodged.
The churches of Connecticut appear to have had, from the beginning, more of a presbyterian influence among them than those of Massachusetts. Hooker, the patriarch of Connecticut, said with great earnestness shortly before his death, "we must settle the consociation of churches, or else we are undone." He also, it appears, laid peculiar stress on the importance of ruling elders.3 The Saybrook platform, accordingly, comes much nearer to the presbyterian model than that of Cambridge. The former declares, 1. "That the elder or elders of a particular church, with the consent of the brethren of the same, have power, and ought to exercise church discipline according to the rule of God's word, in relation to all scandals that fall out within the same," &c. 2. "That the churches which are neighbouring to each other, shall consociate for mutual affording to each other such assistance as may be requisite, on all occasions ecclesiastical," &c. 3. "That all cases of scandal, that shall fall out within any one of the aforesaid consociations, shall be brought to a council of elders, and also messengers of the churches within the said circuit, i.e. the churches of one consociation, if they see cause to send messengers when there shall be need of a council for the determination of them." Art. 5. declares, "That when any case is orderly brought before any council of the churches, it shall be heard and determined, which (unless orderly removed from thence) shall be a final issue; and all parties therein concerned shall sit down and be determined thereby." "If any pastor or church doth obstinately refuse a due attendance and conformity to the determination of the council," after due patience, "they are to be reported guilty of a scandalous contempt, and dealt with as the rule of God's word in such case doth provide, and the sentence of noncommunion shall be declared against such pastor and church." In giving,
therefore, the exercise of discipline to the pastor and elders, and in making the determinations of councils definitive and binding, on pain of noncommunion, the Saybrook platform, unanimously approved by the Assembly which prepared it in 1708, and adopted by the legislature as the discipline of the churches established by law, comes very little short of presbyterianism. It is very evident, as this platform was a compromise between two parties, being less than the one, and more than the other wished to see adopted, that one party must have been thorough presbyterians. That they were, moreover, the stronger of the two, is evident from the platform approaching so much nearer to their system, than to that of the independents.
It is, therefore, a most unfounded assumption that the Puritans were all congregationalists, or that the emigrants from England or the New England colonies, who joined our church, as a matter of course, were disaffected to our form of government.
Though New England was the home of the Puritans, they did not confine themselves to that region of country. With the adventurous spirit which has always been one of their leading characteristics, they extended at an early period, their settlements in various directions. Long Island, from its proximity to Connecticut, was soon occupied by emigrants from the older colonies, and by settlers direct from England. The Dutch having occupied the western end of the island, these English settlements were principally towards the central and eastern portions. Before the commencement of the last century several churches had been organized, whose ministers, in many instances, were from England.
Smith, in his history of New York, written in 1756, gives the following account of the inhabitants of Long Island, at that period. In King's county, opposite New York, "the inhabitants are all Dutch." In Queen's county "the inhabitants are divided into Dutch and English, Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, and Quakers." Suffolk county, "except one small episcopal congregation, consists entirely of English Presbyterians."
The Puritans do not appear to have made much impression upon New York before the early part of the last century, but in East Jersey their settlements were numerous and important. In 1664, a company from the western part of Long Island purchased a tract of land and laid out the town of Elizabethtown. There were, however, but four houses in the place, when Philip Carteret, in 1665, arrived as governor of the province, from England, bringing with him about thirty settlers. The first colony, therefore, must have been small. Much about the same time, Woodbridge, Middletown, and Shrewsbury were settled, in a good degree by emigrants from Long Island, and Connecticut. Newark was settled in 1667 or 1668, by about thirty families principally from Brandford in Connecticut. As the New England Puritans were, some of them congregationalists and some presbyterians, it is not easy to ascertain to which class the emigrants to East Jersey belonged. It is probable that some preferred the one form of church discipline, and some the other. Those who settled at Newark were presbyterians. The Rev. Abraham Pierson was, it is believed, episcopally ordained in England whence he emigrated to this country with a number of followers. After several previous attempts at settlement, they fixed themselves at Brandford, in Connecticut. Being dissatisfied, however, with the union between the colonies of New Haven and Connecticut, they removed to Newark. After continuing the pastor of the church there for about twenty years, Mr. Pierson was succeeded by his son, who was subsequently appointed the first president of Yale College. "These two ministers, tradition relates, were moderate presbyterians, but the son more especially. He had imbibed moderate presbyterianism from his father, and when at Cambridge College, he had received strong prejudices against Plymothean independency; and after his father's death he was for introducing more rigid presbyterianism into Newark." It appears, from the narrative just quoted, that this attempt of the younger Pierson was sustained