USA > Connecticut > New London County > New London > The early history of the First church of Christ, New London, Conn. > 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
The THIRD thing to be observed is, that there is no account of the organization of the Church, at the ordination of Me. Bradstreet in 1670. Nor is any account of its organization at any time in Connecti- cut, to be found. Then we conclude that it never was organized in Connecticut. For by a law passed in March, 1658, it was declared that no persons
.
39
ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH.
within the jurisdiction of Connecticut, should organ- ize themselves into a Church "without consent of the General Court, and approbation of the neighbor Churches."' Hon. Richard A. Wheeler says, had an attempt been made, after the passage of said Act, without consulting the General Court, it "would have thundered its anathemas against them, and the colo- nial records would have contained their proceedings chapter and verse." But no request for the privilege of forming a Church here can be found, nor are any anathemas recorded against any for illegal proceed- ings in forming a Church without permission of the General Court. Therefore no Church was formed here after 1658. Furthermore, previous to the pas- sage of this Act, it was customary to apply to the legislature, which, in those days, was a sort of stand- ing ecclesiastical body, for permission to be organized into a Church ; as appears from a vote of this body, in April, 1636, with reference to the organization of a Church at Watertown, now Wethersfield. The vote reads that whereas several were dismissed from Watertown, Mass., to form a Church "in this River of Connectecott," and the said parties have done so, "it is therefore in this present court ratified and con- firmed." . If the men from Gloucester brought letters to be constituted into a Church here, as in the case of these emigrants from Watertown to Wethersfield,
40
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
we should expect to find some record of the fact and an application, like theirs, to the colonial legislature, with a similar consenting vote of that body. But nothing of the kind can be found. And yet we shall find evidences that a Church was here as early as 1651. That an event so important as the formation of a Church should be left without a scrap of notice seems utterly incredible; and this is the only case, so far as I can find, if this Church was organized and no record of the event was made. But there is no record of the organization of a Church in Pequot at any time, nor is there one with which the origin of this Church can be connected, save that of the Church in Gloucester, Mass., in 1642. There is, then, but one conclusion, namely, that this Church was already organized when it came to New London, like the Churches at Hartford and Windsor; that it was brought here from Gloucester, and that the worship- pers already on the ground were incorporated into it, and thus a Church was constituted in New London.
'We now come FOURTHLY to consider certain evi- dences which seem to leave no room to doubt the correctness of this view. To begin with, at the time of his ordination Mr. Bradstreet had preached here over four years, and had been preceded by two men, one of whom had served in the office of pastor in New London seven years, and the other
41
ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH.
three years. Further, Oct. 5, 1670, Mr. Brad- street began to keep the records of a Church already in existence. For the title of the ancient book, writ- ten in the hand of Mr. Bradstreet reads, " the records. of the Church of Christ at New London, wherein are the names of the Church now being October 5, 1670, with the names of all such as have been baptized and added thereto from the said 5th of October, 1670." The first entry upon these records reads, " names of those who were of the Church of New London in full communion, Oct. 5, 1670." Then follow twenty-four names of those who comprised the Church on that date. They are as follows : " Lieut. James Avery and wife, Thomas Miner and wife, James Morgan, Sen., and wife, William Meades and wife, Mr. William Douglas and wife, John Smith and wife, Mr. Ralph Parker and wife, William Hough and wife, William Nichols, Robert Royce, John Prentice, Mrs. Rogers, Good- wife Gallup of Mystick, Goodwife Keeney, Good- wife Coyte, Goodwife Lewis. Mr. James Rogers not long after owned a member here, being a member in full communion in Milford Church." Now it is to be noticed that this is not the record of the formation of a Church, but of the members who composed "the Church now being." Evidently we are to understand that these are the records,.
42
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
and these the members, of a Church already organ- ized when the records were commenced. This view is emphasized by three other facts. One is an entry in the ancient records which reads, "the names of such as were called children of the Church, viz. of such as had been baptized before Oct. 5, 1670, their parents one or both being in full communion." But to be "in full communion" before October 5, 1670, points to an organized Church before that date. The second fact is, that an entry in the same records says that Lydia Bailey and Ruth Hill, who had chil- dren baptized on that date, were received into the Church February 12, 1670, eight months previous to October 5, 1670. The third fact is, an entry in the diary of Thomas Miner, whose name appears on the list of those who were members October 5, 1670, under date of July 27, 1670, which reads as follows : "I and my wife were at New London, and Goodman Rice, and Goodman Hough were received into the Church there." Then as early as February 12 and July 27, 1670, there was a Church in New London.
