Church was subordinate to the State ; but in New England the
State was subordinate to the Church."
" This mode of government answered a tolerable purpose so
long as the community continued Christian, and so long as the
people were united in sentiment," and we may add, in religion.
Such unity had been the case for nearly one hundred years, but
it no longer existed. The Baptists came to Groton in 1704 and
organized a Church in 1705, although it was about twenty-five
years before a second Church was organized. The Quakers
of New York state had also crossed our borders, and the Con-
gregationalists had split up into two factions, those adopting
the Saybrook Platform of 1708, and the dissenters therefrom,
known as Separatists. These with the Presbyterians and
Churchmen made six different religious denominations then
in the Colony, besides the Rogerenes of New London. These
new conditions made the old law for the minister's support both
unreasonable and unjust. The toleration acts of 1665, 1669,
and 1708, in terms complied with the law of England by extend-
ing freedom of worship to persons of all denominations, but
the laws in general were so framed that those who elected to
worship in any other than the Congregational way were sub-
jected to various annoyances and made to pay for it so dearly
as to discourage all other worship, as far as it could be dis-
couraged without actual prohibition. Mr. Johnson considered
the law of the Colony for the minister's support to be contrary
to the indulgence granted the Colony "by their charter, which
IN CONNECTICUT. 5 I
forbade them to do anything contrary to the laws of England."
The toleration act of 1708 expressly provided that dissenting
worshippers should not be " excused from paying minister's
rates", for the " way " established by law.
The Church wardens and vestry of Fairfield petitioned the
General Court which assembled May 15, 1727, for some act to
" excuse us from paying any dissenting minister, or to the
building of any dissenting meeting house." Also requesting
that the money formerly taken from them by distraint, (as
they say " contrary to His Honor, the Governor's advice,")
be restored to them again. A law purporting to give Church-
men relief from taxes was passed, and it is difficult to conceive
how any law for such purpose could have possibly been so
framed as to give as little relief. It was the first law to name
the Church of England, and the first law granting any relief
from taxes to those who were not of the Standing Order. It
has been stated that this law was passed at the request of
Churchmen, but they never requested this law. It was like
asking for bread and receiving a stone. The rights of Epis-
copalians under the laws of the Colony have generally been
misunderstood, and the importance of this act of 1727 in the
history of the Church is so great as to warrant an extended
discussion.
The preamble to the act shows that it was granted " Upon
the Prayer of Moses Ward of Fairfield, Church Warden, and
the rest of the Church Wardens, Vestry Meri and Brethren,
representing themselves under Obligations by the Honorable
Society, and Bishop of London, to pay to the Support of the
established Church," and that " said Ward appeared, and by
his attorney declared to this Assembly, that he should not
insist on the return of the money prayed for."
The law enacted " That all persons who are of the Church of
England, and those who are of the Churches established by the
laws of this Government, that live in the bounds of any Parish
allowed by this Assembly, shall be taxed by the parishioners
of the said Parish, by the same rule, and in the same proportion,
for the support of the Ministry in such Parish." The condi-
tions here imposed are the controlling features of the act. It
is imperative that Churchmen shall be taxed to support the
52 THE CHURCH
ministers of the Standing Order, " by the same rule, and in the
same proportion " as all others, and further, the conditions of
this act are applicable only to those " that live in the bounds "
of the particular Congregational parish where the tax was laid.
The omission to notice this condition has been one of the chief
causes of misunderstanding the law.
The law gives no conditions for relief to the tax payer as to
taxes for supporting ministers of the Standing Order. The
only relief is directly for the Episcopal Minister and is as
follows :
" But if it so happens that there be a Society of the Church
of England, where there is a person in Orders according to the
Canons of the Church of England, settled and abiding among
them, and performing divine service, so near to any person that
hath declared himself of the Church of England, that he can
conveniently, and doth attend the public Worship there, then the
Collectors, having first indifferently levied the Tax, as above-
said, shall deliver the Taxes collected of such persons declaring
themselves, and attending as aforesaid, unto the Minister of the
Church of England, living near unto such persons ; which
Minister shall have full power to receive and recover the same,
in order to his support in the place assigned to him."
