USA > Connecticut > Litchfield County > Litchfield > St. Michael's Parish, Litchfield, Connecticut, 1745-1954; a biography of a parish and of many who have served it > 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
Now in the mid-twentieth century Litchfield is a delightful community, fast becoming a residential suburb of the thriving manufacturing cities near by. Yet, like many other Connecticut villages, it has kept the appearance of the simple character of its bygone days with a minimum of change. With its wide tree-lined streets and stately homes, it is a reminder of a gracious past, and a memorial of a past still more remote, and the courageous and hard- working pioneers who endured hardships nobly.
IV 1763-1771 THOMAS DAVIES, SECOND MISSIONARY SOLOMON PALMER'S SECOND RECTORATE
THE SECOND MISSIONARY who had St. Michael's in his charge was the Rev. Thomas Davies. This young man, son of John Davies 2d and grandson of the John Davies to whom St. Michael's owes so much, was, like his father and grandfather, born in Kington, Here- fordshire, England. The date of his birth was January 2, 1737. He came to this country with his father in 1745 and was left with his grandfather, since his father had not yet established his family here. In 1749 the second John Davies brought his wife and several young children over and settled near his father in Davies' Hollow. The story is told about his wife that she had come to this country with great reluctance, and only because one or more of her chil- dren were already here. Her forebodings were apparently real- ized, for she is said to have described herself in letters to English friends as "entirely alone, having no society, and nothing to asso- ciate with but Presbyterians and Wolves."
But the young Thomas, probably quite satisfied with his sur- roundings, had been growing up in this new country and had been proceeding with his education. He was graduated from Yale Col- lege in September, 1758. There followed three years of study for the ministry, during which period he occasionally served as lay reader in parts of Litchfield County near his home. In 1761 he
25
1763-1771
went to England for ordination. He was ordered deacon on Sun- day, August 23, 1761, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and or- dained priest the following day. He returned to America with an appointment as missionary under the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, which read as follows: "Agreed the 18th of Sep- tember, 1761, that Mr. Davies be appointed missionary to the Churches of New Milford, Roxbury, Sharon, New Preston and New Fairfield in Litchfield County, Connecticut." Bringing to the task his youth, fresh zeal, and a robust constitution, he relieved the Rev. Mr. Palmer of a large share of the burden he had borne. On the removal of Mr. Palmer to New Haven, Mr. Davies became minister to Litchfield as well, although he never lived here, having already bought property in New Milford which he made his home.
For most of the facts of his life and ministry we are indebted to a fellow minister, the Rev. Solomon G. Hitchcock of Wood- bury, who, in a brief biography published in 1843, writes sympa- thetically of the young missionary and of his devoted and dedi- cated life.
His work was over a widely extended territory that had been responsible for Mr. Palmer's broken health, and it soon began to undermine young Thomas Davies' strength. It was a wild and un- developed section of the country where people and settlements were scattered. An itinerant missionary made his way about the territory on horseback in all kinds of weather. As the number of Episcopalians increased, the demand grew for his ministerial serv- ices. Since Mr. Davies could not resist the calls of people in distant places who urged him to include them in his visitations, he or- ganized and divided his territory so as to provide means of assem- bly at stated times with lay readers, making, himself, less frequent though regular visits. But however well planned his work, it would have been surprising if one man, even a strong man, could have covered the territory frequently and regularly, giving satisfaction to those in his care. As he carried on his task, foreseeing that he
26
1763-1771
would be incapable of enduring the exertions necessary, he re- peatedly urged the Society in England to divide his missionary field and give him relief. At least one tempting invitation came to leave this field and go to Hempstead, Long Island, where he would have had a single parish and leisure for study, with a larger and more punctually paid salary. He was attracted by the offer, for he was often ill and lame with rheumatism. Besides, he could not hope to improve in this climate, riding, as he did almost constantly, from one end of the county to the other-even to Great Barrington, another place he had taken under his charge. But there were two difficulties which must be removed before he could give an affirma- tive answer. "First," he said,
as far as I am able to judge, the people under my care have no aver- sion to my person or my public performance, and therefore they would be dissatisfied should I think of leaving them. And in the sec- ond place, when I went for orders they contributed near {60 lawful money to help bear my expenses which money I should little better than cheat them of, should I go away and not repay them which I am determined not to do.