About 1652 Thomas Miner had removed to Pawca- tuck, but had retained his membership in New Lon- don. Indeed Pawcatuck was then within the limits of New London. Under date of June 30, 1669, he writes in his diary, " I was at New London and had testimony from the Church for me and my wife being
43
ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH.
owned to be under their watch." The "testimony," recorded in his diary, was as follows: "These are to signify to all whome it may concerne, that we whose names are underwritten, being members of the Church of Christ at New London, do own Thomas Miner of Stonington, and his wife, members with us, and under our care and watch, and they do live, for aught we know or hear, as doe become Christians. James Avery, William Douglas. In the name and behalf of the Church. New London, June 30, 1669."
Then there was a Church in New London as early as the date of this testimony.
Ten years before, in 1659, in anticipation of his return to England, Mr. Blinman sold his house and lot, and his farm at the Harbor's mouth. In the deed he says: "I, Richard Blinman, late pastor of the Church of Christ at New London." As he left New London the year before, about January 28, and went to New Haven, there was a Church here in 1658. In May of that year Thomas Miner makes this record in his diary : "Satterday the 15 there is a Church meeting at towne." He also records the fact that July 8, 1655, and afterwards, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was administered in New Lon- don. But that sacrament was always administered to Churches, and never to towns. Further, October 22, 1655, Thomas Miner in his diary speaks of
44
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
Thomas Park, as " deacon perke." But a deacon is an officer of a Church. In another entry in his diary he says, "Sabath day the 28 of October [1655] hannah was baptized." This proves that there was a Church, and that Mr. Blinman was its regularly in- .stalled pastor, administering the ordinances at that date. In 1654, in a written memorandum, Mr. Obadiah Bruen, the town clerk, speaks of Mr. Blin- man as "pastor of the Church of Christ at Pequot."
A controversy arose in which Mr. Blinman became involved, concerning the proposed new town of Mystic and Pawcatuck. Sharp words passed between him, and Thomas Miner and Captain Denison. August 28, 1654, a town meeting was held at Pequot to consider the controversy, and adopt con- ciliatory measures for the adjustment of the differ- ences between Pequot, and Mystic and Pawcatuck. In the evening of the same day the Church met at the house of Mr. Caulkins in Pequot. Mr. Thomas Miner made the following record of that meeting in his diary : " I was sent for at Pequot for to be recon- ciled to the Church, and at evening the major part met at Goodman Caulkins' house, namely: Mr. Blin- man, Mr. Bruen, Goodman Morgan, Goodman Caulk- ins, Ralph Parker, Goodman Lester, Goodman Coit, Hugh Roberts, Capt. Denison, and Goodman Chese- borough and Thomas Miner being there. All these
,
45
ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH.
took satisfaction in my acknowledging the height of my spirit ; secondly, in that I saw my evil in sudden and rash speaking to Mr. Blinman, and with all this was acknowledgement on the Church's part that I was wronged ; so all was passed by on my side and the Church's, with promise on both parts-as that, all former offences should be buried, and never more to be agitated ; so desiring the prayers, each for the other, we parted from that meeting August 28, 1654." Now it is to be noticed that this was not a town meeting. That had been held during the day. It was a meeting of persons whose names are given and who composed the major part of the Church, was held in the evening of the same day, was convened at the house of Goodman Caulkins, one of the members, and was held for the express purpose of adjusting differences between Mr. Blinman and Thomas Miner on account of hot words which the latter had spoken to his pastor, because the pastor had taken sides against setting Mystic and Pawcatuck apart from Pequot in a township by themselves. Then there was a Church in New London August 28, 1654; and prior to this date, for Mr. Miner speaks of a mutual adjustment of "former offences." We have thus come down to within less than four years of the time when Mr. Blinman came to New London. At every
46
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
point we find a Church in organic existence, and ex- ercising all the functions of a Church.
We have the testimony of Capt. James Avery, William Douglas, Thomas Miner, Obadiah Bruen, and the records of the Church, that there was a Church here prior to 1670 ; and we have the testimony of Obadiah Bruen, and of Mr. Blinman himself, that Mr. Blinman was pastor of the Church of Christ at Pequot prior to 1658, in January of which year he left his charge. We have the testimony of Thomas Miner that he was a member of the same Church prior to 1654. And if he was a member prior to this date, so were Mr. Bruen, and Mr. Caulkins, and Mr.
