1. American CongregationalitU.— The Plymouth set- tlement was distinct in origin and government firom that of Bfassachusetts Bay, the Pilgrim settlers being distinctively known as **the Pilgrims.*' The perse- cutions under Laud led many Puritans to the resolu- tion to emigrate. Endicott and his company began the colony at Salem in 1628, and in 1680 John Win- throp, thfiir governor, with other emigrants, occupied Boston and the surrounding towns. Settlements were made at Hartford and Saybrook, in Connecticut, in 1686, and in 1688 Davenport and his associates found- ed thet New Haven colony, while in 1688 a distinct company re-enfbrced the colonies on the Piscataqua River. The Plymouth church had come out fully or- ganized ; in the other settlements churches were im- mediately formed. None but the Plymouth people had come over as Separatists ; the others declared that they did not separate from the Church of England, but only desired to remove its corruptions. But, gathered in a new land, away from all ecclesiastical establish- ments, and searching the Scriptures for their ecdesi- astieal order, they all fell into the Congregational or- der. Their ministers had almost all been regularly ordained in the Church of England, and were higlily educated men, as (e. g.) Cotton and Wilson, of Boston ; Mather, of Dorchester ; Hooker and Stone, of Hart- ford ; Davenport and Hooke, of New Haven.
Congregationalism proper received substantially its form in the early history of New England. If traced to the writings of any one person, it would be to those of John Robinson, of Leyden ; those of John Cotton and Thomas Hooker, in America, being next in im- portance. Robert Brown was never acknowledged as a leader, he being a strict Independent, and finally returning to the communion of the Church of Eng- land; but his writings undoubtedly aroused many minds to examine and reject the claims of epLscopacy. The system cannot, however, be traced to any one
man, but rather to the united sentiments of tiie enff emigrants, who agreed in cairying into practice vit opinion that every church is, according to the Scrip- tures, confined to the limits of a single congregalits. and must be democratic in government; wUle aS churches are in fellowship with one another. Hcbr the term **the Congregational Church" is never vaek to denote the denomination, but '*the Congregiitiaal churches."
Church and i9tafe.— From the earliest settlemait cl New England there was a definite bnt peculiar rda- tion between the churches and the state. It was nei- ther that in which the State rules the Chnrc^ set that in which the Church rules the State, but rather a peculiar blending of the two. Townahips were iscoi- porated with a view to the ability to maintain a lefc- tied ministry, and to the convenience of the people a attending public worship. Provisi<m was made hj law for the support of pastors, and for all nccesssfj expenses. The choice of a pastor bdonged to tbe church. A peculiar feature of the connection was es> tablished in 1681, in Massachusetts Bay, and later (ia substance) in the Connecticut colonies, and, by the authority of Massachusetts, in Maine and New Hamp- shire, that ** no man shall be admitted to the freedcai of the body politic but such as are members of sone of tlte churches within the limits of the same." Thii was in no respect a principle of Congregationalini, but grew out of the objects of the emigration froa England. As the popidation increased the mle wai modified, and by-and-by abandoned. Ministers, al- though tiieir influence was great, had no Toice as nifai- isters in public aflfairs. The laws taxfaig all penoot for the suppOTt of the ministry were first ameliorated by allowing persons to contribute to whatever chun^ they might prefer ; and the whole system of campnl- soiy taxation was abolished in Connecticut in 181C^ and in Massachusetts in 1888.
General Sjfnodt. — ^The history of the denominatioo is rather the history of distinct churches than of an organized body. Tet the fellowship of the churchei has always been maintained, and all ^' matters of com- mon concernment*' have been decided bj the 5*CTngmi consent of the whole body, and sometimes embodied in the pronounced opiniond of general bodies convened for the special occasion. Denying the authority of any standing judicatory, Congregationalista recognise the necessity and desirableness of occasional synods fir delibtoation and advice on great public intereetSw Only four such general synods have been held. The fint met in 1687, at Cambridge, Mass., to deliberate on tbe doctrinal speculations of John Wheelwright, Anne Hutchinson, and others. It consisted of "aU tfw teaching elders through the country*' and of "mcs* sengers from the churches ;" Rev. Peter Bulkley, of Concord, Bfass., and Rev. Thomas Hooker, of Hart- ford, Conn., were moderators. The second synod met at Cambridge in 1646, and dissolved in 1648. It de- clared its approval of the Westminster Assembly's Confession of Faith, and set forth an elaborate state- ment of Church polity, known as the ** Cambridge Platform,** which has always — though latterly with modifications — been regarded as an important stand- ard. The third S3aiod, or " Convention/' met at Al- bany, N. T., in 1862, composed, like the preceding, of pastor and delegate from each church. Its main busi- ness resulted in the formal dissolution of the ** Plan of Union between Presbyterians and Congregationalists" agreed upon by the Presbyterian Church and the General Association of Connecticut in 1801. Tbe fourth synod, styled ** National CouncU,'* met in Bos- ton, Mass., in 1866, composed of a minister and dele- irate from every group of ten churches ; William A. Bucidngham, governor of Connecticut, was its moder- ator. It was called to deliberate upon the exigencies of religious duty growing out of the circumstances of the country in its emerging fh>m the war of 1861-^