CHAPTER VI.
It is with regret that we are compelled to make the following strictures upon “The Discourse Delivered on the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the First Church of Christ, in New London, by Thos. P. Field, 1870.” Amiable as was its author, and highly esteemed, yet in this discourse, so far as it relates to the Rogerenes, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessors, showing how much easier it is to float on the surface, with the tide, than to dive deep and bring up gems from the bottom of the sea. We shall briefly quote from this discourse and make reply.
Mr. Field says: “During the ministry of Mr. Saltonstall, peculiar disturbances arose in the church,” referring to the sect called Rogerenes.
Since we have shown the falsity of many of the statements concerning the Rogerenes which are repeated by Mr. Field in this discourse, it is needless to take further notice of them here. But is it not a matter of surprise that Mr. Field should have spoken with seeming favor concerning the malicious suit brought by Mr. Saltonstall against John Rogers for slander? His words are: “On one occasion, when John Rogers circulated some false report about him, he brought an action in the county court for defamation and obtained a verdict of the jury in his behalf.”
He does not tell us the verdict was the enormous sum of £600, and that there was no legal basis for the action, even had the charge been true; neither does he state that this suit was brought against Rogers but a few months after release from his long confinement, of three years and eight months, in Hartford jail, where he had been placed at the instance of Mr. Saltonstall, on charge of blasphemy for words truly scriptural. Mr. Field’s reference to this suit shows how superficially he had looked into the subject.
We must also express surprise that the statement, so falsely and unblushingly made by Mr. Saltonstall, should be quoted and indorsed in Mr. Field’s discourse:—
There never was, for the twenty years that I have resided in this government, any one, Quaker or other person, that suffered on account of his different persuasion in religious matters from the body of this people.
A note appended to Mr. Field’s discourse, may be presumed to contain his maturest thought, or rather absence of thought. “Lucus a non lucendo.” The note reads:—
Some who heard the discourse thought the Rogerenes were not sufficiently commended for what was good in them, and especially for their protest against the improper mingling of civil and religious affairs. It is the belief of the writer that there were a great many who entertained similar views with the Rogerenes on that subject, but who would not unite with them in their absurd mode of testifying against what they deemed erroneous.
“Belief of the writer!” Belief is of little consequence, unless based upon authority or knowledge; and the person who thrusts forward his simple belief, to command the assent of others, seems to proffer a valueless coin. But what if there were such among the people? They were not heard from; and Seneca says, “He who puts a good thought into my heart, puts a good word into my mouth, unless a fool has the keeping of it.”
There were a few, however, who did protest against the tyrannical treatment of the dissenters and in favor of religious freedom; but they were heavily fined and laid under the ban of the church, as the blind man who had received his sight was cast out of the temple by the Jews. From Miss Caulkin’s history, we quote the protest:—
While Rogers was in prison, an attack upon the government and colony appeared, signed by Richard Steer, Samuel Beebe, Jr., Jonathan and James Rogers, accusing them of persecution of dissenters, narrow principles, self-interest, spirit of domineering, and saying that to compel people to pay for a Presbyterian minister is against the laws of England, is rapine, robbery and oppression.
“A special court was held at New London, Jan. 25th, 1694-5, to consider this libellous paper. The subscribers were fined £5 each.”
Mr. Field goes on to say, “There can be no justification of their conduct in disturbing public assemblies as they did, which would not justify similar conduct at the present day.” So much has been said about their disturbing public assemblies, and to such varied notes has the tune been played, that the paucity of other arguments against the Rogerenes is thereby evinced. Fame, with its hundred tongues, has no doubt greatly exaggerated these offences, if such they were. There are some Bible commands that might seem to justify conduct like that above referred to; as, “Go cry in the ears of this people.” Fines, whippings, imprisonments, setting in stocks, etc., for no crime, but simply for non-conformity to the Congregational church, were grounds for their conduct which do not now exist. Did Mr. Field suppose that an intelligent audience would give credence to his above assertion? or had he taken lessons of the teacher of oratory who told his pupils to regard his hearers as “so many cabbage stumps”?
“No justification of their conduct” at that time “which would not justify similar conduct at the present day!”
There was an evil to be assailed then that has now passed away. The man who should enter a meeting-house now with a plea for religious liberty might properly be regarded as a lunatic. But, if the old abuses were revived, some Samson would again arise, to shake the pillars of tyranny.