Cheseborough, and Ralph Parker, and Mr. Coit and all the others concerned in that Church meeting August 28, 1654. If in about three years after Mr. Blinman came to Pequot, we find a Church organ- ized, and in full performance of the customary func- tions of a Church, it does not seem to be a violent inference that, when Mr. Blinman came here in 1650, he came as pastor of the First Church of Christ.
It signifies nothing against this view that neither Mr. Blinman nor Mr. Bulkeley were ordained at New London. Mr. Blinman was already an ordained clergyman, having been set apart to that sacred office in England, and having already served as pastor of the Church in Gloucester, Mass., eight years. His
47
ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH.
case was precisely like that of Mr. Whitfield and the Church in Guilford. That Church was gathered June 19, 1643, "and Mr. Whitfield, who brought with him from England a considerable portion of this Church (in Guilford), was received as pastor, without the formality of an ordination." [Punchard's Hist. of Cong., vol. iv, p. 105.] The case of Mr. Blinman is almost exactly parallel. He brought with him from England to Marshfield, and thence to Gloucester, and thence to New London, by far the larger part of those who composed the Church, and naturally as Mr. Whitfield was and for like reason, he was received as pastor without the formality of an ordi- nation. Mr. Bulkeley declined ordination here, and preached only as a supply. His ordination did not take place till he went to Weathersfield.
Then we come, FIFTHLY, to the question, Whence came this Church, and where was it organized? An answer to these questions will explain why, as Miss Caulkins has said, "neither the Church nor the town records allude to any organization." The reason of this silence is not far to find. The Church was not organized here, nor in Connecticut. For if it had been, there would have been some vote of the colonial legislature permitting its organization. But, as has been said, there is neither application for permission, nor vote granting the permission to be organized into
48
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
a Church, to be found on the records of the colonial legislature. But the Church was organized some- where at some time. Where, if not at Gloucester, and when, if not in 1642, and by Richard Blinman and his Welsh friends who had followed him from England ? This is the point I hope to establish.
In support of this view of the origin of this Church, and its appearance in New London, it is to be said that it was the custom of those times for Churches to emigrate. The pastor, with a majority of the mem- bers, constituted the Church ; and where they moved, it moved. Thus the first Church in Hartford was organized in Newtown, now Cambridge, Mass., in 1632. The famous Thomas Hooker was its pastor. In 1636, as we have seen, Thomas Hooker and about one hundred men, women and children- the whole recognized Church-went from Cam- bridge to Hartford. For Dr. Joseph S. Clark, in his history of the "Congregational Churches of Massachusetts," says [p. 16] "the Cambridge Church having decided to emigrate in a body to Connecticut, with their ministers, Hooker and Stone (which they did in the summer of 1636, and became the founders, and First Church in Hartford), another company of newly arrived pilgrims stood ready to take their places, and were embodied on the first day of the preceding February, with Rev.
49
ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH.
Thomas Shepard for their minister. The same is now the 'Shepard Church' of that city."' The Church at Windsor was organized in Plymouth, Eng- land, March, 1630; was planted at Dorchester, June 6 of the same year, and was removed to Windsor in 1635-6. Dr. Clark says [Ibid. ], " a large portion of the Dorchester Church having removed in a body to
Connecticut, and planted the town and Church of Windsor, the residuum, joined by other newcomers, were organized August 23, 1636, into the present First Church of Dorchester, and Rev. Richard Mather was ordained over them the same day." Thus these two Connecticut Churches were transplanted from Massachusetts into Connecticut. October 11, 1639, the majority of the Church in Scituate moved to Barn- stable, and Scituate was left without a Church till another was organized.
Exactly the same thing, it seems, took place in con- nection with this Church. Mr. Blinman came here in the autumn of 1650. Twenty or more families, about one hundred souls, came with him, or followed soon after. These composed the great majority, if not the entire membership, of the Church in Gloucester. For a contemporary says that the number gathered into a Church there in 1642 was about fifty. It is not probable that this number was very greatly changed during Mr. Blinman's pastorate at Glouces-
,
-
50
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
ter. They decided to remove to New London, with their pastor, fin 1650-51, and came. In accordance with the custom of the times, they with their pastor being the large majority, were the Church, as in the case of the Churches in Cambridge and Dorchester and Scituate.
