USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, Connecticut > Part 20
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34
1 Burt's History of Springfield, I: 200.
202
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
much of the interior space above the auditorium was in- cluded in this chamber, we do not know, but sufficient to make a room of convenient size for ordinary uses. As, according to the records, it was situated directly over the church gallery, it must have included some interior space, and, if we may suppose that the porch was ten feet square as some were - as much, or more, taken from the interior, would have made a room of considerable size. This cham- ber was used in early times as an arsenal. A room in the Second Church was put later to the same use. There was no fire in either place to endanger a supply of gunpowder. This was the "Court Chamber" mentioned in later records. It was used by the upper house after the General Assembly had been divided, and was accustomed to convene in the meeting-house. They also called it the "Council Chamber." Here the smaller courts of the time may have held some of their sessions. Some time was occupied in completing this porch, but, as its construction did not interfere with the use of the auditorium, it could be done at their leisure.1 The seating of this meeting-house, according to the customs of those days, was ordered March 13, 1640-41. By that date, seats must have been provided and order established within. Henry Packs, in his will, dated September 4, 1640, bequeathed to the church a clock, but, so far as known, it was never used in their meeting-house.2 That would have been quite contrary to the customs of the time. Ministers then used hour-glasses, but gave little heed to them.
This meeting-house had not been in use many years before it was found to be too small. The population had in- creased. Had it not been for emigrations to other towns, they would have been compelled to build anew before the Second Church was formed. This condition was met by a vote to build, with convenient speed, a gallery. In 1643, the town had voted to discipline any boy, who was mis-
I Hartford Town Votes, I: 39, 46.
2 Manwaring's Hartford Probate Records, I: 29. In 1654 an inventory of the town's property has "The towne Clock at good Prats." It had in 1657 " A clock at John Allyns." Hartford Town Votes, I: 106, 119. The clock in the steeple of the third meeting-house was provided by public subscription in 1752. Russell's Hist. of Christ Church, I: 62 n.
203
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES
behaving "at the tim of publik exorcies ether in the mitting howse or about the wales without." Perhaps the insuffi- cient room for them within, or the need of a suitable place for them to sit, was one reason for the immediate erection of this south gallery, afterwards assigned to the boys. There, they were watched by the tithing-man.1 In 1660, they voted to build a gallery on the east side. They also voted, in 1664, to erect a gallery "for the inlargment of the Rume." This was doubtless on the north side and com- pleted this improvement. Evidently the height of the walls had been greater than in some buildings to permit of such galleries. It may have been sixteen or eighteen feet, which was a liberal dimension. Repairs were made upon this edifice from time to time. The east side was newly shingled in 1660, and the south and west sides in 1667. At the latter date "necessary Lights for the Gallery" were ordered, altering the exterior appearance by the addition of small second story windows. The roof was newly covered in 1687, with cedar shingles, which, says Dr. Hoadly, they sought liberty to obtain in Fitz John Winthrop's swamp, between Haddam and Saybrook. In 1699, new window casements were needed. In 1704, underpinning, ground sills and clapboards were provided. At that time, William Davenport laid a new oak plank floor in the turret, "calking and pitching" it, and set up "the speere & vain." The year before, the pulpit had been furnished with a "Plush Cushin, a greene Cloth, and Silke for the fringes and Tasseles of sd Cushion," at a cost of £2. 14s. 6d. sterling.2 In 1725, the bell was broken. The town finally decided to have it recast in England, with as much, or more, weight of metal added. The cost was £85, of which the First Society paid £47. 5s. 9d., and the Second Society £37. 14s. 3d. - a fair representation of their relative wealth at the time.3 This bell being out of use in 1726, John Edwards was directed to purchase some suitable red bunting for a flag to be set up on the State House, "to direct for meeting upon public
1 Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary, pp. 147, 148.
2 Ibid., p. 147.
3 Ibid., p. 151; Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 49, 51, 52.
204
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
worship of God." 1 The breaking of the old "town bell" must have awakened in some recollections of the past. It had voiced the summons of their meeting-house so long, that a babe who heard its last peal might have been the great-grandchild of one who heard its first. So, genera- tions had come and gone in that century of struggle with the wilderness and the Indians, and not a little, also, with "the world, the flesh and the devil." Their meeting-house, had been the symbol of that period - small, unadorned, substantial. It was fitting that the old bell should ring out its dying peal and be broken. When it was returned from England, it gave forth a new and a fuller note.