Mr. Field closes his remarks by saying:—
There is no evidence that their testimony or their protestations had the slightest influence in correcting any of the errors of the times in respect to the relation of civil and ecclesiastical authority.
Had Mr. Field said that there was no evidence within his knowledge, we should have taken no notice of this statement. Confession of ignorance, like other confessions, may sometimes be good for the soul. But when he presumes to assert that a fact does not exist of which other people may be cognizant, he transcends the bounds of prudence.
Proof is abundant, that the Rogerenes and their descendants were foremost in advocating the severance of church from state and the equal rights of all to religious liberty. Their uniform testimony in Connecticut, for more than a century, in defence of true liberty of conscience, which awakened so much discussion throughout the State, could not have been without its enlightening influence.
But we will be more minute by mentioning some of the things which were said and done by Rogerenes,[[14]] and by those into whose minds their doctrines had been early and effectually instilled.
John Bolles, whom Miss Caulkins calls “a noted disciple of John Rogers,” wrote largely on the subject of religious liberty. In his work, entitled “True Liberty of Conscience is in Bondage to No Flesh,” this point is amply discussed. In his address to the Elders and Messengers of the Boston and Connecticut Colonies, concerning their Confessions of Faith, which were one and the same, he says:—
First, the Elders and Messengers of each Colony have recommended them to the Civil Government, and the Civil Government have taken them under their protection to defend them. And now God hath put it into my heart to reprove both Governments.
After showing by Scripture that the civil government is ordained of God to rule in temporal affairs, and not for the government of men’s consciences in matters of religion, he goes on to say:—
Thus it is sufficiently proved that God hath set up the Civil Government to rule in the Commonwealth, in temporal things; and as well proved that he hath not committed unto them the government of his church. I have proved that the Civil Government as they exercise their authority to rule only in temporal things are the ministers of God, and that God hath not committed to them the government of his Church, or to meddle in cases of conscience.—And now I speak to you, Elders and Messengers; as you have recommended your Confessions of Faith; and to you, Rulers of the Commonwealth, as you have acknowledged them, and established them by law, and defend them by the carnal sword; I speak, I say, to both parties, as you are in fellowship with each other in these things, and so proceed to prove that exercising yourselves in the affairs of conscience and matters of faith towards God, you do it under the authority of the dragon, or spirit of antichrist.
And you, Elders and Messengers (as you are called), as you stand to maintain and defend the said confessions, are not Elders and Messengers of the churches of Christ, but of antichrist. And you, Rulers of the Commonwealth of each Government, as you exercise yourselves as such in the affairs of conscience, and things relating to the worship of God, you do it not under Christ; but against Christ, under the power of antichrist, as by the Scripture hath been fully proved. In the form of church government in Boston, Confession, Chapter 17, par. 6, they say: “It is the duty of the Magistrate to take care of matters of religion, and improve his civil authority for observing the duties commanded in the first, as well as for observing the duties commanded in the second table.” And further say, “The end of the Magistrate’s office is not only the quiet and peaceable life of the subject in matters of righteousness and honesty, but also in matters of Godliness, yea, of all godliness.” The gospel was preached and received in opposition to the civil magistrates, as is abundantly recorded: And the encouragement Christ has given to his followers is by way of blessing under persecution: “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousnes’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” And for any people professing the Christian faith to set up a form of Godliness, and establish it by their human laws, and defend it by the authority of the Magistrate, is to exclude Christ from having authority over his Church, and themselves to be the supreme head thereof.
The book from which we quote was published about 1754. The following, from the same book, has reference to the persecutions in New England, of the Rogerenes and others:—
Now, Boston and Connecticut, let us briefly inquire into the doings of our forefathers[[15]] towards those that separated themselves from them for conscience’ sake, and testified against their form of godliness. To begin with Connecticut: they punished by setting in stocks, by fining, whipping, imprisoning and chaining in prison, and causing to set on the gallows with a halter about the neck, and prohibiting the keeping Quaker books, and that such books should be suppressed, as also putting fathers and mothers both in prison from their children, and then enclosing the prison with a boarded fence about ten foot high, with spikes above, points upwards, and a gate kept under lock and key to prevent any communication of friends or relations with the prisoners, or communicating anything necessary for their support; but must go near half a mile to the prison keeper to have the gate opened.
