not communicants, but who agreed in their view with the minority of the church, made a majority of the whole in town meeting, and, in their call to Mr. Chauncy, were able to establish their platform, as the condition on which they would settle him, grant him a portion of the lands, "set apart for the support of the ministry," and pay him an annual salary beyond. Whether we are right in this claim will be discussed further on. An extract from that vote seems to shine with a clear light upon the subject matter in dispute at Stratford. They lay down, as the great object of desire, and as the prime condition of settlement, the principles of the Half-way Covenant. Why so particular, unless the privileges of this plan had before this time been denied to them by the church proper, in the church meetings, where communicants only were allowed a voice. They say:

"More particularly we desire y'all they y' professe fayth and obedience to the rules of Christ, not scandalous in life, and doe present themselves in owning y covenant wherein they have given themselves unto the Lord in baptism, may be admitted and accounted members of ye church, and under the care and discipline thereof as other members, and have their children baptized. Yet, notwithstanding, we desire not that any thus admitted may approach unto the Lord's table till, in and by examination and due tryall, they make testimony unto the Judgement of Charity, of their fitness thereunto. Moreover, as God owneth the Infant children of believers in ye Covenant of Grace, neither doth exclude y same children w" grown up from keeping their standing in y covenant, while they soe walk as they doe not reject it, God owneth y and would not have ye grace of his covenant shortened or straitened, nor put ym from under the dispensations of his grace, giving his ministers a solemn charge to take care of, and train up such a part of their flock: We desire also that ye children of church members may be accounted as church members, as well as their parents, and yt they do not cease to be members by being grown up, but that they still doe continue in the church, successively, until, according to ye rules of Christ, they be cast out, and y' they are still y subjects of church discipline, even as other members, and yt they should have their children baptized, notwithstanding their present unfitness for partaking of the Lord's Supper."

t

e

This is the "Woodbury View," and it is not questioned but that it is a full statement of the Half-way Covenant system. Was

this the original platform of the Stratford church, or was it something new-an innovation? If it was the old platform, why so earnestly proclaim it again, and make it a condition precedent to settlement? Why not say, simply, that they would settle Mr. Chauncy upon the ancient platform-in the ancient order, and way of Christ among the churches?" Not a word is said here of a different mode of church government from the old one. It was the right of church membership and baptism, that was the sole and all-absorbing theme. On this they insist-on this solely. This vote furnishes the key to the whole controversy. The same eloquent writer proceeds to give the views of the first established churches from which these were a departure. He says;

"On the other hand, it was urged in reply to these claims, that they were wholly inconsistent with the rights of the brotherhood and the strict principles of the Congregational churches-that they were innovations on its practice, and contrary to its puritythat they would subvert the very design for which the churches in New England were planted. Baptism, said the advocates of these views, is a seal of the whole covenant of grace-those, therefore, not interested in this covenant of faith, by saving faith, by the having of repentance, ought not to have the seal thereof for themselves, nor for their children. If we extend it in the manner demanded, there would be great corruption. It would be a profanation of the right. It would have a natural tendency to harden. unregenerate persons in their sinful condition-and to admit such to privileges and membership in the churches, would at once throw the homes of the saints into the power of the worldly part of mankind, profane their administration, and pervert their efficacy "1

Which party at Stratford was it that entertained such views as these? Was it the Walker party, who for years insisted on being allowed the privileges of the Half-way Covenant, and, when they could not fully obtain them, organized a separate church, and repaired to the interior forests to enjoy their faith in peace? Or was it the party of the "ancient church," under the guidance of Mr. Chauncy, as a "stated supply," who, when addressed by the Walker party, in Jan. 1665° (p. 115) "desiring also that we and our posterity may be owned as immediate members of the Church of Christ by you; as Christ owneth us and ours by his own institution, taking us into covenant, and solemnly setting his seal

1 Stuart's Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 224.

upon us," (p. 115,) and again in Feb. 9, 1665° (p. 116) desiring "communion in all God's ordinances," with the rest of the church, replied, April 16, 1666, (p. 117) "These are to give you to understand, that our apprehension concerning the order of discipline is the same that we have formerly manifested it to bee, both by our practice, and answer to your proposalls. And whereas you apprehend you have equal rights with ourselves in all the ordinances of Christ in this place. These may certifie you at present that we are of a different apprehension from you in that matter. And whereas you desire that your posterity may, etc.: we would put you in mind, that as yet the matter is in controversie among the learned and godly?" Which party was it that demanded they and their seed should be "owned as immediate members of the church?" Which party refused this before the ordination of Mr. Chauncy? It was the Walker party that demanded. It was the church that refused, acting as a church, entitling and embalming its actions as "Church Answer to the Men." Are we wrong, then, in saying, that the church, when acting as an associated body of communicants, rejected the Half-way Covenant dogma, and that on the following June 1, 1666, the Walker party, in open town meeting, when all, both communicants and freemen, were acting together parish-wise, carried the day, and established the condition of the Half-way Covenant in the "Town propositions to Mr. Chauncy" of that date, (p. 119,) which were afterwards accepted by Mr. Chauncey? Why, if this view be correct, it did not bring peace to the town and church, we will consider further on.

