USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Glastonbury > Glastenbury for two hundred years: a centennial discourse, May 18th 1853 > Part 3
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
The relation of the whites and Indians on the west side
* T. C. R. II. 41, 42.
+ C. R. II. 379.
HONCK, softened by the insertion of vowels, becomes OH-WON-EK-KO. Another son of Uncas was WEQUASHCUCK, or WEQUASH, which signifies swan. R. W. 86.
§ C. R. II. 379, 411.
|| C R. II. 374, 375.
25
of the river was generally peaceful, as well as on the east, but on April 23d, 1637, NEPAUPUCK, or MESSATUNCK, a Pe- quot captain, with a body of warriors, surprised the inhabit- ants of Wethersfield, killed nine and took two prisoners. Of the persons killed, Abraham and John Finch are the only ones that are known. The captives were little girls, (one a daughter of William Swaine), who were carried to Mystic, but redeemed through the instrumentality of the Dutch at New York. Nepaupuck was arrested the following October, tried at New Haven, found guilty and executed .*
SETTLEMENT BY THE WHITES.
WETHERSFIELD, including a strip of land extending three miles east from the great river, and stretching six large miles on the bank of the same, is the oldest town in the State, its first settlement having been commenced in 1634 .; And that the portion of land lying upon the east side of the river, then included within the limits of this town, was the first tract reg- ularly surveyed and laid out in farms .¿ And it may not be amiss to observe, that while Glastenbury, as part of Weth- ersfield, is the oldest town in the State, and was the first tract regularly surveyed and laid out, it was also the first town in Connecticut made by dividing another town.§ The first set- tlers of Wethersfield came into the Connecticut valley from Massachusetts, having been resident for a time at Watertown, in that colony, which name they gave to their own new plantation. Other settlements having been made at Hart- ford and Windsor, the inhabitants associated themselves to- gether, and held their first General Court in April, 1636. At this time, the dismission given by the church in Watertown to the new settlers, was formally accepted and ratified. In the February following, the name of the settlement was
* Trumb. H. C. I. 77. Good. F. G. xxi .- iii. Bac. His. Dis. 339-341. t Col. Rec., I. 513. Trumb. Conn., I. 59.
# Deposition of Eleazer Kimberly, 1684. Secretary of State from 1696 to 1709. P. C. JII. 120.
§ Bradley's Reg. 1847, p. 83.
26
changed into Wethersfield, though the entry in the Colonial Records makes it Wythersfield.
Why the name of Wethersfield should have been chosen does not appear of record, and we are not aware of any tradi- tion that can give a clue to the reason for it. When, how- ever, we compare the names that have been conspicuous in and around the town of Wethersfield, in the county of Essex, in England, and those prominent in Wethersfield, in Con- necticut, as Hale, Swayne, Rayner, Welles, Boreham, [Board- man,] Baker, Plumb, Clark, Allen, Neville, Smith, Lattimore, and the like, the presumption is exceedingly strong, that the settlers of the latter intended to perpetuate the memory of the former, even if they were not themselves from that re- gion .* The name is pure Anglo-Saxon, composed of WETH- ER, a ram, a wether, and FELD, a field. The town was in the county of Essex, the Hundred of Hinckford, and seems to have been originally a place celebrated for raising sheep.
Though the first settlers of Wethersfield were men of in- telligence and piety, entertaining large views of liberty, they seem to have met with considerable difficulty in reducing them to harmonious practice. The vague and indistinct no- tions of democratic freedom which pervaded the community, rendered it exceedingly difficult so to adjust all matters of pub- lic and private interest, as to prevent occasional collision be- tween individuals and communities. If, however, these cre- ated some discord, and introduced occasional strife, it was providentially overruled to the enlargement of their borders, and the increase of the State. A few events of this nature, having a bearing upon the future condition of the people on
* Among the Burgesses in Parliament from the Borough of Malden, in the vicinity of Wethersfield, we find :
47 & 51, Edward III. 10 Rich. II. Henry Hale.
13, Richard II. John Welles.
27, Henry VI. John Swayne.
1, Mary. John Rayner.