At New Haven, a stranger, named Humphrey Norton, being put ashore, not of his own seeking, was put in prison and chained to a post, and kept night and day for the space of twenty days, with great weights of iron, without fire or candle, in the winter season, and not any suffered to come to visit him; and after this brought before their court, and there was their priest, John Davenport, to whom said Norton endeavored to make reply, but was prevented by having a key tied athwart his mouth, till the priest had done; then, said Norton was had again to prison, and there chained ten days, and then sentenced to be severely whipped, and to be burned in the hand with the letter H, for heresy, who, my author says, was convicted of none; and to be sent out of the Colony, and not to return upon pain of the utmost penalty they could inflict by law. And the drum was beat, and the people gathered, and he was fetched and stripped to the waist, and whipped thirty-six cruel stripes and burned in the hand very deep with a red-hot iron, as aforesaid, and then had to prison again and tendered his liberty upon paying his fine and fees.—See George Bishop: “New England Judged,” page 203, 4.
These and other like things were done in Connecticut.
Now let us hear what was done in Boston Government, as it is to be seen in the title-page of said Bishop’s history, touching the sufferings of the people called Quakers: “A brief relation,” saith he, “of the suffering of the people called Quakers in those parts of America, from the beginning of the fifth month, 1656, the time of their first arrival at Boston from England, to the latter end of the tenth month, 1660, wherein the cruel whippings and scourgings, bonds and imprisonments, beatings and chainings, starvings and huntings, fines and confiscation of estates, burning in the hand and cutting off ears, orders of sale for bond-men and bond-women, banishment upon pain of death, and putting to death of those people are shortly touched, with a relation of the manner, and some of the most material proceedings, and a judgment thereupon.” They also burned their books by the common executioners (see Daniel Neal’s “History of New England,” Vol. I., page 292). They also impoverished them by compelling them to take the oath of fidelity, which they scrupled for conscience’ sake, and for their refusing of which they were fined £5 each or depart the Colony; but they, not departing, and under the same scruple, came under the penalty of another £5; and so from time to time, and many other fines were imposed on them, as for meeting by themselves. (See said History, page 320.)
And in said book is contained a brief relation of the barbarous cruelties, persecutions and massacres upon the Protestants in foreign parts by the Papists, etc. And now I return to Boston and Connecticut, with reference to what was said touching the doings of our forefathers; they not being repented, nor called in question, but a persisting in acts of force upon conscience in some measure to this day. But it is the same dragon, and same persecuting spirit that required the worshipping of idols, and persecuted the primitive church, that now professes himself to be a Christian, and furnishes himself with college-learned ministers, nourished up in pride through idleness and voluptuous living; and these are his ministers; and they are the same set of men that Christ thanked God that he had hid the mysteries of the kingdom of God from, Matt. xi, 25. And he, the dragon, assures the rulers of the commonwealth that God hath set them to do justice among men, and to take under their care the government of the church also.
In 1754, I went to the General Court at Hartford, and also to the General Court at Boston, considering their Confessions were both one, and that both Governments lie under the same reproof,—and I have published three treatises already, touching these things; but there has been no answer made to any, and this is the fourth; after so much proof, I think it may truly be said of them, as in Rev. ii, 2, “And thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.”
In a word, to rule the church by the power of the magistrate is to destroy the peace of both church, families and commonwealths. But, on the contrary, Christ is said to be the Prince of Peace. Isaiah ix, 6. And all that walk in His spirit follow His example, to live peaceably towards all men, as also towards the Commonwealth, as he did, for peace’ sake, rather than to offend.