His interviewers saw ways of removing both difficulties, and their arguments Mr. Davies wrote down in order to present the matter fully to his congregations. When he had done so, he wrote to the churchmen in Hempstead:
The above I read November 5th at New Milford, which was unani- mously opposed and I was earnestly desired to drop all thoughts of leaving them, which was agreed. Finis.
The Society in England to which he had applied for a division of his territory, not only for his own relief, but for the good of the Church, and to which he related details of this invitation, wrote asking how he and his people would suggest dividing the territory in question. He replied by suggesting that he keep the towns of New Milford, Woodbury, Kent, and New Fairfield, in three of which he would be able to preach every Sunday, and that Litchfield, Cornwall, and Sharon should constitute the other part,
27
1763-1771
Litchfield to be the place of residence. He added that there were a number of other towns in the county which would naturally be included in the second half of the district, namely Goshen, Tor- rington, Harwinton, New Hartford, Norfolk, Salisbury, and Canaan, "in which places are a few Church people who desire to come under the Society's protection." He also offered to make a small financial adjustment which he could ill afford, since one of the difficulties of his position was his income which, he said, "with the utmost frugality just keeps me even with the world."
When he heard nothing from the Society in reply to these sug- gestions he wrote again, saying:
The truth is the northern part, or Litchfield, Sharon &c., will be the more laborious part of the mission, but for the benefit of having an- other missionary in the county I would be content, if the Society permit, to remove there, being, I think, equally well respected by people in both parts.
He also asked permission on the part of the people of his mission to send a candidate to England for the Society's instruction and for holy orders. The slowness with which communications made their way to and from England probably accounts for the fact that, in spite of his urgent and reasonable pleas, the Society took no action to relieve him before he became ill. His impaired health and constant exposure had caused a fever to settle on his lungs; in spite of the anxious care of his friends and congregations he be- came worse and died after a three months' illness, on the 12th of May, 1766, in the thirtieth year of his age. As Doctor Seymour said in an anniversary sermon many years ago: 1 "His ministry, faithful and earnest, was of no longer duration than that of the Master."
Mr. Davies left a record of his ministerial acts of which a few entries are given here:
November 20, 1763, New Milford, Luke xxi: 34, Romans iii: 23, bap- tized Phebe, daughter of D. Burrit, and Molly, daughter of A. Burrit; November 23, Roxbury, Matthew ix: 13, lecture; November 27,
1 On November 10, 1895.
28
1763-1771
Litchfield, Hebrews v:9, sacrament, 45 communicants, I John iv: 1, baptized Salmon Willoughby; December 4, Roxbury, Hebrews v:9, sacrament, 36 communicants, Matthew xvii: 26, baptized Squire; December 11, New Milford, Acts viii: 22, 23, Matthew xix: 17, baptized Sarah, daughter of E. Platt; December 18, Sharon, Matthew xxii: 14, Matthew xix: 17; Christmas 25, Litchfield, John iii: 16, Matthew xix: 17, baptized Anna, daughter of Mattox; December 26, New Milford, John iii: 16.
At least once each month he was in Litchfield. In a brief absence during February, 1764, his entry shows he was in New York, where he seems to have solicited funds for his churches. The rec- ord adds that he preached several times, at Trinity Church and "in the Chapel." 2 On Good Friday of that year he preached in Litchfield and two days later, Easter Sunday, again in Litchfield, his record is:
1 Corinthians XV:20, 21, 22, sacrament, 45 communicants, baptized George Davies, son of John Davies, my father, Mark, son of Mr. Prindle, Anthony, son of Isaac Kilborn, Salmon, son of John Kil- born, and -, son of William Hill, and one more.
On December 23d of that year he was again at Litchfield where he preached twice and had one baptism, and on December 25th his entry is
Barrington, opened the Church; Matthew xxi: 13, and baptized four children.
So his record continues. A few days before his last sickness, on February 2, 1766, he records preaching twice at Litchfield. Only one more entry follows.