See History and Antiquities of the County of Essex, by Philip Mornant, M. A., Rector of St. Mary's, Colchester, 2 vols. folio. London, 1768. I. Int. xv p. 51, 138, 370-375. etc. etc.
27
the east side of the river, require to be noticed in this con- nection.
Of the members of the church in Watertown, Mass., who came to Wethersfield, only six were dismissed, to which number only one was added in the next six years .* During this interval they received the ministerial labors of Rev. PE- TER PRUDDEN, Rev. RICHARD DENTON, and occasionally of Rev. JOHN SHERMAN. They seem, however, never to have properly reorganized their church, or called any minister to settle among them ; perhaps because they had generally two or three residing with them. This irregular mode of proceed- ing led to subsequent differences and contentions, producing in the end, a grievous schism among the planters. The min- isters and elders of Hartford and Windsor, labored in vain to restore harmony. In 1639, the advice of Rev. Mr.Davenport, of New Haven, was sought, who, finding reconciliation un- likely, if not impossible, advised that one party should re- move and establish a new colony. The church in Water- town also sent a committee of two persons to look after their members in Wethersfield, who gave the same advice. But here arose a serious difficulty, which party should remove ? The church, consisting of but seven members, was divided four and three. The four, being the majority of the church, claimed to represent the town and church, though only a mi- nority of the planters were with them. The three church members, with the majority of the people, claimed the right to remain, and the others finally left and commenced a colony at Stamford, in connection with the colony of New Haven, carrying with them the records of the church, and also of the town, if there were any, claiming them as their right .; The names of those who left and went to Stamford, are given in · a list at 1673, and their removal mentioned. The history of Wethersfield from 1635 to 1641, has, therefore, to be gathered mainly from incidental notices contained in the Colonial Records, and elsewhere.
* T. C. R. I. 4. Savage's Winthrop, I. 305.
t Winthrop, I. 305. Trum. Conn. I. 120. The clerk at that time is said to have been John Welles, son of the Governor.
28
Among the events of this period, interesting to the people of Glastenbury, was the final adjustment of the purchase upon this side of the river, by the General Court in 1636, and the adjudication of the rights and relations of SOWHEAG and the whites in 1638 .* Another circumstance tending to show the difficulties under which the early colonists labor- ed in reducing their views of freedom to practice, is furnish- ed by the case of the first Recorder of lands in this town. This office was created by an Act of the General Court in 1639, and Mr. [Matthew] Michell was chosen to fill the same. Previous to this time Mr. M., who had been a member of the several Courts in May and November of 1637, and in February, April and May, 1638, had given some offence to Mr. [Clement] Chaplin, for which he had been eensured by the Court. That body, therefore, refused to ratify the elec- tion, declared the office vacant, and ordered a new balloting. The town, evidently not allowing the authority assumed by the Legislature, refused compliance. But whether the peo- ple re-elected Mr. M. or disregarded the order of court, does not appear. It is certain, however, that he entered upon the duties of his office, for which he was fined twenty nobles, and the part of the town that voted for him, five pounds.t
And still another cause of trouble to the early settlers of this colony, was a spirit of insubordination which had in- fused itself into the lower class, and was not without its in- fluence upon some in the higher. A few examples of cases occurring within the first few years, extracted from the Colonial Records, will render this more apparent, and will also serve to illustrate the manners and customs of the times.
" 1638 ; March, Thurston Rayner, a member of General Court from Wethersfield, was fined one shilling for not being present at the appointed time.
" April 5th, Thurston Rayner, George Hubbard, members of Gen. Court from Wethersfield, fined one shilling each for not being present at the open- ing of Court, at seven o'clock, [in the morning ?]
* T. C. R. I. 5, 19, 20.
t Ib. 9, 11, 13, 17, 37, 40, 51.
29
"1638, April 11th. Jno. Edwards for unclean practices, to be whipt at a cart's tail upon Lecture day at Hartford.
" Jno. Williams for similar offences to stand upon the pillory from the ringing of the first bell to the end of Lecture, and to be whipt at a cart's tail two days after at Windsor.
" Aaron Starke for similar offence to stand upon the pillory and be whipt in like manner, and to have the letter R burnt in his cheek for the wrong done Mary Holt.