Perhaps we cannot give a better idea of the extent and versatility of Mr. Bolle’s efforts in this direction, which extended over a long period, than by transcribing some portion of what is said of him by his biographer (in “Bolles Genealogy”):—
John Bolles, third and only surviving son of Thomas and Zipporah Bolles, was born in New London, Conn., August 7, 1767. At the age of thirty, he became dissatisfied with the tenets of the Presbyterian church, in which he had been educated. That church was the only one recognized by law. Its members composed the standing order, and, from the foundation of the colony until the adoption of a state constitution and the principle of religious toleration, in 1818, every person in Connecticut, whatever his creed, was compelled by law to belong to or pay taxes for the support of the standing order. It was as complete an “Establishment” as is the “Established Church of England.” Mr. Bolles became a Seventh Day Baptist,[[16]] and was immersed by John Rogers, the elder. Well educated, familiar with the Bible, independent in fortune, earnest in his convictions and of a proselyting spirit, bold and fond of discussion, Mr. Bolles engaged very actively in polemical controversy, and wrote and published many books and pamphlets; some of which still extant prove him to have been, as Miss Caulkins, the historian of New London, describes him, “fluent with the pen and adroit in argument.” From one of his books in my possession, it appears that his escape when his mother and her other children were murdered by Stoddard, and his deliverance from other imminent perils, “when,” to use his own words, “there was but a hair’s breadth between me and death,” made a deep impression on his mind and caused him to feel that God had spared him for some special work. This belief is expressed in some homely verses, Bunyan-like in sound, closing with the following couplet:
“Yet was my life preserved, by God Almighty’s hand,
Who since has called me forth for His great truth to stand!”
Under the spur of this conviction, he devoted himself to the great cause of religious freedom, encountering opposition and persecution, and suffering fines, imprisonments and beating with many stripes.
After referring to several of his books his biographer says:—
I have another of his books, called “Good News from a Far Country,” whose argument is to prove that the Civil Government “have no authority from God to judge in cases of conscience,” to which is added “An Answer to an Election Sermon Preached by Nathaniel Eells.” Another, dated from New London 11th of 7th month, 1728 (March being then the first month of the year), is a pamphlet containing John Bolle’s application to the General Court, holden at New Haven, the 10th of the 8th month, 1728, informing that honorable body, “in all the honor and submissive obedience that God requires me to show unto you,” etc., that he had examined the Confessions of Faith established by them and found therein principles that seem not to be proved by the Scriptures there quoted, and had drawn up some objections thereto, etc. He published many other works, and from 1708 to 1754 hardly a year elapsed without his thus assailing the abuses of the established church and vindicating the great principle of “soul-liberty.” Once a year, as a general rule, he mounted his horse, with saddle-bags stuffed full of books, and rode from county to county challenging discussion, inviting the Presbyterian Elders to meet him, man-fashion, in argument,[[17]] or confess and abandon their errors. “But,” says he, in one of his books, “they disregarded my request.” He even made a pilgrimage to Boston, Mass., in 1754, to move the General Court of Massachusetts in this behalf, as he had often endeavored to move the Connecticut Legislature. This last exploit, a horseback ride of two hundred miles, in his 77th year, may be regarded as a fit climax to a long life of zealous effort in the cause of truth. It is no extravagant eulogy to say that John Bolles was a great and good man.
His works are his best epitaph. No man knoweth of his grave unto this day; but the stars shine over it.
With all the humble, all the holy,
All the meek and all the lowly,
He held communion sweet;
But when he heard the lion roar,
Or saw the tushes of the boar,
Was quick upon his feet:
And what God spake within his heart
He did to man repeat.
So much from one of the early Rogerenes against the union of church and state and in favor of equal religious liberty; thoughts, sentiments, principles which lie at the basis of our new constitution; published and scattered throughout the land at an early period, instilled into the hearts of children, blossoming out in speech and inspiring efforts which aided the complete establishment of religious liberty in Connecticut. Descendants of John Bolles were among the very foremost, ablest, and most efficient workers in this cause, baptized, as it were, into these sacred truths. A few examples will be given; but we can hardly hope that the despisers of the Rogerenes will find in them “evidence that their testimony or their protestations had the slightest influence in correcting any of the errors of the times, in regard to the relations of civil and ecclesiastical authority.”