The awakening of interest at this time in the building of a new meeting-house, can hardly be regarded as a mere coincidence. To be sure, their present edifice was small and old, but for many years, that of the Second Church had relieved the congestion of attendance. In fact, it did serve them until 1737. We must turn back to the time when the church was divided, to remind the reader that in 1670, as well as for years before that and years afterwards, Hartford was a dual community and had maintained its unity under a virtual treaty, by which the North-side and the South-side inhabitants shared equally in its government. The doctrinal and ecclesiastical issues of the controversy in the First Church cannot be minimized. It was not greatly to the disparagement of either party that differences should arise in Hartford, for the same issues were in dis- cussion elsewhere. This dual community life, however, apparently offered the disputants every advantage for creating a division. This was especially true in the later stages of the controversy, when Rev. Joseph Haynes, the son of a North-side settler, and Rev. John Whiting, the son of a South-side settler, came into open conflict. In most ecclesiastical disputes, there are elements that are not dis- cussed in the council's minutes. We suspect that this was true of the controversy that finally resulted in the forma- tion of the Second Church, February 12, 1669-70, most of
1 The selectmen of Plymouth, in 1697, were directed to "procure a flagg to be put out at the ringing of the first bell and taken in when the last bell was rung." In some places a flag was used to commence the time of worship.
205
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES
whose founders were South-side inhabitants and followed Rev. John Whiting.
This action had been taken, pursuant to the vote of the General Court in October 1669, recommending to the First Church a course favorable to it, in default of which the withdrawing members were permitted "to release and releiue themselves, without offense to the Courte." We do not know of any favorable action by the mother church. The vote of the Court was not carried by any encouraging majority, four assistants and fourteen deputies dissenting.1 The old law concerning the maintenance of ministers, which was originally framed by the Commissioners of the United Colonies, did not then contemplate the support of two churches within a town.2 Provision was made, therefore, at a town meeting in 1670, for the salary of Mr. Haynes alone. It happened, however, that relief was soon afforded by the revision of the laws, ordered in May 1671 and ap- proved in October 1672. Therein it was provided that, where there was more than one congregation in a town, "all persons shall contribute to one or both of those Societies within their township." 3 This allowed the new church to pay rates for the maintenance of Mr. Whiting and his ministry. In the will of Deacon George Grave, dated September 17, 1673, he specified that his lands should "pay their rates, according to their proportion, to the Mainte- nance of the Ministree at the new meeting house." Ser- geant Joseph Nash in 1675 did the same. At the begin- ning, however, the Second Church labored under a great disadvantage.
Another problem was presented to them in the erection of their meeting-house. No public land could be secured without the town's consent, and there is no record of such a vote. Nor did their Society then have such corporate existence as was necessary for them to hold real estate. There was no other course than for them to build on private property. The commercial interests of the South-side being then largely near the southern end of the bridge, the lot that had originally belonged to Andrew Bacon was selected.
1 Conn. Col. Rec., II: 120. 2 Ibid., I: 111, 112, 545.
3 Ibid., II: 153, 154, 160, 176, 190, 290; Laws of 1672, title page and p. 52.
206
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
This had been recorded to William Warren in 1664, under an agreement made the year before with Andrew Bacon and his nephew, Nathaniel Bacon, whereby payment was to be made in six annual installments, ending April 1, 1670.1 William Warren was a member of the new congregation. At all events, the northern part of this lot, comprising about one and a quarter acres, with a dwelling-house and other buildings, passed to Lieutenant Thomas Bull. He did not buy this for a homestead, and we have found no evidence that he ever lived there. Nor was this lot recorded to him. In 1670, or within a few years, he certainly acquired it. There was no record to inform the curious that Warren had sold it, or, if he had, who the purchaser was. This lot was bounded west by Main Street and north by our present Sheldon Street. The land south of it was sold, in 1684, by Nathaniel Bacon to Richard Burnham, whose house and blacksmith shop were located there until 1738. Lieutenant Bull in 1682, by deed of gift conveyed his lot to his son, Major Jonathan Bull, who married in 1684, Sarah, the daughter of Rev. John Whiting. In his will, also, executed in 1684, Lieutenant Bull bequeathed to his son "my [his] Lott and House that I [he] bought of William Warren neare the New Meeting hous in Hartford." On this lot therefore owned at the time by Lieutenant Bull, the first meeting- house of the Second Church was built. It seems probable that the congregation worshipped in the dwelling-house until their edifice was completed. The meeting-house was south of this dwelling, and the land upon which it stood was never recorded to that Society. The truth appears to have been that, since the new congregation could not other- wise secure a site, Lieutenant Thomas Bull took the new meeting-house under his protection, and bequeathed the trust to his son Major Jonathan Bull, from whom it de- scended to Dr. Jonathan Bull. It is partly through a con- veyance made by Sarah, the widow of Major Jonathan, that we obtain an acquaintance with this meeting-house. She obtained liberty from the General Assembly in 1705 "to make a sale of a small parcel of land in Hartford, not
1 Original Distribution, p. 553; State Archives: Private Controversies, I: 121-123; Probate Records, Book III, County Court, March 5, 1673-4.