But before the Episcopal minister could recover the taxes
paid by the members of his flock to the Collector of the Stand-
ing Order, he must prove that he " is a person in orders accord-
ing to the canons of the Church " ; that he resides in the same
Congregational parish with those Churchmen whose taxes he
demands ; that he has regularly performed Divine Service in
that vicinity ; that the persons whose taxes he demands have
" declared " themselves to be Churchmen, and that they have
regularly attended services at the public worship conducted
by this minister.
The remainder of the act is as follows :
" But if such proportions of Taxes be not sufficient in any
Society of the Church of England to support the incumbent
there, then such society may levy and collect of them who
profess and attend, as aforesaid, greater Taxes, at their own
discretion, for the support of their Minister.
" And that the parishioners of the Church of England, attend-
ing as aforesaid, are hereby excused from paying any Taxes
IN CONNECTICUT. 53
for building Meeting Houses for the present established
Churches of this Government."
The provision for further taxing Churchmen for their own
support requires no explanation, but the relief from paying
meeting-house taxes applies, by reason of the words "attending
as aforesaid " only to such Churchmen as have fulfilled the
conditions named in the previous portion of the act, and there-
fore only those Churchmen who resided in the same Congrega-
tional parish that the Episcopal Minister resided in, could
properly claim exemption from meeting-house taxes.
In the spring of 1727 when this act was passed, there were
only two Episcopal houses of worship in use within the Colony,
one at Stratford and an unfinished one at Fairfield. There was
another in the process of building at New London. These
three towns had each organized a parish or society ; so also
West Haven, Ripton, Ridgefield, Newtown, Norwalk, North
Haven, Poquonnuck, (North Groton,) Green's Farms, Green-
field, Chestnut Ridge, (Redding,) and Danbury, either had
parishes or had laid the foundations for a parish, and yet. to
take care of all these fourteen places, there was only one Minis-
ter " in Orders according to the Canons of the Church of Eng-
land settled and abiding among them ", and Stratford, where the
Rev. Samuel Johnson resided, was the only place in the Colony
where Churchmen could get any relief under this law.
Fairfield, however, was soon added to the list by the appoint-
ment as missionary of Rev. Henry Caner, who had been study-
ing for the ministry for three years last past and had also per-
formed good service as catechist and lay reader. He returned
in the fall of 1727 from England, where he had been for ordina-
tion. His first report to the Society is dated March 15, 1727-8.
He says the heavy taxes levied for the support of dissenting
ministers renders his people " almost inacapable of carrying on
the Church." Under the same date he writes to the Bishop of
London that " the Dissenters in this government have lately
passed an act to exempt all professors of the Church from pay-
ing taxes to support their ministers, yet they take the liberty
to determine themselves who may be called Churchmen, and
interpret that act to comprehend none that live a mile from the
Church minister, but of its revenues likewise, we are entirely
54 THE CHURCH
deprived of the benefit of ; and the favor which they would
seem to do us proves, in reality, but a shadow."
Under date of April 2, 1728, Mr. Johnson of Stratford writes
to the Bishop of London, that " The Government have pre-
tended to make a law in favor of the Church, whereby all
that live near our parish churches are exempted from paying
taxes to dissenting ministers, and it is of some service to such,
but those that live scattering in the country are yet persecuted
as bad as ever, and in this law they still call themselves the
Established Churches, and treat us as Dissenters."
Mr. Caner mentions nearness to the Church minister as the
controlling condition for exemption from taxes, but in fact,
the bounds of the established parish where the Church minister
resided was the real limit of exemption, while the words " near
to " in the law relate to the place of worship and not to the
abode of the minister. The law itself defines what " near to "
means, so that if a person could and did attend worship in any
place he was " near to " that place within the meaning of the
law. We are at a loss to see on what ground the taxes of the
Churchmen of Fairfield who attended Mr. Caner's services
there should not have been paid over to Mr. Caner, unless they
were assessed before Mr. Caner's return from England. It was
certainly the rule to give Episcopalians the benefit of this law
in all places where the Episcopal ministers resided, and in most
other places Episcopalians legally suffered. The authorities
might however have claimed that a general missionary for two
or more different places was not a minister " settled and abid-
ing " in any particular place according to the intent of the law.