Before we do that, however, let us examine another consideration. It is recorded, that the church enjoyed great peace and prosperity under the administration of the Rev. Mr. Blakeman, the first minister. Now what manner of man was Mr. Blakeman ? We find this account of him in the Manual of the old First Stratford church, printed in 1869:

"The Rev. Adam Blakeman was born in Staffordshire, England, A. D. 1599, and was matriculated at Christ's College, Oxford, May 28th, 1617. He was a preacher for some years in Leicestershire and Derbyshire, and in 1638 came to New England. He was one of the original company of settlers in Stratford in 163940, and was minister of the church until his death, Sept. 7th 1665. Just previous to his death, the 20th of April of that year, the Rev. Israel Chauncy became, by vote of the town, his assistant. Mr. Blakeman held a prominent position among the colonial min

isters. Cotton Mather says (Magnalia, book 3d. chap. 7) that many of his people came with him to this country, and that Hooker once remarked, "If I might have my choice, I would live and die under Mr. Blakeman's minstry."

This is a satisfactory account of an old Puritan minister, truly. He appears in the history of the Colony only four years later than Hooker himself, and though he was thirteen years his junior, 'yet he was his coeval in establishing the church of God in this wilderness land, and so well approved himself, as a minister of the Most High, in sustaining the good old Puritan doctrines, that Hooker, in his love, admiration and enthusiasm, proclaims that he fain would, could he have his own choice, live and die under his ministrations. Blakeman led his flock, for a quarter of a century, in the paths of peace and the ways of pleasantness. Even before his death, the questions concerning baptism and church membership began to disturb the other churches. There is not a particle of evidence, that there was a word of dissension in his church during his life. Was he a Half-way Covenanter? If so, then were Hooker and Stone. The former died, July 7, 1647, before these discussions arose to any considerable entent. He, therefore, had been converted to no new theory, and Stone was firm as a rock against all innovations. May we not then say, in the full assurance of its truth, that the Half way Covenant theory had not a "Name to live," nay, had not become a disturbing cause of discussion during all his holy life, so far as the church at Stratford was concerned. At the date of his death the discussion on these subjects had waxed warm in the colony, but such was his influence with his flock, it had found no disturbing entrance into his church. There is a moral certainty that not a solitary Half-way Covenant admission to the church or baptism on that theory, occurred during his ministry.

But the good man was dead; his place was to be filled, and young Mr. Chauncy "just turned of" twenty-one years of age, having been born in 1644, was the candidate. New views were abroad in the land, the state of religion was low and weak, and imbued with the spirit of liberty, which led our fathers to found their homes in the wild woods, they exercised the freedom of choice among the conflicting theories. The older communicants stood by the "ancient landmarks" so long maintained by their sainted Blakeman. The younger communicants and non-communicants sought-out what seemed to them to be a more excellent

way." Mr. Chauncy had been called to "assist Mr. Blakeman,' and naturally sustained his views. He, therefore, represented the conservatives. But, as we have seen, he was settled by the concurrent votes of both parties, after the dissentients had been able to engraft the Half-way Covenant theory into the conditions of his settlement. Who was it that insisted on this plank in the platform? Was it the old communicants, who in April, 1666, before the adoption of this platform and the settlement of Mr. Chauncy, when addressed on this subject by those who afterwards became Mr. Walker's adherents, replied in their "Church Answer to the Men," (p. 118,) "We answer in the words of Paul in another case, wee have no such custome, nor the Churches of Christ with whom we hold communion?" Or was it rather those who afterwards formed the new church, and practiced the Half-way Covenant plan, but did not follow in the least the Presbyterian mode of church government? There can be but one answer to these questions. If the dispute was what the "Stratford View" affirms-a dispute in relation to Presbyterian and Congregational modes of church government and discipline, it is the most inconceivable thing in the world, that neither of the churches, after they were well apart, and had full liberty to do as they chose, practiced any thing but pure Congregationalism. If the "Woodbury View" is accounted the correct one, the subsequent history of the two churches is consistent. The Woodbury church practiced on the Half-way Covenant system for ninety years, ending at the ordination of Mr. Benedict, (p. 302,) in 1760. The theory that the "call" of 1666 was a compromise, receives further confirmation from the fact, that two members of the church, viz: Thomas Fayrechild and Thomas Uffoote, and two of the minority, (church members,) Ensign Joseph Judson and Henry Wakelyn, were appointed by the town a committee to carry the "Town Propositions to Mr. Chauncy.

But the "Stratford View" insists that the Half-way Covenant plan was practiced by the First church in Stratford from the earliest date to which its present records extends, and that, clearly, Mr. Chauncy was settled by the town vote of June 1, 1666, on the Half-way Covenant plan. The latter branch of this statement is undoubtedly true. The vote of 1666 is a most perfect statement of the Half-way plan, and it is also true that Mr. Chauncy accepted his settlement on that vote. And right here, we apprehend, is the key to the whole difficulty. The town, voting parish-wise,