207
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES
exceeding fifteen foot in breadth and fiftie foot in length for the accomodation of the making some inlargement to the south meeting house in said town," in which sale, as administratrix, she was to act, on the advice of Major William Whiting. She conveyed, therefore, to Nathaniel Stanley, Richard Lord, Thomas Bunce, John Marsh and all others of the "Congregation of the Society of the South meeting house," 516 square feet of her home-lot, being 50 feet and 4 inches in length and 10 feet and 3 inches in breadth throughout. This strip of land was bounded by the meeting- house on the north, her own home-lot on the south and east, and the street on the west.1 That she sold four inches more in length than she was authorized to do, undoubtedly in- dicates that it was necessary in order to extend the strip to the east end of the edifice. As the addition was for "some inlargement," we conjecture that the design was to build an outside porch on the south side of the edifice and erect stairs to galleries within. If this explanation is cor- rect, this meeting-house, which we shall see was fifty feet square and doubtless had a pyramidal roof, would have been when completed similar to that of the First Church. Under the circumstances, this was a natural proceeding. There is no evidence in the land records that the above strip of land was ever conveyed by the Second Society.
The ownership of the site of this meeting-house was in dispute, when the edifice was abandoned in 1755, from which we learn its exact size. A vote was then passed by the Society, empowering the committee "to Sell the Old Meeting Houfe and Leafe the Land belonging thereto for Nine Hundred and Ninety nine years to the higheft Bid- der." 2 To this, Jonathan Bull objected. He claimed to own, by right of inheritance, the fee in this property. Con- sequently, a suit was brought in the County Court in 1756, known as Jonathan Bull vs. Ebenezer Benton, Jonathan Seymour et al. The writ describes this property as "being about fifty feet Square, Bounded Weftwardly by the Town Street or Country Road, Southerly by land formerly appro-
1 Conn. Col. Rec., IV: 512; Hartford Land Records, 1: 397.
2 "Seymour Papers," in Boardman Collection, State Library, No. 5631. See also Nos. 5632, 5633.
208
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
priated to accommodate the South Meeting Houfe so called in the firft Parifh in said Hartford," and on all other sides by land of the plaintiff.1 The land herein mentioned as on the south was the strip above referred to, hence the meeting-house site was fifty feet square. The defendants contended that this land had belonged to the inhabitants, the Society having acquired from them an ownership by occupation. Thomas Warren, aged 82 or 83, testified to attending meeting there as a boy with his father, and declared that the meeting-house was built on land that was once his father's; nor had he ever heard of any person that laid claim to the land on which the meeting-house stood. He and Widow Hannah Olcott, aged about 92 years, also testified that the land had laid open to the street ever since they could remember. It is evident that the South Society had forgotten, if any of those then living ever knew, the facts concerning the location of their first meeting-house. This case was tried in the County Court in January 1757.2 The jury rendered a verdict for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. Upon a final review of the case, this verdict was reversed, and the plain- tiff recovered possession of the lot, with damages and costs.3
We have, thus, sufficient evidence to determine the type of this meeting-house. It was doubtless patterned after that of the First Church, erected in 1638, and of the same size. In general appearance it was similar after the erection of the porch about 1705, which the street on the west made it necessary to place on the south side. It stood on Main Street, near the residence recently owned by Hon. Henry C. Robinson. Probably this edifice was begun about 1670. James Ensign, in his will executed November 23, 1670, bequeathed £6 "towards the building of the new meeting house." The will of Deacon Grave in 1673, intimates that it was then completed and in use. In 1719, the Society was permitted by the town to erect horse sheds 10 feet wide and SO feet. long at the end of the school-house, nearly oppo- site in the highway.