" Mary Holt, for like offence, fined £10, to be paid to her parents, or to the commonwealth.
" Aug. 1. 'Jno. Bennett and Mary Holt censured to be whipt for unclean practices.' The following persons also ' censured and fined for unseasonable and immoderate drinking at the Pinnace,' Thomas Cornwell, 20s, Samuel Kittlewell, 10s, Jno. Lattimer, 15s, Thomas Upson, 20s, Mathew Beckwith, 10s.
" 1639 ; Sept. 5. Samuel Ireland for contempt of court for not appearing when summoned, fined 10s. Thomas Gridley for refusing to watch, suspi- cion of drunkenness, and contemptuous words against the court, to be whipt ; bound to good behaviour, £10.
" 1640 ; January 2. Jno. Crow fined 40s, for misdemeanor in drinking.
" Feb. 26th, Jeffery Ferris, for declaring that certain referees in a case were not disinterested, fined 20s.
" Richard Wescoat for misleading Jno. Whitmore, in the same fined 10s.
" April 2. 'Mary Brunson, now the wife of Nicolas Disborough, Jno. Olmested, and Jno. Pecrce, were corrected for wanton dalliance,' &c.
" April 4th. George Abbott for selling a pistol to the Indiaus, fined £5, and he to be disposed of in service to pay the fine.
"June 4th. Ed. Veare, fined 108, for cursing and swearing, and is also to sit in the stocks two hours the next training day.
" William Hill for buying a stolen gun, and breaking open the Coblers hogshead and pack, fined £4.
" Nicholas Olmsted for miscariges with Mary Brunsen, fined 20£, to stand upon the pillory next Lecture day, to be ' set on a little before the beginning, and to stay thereon a little after the end.' Put under bonds of £30 to submit to it.
" June 11th. Richard Gyldersly [Gildersleeve] convented before the court, for pernitious speeches, tending to the detriment and dishonour of the commonwealth, fined 40s, and bound over ; bond £ 20.
" Matthew Michell fined as above mentioned 20 nobles. The people voting for him, £5.
" July 2. Nicholas Senthion, for not appearing as a witness against Aaron Stark, fined 5£.
" Aaron Stark, to be kept with lock and chain, to beld to hard labor and coarse diet, until called to Court."
It is impossible for us at this distance of time, under the
30
different circumstances in which we are placed, to conceive of the difficulties that beset our ancestors in their endeavors to plant a Colony upon these shores,-a difficulty which was increased by the fact, that along with the more staid and sober Puritans, a class of reckless adventurers had come, per- sons who hoped to better their condition, without reforming their lives, and who were a trouble to themselves and their neighbors. The strong faith which they had in the justice of their own cause, naturally led them to judge those who differed from them with no little severity, while the en- tire conformity which they sought to establish in Church and State, compelled them to take notice of and punish many things, which, at a later time, would have passed unnoticed. Nothing daunted, however, they divided when they could not agree to live together, and learning wisdom by experi- ence, soon brought things into harmonious action ; produc- ing results which have since excited the wonder and admira- tion of the world. The following notices of persons who preached in Wethersfield from 1635 to 1641, have been gleaned from the sources indicated in the notes.
