BOOK II. colony, and more especially, upon consideration, that the dissenting party of that society have, by their agents from 1731. time to time, before this assembly, declared their dissent. from the said platform of church discipline; and thence Suppose they cannot be holden, nor obliged to abide the determination, of any associations so appointed, according to the rules of the platform of church discipline, established as aforesaid:

The gene

"Whereupon this assembly consider that it is not reasonable for this assembly to oblige, nor direct the several associations throughout this colony, to send their delegates to hear the said society and dissenting party at Guilford, as the reverend elders, in their memorial, have proposed.

"Yet, nevertheless, if the dissenting party of the church of Guilford, (so called,) shall, themselves, move to the elders of the several associations in this government, to send their delegates, to consider of the difficulties that have. arisen in said society, and to give advice to said society on the premises, at the proper charge of the dissenting party; that then the assembly do advise, that the several associations appoint and send their delegates to Guilford, giving suitable notice to all parties concerned, of the time of meeting; and, being met, that they use all proper measures and endeavours to bring each party to a sense of any errors they find them to have been in; and endeavour to moderate their tempers, and bring said society into christian love, peace and unity; and if that desirable end cannot by them be attained, said associations are directed to signify to the General Assembly, to be holden at Hartford, in May next, what they shall think proper and best to be done, for the good and peace of the several parts of the said society, and the support and honour of religion amongst them."

The minor part of the society made application to the several associations to send their delegates, agreeably to the act of the General Assembly. They convened at Guilford, November 23d, 1731.

There were present the Rev. Messrs. Stephen Mix, ral associ- Samuel Woodbridge, Jacob Hemingway, Jared Elliot, ation meet benezer Williams, William Russell, Benjamin Colton, William Worthington, and Solomon Williams.

at Guilford, Nov. 23d.

The venerable Mr. Stephen Mix, of Weathersfield, was chosen moderator; Mr. Ebenezer Williams and Mr. William Russell, were chosen scribes. The committees of both the parties appeared before the council, and were fully heard. The people who had separated from Mr. Ruggles and their brethren, pleaded that Mr. Ruggles was

not, in their view, an orthodox, experimental, profitable Book II. preacher, and that they could not be benefitted by his preaching; and had opposed his settlement from the be- 1731. ginning that their brethren, sensible that their opposition to Mr. Ruggles would make matter of difficulty at his ordination, voted that they might go off, and be a society by themselves that they considered it as an agreement between them, and so separated themselves, and made no opposition to the ordination of Mr. Ruggles; and they could not consider him as their pastor, rightfully ordained over them, more than over any other society who had never chosen him. They insisted that they had been guilty of no immoral conduct, for which they ought to be suspended from the communion of their brethren, or from the orthodox and regular churches in New-England: that provision was made by the laws of the nation, and statutes of the colony, for persons soberly dissenting from their brethren, as to the mode of worship. Such they pleaded that they were, and that they had taken the benefit of the laws, and could not conceive that they had done any thing wrong or sinful therein. They stated, that they held to the same confession of faith with their brethren, and with the churches of New-England, from the very beginning: that they adopted the same mode of discipline, which was first agreed upon by the fathers of the New-England churches, and under which a great majority of them had continued unto the present time. They urged, therefore, that there was no just ground for their suspension, and the cruel treatment they had received. They maintained, that the proceedings of Mr. Ruggles and their brethren, with respect to them, was a groundless usurpation, and a lording it over God's heritage. They urged, that if their separation was schismatical and sinful, and deserved excommunication, that then our fathers deserved excommunication; the first church in Boston, and the second in Hartford, were guilty of schism, and worthy of excommunication: That if it was sinful in them to take benefit of the act of parliament, the law of the nation and of the colony, then obedience to the law was sinful, and that all who took the benefit of it were guilty of sin. They pleaded, that they were a legal society, and that the council who had condemned them, not only had no right to judge in their case, but numbers of them were prejudiced men, and had prejudged the case. They complained of their brethren, as insincere, and as treating them with deceit and cruelty. They said, they imagined they were honest and sincere in voting them off, if the General Assembly would grant them

R

Book II. the privilege; which they alledge it would have freely and immediately done, had they not by all means in their power 1731. opposed it. They not only pleaded that they were a legal society; but that they had employed a regular preacher, who had been examined and approved by the association of the county of New-Haven, as a person qualified to preach the gospel, and whom they esteemed to be an orthodox, experimental preacher of the gospel, and a man who was exemplary in his life and conversation. They therefore pleaded, that there was no just occasion for suspending them from the communion of the saints, or any gospel privileges, more than for any other churches, or christians in New-England, who held to the same doctrines and mode of discipline with themselves. They further pleaded, that the major part of the church and society were the faulty cause of the separation, as they did not follow the advice of the association, and allow them to hear another man, when they were not united in Mr. Ruggles, and had forced upon them a man whom they could not hear. These, in general, were the things pleaded before the several councils, and gentlemen who were sent to hear and reconcile the parties, in vindication of those who had separated from the first church and society.

Result of

association, Nov. 23d.