To show that early descendants of the Rogerenes were trained in goodness, as well as in argument, we will speak of John Bolles of later times, brother of Rev. David Bolles and grandson of the John Bolles of whom we have said so much. He was the founder, and for forty years a deacon, of the First Baptist Church of Hartford, of which Rev. David Bolles was one of the first preachers. We quote some interesting passages concerning him from Dr. Turnbull’s “Memorials of the First Baptist Church, Hartford, Conn.,” which were read by Dr. Turnbull as sermons, after the dedication of the new church edifice, May, 1856:—
There was no man, perhaps, to whom our church, in the early period of its history, was more indebted than John Bolles.... He was a Nathaniel indeed, in whom there was no guile. And yet, shrewd beyond most men, he never failed to command the respect of his acquaintances. Everybody loved him. Decided in his principles, his soul overflowed with love and charity. Easy, nimble, cheerful, he was ready for every good word and work. He lived for others. The young especially loved him. The aged, and above all the poor, hailed him as their friend. He was perpetually devising something for the benefit of the church or the good of souls. How or when he was converted he could not tell. His parents were pious, and had brought him up in the fear of God, and in early life he had given his heart to Christ, but all he could say about it was that God had been gracious to him and he hoped brought him into his fold. On the relation of his experience before the church in Suffield, the brethren, on this very account, hesitated to receive him; but the pastor, Rev. John Hastings, shrewdly remarked that it was evident Mr. Bolles was in the way, and that this was more important than the question when, or by what means, he got in it; upon which they unanimously received him. He was very happy in his connection with the church in Suffield. The members were all his friends. He would often start from Hartford at midnight, arrive in Suffield at early dawn, on Sabbath morning, when they were making their fires, and surprise them by his pleasant salutation. After breakfast and family prayers, all hands would go to church together.
Of course, he was equally at home with the church in Hartford, and spent much of his time in visiting, especially the poor of the flock. He had a kind word and a ready hand for every one. One severe winter, a fearful snow-storm had raised the roads to a level with the tops of the fences. A certain widow Burnham lived all alone, just on the outer edge of East Hartford. The deacon was anxious about her; he was afraid that she might be covered with the snow and suffering from want. He proposed to visit her; but his friends thought it perilous to cross the meadows. But, being light of foot, he resolved to attempt it. The weather was cold, and the snow slightly crusted on the top. By means of this he succeeded, with some effort, in reaching the widow’s house. As he supposed, he found it covered with snow to the chimneys. He made his way into the house and found the good sister without fire or water. He cut paths to the woodpile and to the well, and assisted her to make a fire and put on the tea-kettle. He then cut a path to the pig-pen and supplied the wants of the hungry beast, by which time breakfast was ready. After breakfast, he read the word of God and prayed, and was ready to start for home. In the meanwhile, the sun had melted the crust of snow, and, as he was passing through the meadows, he broke through. He tried to scramble out, but failed; he shouted, but there was no one to hear him. The wind began to blow keenly; he did not know but he must remain there all night and perish with cold. But he committed himself to God, and sat down for shelter on the lee-side of his temporary prison. He finally made a desperate effort, succeeded in reaching the edge, and found, to his joy, that the freezing wind had hardened the surface of the snow, which enabled him to make his way home.
On a pleasant Sabbath morning, some seventy years ago, might be seen a little group wending their way from Hartford, through the green woods and meadows of the Connecticut valley, towards the little church on Zion’s Hill. Among them was a man of small stature, something like Zaccheus of old, of erect gait, bright eye and agile movement. Though living eighteen miles from Suffield, he was wont, on pleasant days, to walk the whole distance, beguiling the way with devout meditation; or, if some younger brother chose to accompany him, with pleasant talk about the things of the Kingdom. This was Deacon John Bolles, brother of Rev. David Bolles, and uncle of the late excellent Rev. Matthew Bolles, and of Dr. Lucius Bolles so well known in connection with the cause of foreign missions.
In the year of our Lord 1790, just about the commencement of the French Revolution, this good brother and a few others came to the conclusion that the time had arrived to organize a Baptist Church in the city of Hartford. Previous to that, they had held meetings in the court-house and in private houses. On the 5th of August, 1789, the first baptism, according to our usage, was administered in this city. On September 7, it was resolved to hold public services on the Sabbath in a more formal way. Accordingly, the first meeting of this kind was held, October 18, in the dwelling-house of John Bolles. These services were continued, and in the ensuing season a number of persons were baptized on a profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. On the 23d of March, 1790, sixteen brothers and sisters were recognized as a church of Christ, by a regularly called council, over which Elder Hastings presided as Moderator.