REV. PETER PRUDDEN, born at Edgton, Yorkshire, 1601 ; educated for the ministry and ordained in England; preached a while in Yorkshire and Hertfordshire before coming to this country. He arrived at Boston July 26th, 1637, and sailed for New Haven, March 30th, 1638. While looking about the country he resided for a time at Wethersfield, and preached there. He and the people accompanying him at length located themselves at Wepowaug, (Milford,) where he was reordained by three laymen, April 18th, 1640. Upon his leaving Wethersfield, a considerable number of families accompanied him to Milford and settled there. Cotton Mather describes him as " an example of piety, gravity, and boiling zeal against the growing evils of the times," and yet possessed of "a singular faculty to sweeten, compose and qualify exasperated spirits, and to stop or heal all conten- tions." He died July, 1656, in the fifty-sixth year of his age. He had two sons, one of whom, John, graduated at Cam- bridge 1668, was minister of a Presbyterian Church in New-
31
ark, N. J. A son of this man-Job, was the first minister of the second society in Milford. He was graduated at Yale College in 1743, ordained by the Presbytery of New Brunswick, pastor of a " Separate Church," May, 1747, died June 24, 1774, aged fifty-nine .*
REV. RICHARD DENTON had been a preacher in Halifax, Eng., before coming to this country. He came to Water- town in 1634, and to Wethersfield in 1635, where he re- mained until 1641, when he went to Rippowoms, (Stam- ford,) carrying a considerable number of families with him. In 1644, he removed with a portion of his congregation to Hempstead, L. I., where he died in 1663. He is described as " an able man and an excellent preacher," " a little man with a great soul, whose well accomplished mind in his lesser body, was an Iliad in a nut-shell." He left in manuscript a system of Divinity entitled Soliloquia Sacra, which consid- ered man in his four-fold state, his " created purity,-con- tracted deformity,-restored beauty, and celestial glory." " Fifteen acres of land" were " set out to Mr. Deynton and a friend of his" in Wethersfield, in 1640; ten of which were upon the east side of the river. This land, which was situa- ted at Nayaug, subsequently became the property of Mr. John Hollister.t
REV. JOHN SHERMAN Was born in Dedham, England, Dec. 26, 1613, and educated at Cambridge University. He came to this country in 1634, and after being an assistant to Mr. Phillips of Watertown, came to Wethersfield, in 1635, and went to Milford in 1640, where he was chosen teaching elder in connection with Mr. Prudden, which office he declined. He preached only occasionally in Connecticut. On the death of Mr. Phillips, Mr. Sherman returned to Watertown in 1644. He died August 8th, 1685, aged seventy-one. He was twice married and had six children by his first wife, and twenty by his last. After his return to Massachusetts he
* Good. F. G xxxviii. Lam. C. N. H. 101, 108. Math. Mag. Biii. c. 6, vol. I. p. 357. Trumb. I. 294. Brace, Hist. 1st Cong. Church Milford, p. 9.
t Good. F. G. xxxviii. T. L. I. 352. Math. Mag. Biii. c. 9, vol. I. p. 360. Trumb. C. R. I. 63. W. L. R. I. p. 75.
32
was a Fellow of Harvard College, and lectured for the stu- dents for nearly thirty years. He was an excellent theolo- gian, and an eminent mathematician, and published several Almanaes with pious reflections. His preaching was plain and simple, generally extempore and yet pervaded by an un- affected loftiness of style and brilliancy of imagination.
REV. JOSIAH SHERMAN, second minister of the second society in Milford, was great-grandson of this man. He graduated at Nassau Hall 1754, received the honorary degree of M. A. at Harvard, 1758, and at Yale, 1765. After having been settled at Woburn, Mass., about fifteen years, he was installed at Milford, Aug. 23d, 1775, dismissed June 21, 1781. He died at Woodbridge, Nov. 24th, 1789. The Hon. Roger Minot Sherman of Connecticut, b. 1773, died 1845. was his son, and he married Elizabeth Gould, born 1774, died 1848, daughter of Hon. James Gould of Litchfield, (born 1770, died -,) whose wife was Mary Guy, born 1737, died 1816; who was the daughter of Stephen Foote, born 1672, died 1762; who was the son of Robert Foote of Wethersfield, born 1627, died 1681, who was the son of NATHANIEL FOOTE, the first settler of Wethersfield .*
REV. HENRY SMITH, 1641-1648.
After the removal of Messrs. Prudden, Denton and Sherman, the Rev. Henry Smith seems to have been the only remaining minister. Various reasons lead us to suppose that the Church was now reorganized, and that he was installed over them. He was properly the first settled minister of Wethersfield. But though a large body of planters had left, some going to Mil- ford in 1639, with Rev. Messrs. Prudden and Sherman ; others to Stamford in 1640, with Rev. Mr. Denton ; some restless spirits still remained, and another difficulty arose among the inhabitants of so grievous a nature that they deemed it ad- visable to apply to the General Court for advice. The court
* Lam. C. N. H. 90, 101, 108. Allen. B. D. 691. Trumb. C. R. 2, 49, 463. Math. Mag. Biii. c. 29. vol. I. pp. 461-467. Hon. R. M. Sherman supposed his father's great-grandfather to be Capt. John, and not Rev. John Sherman, but as we are unable to reconcile the history with itself on this supposition, we have followed the statements of the books referred to.
