the "members of the church" only were" freemen of the state." In Connecticut, by the constitution of government adopted in 1639, neither church-membership nor property was a necessary qualification for voting at elections. Among the reasons assigned by Mr. Hooker and his congregation, as recorded by Governor Winthrop, and which, unless the contrary should appear, we ought, in the exercise of liberality, to admit as the true reasons, no mention is made of any wish, inclination, or "purpose of being under a stricter form of worship." The objections, likewise, which were made to the removal of the emigrants to Connecticut, imply no such design on their part. It was said, "that in point of conscience, they (Mr. Hooker and his congregation) ought not to depart from us, being knit to us in one body, and bound by oath to seek the welfare of this commonwealth. There is here something very like å denial, that there had been any dissension, or difference of opinion on any important subject, between those who wished to emigrate, and those who wished them to remain in Massachusetts. The only question seems to have been, whether the party about to remove to Connecticut could conscientiously separate themselves from those, with whom they were "knit in one body." If there had been any disagreement in religious belief or practice as the occasion of this removal, it must have been known to Winthrop, and we should find some notice of it in his faithful chronicle. But their purpose was, we are told, to be "under a stricter form of worship," than they could attain to in Massachusetts. We are not certain that we correctly understand this language. In any sense, however, which it can bear, if it describes the object of the emigrants, they appear, on their arrival at their place of destination, to have entirely forgotten their errand. As to the "form of worship," as this phrase is generally understood, it was, as far as we can ascertain, identical in both colonies. If there was any such diversity of opinion on points of theology and church polity, as to induce the removal to Connecticut, we know not where to find the proof of it; and we cannot but think, that President Quincy is chargeable with an oversight in making so novel a statement without reference to his authorities. We are inclined to believe, that this motive to the first colonization of Connecticut is to be placed in the same catalogue with that assigned by Robertson, who says, that "the rivalship between Mr. Cotton and Mr. Hooker, disposed the latter, who was least successful in this contest for fame and

power, to wish for some settlement at a distance from a competitor, by whom his reputation was eclipsed."

If we were to speculate on this subject, we should say, judging from what the emigrants did in their new commonwealth, that they wished to adopt a less rigid and a less exclusive form of government, rather than that they were desirous of "being under a stricter form of worship." In the principles of the government, which they instituted, they departed greatly, as before stated, from what they left in Massachusetts; but in their form of worship, we know of no evidence that they made the slightest variation. In the colony of New-Haven, indeed, the Massachusetts principle of suffrage was at first adopted, but after about twenty-five years, it was abandoned; and this, thirty years before the charter of Massachusetts, granted by William and Mary; by which the people of that province, in their political institutions, became in part conformed to the more free and liberal system of their neighbors. But we have here no business with conjecture. According to Winthrop, the "principal reasons" for the removal of the new colony to Connecticut were their want of accommodation for their cattle,” “the fruitfulness and commodiousness of Connecticut, and the danger of having it possessed by others, Dutch or English," and though last, we presume, not least, "the strong bent of their spirits to remove thither." Any attempt to look beyond these reasons, and to discover others more recondite, and especially such as throw some discredit on the enterprise, we consider altogether gratuitous.

66

But President Quincy proceeds: "A desire had long existed in that colony (Connecticut) for the establishment in it of a "school of the prophets," constructed with reference to their peculiar religious views. To this object the crisis of affairs in Massachusetts was deemed favorable, and measures were adopted for founding such an institution in the neighborhood of New-Haven." It is true, that Mr. Davenport very early had a project for establishing a college in the colony of NewHaven, and some funds were collected for this purpose; but it was urged in opposition to his favorite scheme, and evidently on good grounds, that one such seminary was, at that time, enough for New-England, and the design was not prosecuted. Both Connecticut and New-Haven united cordially in the support of the college at Cambridge, and their contributions, as will appear more fully hereafter, were proportioned to their SECOND SERIES, VOL. VI. NO. I. 16

ability. But the plan of building up a college in Connecticut was never abandoned; it was merely postponed to a period, when the increase of population and of wealth should render its execution more necessary and practicable. But when, or where, the proposed seminary was denominated by the Connecticut clergy the "school of the prophets," or as President Quincy calls it in another place, the "school of the church," we know not. If the author intended here to intimate, that this appellation was selected as more exactly descriptive of the object of the proposed institution, and that it is language which in any degree characterizes the clergy of Connecticut at that period, he is altogether in error. There is no document, with which we are acquainted, proceeding from any public body, either ecclesiastical or civil in Connecticut, which gives this name of "school of the prophets," or that of " school of the church" to a college. Mr. Davenport aimed to establish "a college," which should be," for the education of youth in good literature, to fit them for public service in church and commonwealth." Similar phraseology is used in the first charter of Yale College. "School of the church" was proposed in a plan drawn up evidently in Boston, as a name to be given to the projected institution in Connecticut, and individuals may have adopted this language from that source, but it is not the language of official papers.