When the Baptists began to hold public services, an over-zealous member of Dr. Strong’s society (the Centre Congregational Society) called upon him and asked him if he knew that John Bolles had “started an opposition meeting.” “No,” said he. “When? Where?” “Why, at the old court-house.” “Oh, yes, I know it,” the doctor carelessly replied; “but it is not an opposition meeting. They are Baptists, to be sure, but they preach the same doctrine that I do; you had better go and hear them.” “Go!” said the man, “I am a Presbyterian!” “So am I,” rejoined Dr. Strong; “but that need not prevent us wishing them well. You had better go.” “No!” said the man, with energy, “I shan’t go near them! Dr. Strong, a’n’t you going to do something about it?” “What?” “Stop it, can’t you?” “My friend,” said the doctor, “John Bolles is a good man, and will surely go to heaven. If you and I get there, we shall meet him, and we had better, therefore, cultivate pleasant acquaintance with him here.”
Dr. Bushnell, many years after, paid him a sweet tribute, in his sermon “Living to God in Small Things.” “I often hear mentioned by the Christians of our city (Hartford) the name of a certain godly man, who has been dead many years; and he is always spoken of with so much respectfulness and affection that I, a stranger of another generation, feel his power, and the sound of his name refreshes me. That man was one who lived to God in small things. I know this, not by any description which has thus set forth his character, but from the very respect and homage with which he is named. Virtually, he still lives among us, and the face of his goodness shines upon all our Christian labors.”
Dr. Samuel Bowles, founder of the Springfield Republican, says in his “Notes of the Bowles Family:” “Deacon John Bolles of Hartford, one of the most godly men that ever lived, a descendant of Thomas Bolles, was a contemporary and neighbor of my father, and used to call him ‘cousin Bowles.’”
Judge David Bolles, son of the Rev. David Bolles before named, was prominent for many years as an active advocate of religious freedom. We quote the following historical statement concerning him:—
David Bolles, Jr., first child of Rev. David and Susannah Bolles, was born in Ashford, Ct., September 26, 1765, and died there May 22, 1830. He first studied and practised medicine, and afterwards law. At the time of his death he was judge of the Windham County Court. He received the honorary degree of A.M. from Brown University in 1819. He was a Methodist in religion, and to his long continued and zealous services, as advocate of “the Baptist Petition,” before successive legislatures, was Connecticut largely indebted for the full establishment of religious liberty in 1818.
He was the author of the famous “Baptist Petition” above referred to, the original copy of which, written by his own hand, was shown to the author by his nephew, Gen. John A. Bolles.
Judge David Bolles was extensively known throughout the State as the earnest advocate of the liberal movement. The following anecdote was told the writer by one who sat at a dinner with him. Calvin Goddard, the late distinguished lawyer of Norwich, then a young man, said to Judge Bolles on the occasion, “You will blow your Baptist ram’s horn until the walls of Jericho fall.”
Rev. Augustus Bolles, another brother of Judge Bolles, a Baptist preacher, many years a resident of Hartford and for some time associated with the Christian Secretary published there, referring to the great controversy for equal religious rights in the State of Connecticut, said to the writer, more than fifty years ago, “The Bolleses were perfect Bonapartes in that contest.” Where was Mr. Field then? Perhaps he wasn’t born.
That ably conducted paper, the Hartford Times, was established in 1817, by Frederick D. Bolles, a descendant of John Bolles, for the express purpose of meeting this question. From the first number of said paper, we copy the following:—
Anxious to make the Times as useful and worthy of public patronage as possible, the subscriber has associated himself with John M. Niles, Esq., a young gentleman of talent. The business will be conducted under the firm of F. D. Bolles & Co., and they hope, through their joint exertions, to render the paper acceptable to its readers.
F. D. Bolles.
The subject of religious rights was the main topic of discussion in this paper. A subsequent number, August 12, 1817, has a long article signed, “Roger Williams.” It is headed, “An Inquiry Whether the Several Denominations of Christians in the States Enjoy Equal Civil and Religious Privileges.”
