Conn. Laws I

The exhibit on the history of evangelism in America at the Billy Graham Center Museum in Wheaton, IL had several old and rare books on display that charted important milestones in the history of evangelism. One of them that caught my attention was the "Code of 1650" from Connecticut, along with some "Blue Laws." But even as I began to "study up" on this "Code" a bit, I had to unravel lots of issues, most of which aren't made clear in any publication I have seen. This essay addresses some preliminary issues that need to be distinguished and made more precise in order to understand that Code. The next three essays consider specific provisions of this 1650 Code Along the way, I will try to dispel several myths, principally about the "biblical" nature of the laws of the earliest "Puritan" colonies in Connecticut.

Several observations are important before turning to the text of the laws.

1. The text which was in the display, and which is linked above, is an 1825 edition published by Silas Andrus of Hartford, CT. The text consists of three things: (1) The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, adopted in January 1639 by the towns of Windsor, Wethersfield and Hartford. These Orders laid out the basis for the civil government in those three towns; (2) the laws of these towns, arranged in subjects from "a" to "z." The variety and specificity of topics needs to be studied in order to get their flow; the next essay will address some of these. These two compilations became the "Code of 1650." (3) Appended to it is the "New Haven Antiquities" commonly called the "Blue Laws," of that colony.

2. Surprises greet us from the beginning. The word "Blue Laws" was, most scholars think, invented in the 1780s, and not the 1640s or 1650s, to refer to the ancient New Haven laws. Theories as to why they are called "blue laws" include either that they were first printed on blue paper (which, like the "original manuscripts" of the Bible, don't exist) or that they had to do with rigid or "blue" subjects (in the eighteenth century use of the term). I, unlike Michael Vick, have no dog in this fight, though I do note that one of the first statute books in Oregon history was the "blue" book--which was printed on blue paper.

3. The popular understanding is that the New Haven colony was the "most Puritan" of all of them, passing laws that were much more rigid than the northern neighbors of Windsor, Wethersfield and Hartford. But, as this site says, the Code of 1650, approved in the "tri-cities," was largely copied by New Haven when it issued its code in 1655. Thus, we have a considerable "overlap" of codes. This invites consideration of the issue of how much more "conservative" New Haven was than its neighbor to the north.

4. The section on "Blue Laws" in the 1825 edition is not a listing of what thinks of as "Blue Laws"--i.e., the things that are prohibited on a Sunday or moral prohibitions. In fact, it is nothing other than the listing of a few decisions of the New Haven authorities on conflicts in town--like you would imagine any town council or police having to solve. The "Blue Laws" are really "antiquities" or "records of the Colony." So, there is no "listing" of the New Haven "Blue Laws" that I could find. A list published in the Rev. Samuel Peters' 1781 book, consisting of more than 45 items, isn't provided in any earlier text, as far as I can see. The earliest legal reference to "blue laws" I have found is in an 1818 case from Connecticut (Fox v. Abel, 2 Conn 541, 1818); in that case it refers to the rigidity of such laws that may have sanctioned a man for "gathering sticks" or "kissing his wife" in the "night" season. Thus, it might be more accurate to say that the concept of "blue law," having to do with rigid (and unrealistic?) prohibitions, originated as a pejorative, and perhaps not too accurate, term, to describe anything that the 1781 author didn't like about a previous time. In fact, the earliest code we have says nothing about "blue laws," and the material that is unique to the New Haven colony just lists reports of conflicts in the town--the so called "New Haven Antiquities."

5. The Code of 1650, which formed the basis for the New Haven's 1655 Code, has very few biblical references in it. In fact, in the 100 or so paragraphs of the Code, the only references to the Bible are when capital punishment is in view. Even in the section on capital punishment, where the Bible is quoted, extenuating circumstances from the common law are brought in to mitigate some of the apparent harshness of the Biblical law. I will illustrate this in the final essay of this series. Thus it isn't clear, from studying this code, how one can characterize these colonies as "Holy" or "Theocratic." It seems that the many of the principles of law are derived directly from the common law of England rather than from any Biblical principles or verses.

I would hasten to add, however, that a certain expression of Christian faith underlies or undergirds the laws, and this is expressed through the language of the oaths taken or even the language of certain laws (see especially my discussion of the "recording" of great acts of God in the final essay).

Let's turn to a few of the laws from the Code of 1650, then, to see what I mean.

4124