1 Superior Court Papers, September Term 1757, State Library.
2 County Court Records, Vol. T, January term 1757, case 20.
3 Superior Court Records, Vol. 12, March and September terms, 1757.
209
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES
Few, if any, congregations of that day had endured more from courts and councils in order to attain such a consum- mation of their desires. We know of none that seemed to hold their minister in higher esteem. Within the first fifteen years of the church's history, no less than ten of his loyal supporters made bequests to him in their wills, perhaps in recognition of his loss those early years when the town withdrew its support.1 So the Second Church of Christ in Hartford, which Major James Richards termed, in 1680, the "South Church," entered into the privileges of its sanc- tuary, named in the earliest records "the new meeting house" and "the meeting house of the South side of the Riveret." 2
Thus it happened that the "Town Bell," which had hung so long in the tower of the First Church meeting-house, had for more than half a century summoned the worshippers . of both congregations. The recasting of it was regarded as the town's duty, in which both societies ought to share. The matter was referred to a committee representing both bodies. It was under consideration for several months. As both churches then needed new meeting-houses, this conference became the occasion out of which the proposition arose to reunite the two churches. In 1726, the First Society voted that such a union would be better for the town and the "honorable support of the ministry." A committee was named to propose the same to the "new church." The plan failed, however, to receive sufficient favor from that body to warrant further consideration. It was altogether unlikely that a new meeting-house could be
1 These bequests were: James Ensign, 1670, £5; Christian, wife of Benjamin Harbert, 1670, three acres of land; Gregory Wolterton, 1674, £5; John Bidwell, Sen., 1683, 20 s .; Major James Richards, 1680, £15; Justes Banbury, 1672, 20 s .; Captain Thomas Watts, 1683, £20; Elder John White, 1683, £5; Thomas Hos- mer, 1685, £5; Lieutenant Thomas Bull, 1684, £3.
2 Gregory Wolterton wrote his own will. His use of the phrase "South side of the Riveret" in 1674 is significant. The most common early designation is "New Meeting House." On the title page of Rev. John Whiting's election sermon, printed in 1686, he is called "Pastor of the Second Church of Christ in Hartford." The caption of Rev. Thomas Buckingham's early records, made after 1694, has "Second Church in Hartford," but whether this phrase was copied from Rev. John Whiting's record is uncertain. The Town Votes speak of "the second church now in Hartford" in 1684. Mrs. Bull probably used the common designation in 1705-"South Meeting House." In deeds "South Ecclesiastical Society" appears in 1755, "South Society" in 1765 and "Second Ecclesiastical Society" in 1774.
210
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
located south of the riveret satisfactorily to both churches, and the South-side was too nearly equal to the North-side in inhabitants and wealth to surrender the privileges it had so long enjoyed.
There is evidence of the force of such considerations in the protracted controversy the First Society had in locating its own meeting-house.1 After eleven years, the possibili- ties of further discussion being exhausted, the southeast corner of the burying-ground was selected. The original vote of 1734 contemplated a brick edifice seventy feet long and forty-six feet wide, the exact dimensions of North- ampton's meeting-house, erected the same year. The length was afterwards reduced to sixty-six feet, and wood was substituted for brick. "This house stood," says Dr. Walker, "sidewise to the street, its steeple on the north end. There was a door at the south end, another on the east side and another under the steeple on the north. The pulpit was on the west side, and, over it, a sounding board, and behind it a curtain." There were two rows of windows, set with small rectangular panes of glass, the lower sash, at least, being hung on weights. The "Great Alley" ran from the east door to the pulpit, and another, it is said, crossed it from north to south. Uncushioned slips occupied the floor and gallery space, excepting a few more pretentious pews on either side of the high pulpit, which increased in number as the century advanced. "The tower," says Mr. Rowland Swift, "elevated the bell turret a full story at least above the ridge pole - the spire still rising high above this with its lofty pole and gilded ball and weathercock." On July 31, 1737, Rev. Daniel Wadsworth preached his last sermon in the old meeting-house. Its destruction was begun the following week, the pulpit, seats and bell being removed. Some of its timbers are said to be in the present edifice. The congregation met in the State House August
1 Dr. Walker's History of the First Church, pp. 278-289; Two Hundred and Fif- tieth Anniversary, pp. 151-158. These volumes are authorities on the second meet- ing-house. See also "Some Account of the Early Mceting Houses of the First Church," by Dr. Charles J. Hoadly, in Appendix to Sermons Preached by Reo. Leonard Bacon and Rev. Geo. Leon Walker, Feb. 27, 1879; Wadsworth's Diary, pp. 25, 28; The Hartford Times, Aug. 17, Dec. 2 and 4, 1907; The Hartford Courant, July 29, Nov. 30 and Dec. 2, 1907.
