USA > Connecticut > New London County > New London > The early history of the First church of Christ, New London, Conn. > Part 9
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
T
151
BRADSTREET'S PASTORATE.
England and among your selves. I would fain know how that cursed Bratt Toleration is favored by your new Justices, & whether the old stand firm &c. I have made much inqviry but have had no satisfactory answer. Sr, I must not adde at present, bat my own & wives hearty love & service to yourself & good cosen (to which pray giue the inclosed) hoping yov never forgett us for the best things in the best place, & so rest Dear Sir
Yours in great truth, S: BRADSTREET.
I am at present, I thank God, indifferent well, but far from well, God knowes, and whether I shall ever have the health I have had is with him who healeth all our diseases, who sends forth His word & does it. Mr. Ffitch (of Norwich) is very infirm; has not preached many times this winter, not at all of late. If God should remove him it would bee a great blow to the-Colony, & the ruine, almost, of that town. The death, sickness and infirmitiey of so many ministers has an awfull aspect with it. Sr, you will not forgett him in your prayers; -nor poor me, not to bee named with him."
In March or April, 1683, he wrote again, as fol- lows!
"RD & DEAR SR -My weak hand (through my abiding indis- position) will not suffer me to write many lines. I received the verses and Almanacks you sent, and thank yourself & my cosen your sonne, I think his verses were in time and tune, and his Almanack too, only I must confesse I see (tho: I well know what is said by some) no religion in Hebrew moths nor irreligion in calling a vessell Castor & Pollux, &c. *
Sr, wee have no newes here but what comes from you, and some of it as to Cranfeild's motions, &c., hath an ill aspect, but I hope He that sitts in Heaven will turn all such counsells into foolishnes. If wee can keep God our freind, no matter who are our enemies. But I fear this is our great wound ; wee are making God our enemy, & that upon many accounts too long to write. I think now, if ever, it's time for N. E. espi- cially for magistrates & Ministers to putt on all the armour of God, that they may stand in the evil day, & not to desert
152
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
or betray the cause they have so long espoused. Sir, I cannot adde at present but my own & wife's service to yourself & Cosen, with respects to my cosens your children, desiring your dayly remembrance of me in my weak & low estate, & so rest, Dear Sir. Yours in much truth,
S. BRADSTREET.
Sr I hope you will send mee by the first your discourse about Cometts with your Sermon upon the last Comett.
Please to keep the papers safe, I send, for if they obtain no Imprimatur, I have promised to return them.
Sr, The author of these papers is an Englishman, but born in France, & as he told me, he lived in Paris near twenty years before he knew any other place. I note this only that yov would excuse some words which are neither good French nor English."
The last letter is as follows :
"To the Revd Mr. Increase Mather, Teacher of a Chh of Christ in Boston :
N. LONDON, April 24, 83.
RD & DEAR SE, - Yours of April the 2d with the books to myself and Mr. Fitch and the letters, I received last night. I shall take the very first opportunity to send Mr. Ffitch his book & the letter. St. I am your great debtor, upon these accounts, & desire to bee so still. I believe this discourse you sent me will have as serious and solemn an influence upon those who read it, as many practicall Sermons in larger volu. I am glad Any putt it into your heart to spend some time on such a subject, & think you deserve more then thankes for the paines you have taken. * *
Before this comes to your hands you will hear of the death of our governor. [William Leete, who died April 16, 1683, & was succeeded by Hon. Fitz-John Winthrop.] God is able to make up our losse, but our choice runs very low, both as to Governor, &c.
Sir, what you mention as to special! providences in this Col- ony, &c., I suppose you have an account already. As to this pticular place, I could send you many things (having for many
153
BRADSTREET'S PASTORATE.
years kept such a Journall), but many of them, and the most considerable, reflect so much upon surviving friends & rela- tions, that I doe not account it prudent to meddle in them ; yet I purpose (if I live a few weeks) to send yov one or two (if not more) of very solemn providences in this place. My weaknes and hast of the messenger, will not suffer it now.