That a minister should have several parishes to serve alternately,
was foreign to the conceptions of the Standing Order. They
might well have raised the question as to who were " declared "
Churchmen. The only law bearing on the declarations of dis-
senters was the toleration act of 1708, which required those who
desired to worship God in a way different from that of the
Standing Order, to qualify themselves at the County Court
" according to an act made in the first year of the late King
William and Queen Mary." We find no record of any such
qualification in Hartford County and do not know that any one
ever qualified under it except a few Straight Congregational-
IN CONNECTICUT. 55
ists in New Haven County. The words " hath declared himself
of the Church of England " as used in the act of 1727 could
be fairly construed as so declaring under the toleration law of
1708. We do not know that the law ever was so construed.
On May 9, 1728, the Church wardens and vestrymen of Fair-
field presented a memorial to the General Assembly saying that
the act of 1727 " is not fully understood " and particularly they
did not understand " what part of the professors of the Church
of England are exempted, all being within the district of the
Rev. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Caner's ministry, within the county
of Fairfield." They ask for an explanation, and also for a law
that taxes be granted " by the book of canons . . . and not
by your collectors." No action was taken on this petition.
A little before April 1, 1728, Mr. Johnson preached at New
Haven. He says, " Great pains were taken to hinder people
from coming to Church and many well wishers to it were over-
persuaded not to come ; however, I had near a hundred
hearers." After sermon, " some ten of the members of the
Church there subscribed one hundred pounds towards the build-
ing of a church in that town."
The act of 1727 encouraged the Quakers to apply for relief
from taxes, which was granted at the May session in 1729 and
the same favor was extended to the Baptists in October, 1729.
We presume the law makers preferred Quakers and Baptists to
Episcopalians, for the most objectionable features of the law of
1727 were omitted from these acts of 1729, whereby all Quakers
and Baptists that attended their respective meetings were
wholly exempted from taxes on behalf of the Standing Order.
The Straight Congregationalists had no relief whatever from
the oppressions of the Standing Order until 1777.
The Rev. Samuel Seabury, father of Bishop Seabury and the
Congregationalist minister at North Groton, (now Ledyard,)
declared for Episcopacy, went to England for ordination, and
returned as missionary to New London, Dec. 9, 1730. The
Rev. John Beach, Presbyterian minister at Newtown, soon
followed, and was returned here as missionary for Redding and
Newtown in 1734.
The people of North Groton consoled themselves over the
loss of the Rev. Samuel Seabury by securing the services of the
56 THE CHURCH
Rev. Ebenezer Ptmderson, and they were so well pleased with
him as to say " we looked upon ourselves as favorites of
Heaven," but in about two and a half years he " publicly
declared himself to be a conformist to the Established Church
of England," and they say some " ten or twelve of the people
of our Parish and heads of families have signed his paper and
contributed money to him to have his expenses " to England
paid for him "to be ordained by a bishop." [Ecclesiastical
Mss., Vol. 4, Doc. 51.] Mr. Punderson was recommended by
the clergy of Connecticut, who said there was " a good prospect
that many of his former parish will go with him." He came
back in 1734 as missionary for North Groton and parts
adjacent. In December, 1733, Mr. Johnson wrote to the Bishop
of London that he believed two or three worthy young ministers
of this Colony "will in a little time declare for us," and that
" two of them especially have hopes that the most of their con-
gregation will conform with them." One of these two was Mr.
Punderson and the other was Jonathan Arnold, who had suc-
ceeded Mr. Johnson at West Haven. In 1734 Mr. Arnold
returned from England with the appointment of itinerant mis-
sionary of the Colony, and the Standing Order at West Haven,
like the people of North Groton, were grieved at the loss of two
successive pastors and part of their congregation.