His biographer notes that, by his death, "to the great and in- expressible grief of his friends, the painful bereavement of his fam- ily, the universal mourning of all who knew him, was the Church deprived of one of her most promising ministers," and in an ab- stract of the proceedings of the Society for which he labored, pub- lished in the year of his death, he was described as one who had
2 Probably St. Paul's Chapel.
29
1763-1771
been regarded as a "worthy, pious, prudent, zealous and laborious missionary." To us who view his arduous and tireless ministry al- most two hundred years later, it seems that the Society under- stated Mr. Davies' virtues. Not his parishioners alone and the So- ciety whose mission he carried out, but we who live two centuries afterwards, should hold his memory in gratitude, for we are still reaping the benefits of his labors.
Our parish during his ministry seems to have been prosperous. Its number of families as reported by him in 1763 was sixty-one, and communicants, fifty-seven. "The people of Litchfield," he says, "are anxiously engaged for the Church, yet can obtain the duties of a minister but seldom."
From his biographer we have this description of this well- beloved pastor:
Those who remember to have heard Mr. Davies speak of him as being decidedly superior in the merit of his pulpit performances. His personal appearance prepossessing, his delivery forcible, and the com- position of his sermons exhibiting marks of scholarship in advance of the generality of preachers of the time in which he lived.
One other word concerning him seems more indicative of Mr. Davies' true position and worth than the description of him given by the Society in England in its proceedings. It is this:
It is the opinion of an aged and venerable presbyter of the Church, the once Rector, but now superannuated minister and member of the Church in Litchfield [in all probability the Rev. Truman Marsh] that if Mr. Davies had survived until that period of our ecclesiastical history had arrived, there was probably no clergyman in our Diocese who would have been more generally looked to for filling the office of its first Bishop.
On the death of Mr. Davies, his predecessor, the Rev. Mr. Palmer, who in 1763 had gone to Trinity Church, New Haven, was invited to return to Litchfield. He appears to have been happy to do so, since he had found New Haven an expensive town in which to rear his large family. Though suffering from many in-
30
1763-1771
firmities, he gave St. Michael's another five years of continuous service. A contemporary writes of him:
The welfare of the church was his great concern, and while he lived he did all that was in his power to promote it. He was a faithful serv- ant of his Redeemer, a pattern of piety, and a model of patience under affliction; and his last prayers were answered respecting his death, that he might sleep in Jesus and be at rest.
He died on November 2, 1771, aged sixty-two, and was buried in the West Cemetery. His resting place is marked by a stone evi- dently placed there a number of years after his death by the Epis- copal Society. It reads: REV. SOLOMON PALMER/THE FIRST EPIS- COPAL/MINISTER OF THIS TOWN/DIED DEC. 8, 1771/AGED 62. The date of his death is unfortunately given incorrectly. His name is also inscribed on a brass tablet just outside the sanctuary of St. Michael's Chapel in the present church, as one of three clergymen who died while connected with it. None of Mr. Palmer's records is preserved at St. Michael's, inasmuch as he is said to have given them to the Rev. Roger Viets of Simsbury.
V
THE PERIOD OF THE REVOLUTION
AFTER Mr. Palmer's death a Rev. Benjamin Farnham (or Farnum), a candidate for orders which he planned to take in England, offi- ciated at St. Michael's for a short time. He was well liked and gave general satisfaction. But unexpectedly, in 1772, a missionary, the Rev. Richard Mosely, arrived, sent by the Society in England. He came to this country as a chaplain on a man-of-war, and had been sent to Pomfret where a new church had been opened. Whether because he disliked the people there, or they were dissatisfied with him, he remained only eight months. By a new order of the So- ciety's Board he was transferred to Litchfield. For a reason we do not know, but which may have been due to an attachment to Mr. Farnham, or to the fact that for the first time a stranger, with no connections, was settled with them, Mr. Mosely was not accepted by the congregation of St. Michael's. Some even left the church because of him. In consequence he left Litchfield in the autumn of 1773 and returned to England. The Society seems to have accepted Mr. Mosely's account of the difficulty, and as a conse- quence the usual appropriation to the mission here was suspended. This was a sad blow to the congregation, and earnest entreaties were made to have the suspension removed. In time this was done upon the intercession on behalf of St. Michael's by the Rev. Dr. Henry Caner of Boston, who wrote the wardens on January 24, 1774, as follows:
32
THE REVOLUTION
The letter of suspension I was obliged to write you in May last was very painful and uneasy to me. I now have the pleasure to write you on a subject much more agreeable to my own disposition and inclina- tion, which is the removal of that suspension. A letter received from the Society the 19th inst. dated the 18th of October, among several other matters, has in it the following passage, viz .: "I have still an- other letter to acknowledge from you, good Sir, dated the 23d of July; the effect of which upon the Society hath been to revive the Mission at Litchfield, and continue the Tenant on the Glebe." And a little after, "as to Litchfield the Society's allowance to the next Missionary will be {20 only, not by way of punishing an offence, which they forgive, but in consideration that the Mission is more increased in numbers since the appointment of Mr. Palmer, and con- sequently more able to provide for a minister. This instance of the Society's goodness is further proof of their regard to your recom- mendations." I congratulate you, gentlemen, on this your restoration to the Society's favor, and hope you will take the first opportunity to write to that venerable Body, and acknowledge their goodness.