Sr. let me hear often from you, what newes you have, &c. As to evil times coming on vs, and the world, &c., I believe no two persons in the world are more agreed. Pray for me & mine.
I am yours,
S. B."
VII.
MEMBERSHIP FROM 1642 TO 1683.
The early membership of this Church is involved in as great obscurity as its origin. But the fact that there was a Church before 1670, implies that there were members before that date. The earliest known list was made October 5, 1670, and has been given in Chapter III. The aim of this chapter will be, to supplement this earliest list, by the names of those, who were manifestly members of the Church before that date, as we gather them from various sources.
All that we know about this early membership is obtained from contemporaries. For example, we know from the testimony of Johnson's Wonder- working Providence, that there were about fifty mem- bers at its organization in 1642. We know the names of some of these people, and have reason to believe that they were among the charter members of the Church. However, there is no official record, and we are therefore left to the evidence which con- temporaries give for material to make a list of those who were members prior to October 5, 1670.
155
EARLY MEMBERSHIP.
Nor do we know who were the chief promoters of the movement which resulted in the organization of this Church. It certainly would not be far wide of the mark to say that the men, who were prominent in town affairs in Gloucester and in Pequot, had a leading hand in bringing to pass its organization, with Richard Blinman as its pastor. Most, if not all, the original fifty members, whoever they were, fol- lowed their pastor to Pequot in 1651, or soon after. So that we know that it had about fifty members when it was transplanted from Gloucester to New London.
The diary of Thomas Miner speaks of certain per- sons as members and officers of the Church between 1651 and 1670. He also gives definite information concerning some who joined the Church within this period. An entry, made upon the records by Mr. Bradstreet, speaks of certain persons who were mem- bers of the Church, who had their children baptized before October 5, 1670. On that date he gives a list of persons who were then " of the Church of New London in full communion."
Let us begin with this list to prosecute our search. On it are the names of twenty-four persons who were members "of the Church now being, October 5, 1670; "' from which we infer that they were mem- bers before that date. A subsequent entry states
156
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
that Lydia Bailey and Ruth Hill were received into the Church February 12, 1670. July 27 of the same year Thomas Miner records in his diary that Mr. Rice and William Hough were received into the Church. Mr. Hough's name is on Mr. Bradstreet's list. Then we know that at the time of Mr. Bradstreet's ordination, three other names should have been added to his list, unless Mr. Rice's connec- tion with the Church had been discontinued; and we know that these twenty-seven were members before October 5, 1670.
Another entry upon the records of the Church reads, "the names of such as were children of the Church, viz., of such as had been baptized before October 5, 1670, their parents, one or both being in full communion," at the time of the baptism. This entry proves conclusively that there were Church members in full communion before this date. Be- sides the children of Lieutenant James Avery, whose names are not given, is a list of "persons baptized from February 1, 1670." It is as follows : " Bap- tized February 12 these 18 persons. Goodwife Bai- ley," who on that day united with the Church, "and her children John, William; Mr. Pickett's children John, Mary, Ruth, Mercy, William; Mr. Hill's child Jane ; Joshua Hempstead, Elizabeth, his wife, Phebe, his child; Joseph Morgan's wife Dorothy, her sister,
157
EARLY MEMBERSHIP.