It is true that there is no record that those who re- mained in Gloucester were gathered into another Church to take the place of the one removed. Nor is there evidence to the contrary. But first, no Church records of any sort were kept in Gloucester for sixty years, that is, not till about 1700. Secondly, the emigration of Mr. Blinman left those who remained in so feeble a state, on account of numbers and abil- ity, that for several years they were unable to main- tain preaching ; and there was no stated preacher, and practically, no Church in Gloucester till 1661. There do not seem to have been people enough left, so inclined, to be gathered into a Church. But thirdly, the Church which did appear in Gloucester in 1661 has disappeared.
As we have seen. there is no record that this Church was formed under the laws of Connecticut; but we find evidences of its existence here very soon after 1651. There is no record of its organization at any date save 1642, nor at any place save Gloucester, at which time and place it was gathered by Rev.
51
ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH.
Richard Blinman of those Welshmen who had fol- lowed their pastor from Chepstowe, because of their loyalty to him and to their Puritan principles. In Johnson's Wonder-working Providence, which is an account of events which transpired in the early history of New England, is a narrative of the " plant- ing of the one and twentieth Church of Christ at a Town called Gloucester."' The narrative is as fol-
- lows : " There was another Town and Church of Christ erected in the Mattachusets Government, upon the Northern Cape of the Bay, called Cape Ann, a place of fishing, being peopled with Fishermen, till the reverend Richard Blinman came from a place in Plimouth Patten, called Green Harbour, with some few people of his acquaintance, and settled down with them, named the Town. Gloucester, and gath- ered into a Church, being but a small number, about fifty persons, they called to office this godly man." Here we have a statement of a contemporary, that the town and Church were constituted at the same time, as was the custom of those days, that the Church was the twenty-first in the order of formation, that it was originally composed of about fifty persons, and that Mr. Blinman was the pastor. John Win- throp was at that time Governor of Massachusetts, and he has fixed the year and month of the founding of this Church of Christ, and the town of Gloucester.
52
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
For in his History of New England, [p 64] speaking of " Mr. Blinman, a minister in Wales, a godly and able man," and of his coming first to Green Harbor, and then to Cape Ann, he says, " which at this court was established to be a planta- tion, and called Gloucester." This was the session of May, 1642, the records of which confirm what Winthrop says. May 13 is the date of the above entry in his journal. But the town and the Church were erected at the same time, according to Johnson's Wonder-working Providence. Then May, 1642, is the date of the organization of this Church.
Hon. Richard A. Wheeler says, [Papers of N. L. Hist. Soc. for 1891, p 19], Mr. Blinman's "old friends who had been with him at Plymouth and Green Harbor decided to go with him," to Pequot, "and share his fortunes. So they, the majority of the then Church of Gloucester, after disposing of their homesteads, followed Mr. Blinman to Pequot in the early spring of 1651. Mr. Blinman and Ralph Parker preceded them and came in the fall of 1650. So during the summer of 1651 Mr. Blinman, with his Gloucester Church friends and friends at New London assembled for worship at Mr. Robert Park's barn meeting house,
" And the sounding aisles of the dim woods rang With their hymns of lofty cheer.
"So, beyond all controversy, when the majority
53
ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH
of the members of the Gloucester Church of 1642 under their regular installed pastor in unison with other Church members, assembled for public worship in New London in 1651, taken in connection with all the facts, precedent and subsequent thereto relating, is the time when the first Church of New London was 'established there." Mr. Wheeler also says that the facts confirm the view "that the Church organized in Gloucester, Mass., in 1642, with Richard Blinman as its pastor, removed to and was transplanted in New London in 1651."'
Then this Church, in common with many of the historic churches of New England, is a fruit of that Puritanism which, from 1583 to 1660, shook Eng- land, in no small degree modified its social, political and religious life, marked the beginnings of religious freedom, and set in motion those movements which resulted in the planting of New England, and in the rise of this republic to a mighty nationality.
During the twenty-two years which had elapsed since the landing of the Pilgrims when this Church was organized, thirty Churches had been planted in Massachusetts, according to Dr. J. S. Clark. So that this was the thirty-first formed in that Col- ony, and not the twenty-first, as Johnson's Won- der-working Providence says. There had also been six Churches formed in Connecticut. So that this is
54
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
the thirty-seventh in New England. But several have become extinct, or ceased to be Congregational Churches, so that it stands much higher on the list. There are now but thirteen older Congrega- tional Churches in Massachusetts, and but eight in Connecticut.