Another letter written within a month of that from Dr. Caner reached them from Mr. Gideon Bostwick of Great Barrington, who writes :
I have just received a letter from the Rev. Dr. Caner, by which it appears that, in consequence of my letters to him last summer, he recommended your case to the Venerable Society, the effects of which afford me the greatest satisfaction as he acquaints me it has produced a revival of the mission at Litchfield, and liberty for the present tenant to continue on the Glebe. The people of Litchfield will doubtless esteem themselves under obligations of the warmest returns of gratitude to the good Dr. for the part he has acted on their behalf. Their acknowledgment to the Society for their goodness certainly will not be forgotten. I have only to recommend to you that all former bickerings may be laid aside; and that the most ex- cellent precept of that Master whose servants we profess ourselves, of forgiving all real or imaginary injuries, may be religiously ob- served. That your future conduct may be such as shall merit the continuation of that most charitable corporation's favors is the hearty prayer of your most obedient and very humble servant, Gideon Bost- wick.
33
THE REVOLUTION
Looking back on this incident, which must have caused great dis- tress to our mission, one wishes that even at this late date the charge against those sturdy pioneers of "bickering" might be re- moved, and Mr. Mosely, who appears to have had a difficult tem- perament, proved to have been at fault!
But more distressing times were ahead. The period which fol- lowed this episode was a dark one for the Church. As we have seen, until the Revolution the Episcopal clergy and churches were under the care of an English missionary society. We owe prac- tically everything to that Society for its fostering care and moral and financial support during the Church's formative years. But the young Church had not yet reached the point where it could stand alone, and now because of the war practically all funds from the Society were stopped. It is not hard to see why this was so.
Yet as far as their loyalty to England was concerned, at the commencement of the war most of the Episcopalians were Royal- ists. This, too, is easy to understand. The English Church had been their patron and support, and the war seemed to threaten their very existence. It is interesting in this connection to turn back again to Thomas Davies and read from his correspondence during the time of the disorders attendant on the Stamp Act. Mr. Davies did not hesitate to enforce on his people the duty of submission to the
higher powers, whether to the King as supreme or unto Governors as those who are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them who do well.
On September 22, 1765, he records having cautioned his people in New Milford to take no part in the opposition which was then prevailing. In another letter written in 1765 he speaks more defi- nitely:
It is with pleasure I can assure the Society that my parishioners, I be- lieve without exception, continue by word and action to be quiet, peaceable, and loyal, whilst universally the dissenters oppose and
34
THE REVOLUTION
condemn the late acts of Parliament, and appear in the greatest fer- ment, as though some mighty change was taking place. I have never troubled my people with the question in a political light, but have in public and private, shown the various obligations we are under of subjection and obedience to our sovereign, King George, &c.
Another letter which must have been written soon after con- cludes:
Of the tumult in the land I have the satisfaction of knowing that the people under my care have not the least share by word or deed, although indirectly I myself have had a part. For in September when the rage of the populace was high and reflections against England, King, Society and Parliament issued from priest and people, I judged it proper to show my people publicly as well as privately their duty in the present juncture, and cautioned them to behave peaceably and loyally, reminding them of our prayers against sedition, privy con- spiracy and rebellion which to them gave satisfaction. Whilst to the dissenters who more or less attend where I preach and from them to others, it raised resentment and revenge, in consequence of which I was threatened to be mobbed, burnt in effigy, and to have my house razed.