Alice Parker; James Avery's wife Deborah; Sam- uel Rogers, his children Samuel, Mary; the widow Bradley's daughter Lucretia; baptized February 19, 1670, four children of Goodwife Bailey's, Thomas, Mary, James, Joseph; baptized February 26, 1670, Jno. Henry's child Susanna." From this list we know that three of these were members of the Church before October 5, 1670, namely, Lieutenant James Avery, whose name is on Mr. Bradstreet's list, and Mrs. Bailey and Mrs. Hill, whose names are not on his list. Mrs. Hill was the widow of John Pickett, who died August 16, 1667. After his death his wife married Mr. Charles Hill. She joined the Church on the day when the children of Mr. Pickett and Mr. Hill were baptized, to which the rite of baptism was doubtless administered on her account. Joshua Hempstead and his wife joined the Church April 3, 1681. This and the case of Samuel Rogers are the only ones that can possibly be regarded as looking like the practice of the Half-way Covenant. But these were previous to Mr. Bradstreet's ordination, and he could not have administered the rite. Joseph Morgan's wife was Dorothy Parker, and she joined the Church June 28, 1671. From this list of bap- tisms of children, one or both of whose parents were in full communion, we have not only three who we know were members of the Church, but also several
158
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
whom we have a right to suppose were, although their names appear on no list, namely, Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Rogers, one or both, Mrs. Bradley, the daughter of Jonathan Brewster, and afterwards Mrs. Christopher Christophers, and Mr. and Mrs. John .Henry, one or both. But as their membership can- . not be established beyond a doubt, we shall not in- clude them in the list which we are seeking to make of persons who were members previous to October 5, 1670.
On Wednesday, June 30, 1669, Thomas Miner wrote in his diary, "I was at New London and had testimony ffrom the church ffor me and my wife being owned to be under their watch." This testimony was signed on behalf of the Church by "James Averie and William Douglas." Then on that date Thomas Miner and his wife, James Avery and William Douglas, were members of this Church.
Again Mr. Miner writes, " thursday the 17 [of June 1658] Captaine Denison, mr. Stanton, goodman Cheesboro was heare to bid me come to a meeting." As Mr. Stanton, Captain Denison and Thomas Miner were among the charter members of the first Church in Stonington, we may conclude that they, with James Morgan and Mr. Cheesboro were members of this Church June 17, 1658. James Morgan and wife,
159
EARLY MEMBERSHIP.
and Thomas Miner and wife are on the list of October 5,1670.
Again Mr. Miner writes in his diary "thursday the 15 [January 1656-7] I was at Towne the day after the fast when we met about Captaine Denison and other recommended brethren and sisters and the leters came from Mr. Blackman and Mr. Fitch." These must have been letters of recommendation to this Church from Rev. Adam Blackman of Stratford, and Rev. James Fitch of Saybrook. Who the "other recommended brethren and sisters " were we do not know, but we do know, from Mr. Miner's diary, that they were received into the Church at that date.
As early as 1655 Thomas Park was a deacon of this Church. We may suppose that he was a mem- ber of it before that date. To his name I add the name of his wife, who was probably a sister of Mrs. Blinman, and the names of his father, Robert Park, and his mother. For a man, two of whose sons were deacons, would himself be likely to be a member of a Church. Robert Park's sons William of Roxbury, Mass., and Thomas of New London, both held that office.
It will be rememberd that Thomas Miner says that, August 28, 1654, he was " sent for to be reconciled to the church," on account of his " rash speaking to Mr. Blinman." Ho states that the meeting was
160
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
held at the house of Goodman Caulkins, and that there were present the following, who constituted "the major part" of the Church, namely : "Mr. Blinman, Mr. Bruen, Goodman Morgan, Goodman Caulkins, Ralph Parker, Goodman Lester, Goodman Coit, Hugh Roberts, Captain Denison, and Goodman Cheeseboro," besides Thomas Miner himself. Then these eleven men, and doubtless their wives, were members of the Church August 28, 1654.
Then the following is a partial list of the members of this Church between 1651 and October 5, 1670. Besides the names given on Mr. Bradstreet's list [see chap. iii] are these: Mrs. Ruth Hill, Lydia Bailey, Goodman Rice, Thomas Stanton, George Denison, Goodman Cheeseboro, Obadiah Bruen, Goodman Caulkins, Goodman Coit, Goodman Lester, Hugh Roberts, Robert Park, Thomas Park, John Tinker, who was accustomed to hold deacon's meetings in the absence of the pastor ; and those who were received by letter January 15, 1656-57, of whom there were at least four. If we add the wives of these men, as there is every reason for doing, the number of people who were members of this Church before October 5, 1670, but whose names do not appear on any list, was at least twenty-eight. Add to these Mr. Bradstreet's list, and we shall have at least fifty who were mem- bers of the Church between 1651 and the date when
161
EARLY MEMBERSHIP.
that list was made. There is reason to believe that all the adults who came from Gloucester with Mr. Blinman, like Obadiah Bruen were members of the Church. In that case the membership before October 5, 1670, was much larger.