The honorable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in
Foreign Plantations of the Realm of England breathed into
the Church in Connecticut the breath of life, and by its foster-
ing care sustained the Church until it was strong enough to
stand the shock of the American Revolution. Each missionary
was requested to " keep a constant and regular correspondence "
with the Secretary of the Society, besides making semi-annual
reports. It is by this correspondence that we have such a com-
plete history of the Church. The missionaries were paid from
twenty to seventy pounds sterling per annum, and each mis-
sionary was allowed a library valued at ten pounds sterling with
five pounds worth of tracts. Of the 83 missionaries on the
Society's list in New England more than one-fourth were
brought up Dissenters. In Connecticut there was a much
larger percentage of those who had come over to the Church.
Of the first nine missionaries appointed to stations in Connecti-
cut, six of them had been dissenting ministers.
IN CONNECTICUT. 57
The missionaries were instructed " that they take special
care to give no offence to the Civil Government, by inter-med-
dling in affairs not relating to their own calling and function."
" That they particularly preach against those vices, which
they shall observe to be most predominating in the places of
their residence."
No missionary was appointed to any place without first being
petitioned for, and without being recommended by some mis-
sionary or other person known to the Society. Even then no
missionary was sent until the Society knew " whether those
places are able and willing to contribute towards the mainten-
ance of a missionary," and those places which were most willing
to contribute were always supplied first. Ripton and Newtown
in 1722 both asked for a missionary and referred to certain
lands for Church support, but did not state specifically how
much they could do. Two years later they were informed that
the " Society are inclined to send them a Missionary, but write
first to know what the value of the land is . . . and what
they will contribute further annually ? "
The people soon learned that it was necessary to offer the
Society something substantial towards supporting a missionary
before they could have one, and even then only a few mission-
aries were to be had.
There was at Hebron in 1736 " a numerous congregation
who attended the services of the Common Prayers with great
seriousness " when Missionary Seabury of New London, thirty
miles away, came to visit them. They could not get a mis-
sionary and so desired Mr. Seabury to " administer to them
four times a year until one could be sent."
In 1740 the " Church newly planted " at Wallingford was
served only once a quarter by a minister and every Lord's day
besides they were served by a lay reader. They knew that Mr.
Morris could not come to them oftener, but, say they, "we
hope God in his providence, will so order it that we may at last
be oftener attended." Mr. Morris writes that upon Mr. Arnold
leaving, the people " seemed to despair of having another to
succeed him." ..." Should I give an account of the
geography of my mission you would find it large enough for a
Diocese."
58 THE CHURCH
In 1741, Mr. Morris visited Simsbury, (Bloomfield,) where
" they are in hopes of having a minister at last, and have accord-
ingly prepared some timber to build a church." He arranged
with the other missionaries to assist him so that Simsbury might
be served " eight times a year." He agreed to attend Walling-
ford three times a year, " which they seem satisfied with, for
they know it is as much as I can do."
In October, 1743, Mr. Beach speaks of attending about
twenty families at New Mil ford and New Fairfield, where he
goes several times a year " but seldom on the Lord's day."
They frequently go fifteen miles to attend church at Newtown.
In April, 1744, the Church wardens of Simsbury write to
the Society that they have " nothing so much to object against
as the want of a settled minister." Mr. Punderson of North
Groton writes, " I am at present the only missionary in this half
of the government and part of Rhode Island," and urges the
Society to fill the vacancy at New London occasioned by the
transfer of Mr. Seabury to Long Island. Other removals
occurred, so that in 1747 Dr. Johnson says, "I am now alone
here on the sea coast, without one person in orders besides
myself for more than a hundred miles." The Church wardens
of Litchfield asked for a missionary in 1747, and say they are
remote from all the missionaries, except the Rev. Mr. Gibbs,
twenty-seven miles away, and Rev. Mr. Beach, between thirty-
five and forty miles away.
In 1756, the people of Norwich were desirous of having a
missionary, and before they had one the Mohegan Indians
petitioned the Society to have this missionary give them a share
of his time, "that we may be taught to go to that good place
when we die, as well as the white man." They would pay some-
thing but they could not pay much save a few oysters, fish, etc.
In 1764 the Rev. Mr. Viets, missionary at Bloomfield, was
thirty-five miles from any other Episcopal minister.