Feeling ran higher during the Revolution than during the years about which Mr. Davies wrote, and the prejudice against loyal church people was naturally much greater. Their characters were impeached, defamed, and ridiculed. Their persons were insulted and imprisoned. Their property was ruined. The farms of the Davies family were more than once swept completely bare of stock and crops. John Davies, himself, the son of the first of that name, was imprisoned in the Litchfield jail for a year. Truman Marsh, a mere boy in Litchfield during the war, writing years later told of being ridiculed and insulted when going to and re- turning from church on Sunday, and said that "the windows of the church were broken and in the place of broken panes of glass, wooden sliding windows opened to let in the light of heaven to read the prayers of the Common Prayer Book." And he added a
35
THE REVOLUTION
fervent "Thanks be to heaven for the great change in public sen- timent!"
1627917
There was still another weighty reason for the Episcopalians' support of the Crown. From their experience in this colony from the beginning, and as the Congregationalists were so ardently in favor of separation from the mother country, the Episcopalians saw threatening an intensification of their old troubles, and they felt that with separation there would be no restraining influence on the established church in its resolve to destroy the weaker church. Indeed, a Presbyterian had been known to remark "that if the colonies carried their point, there would not be a church in the New England states," by which he meant an Episcopal church.
The Episcopal clergy felt bound to read publicly the prayers in their liturgy for the King and royal family, since it was con- trary to their oath and duty to omit them. The patriots were equally bound they should do no such thing. To avoid the diffi- culties of this dilemma, at a convention held in New Haven on July 23, 1776, it was resolved to suspend the public exercise of the ministerial functions. Many, but not all, of the churches were closed as a result of this step. Closing of churches, however, was not the only hardship. In many places they were subjected to such indignities as their use as stables or storage buildings. In Litchfield, which is well known to have been a center of patriotic activity, there does not seem to have been the same desecration of church property as elsewhere. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the church was at a distance from the center of the village, and that it was a small building. We do know, from the recollections of Truman Marsh, that the windows of the church were broken. From a contemporary account, again that of Mrs. Anna Dickin- son, we learn further:
The church of St. Michael's in Litchfield was a mark for the mali- ciously disposed; and its windows stood as shattered monuments of
36
THE REVOLUTION
the vengeance of adversaries. When General Washington passed through Litchfield in the Revolutionary War, the soldiers, to evince their attachment to him, threw a shower of stones at the windows, he reproved them, saying: "I am a Churchman, and wish not to see the church dishonored and desolated in this manner." Previous to this and some time after, Captain Landon, with others, stood firm and unmoved to their duty, and read the service, and a sermon, whilst the windows were broken in by the soldiers, not omitting any part of the service, and praying for all who were in authority.1
During the war St. Michael's appears even to have had the occa- sional and perhaps surreptitious ministrations of the Rev. James Nichols. He was a native of Waterbury, where he was born in December, 1748, but in 1759 the family was living in Salisbury. Mr. Nichols was graduated from Yale College in 1771, studied theology, and went to England for ordination-the last of those who went from Connecticut on the perilous and expensive voyage across the ocean for this purpose. On his return he was given charge of the mission churches in Northbury Parish (now Plymouth) in Waterbury, and in New Cambridge Parish (now Bristol) in Farmington. He was a staunch Tory, and like Thomas Davies earlier, kept his congregation loyal to England. A child of one of his parishioners in New Cambridge, born in 1775, is entered on the baptismal record as Constant Loyal Tuttle. His Tory prin- ciples made Nichols a hunted man, and he is said to have fled to his early home in Salisbury, where, as at Litchfield, he seems to have carried on some ministerial duties, and probably committed many seditious acts. During this time he is also said to have continued for at least two years to receive a portion of the taxes paid by some of his parishioners in New Cambridge. In January, 1777, he was brought to trial before the Superior Court in Hartford County for treasonable practices, but was acquitted; at another time he was tarred and feathered and dragged in a brook. As a result of his influence some of his New Cambridge flock were charged before the General Assembly with being enemies of their country.
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.