It was the way of the godly men and women of those times to connect themselves with the Church without delay. One of the first things which John Winthrop, Sr. did on arriving in this country was, to unite in forming a Church in Charlestown, Mass., of which he became a member. We believe that his son John Winthrop, Jr., followed his example and became a member of this Church. The early list, if it could be completed certainly, we believe, would be an illustrious one.
VIII.
THE HALF-WAY COVENANT.
During the period which this history covers, those religious forces, which affected the growth of the Churches of those early times, were beginning to make themselves felt. Among these forces was the Half-way Covenant. Its deleterious influence upon spiritual life, was so marked, especially in the period following 1683, that a brief statement of it seems a fitting introduction to what is to follow. Although the practice of it did not begin here until Mr. Salton- stall's pastorate, yet it was in the air, was a growing evil, was practiced by most of the leading Churches of the Colony, and was likely, as the sequel proved, to be adopted as the practice of this Church. It wrought havoc among the Churches, until, after more than a century, it ceased. Revivals were almost wholly unknown where it prevailed, and where re- vivals of power occurred it usually almost, if not altogether, disappeared. The two could not well exist together.
It well may be called the Connecticut plan. For the feeling in its favor was specially strong through-
163
THE HALF-WAY COVENANT.
out this Colony. It practically had its beginning in Hartford. Its first most violent outbreak was in a quarrel over a successor to Thomas Hooker, which lasted for several years. It "finally resulted in the withdrawal of a number of members of that Church, and the formation of a new settlement at Hadley, . Mass." Clark, in his Congregational .Churches of Massachusetts, says that Rev. John Russell, of Wethersfield, took strong ground against the new way, and, in carrying out his views, was reprimanded by the magistrates for alleged irregularity in excom- municating a member of his Church. Differences arose which resulted in his going, with many of his flock, and with some from Hartford, to Hadley. In writing about it to Governor Winthrop, June 14 [24], 1666, John Davenport, whom Dr. Bacon styles " the stiff old Congregationalist," said, "I feel at my heart no small sorrows for the public divisions and distractions at Hartford. Were Mr. Hooker now in viris, it would be as a sword in his bones that the Church which he planted there should be thus dis- turbed by innovations brought in and urged so vehe- mently by his young successor in office, not in spirit; who was so far from these lax ways that he opposed the baptizing of grandchildren by their grandfathers' right." "But he is at rest; and the people there grow woefully divided, and the better sort are ex-
£
1
164 EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
ceedingly grieved, while the looser and worser party insult, hoping that it will be as they would have it, viz., that the plantation shall be brought into a parish way, against which Mr. Hooker hath openly borne a strong testimony in print. The most of the churches in this jurisdiction [the old New Haven Colony] are professedly against this new way, both in judgment and practice, upon gospel grounds, namely, New Haven, Milford, Stratford, Branford, Guilford, Norwalk, Stamford, and those nearer to Hartford, namely, Farmington and the sounder portion of Windsor, together with their reverend pastor, Mr. Warham, and I think Mr. Fitch and his church also." It is likely that Mr. Davenport suspected that his friend, the Governor, favored the innovation. At any rate the next year, in 1667, he accepted a call to the First Church in Boston, where a large majority favored his views; for after the union of New Haven with Connecticut he was unwilling to remain, because these new, and as he believed, loose practices prevailed. For a similar reason Abraham Pierson, of Branford, and a majority of his people removed to Newark, N. J., in the spring of 1666. The Stratford Church was divided by a quarrel over the same subject, and the result was the planting of a new town at Wood- bury. The calling of Mr. Davenport to Boston resulted in the division of the First Church there. Twenty-
165
THE HALF-WAY COVENANT.