33
appointed a committee to inquire into the matter, who made the following Report, April 13th, 1643.
" The coppy of the opinion of the comittee vppon the petition of those of Wethersfield.
" The petition of those of Wethersfield hath bine taken into sadde and serious consideration, and we doe find the distance and differences to be ex- ceeding great, and some of the such as will necessarily require publique ex- aminatio and censure, so that till then we cannot express or judgments con- serneing p'ticulars : We find also that many of these who put vp their names for remoueall were not induced thereunto by any dislike, or ingadgement they haue in the prsent quarrells but for want of lotts and other considerations ; yet vppon the vew of the generall, conceaueing yt will be disaduantagious to the publique and vncomfortable if not distructiue to themselues that so many as are interested in the p'sent differences should remoue and vppon other considerations, we are of opinion that the best way for recovering and prsearueing the publique peace is that Mr. Smith lay downe his place if yt may be done according to GOD."*
This opinion was approved by the General Court, and a copy of it given to Mr. Smith for his answer, with the re- quest, that if it was not satisfactory to him he would point out some other course. That the course suggested did not meet his approbation, is evident from the fact that on the 5th of July, the Court ordered all persons aggrieved to reduce their particular grievances or wrongs to writing, and to fur- nish Mr. Smith with a copy within three weeks, that he might have his answer in readiness for the Court in Septem- ber. The case came on for final hearing, Nov. 10th, 1643, when upon a full hearing, it was found that most of the charges against Mr. Smith were mistakes, and that he had been much wronged both by false reports and unjust surmises. It was also ordered that-
" Mr. Chaplin, for divulging and setting his hand to a paper called a dec- laration, tending to the defamation of Mr. Smith, is fined £10.
" Francis Norton, for setting his hand to the said writing, is fined £5.
" John Goodridge, for setting his hand to said writing, is fined 40s.
" Mr. Plum, for preferring a roll of grievances against Mr. Smith, and failing of proof in the prosecution thereof, is fined £10.
* T. C. R. I. 87.
3
34
" Robert Rose, for joining with Mr. Plum, is fined 40s.
" And that a writing shall be prepared and openly read in the several towns, for the clearing Mr. Smith, and an order made of £10 fine for who- soever shall be convicted under two witnesses, to divulge any the said griev- ances to his defamation."
The decided stand taken by the General Court seems to have caused things to remain quiet, though all were not sat- isfied, and a company went to Branford and commenced a settlement the year following, 1644. During the remainder of Mr. Smith's ministry, nothing important is known to have occurred. He died in 1648, grieved and wearied with the bur- dens of the world.
It was during the ministry of Mr. Smith, (1646) that Mary Johnson, who seems to have resided at Wethersfield, was publicly whipped, first at Hartford, and then at Wethersfield, for theuery, or witchcraft; and who in 1648 was indicted for " familiarity with the devil."*
Rev. HENRY SMITH probably arrived in this country in 1637, as he and his wife were admitted to full communion with the first Church in Charlestown, Mass., December 5th, of that year. He was residing at Wethersfield previous to the division of lots on this side of the river in 1639-40, and received a farm here of considerable size, which descended to his son Samuel, a name that was perpetuated for many years in this town. Samuel Smith, a grandson of Rev. H. Smith, who was among the early settlers of Suffield, married Jerusha, daughter of Rev. Increase Mather, grand-daughter of Rev. Richard Mather and John Cotton, and sister of Rev. Cotton Mather. Rev. Cotton Mather Smith was son of Samuel and Jerusha Smith, born, Suffield, Oct. 16th, 1731; graduated at Yale, 1751; ordained over the Congregational Church in Sharon, Aug. 1755, where he remained until his death, in 1806. The Hon. John Cotton Smith, LL. D., son of the last mentioned person, was born at Sharon, Feb. 12th, 1756, graduated at Yale, 1783, admitted to the bar 1786, member of Congress from 1800 to 1806, and Governor of the State from 1812 to 1817, President of the A. B. C. F. M.
