The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-01-02

yet he was unanimatlng ana unpopu- lar in his preaching. His language was vulgar, and his zealous calyinistlc hearers did not consider him as so plainly and faithfully preaching the doctrines of human depravity, of re- generation by the supernatural intlu- ences of the divine spirit, and of its absolute necessity that men might be saved; of effectual calling and Justifi- cation by faith only, as minister of the gospel ought by all means to do. They did not conceive him as making proper distinctions between true and false religion, and preaching in such a manner as had a tendency to show to hypocrites and secure sinners their danger and misery. From the manner of his preaching, especially on sacra- mental occasions, suspicious arose that he did not hold the real divinity of the Saviour. Besides, he appeared wholly unfriendly to the religious awakening and concern in the country, and to the zealous and experimental preachers by whom it was promoted' He excluded them from his pulpit, and openly approved of the prosecuting laws and measures of the civil author ity of that day. These were all mat ters of grievance to them. They could not hear such preaching at home as they desired, nor could they go abroad without giving offence. After repeat eded conversations with MT. Moves on their grievances. and much pains tq
 obtain satisfaction, they could optalh
 none either in private conversation nor
 by his preaching in public. They drew | articles of charge or grievance and pre- sented them to MT. Moves, desiring that | they might be communicated to the church and society, and solicited mu- tuaI council, to hear and give advice in their difficulties But instead of this, | their grievances were greatly increased
 by MT. Noyes' leading his church tc
 vote on the Saybrook platform, and al the same time excluding some from the l privilege of voting in the affair. In these circumstances. and as they could
 not obtain mutual council, nor any re- | dress of their grievances, they took
 benefit of the act of toleration, and sep
 arated from the worship and ordi' | nances in the first church, to which | they originally belonged, and set up a l distinct worship by themselves. They l professed their desires, however, to | have their grievances heard by a mutu-
 al council but MT. Moves would not consent. Therefore, soon after theil
 separation, they proceeded to call
 council of their own. It consisted ot | the Rev Messrs. Samuel Cooke, John | Graham, Elisha Kent and Joseph Bel lamy. They convened at New Haven on the 9th of May, 1742. After full | hearing of the aggrieved brethren they
 came to the following resolution, in ef. feet, That the first church in New ria ven were, by their own religious and solemn profession and confederation, a
 particular church of Christ, vested
 with all powers necessary for their | own confirmation, government and edi.
 fication, long before, until and at the time of the Synod at Saybrook, in 17OS
 and consequently were not dependent
 on it. nor anything consequent there. l on."*
 According to Dr. Munger, in his very l interesting historical discourse:
 | l ward the formation of this society was
 the presentation of a petition, signed
 by thirty-eight persons, to the annua | meeting of the First society, December | 18th, TAI, asking leave for the signers
 to go off and form a society by them. | selves, for the reason assigned, thai
 they had found by long and sorrowfu
 experience that the preaching and con, duct of MT. Moves was unprofitable tc l them, and they suspected he differed from them in some points of faith. Al l that period the pastor was settled fol life The society was bound to give | him comfortable support. Everybody l residing in the town. except those be- | longing to the Episcopal society, be- longed by law to the First Ecclesiasti | cal society, and their property in the grand list was subject to taxation fol | it's support, very much as at this day persons belong to the school district ir
 which they reside and their property k | subject to taxation for school purpos
 es. After this petition, in terms often | sive to the pride of MT. Moves and his l friends, and proposing to deprive hin | of a part of the dignity and impor tance Of his position, and the society
 of a considerable part of its strength had been discussed, the record very l naturally reads that it was voted tt do nothing about it. It is evident iron
 the time of this vote for a period O
 seventeen years there was trouble il the First church and society. The pc titioners became obstructionists. A
 the January term of the county court held the fourth Tuesday of January A. D. 1742, they obtained leave to wor
 ship by themselves under the lav l known as the Federation Act of Will liam and Mary, by which means they
 were exempted from penalty for not at
 tending the legally constituted church
 although not relieved from their shar'
 of it's support"
 It is not my purpose to discuss tho dissensions in the First church, ant
 the long and tortuous steps which were | taken to form and establish the sece ding part of the congregation as an in dependent church. The fact is inter esting that nearly seventeen years haC passed before the final completion O | the legal status of the seeding congre