But what were the "peculiar religious views" of the clergy of Connecticut, to which President Quincy refers, in conformity with which they were desirous of constructing their college? That there was any peculiarity in their religious views applicable to this case, in the sense in which the author intends, is, so far as we know, without proof. They had united cordially with their brethren in Massachusetts in the proceedings of the synod at Cambridge in 1649; nor does it appear from the Saybrook Confession of Faith, adopted in 1708, that any such change, in the mean time, had occurred, as to give the least countenance to the supposition, that "peculiar religious views" were entertained by them. It is certain that among the reasons publicly assigned for instituting a college in Connecticut, there is no mention of any diversity of theological opinions. If there were religious parties in Massachusetts, it is not improbable that there were those in Connecticut who more or less sympathized with them; but that the stricter part of Calvinists in, Massachusetts had a predominant influence in Connecticut

is a point not easy to establish; as we think will appear clearly in the sequel.

The narrative proceeds: "Among the firmest adherents to the doctrines of the early New-England churches, were Sewall, afterwards Chief Justice, and Addington, then secretary of state. They were both statesmen of the old charter caste, in whom the characters of politician and theologian were combined in nearly equal proportions. Both were dissatisfied with the state of things in Harvard college. Both were zealous and vigorous defenders of the doctrines of the early Congregational church. To these statesmen the clergy of Connecticut applied for the draft of a charter for their proposed institution; and received from them an instrument, not founded, like the charters of Harvard, on the instituting, guiding and furthering of the said college, and the several members thereof, from time to time, in piety, morality and learning,' but on something which they, doubtless, deemed more safe and scriptural, the reciting memoriter the Assembly's Catechism' in Latin, Dr. Ames's 'Medulla,' and also his 'Cases of Conscience,' accompanied on the Sabbath by expositions of practical theology, and the repeating of sermons by the undergraduates; and on week days by reading and expounding the Scriptures according to the laudable order and usage of Harvard College."

6

That Chief Justice Sewall and Secretary Addington inserted an article of this kind in their draft of a charter has not before, we believe, been made public in any printed work. President Quincy must have had a copy of their draft, which he probably found among the papers of Judge Sewall. The article, however, referred to, differs widely from the above representation of it, and in the original paper is as follows:

"And whereas the principles of the Christian Protestant religion are excellently comprised in the Confession of Faith composed by the Reverend Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster, and the learned and judicious Dr. Ames in his Medulla Theologiæ, the Rector of the said school is to give in charge and take special care, that the said books be diligently read in the Latin tongue, and well studied by all scholars educated in the said school." Here it will be noticed, that there is nothing about "reciting memoriter the Assembly's Catechism," nothing about Ames's" Cases of Conscience," nothing about" expositions of practical theology," or "reading and expounding the Scriptures." President Quincy adds: "The founders of the col

lege in Connecticut adopted, without any material alterations, the draft made by Sewall and Addington." The reader is thus left necessarily to infer, that what, as he says, was proposed by Sewall and Addington, was included in the charter granted by the legislature of the colony; for no one could imagine, that President Quincy would consider the omission of that, to which he has given such prominency, as no "material alteration." Thus the author has not only given a representation of the article differing greatly from the fact, but has left an impression respecting the charter still more erroneous. The article was entirely rejected; the charter contains no trace of it whatever.

That the subject of this charter may be fully understood, it is necessary to give a short narrative of facts respecting its origin. While the clergy of Connecticut in 1700 were deliberating on the plan of a college of their own, a communication was made to them, entitled "Proposals for erecting a University in the renowned Colony of Connecticut, humbly offered by a hearty, though unknown, well-wisher to the welfare of that religious Colony." This paper contained a plan of a college to be erected by a general synod of the consociated churches of Connecticut. The synod was to have influence in all elections, so far as should be necessary for the preservation of orthodoxy. This college was to be called the "school of the church," and numerous regulations were proposed for its management. These proposals were sent to the Rev. Mr. Noyes of Stonington, the Rev. Mr. Buckingham of Saybrook, and the Rev. Mr. Pierpont of New Haven. They were evidently not of Connecticut origin, and there is no place from which they could, with so much probability have come, as from Boston. From the coincidence of language and views in this project with what appears in the letters of Sewall, there is no room to doubt that he was in some way concerned in framing it. Addington may have lent his aid in devising and forwarding these "proposals," and, for aught we know, Cotton Mather likewise.

But this scheme, by whomsoever projected, found no favor in Connecticut. We can discover no evidence that any effort was made to carry it into execution, or that it was approved of by a single individual. This paper, though in form anonymous, was undoubtedly known to have come directly or indirectly from Sewall and others of his party; which fact might have led to the subsequent correspondence. In the mean time, the clergy of Connecticut had designated ten of their number to stand as