The nine oldest Churches in Connecticut, in the order of their age, are as follows: Windsor, organ- ized in 1630; Hartford, first, organized in 1632; Wethersfield, organized in 1635; Stamford, organ- ized in 1635; New Haven, first, organized in 1639; . Milford, first, organized in 1639; Stratford, first, organized in 1639; Fairfield, organized in 1639; New London, first, organized in 1642.
The foregoing argument seems to leave no room to doubt the conclusion reached. The only link lack- ing in the chain is a record of the fact that those who were left in Gloucester after the departure of Mr. Blinman and his company, were gathered into an- other Church. But this lack is offset by the entire absence of ecclesiastical records in Gloucester before 1700, and by the fact that no other trace of the organization of this Church can be found. Certainly it was not gathered in Connecticut at any time before or after 1650-51. Else some notice of the fact would be found in the Colonial Records. We have, then, no hesitation in claiming May, 1642, as the date of its organization.
IV.
RICHARD BLINMAN'S PASTORATE. MAY, 1642. - JANUARY, 1658.
We come now, in the history of the Church, to speak of the man who was its first pastor, and who, more than any other man, had a right to say, "I have laid the foundation." He gave it the strong and stable character which has belonged to it from the first. That Richard Blinman was a man of strong and marked personality is proved by the fact that he was able to bring with him, from Chepstowe to New Lon- don, by way of Marshfield and Gloucester, men of the stamp of Obadiah Bruen, Hugh Calkin, John Coit, Andrew Lester, James Avery and others like them.
He was probably born in Gloucester, England, early in the seventeenth, if not at the close of the sixteenth, century. We know that he died in Bris- tol, England, not far from 1683. He evidently came to this country in 1640. For in the records of the Plymouth Colony it appears that March 2, 1640, he, with Mr. Obadiah Bruen and others, was proposed
56
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
for the rights of freemen. Further, a letter from Edward Winslow to Governor Winthrop, of Boston, dated "Careswell, this 10th of 8th, 1640," says, " Mr. Blindman salutes you." In another letter, dated December 28 of the same year, Mr. Winslow writes, "and the more in regard of Mr. Blindman's friends that are come to live with us, and the straight- ness of the place to receive them." It seems settled then that he came to America early in 1640.
Mr. Blinman had been a curate in Chepstowe, Monmouthshire, England. Under Charles I. Arch- bishop Laud had virtually become first minister of the crown. His measures, as we have seen, were sum- mary with the Puritans. With reckless and unscru- pulous severity he drove Puritan ministers from English pulpits. As his hands grew heavier, the number of Puritan fugitives to New England in- creased. And it must be admitted that the impover- ishment of Old England was the enrichment of New England.
Among the Puritan clergy, whose non-conformity had hitherto been winked at, but who were driven from their livings because they refused to wear the surplice, and make the sign of the cross, was Richard Blinman. Nothing was left for him but to join the Separatists, and become a Congregationalist.
He was invited to Marshfield by Mr. Edward
57
BLINMAN'S PASTORATE.
Winslow, who founded the Church in that place as early as 1639 or '40, says one authority, [Punchard's Hist. Conglsm., vol. iv, p. 263], 1632, says another. [Clark's Congregational Churches of Mass., p. 15]. In the records of the Plymouth Colony occurs the fol- lowing, "this Church of Marshfield was begun, and afterward carried on by the help and assistance, un- der God, of Mr. Edward Winslow, who at the first procured several Welsh gentlemen of good note thither, with Mr. Blinman, a godly, able minister." Baylies' History of New Plymouth says, " Governor Winslow, the founder of Marshfield, often visited England ; he induced several Welsh gentlemen of respectability to emigrate to America, amongst whom came the Rev. Richard Blinman, in 1642, who was the first pastor of the Church in Marshfield." Baylies is wrong in his dates. For Mr. Blinman was in Ply- mouth as early as March 2, 1640. The facts are that he came to America in 1640, at the solicitation of Edward Winslow, and that he was minister of the Church at Marshfield in 1642, the year in which he - removed- to Gloucester. Nor was he probably the first pastor of the Church. One Nehemiah Smyth seems to have been in charge before Mr. Blinman. For the Plymouth Colonial Records state that on March 3, 1639-40, there was granted "to Mr. Edward Winslow and the rest of the neighborhood of Green's
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.