* T. C. R. I. 143, 171.
35
from 1836 to 1841, and of the Am. Bib. Soc. from 1831 to his death, Dec. 7th, 1845 .* The Hon. John Cotton Smith is grandson of the last mentioned individual.
REV. JOHN RUSSELL, 1650-1659.
After the death of Mr. Smith, the church in Wethersfield called JOHN RUSSELL, Jr., whose father removed from Cam- bridge, Mass., somewhere between 1635 and 1645. He was born in England, graduated at Harvard, 1645, settled at Wethersfield about 1650. The early part of his ministry seems to have been quiet, but the "Hartford Controversy," as it was called, beginning to rage at this time, Mr. R. and part of his church, became involved in it. What the pre- cise nature of the controversy was, Cotton Mather says it was difficult even at the time to tell, and Trumbull bears testimony to the same effect. It was supposed, however, to involve some vital points in the nature of Congregationalism, Rev. Mr. Stone, of Hartford, taking the Presbyterian, and his ruling Elder, Mr. Goodwin, the Independent view of the matter. The question was virtually, that of increasing the power of the clergy as against the people, and hence the reason why it spread so rapidly throughout the colony. Mr. Russell, so far as we can judge from his practice, seems to have held substantially the views of Mr. Stone; for in keeping with Mr. Stone's definition of Congregationalism, (" A speaking aristocracy in the face of a silent democracy,") Mr. Russell proceeded to excommunicate Lieut. Hollister, in 1656, from the church in Wethersfield, privately as would seem, certain- ly without the usual notice and trial, and subsequently re- fused to give the reasons for the act when demanded by Mr. Hollister. Lieut. H. brought the matter before the General Court, of which he was a member, and obtained an order that Mr. Russell should give the reasons of the course which had been pursued. No record of the reasons, or of any sub- sequent action upon them, are known to exist; but it seems reasonable to infer from various facts, that Lieut. H. was
* Good. G. F. xxxviii. and ix, T. C R. I. 70-9S and 502. Mag. Ap. 1809. Kilb. Litch. Biog. 107-117.
Conn. Evang.
36
excommunicated, not for any defect of moral or religious character, but for charging Mr. R. with having sworn falsely in some case in which he had been called, to testify. This case was tried sometime previous to Aug. 1658, for at the General Court, held on the 18th of that month, JOHN HOL- LISTER preferred a petition to the Court, alleging that Mr. R. " had taken a scandalous oath, which he had acknowl- edged as ambiguous, rash and sinful, whereby the inhabit- ants were afraid to adventure themselves under his ministry," praying for leave to set up a congregation for separate wor- ship. This petition was signed by JOHN HOLLISTER, THOM- AS WRIGHT, Sen., JOHN DEMING, Sen. ; JOHN EDWARDS, Sen., RICH. SMITH, Sen., and five other members of the church, fe- males. The Court refused to grant the petition, but censured Mr. Russell for carelessness. The excommunication being subsequent to this, seems to have grown out of it. This, with the order of the Court next year, compelling Mr. Rus- sell to render reasons for excommunicating Lieut. H., seems to have given great offence to Mr. R. and his friends, and they soon after resolved to leave this colony, and remove into the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, which they did in the course of the year 1659. A large majority of the members of the church joined in this act, leaving the remaining mem- bers, so few, and in such a disorganized state, as to raise doubts in the minds of many whether the church had not become extinct at Wethersfield. The individuals who went to Hadley with Mr. Russell, are mentioned in a list given on a subsequent page. The General Court, in order to remedy the evils growing out of this state of things, at its session, March 14th, 1661, resolved, that inasmuch as there was a church orderly gathered in Wethersfield, by the full allow- ance of the Court and magistrates then in power, and by the consent and approbation of neighboring churches, the re- moval of members did not destroy the church, and there- fore the " Court doth hereby declare that the said Church is the true and undoubted Church of CHRIST in Wethersfield, and so to be accounted and esteemed."
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.