In 1768, the Church wardens of Guilford tell a long story
about having tried in vain, since 1744, to have a minister settled
among them, but could get nothing but transient service,
although some came and staid long enough to greatly encourage
them, and left soon enough to grievously disappoint them.
They conclude as follows : — " We have labored under the
IN CONNECTICUT. 59
greatest discouragements for upwards of twenty-three years
and built a church, purchased a Glebe and " obtained everything
that we have so " long struggled for except the Society's patron-
age." We " are stripped of our minister and left to mourn
our loss, and to be the derision and scoff of the dissenters."
They asked to have Mr. Tyler, who was going home for orders,
sent to them. But still again they were disappointed, for Mr.
Tyler came back as missionary to Norwich and adjoining parts.
He opened the church at Pomfret, (Brooklyn,) April 12, 1771,
the last church built in the Colony, and which is now, (1906,)
standing. [Mention is made of this old church by the Rev.
George Israel Browne, with illustrations, in the Conn. Magazine,
Vol. X, p. 69, etc.] It was built by Mr. Godfrey Malbone, an
ardent Churchman, who for years had without murmur paid
one-eighth of all the taxes in the parish. When he began, in
1769, to build the church, there were but two Churchmen that
he knew of besides himself. The Standing Order decided to
build a new meeting-house, which Mr. Malbone objected to as
unnecessary, but he was told that they would build it and compel
him to pay for it. His lawyer, a Churchman, advised him that
as the laws stood he could not help himself, unless the Episco-
palians had a church and minister of their own.. Consequently
Mr. Malbone decided to have both a church and a missionary.
In October, 1770, this Church was legalized by the General
Assembly. With a little outside aid the building was ready,
as before stated, in 1771. About twenty heads of families,
brought up in the Dissenting way, joined with them before the
church was completed, and more joined later, for there was not
another church nearer than Norwich, twenty-two miles away.
But the great difficulty which Mr. Malbone encountered was
to get a missionary. He applied for one in 1769 and engaged to
pay one hundred pounds annually. Without a minister settled
there the people were bound by law to pay for the meeting-
house and minister's rate of the Standing Order. Failing to
have a missionary sent to him by the Society, he employed the
Rev. Mr. Moseley, a chaplain in the British Navy, but still they
were not freed from taxes as the Dissenters would not admit
that Mr. Moseley was " in orders in accordance with the Canons
of the Church." In 1772 Mr. Moseley withdrew in favor of
60 THE CHURCH
the Rev. Daniel Fogg, a missionary of the S. P. G., and then the
Churchmen in the parish of Brooklyn were relieved from
further taxes to the Standing Order.
There never were in the Colony half as many missionaries as
were being earnestly begged for, and all the while that this cry
for more ministers was heard throughout the land, the Dis-
senters were complaining about the S. P. G. sending ministers
where they were not wanted. Dr. Blake's " Separates " of New
England says that the S. P. G. was a society for aiding the
Church of England in America and for planting " its Churches
where the ground was abundantly occupied and supplied with
the ministrations of the Gospel, though not after the Episcopal
order." The great Anti-Episcopal Convention, 1766 to 1775,
complained of the S. P. G. for paying considerable salaries to
missionaries where the Convention thought they were not
wanted. There was no minister of any denomination at Red-
ding, when Mr. Henry Caner first ministered to the people
there. At the present day it is hard to realize how much the
S. P. G. did for the Church in Connecticut. The Rev. John
Beach in 1743 said: " I bless God for the pious care and charity
of the venerable Society . . . and had it not been for that,
we have reason to think there would not have been at this day
as much as one congregation in this Colony worshiping God
according to the Church of England."
The missionaries frequently represented to the Society the
great want of schools for the instruction of children in the
principles of religion and convenient learning. The Society
from the first paid salaries to several catechists and school
masters, particularly in the Provinces of New York and Massa-
chusetts.
The school masters were to instruct the children in reading,
writing and arithmetic, also in the Catechism, reading the Holy
Scripture and in the use of the Prayer Book. They were
required to frequently consult and advise with the ministers ;
to take all their scholars regularly to Church, and to teach them