211
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES
7th, and there conducted worship until December 30, 1739, when their third meeting-house was dedicated. On that occasion, Mr. Wadsworth preached his only published ser- mon, entitled, "Christ's Presence the Glory of an House of Publick Worship," printed at New London in 1740.
There was a great similarity among the meeting-houses erected in New England about the middle of the eighteenth century, especially in the Connecticut valley. Their dimen- sions, interior arrangement and architecture varied little. Doors were placed as the convenience of the location sug- gested. It is said that a plan of this meeting-house had been prepared by Mr. Cotton Palmer of Warwick, R. I., who received one pound for the service and his advice. He was not an architect, as that term is now used, but a builder. Probably he had merely a draft of this edifice, and obtained his ideas and measurements from some early builder's com- panion.
Ten years after the dedication of this edifice the Second Church decided to erect a new meeting-house. The matter had been determined before the January session of the County Court, 1749-50, when that authority was asked to fix a site. The Court appointed Colonel Elizur Goodrich and Hezekiah May of Wethersfield, and Captain Jonathan Hills of East Hartford, to view the premises, notify and hear all parties and report to it. A site was fixed at the July session, but it was not approved by the Society. It was "in the highway that comes from the westward," now Buck- ingham Street. The southeast corner of the meeting-house was to be about two rods north of the northeast corner of Joseph Buckingham's house-lot, on which the present church stands.1 As the Society had voted to erect a building "sixty-six feet in length and forty-six feet in breadth"- the exact size of the First Society meeting-house - the highway would be almost closed. Only about two rods were left at each end. The space on the north was in the winter and spring covered with ice or flooded, so as to be impassable. On the south, it was claimed, the highway was much used for carting hay, corn and wood. There was also "a considerable run of water" coming along Main
1 County Court Records, Vol. S., July, 1750.
212
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
Street, which would run under the meeting-house. This was the brook mentioned in deeds of that time. The ground, too, it was thought, would endanger the foundations. Thus the project encountered obstacles that delayed it for two years. On May 20, 1752, the "Inhabitants of the Second Society" petitioned the General Assembly for a new location. The committee recited the facts, stated the proposed size of their edifice, and admitted that it was made larger than the Society required because the two societies often had occasion to meet together.1 The Assembly appointed a new committee, upon whose report the site was fixed. It was about thirty feet east of the former, two- thirds of the building being in Main Street.2 It stood the longest way north and south. The bell tower measured 16 feet. It was in the center, at the north end. There was an entrance through it into the church, almost in line with the west sidewalk. There were also doors in the center on the east and south sides. The pulpit was on the west.3 In the interior, the arrangement was quite similar to the First Church meeting-house. This edifice was begun, as Dr. Parker discovered in the "Memorandum Book" of Thomas Seymour, "in the fore part of the year of our Lord, 1752, was three years in building, and finished about the latter end of the year 1754." 4 It was occupied by the congrega- tion January 5, 1755, but, on December 2nd, Rev. George Whitefield preached in it the first sermon. So far as it is possible to make a comparison between the meeting-houses of the First and Second churches, the main feature in which they differed was their spires. In 1737 the First Church had invited the Second to contribute towards a steeple where the town bell could be hung - probably without re- sults. It then ordered its committee to do the work. The contract with Mr. Palmer was for £250, but there were ad- ditional expenses. They paid Eben Sedgwick £9. 15 s. for the spire pole. To Seth Young they paid £52. 13 s. 6 d. for a gilded brass cock and ball, which adorned its summit. As the . base of the tower measured fourteen feet, the above details
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.