[122] The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, vol. v, p. 50. It seems clear that either through neglect or evasion a considerable number of congregations failed to qualify under the law. In any event the legislature deemed itself warranted in passing an act, May, 1721, imposing a fine of five shillings on persons convicted of not having attended “the publick worship of God on the Lord’s day in some congregation by law allowed.” (See ibid., vol. vi, p. 248.) Churches which for doctrinal or other reasons withdrew from the Establishment suffered serious embarrassments on account of this law respecting the licensing of congregations.
[123] Ibid., vol. v, p. 50. Any infraction of this law was to be punished by a heavy fine. Failure to pay the fine involved heavy bail or imprisonment.
[124] Greene, The Development of Religious Liberty in Connecticut, pp. 191 et seq.
[125] The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, vol. vi, p. 106.
[126] The Pub. Records of the Colony of Conn., vol. vi, pp. 237, 257. Unlike the Massachusetts exemption laws passed on behalf of these two bodies, these were perpetual.
[127] Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society: Talcott Papers, vol. v, pp. 9–13; Backus, History of New England, vol. ii, pp. 98 et seq.
[128] Parker, History of the Second Church of Christ in Hartford, pp. 117, 119; Papers of the New Haven Colony Historical Society, vol. iv: The Bradford Annals, pp. 318 et seq.; Backus, History of New England, vol. ii, pp. 57 et seq., 79 et seq. For the account of the difficulties of a particular Separatist congregation, see Dutton, The History of the North Church in New Haven, pp. 25–28. Cf. The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, vol. xi, pp. 323 et seq.; also Beardsley, The History of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut, vol. i, p. 140.
[129] The bigoted and unfeeling spirit which controlled the authorities is well expressed in the act of May, 1743. Proceeding on the assumption that the Separatists, taking advantage of the act of May, 1708, were responsible for the disruptive tactics and measures of the times, by means of which “some of the parishes established by the laws of this Colony … have been greatly damnified, and by indirect means divided and parted,” the General Court repealed the act in question, and put in its place the following: “And be it further enacted, that, for the future, if any of His Majesty’s good subjects, being protestants, inhabitants of this Colony, that shall soberly dissent from the way of worship and ministry established by the laws of this Colony, that such persons may apply themselves to this Assembly for relief, where they shall be heard. And such persons as have any distinguishing character, by which they may be known from the presbyterians or congregationalists, and from the consociated churches established by the laws of this Colony, may expect the indulgence of this Assembly [Italics mine.—V. S.], having first before this Assembly taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration provided in the act of Parliament in cases of like nature.” (The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, vol. viii, p. 522. Cf. Backus, History of New England, vol. ii, p. 58.)
[130] The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, vol. viii, p. 454.
[131] Ibid., p. 456.