The first church and society represented, that they had regularly called and settled Mr. Ruggles, according to the law and ecclesiastical constitution of the colony; that he was, in their opinion, and in the opinion of his ordaining council, an orthodox, worthy minister, of unblamable conduct, and that their brethren had no just ground of separation.

The association, upon hearing the parties, were divided in their opinion, and came to the following result:

"This association, finding it difficult to come to an unithe general" ted resolve, and that their time is too strait for answering the end of their delegation, have adjourned, and, by "these presents, do adjourn themselves, or it, to Hartford, on the Tuesday in the week of the election next ensu"ing," &c.

Whether this council met again, according to their adjournment, or what their final result was, does not appear from any thing left on file. The separate party continued their petitions to be made a distinct society, representing their distressed condition, as they were so opposed every way by their brethren, that they could not have the minister whom they had unanimously chosen, and who was in their opinion ordained over them, nor have a church gathered among them for that purpose; and were deprived of

the liberty of conscience, and of the ordinances of the gos- Book II. pel, and means of salvation. They prayed the assembly, That they might be declared to be a lawful ecclesiastical 1732. society, according to the act of parliament, and their own statutes, for the relief of sober consciences; and their minister, Mr. Edmund Ward, to be a lawful ecclesiastical teacher; and that it might be lawful for such ministers as were willing to assist in uniting them in church estate, and in ordaining their pastor elect, so to do, and not be judged disorderly, or subject to any punishment on that account; or if the honourable assembly should not grant these privileges, that they would, in their great wisdom, devise some way, in which they might enjoy the ordinances of the gospel with christians in general.

As the general association were not agreed in their opin- May, 1732. ion with respect to the difficulties at Guilford, and had done nothing effectual towards composing the parties, the assembly appointed a committee of their own, to repair to Guilford, hear them, and make their report. This committee reported in favour of uniting the parties, and recommended the appointment of a large and respectable council for that purpose. The General Assembly, instead of granting the petitions of the aggrieved brethren, appointed the Rev. Messrs. Seth Shove, Anthony Stoddard, Jonathan Marsh, William Russell, Benjamin Lord, George Griswold, Eleazer Williams, and Thomas Clapp, with their delegates, to meet at Guilford, and finally determine the case of forty-six persons in said Guilford, which had before been laid before a council there, March 10th, 1731, which gave sentence against them. It was at the same time resolved, that the minor party should bear the expense of the council; and that the minor party should not be taxed the current year, for the settlement or support of the Rev. Mr. Ruggles. It was enacted also, that all taxes which had been laid, and all arrearages, should be paid up.

But a small number of the gentlemen appointed to meet in council at Guilford, convened on the business for which they had been appointed. It seems that the clergy were not united in their opinions. It was an extraordinary case, for one half of a church to be excommunicated by the pastor and the other part of the church, when they had been guilty of no immorality or scandal, but separating from their brethren, according to the rights of men of sober consciences, warranted by act of parliament, and by the statutes of the colony, in that case provided. The council was not chosen by the consent of the parties, nor agreeable to the religious constitution of the state; but was imposed

Book II. by act of assembly. To suspend such a number of professing christians from the communion of the saints, in these 1732. circumstances, when they held communion with the churches of Massachusetts, and the majority of the churches in New-England, who had adopted the same mode of worship with themselves, was a difficult, and, apparently, an inconsistent matter, and, in the opinion of many, a gross violation of the rights of conscience. On the other hand, to give judgment against their brethren of the council, who had condemned them, and ordered their suspension from communion, must have been disagreeable. A great part of the gentlemen, therefore, it seems declined doing any thing in the affair. At the time appointed for the meeting of this Nov. 21st, council, Nov. 21st, 1732, four elders, with their delegates, only convened. These were the Rev. Mr. Shove, Mr. Stoddard, Mr. Russell, and Mr. Griswold.

1732.

Mr. Anthony Stoddard was chosen moderator, and Mr. William Russell scribe. After devout supplications to the GOD of all wisdom and grace, both the persons who were suspended from communion, so many of them as were yet living, and the Rev. Mr. Ruggles and his church, appeared before the council. The members suspended from the communion of the church, were asked whether they could now comply with the determination of the council met at Guilford, March 10th, 1732, and make the reflections the said council thought proper for them? They unanimously declared they could not; and they put in various papers, and pleaded many things in their own defence, to show their innocency, and that they were unjustly and cruelly treated. Their pleas were the same, in substance, as those made before the general association. Mr. Ruggles and his church, were then desired to show the reasons of their suspending those brethren from their communion. But they denied the jurisdiction of the council, and refused to show the reasons of their proceedings, or to submit to their determination relating to their affairs. The council, Result of nevertheless, came to the following result:-"The council council, was laid under a disadvantage, as to discovering the reasons and grounds upon which the church and council judged the withdrawing of the said members sinful, and the means they used to continue and strengthen themselves in said separation justly offensive and sinful; upon what representation has been made to us, by the minor part, (in presence of Mr. Ruggles and the church,) of their withdrawing from the worship and communion of the church in this place, and the methods they had used to continue themselves therein, and what they offered to clear themselves

Nov. 21st.