From the “History of Hartford County,” we quote the following:—
The Hartford Times was started at the beginning of the year 1817. Its publisher was Frederick D. Bolles, a practical printer, and at that time a young man full of confidence and enthusiasm in his journal and his cause. That cause was, in the party terms of the day, “TOLERATION.” First, and paramount, of the objects of the Tolerationists was to secure the adoption of a new Constitution for Connecticut. Under the ancient and loose organic law then in force, people of all forms and shades of religious belief were obliged to pay tribute to the established church. Such a state of things permitted no personal liberty, no individual election in the vital matter of a man’s religion; and it naturally created a revolt. The cry of “Toleration” arose. The Federalists met the argument with ridicule. The “Democratic Republicans,” of the Jefferson fold, were the chief users of the Toleration cry, and the Hartford Times was established on that issue, and in support of the movement for a new and more tolerant Constitution. It proved to be a lively year in party politics. The toleration issue became the engrossing theme. The Times had as associate editor, John M. Niles, then a young and but little known lawyer from Poquonock, who subsequently rose to a national reputation in the Senate at Washington. It dealt the Federalists some powerful blows, and enlisted in the cause a number of men of ability, who, but for the peculiar issue presented—one of religious freedom—never would have entered into party politics. Among them were prominent men of other denominations than the orthodox Congregationalists; no wonder; they were struggling for life. There was a good deal of public speaking; circulars and pamphlets were handed from neighbor to neighbor; the “campaign” was, in short, a sharp and bitter one, and the main issue was hotly contested. The excitement was intense. When it began to appear that the Toleration cause was stronger than the Federalists had supposed, there arose a fresh feeling of horrified apprehension, much akin to that which, seventeen years before, had led hundreds of good people in Connecticut, when they heard of the election of the “Infidel Jefferson” to the Presidency, to hide their Bibles—many of them in hay-mows—under the conviction that that evident instrument of the Evil One would seek out and destroy every obtainable copy of the Bible in the land.
The election came on in the spring of 1818, and the Federal party in Connecticut found itself actually overthrown. It was a thing unheard of, not to be believed by good Christians. Lyman Beecher, in his Litchfield pulpit and family prayers, as one out of numerous cases, poured out the bitterness of his heart in declarations that everything was lost and the days of darkness had come.
Was not the soul of John Rogers marching on?
In fact, it proved to be the day of the new Constitution—the existing law of 1818—and under its more tolerant influence other churches rapidly arose; the Episcopalians, the Baptists, and the Methodists all feeling their indebtedness to the party of Toleration.
The Times, successful in the main object of its beginning, after witnessing this peaceful political revolution, continued, with several changes of proprietors. It was about sixty years ago that the paper became the property of Bowles and Francis, as its publishing firm; the Bowles being Samuel Bowles, the founder, many years later, of the Springfield Republican, whose son, the late Samuel Bowles, built up that well-known journal to a high degree of prosperity.
Mrs. Watson, of East Windsor Hill, daughter of Frederick D. Bolles, the founder of the Hartford Times, who courteously furnished us with the above quotations, also sent us a paper containing the following tribute to John M. Niles, early associated with her father in the publication of the Times.
Mr. Niles, then a young man, who perhaps had not dreamed at that time of becoming a Senator of the United States and of making speeches in the Senate Chamber, which, however dry in manner, were to be complimented by Mr. Calhoun as being the most interesting and instructive speeches he was accustomed to hear in the Senate—this then unknown young man was one of the editors. The Times was established on the motto of “Toleration”—the severance of church from state—the exemption of men from paying taxes to a particular church if they did not agree with that church in their consciences. The reform aimed at the establishment of a more liberal rule in Connecticut; a rule which would let Baptists, Methodists, and other denominations rise and grow, as well as the one old dominant and domineering church that had so long reigned, and with which party federalism had become so incorporated as to be looked upon practically as part of its creed and substance. The cause advocated by the Times triumphed; the constitution framed in 1818 established a new order of things. Both Mr. Bolles and Mr. Niles have passed out of the life of earth; but the work which was accomplished by the agitation of the “Toleration” question, sixty years ago, has remained in Connecticut and grown. The old intolerant influence also is not dead; its spirit remains, but its old power for intolerant rule has passed away.
A terrible weight of prejudice rested upon the Rogerenes who first planted that seed in Connecticut, whose outshoot, ingrafted into the constitution of every State in the Union, has become a great tree of religious liberty spreading its branches over all the land, under the shadow of which not only we but immigrants from every clime sit with delight.
This weight of superstition and intolerance was not wholly removed when Mr. Field wrote of the Rogerenes, which is the only excuse we can offer for the statements made by him in his “Discourse Delivered on the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the First Church of Christ, in New London, October 19, 1870.” Compared, however, with what John Rogers and his early followers endured at the hands of a tyrannical, bigoted, blinded church, and the falsehoods and scoffs which ecclesiastical historians have promulgated, Mr. Field’s utterances are lighter than a feather.