eight male members withdrew, who, by the aid of an ex parte council, formed what has long been known as The Old South, May 12, 1669. These facts are given to show how high the spirit of controversy ran; and it was especially strong in Connecticut. It grew stronger and waxed more hot till, as Dr. Bacon says [Eccl. Hist. of Conn., p. 29], " gradually the Churches, weary of contention, fell into the new way for the sake of peace." There are no records except the list of baptisms and the list of admissions, to show the attitude of this Church upon this question. But when the pastorate of Mr. Saltonstall began, we find that the new way had gained a foothold.
This new way was known as the Presbyterial way. The Churches were gathered in New England upon the theory of " the personal regenerate character of all the members," which was known as the Congrega- tional way. Thomas Hooker stated this way in these words, "visible saints only are fit matter appointed by God to make up a visible church of Christ." It was at this point that the Puritans and Separatists took issue with the prevailing ecclesiastical system of England. The new way, says Dr. Bacon, " was old in the old world but new in New England. It was the system of all national churches, and therefore of the Presbyterian party in the Long Parliament and the Westminster Assembly. It was what Davenport
.
166
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
called the ' Parish way'-a system under which the local church, as a covenanted brotherhood of souls renewed by the experience of God's grace, was to be merged in the parish ; and all persons of good moral character living within parochial bounds, were to have, as in England and Scotland, the privilege of baptism for their households, and access to the Lord's Table," [Eccl. Hist. of Conn., pp. 28. 29.] It is to be understood that this refers to persons who laid no claim to regenerate character. It was a complete setting aside of Christ's declaration that, unless men are born again they can not enter the kingdom of God. Says Dr. George Leon Walker, "all the baptized persons of an English, German, or Genevan Parish, were accounted members of the there existing church, even if manifestly destitute of Christian character." This was the abuse from which our fathers fled to these shores, to set up here a state, and a church, in which only men of avowedly Christian experience and character should have a voice. It obliterated, so they believed, all distinction between the Church and the world. It did not come over on the Mayflower. It was a later importation. It so seriously threatened the Churches that, in 1668, the legislature of Con- necticut appointed four ministers, James Fitch of Norwich, Gershom Bulkeley of Wethersfield, Joseph Eliot of Guilford, and Samuel Wakeman of Fair-
167
THE HALF-WAY COVENANT.
field, to meet at Saybrook, " to consider of some expedient for our peace, by searching out the rule, and thereby clearing up how far the Churches and people may walk together within themselves, and one with another, in the fellowship and order of the Gos- pel, notwithstanding some various apprehensions among them in matters of discipline respecting meta- bership and baptism." At least Mr. Bulkeley was for the " Presbyteriall way," while Mr. Fitch, and Mr. Eliot were for the "Congregational way." Their report, which they made in 1669, was one of those compromises which aggravated rather than allayed the controversy. After this the legislature did not meddle with the matter. Time wrought a change which brought peace, because the new way won the field.
This controversy grew up in a most natural manner. Parents, who were in full communion in the Church, offered their children in baptism, in the full belief that they were included in the covenant. Nor were they without warrant of Scripture for this view. The promises included the children ; so did the old cove- nant. So does the new. John Cotton said, " the same covenant which God made with the National Church of Israel and their seed, it is the very same which the Lord maketh with any Congre- gational Church and our seed." That is, the children
168
EARLY HISTORY OF THE FIRST CHURCH.
of believers, who were in the Church, received the rite of baptism because they were considered as with- in the Church, under its watch and care, and entitled to it. As early as the organization of the First Church in Salem, in 1629, Mr. Higginson of Salem, and Mr. Brewster of Plymouth " did agree in their judgements, viz. concerning the church-membership of children with their parents, and that baptism was a seal of their membership." This view was further confirmed by the Synod of June, 1657, which held that the Church had a certain watch and care over those who had received this seal, but were not in full communion. "It is the duty of infants who confed- erate in their parents, when grown up unto years of discretion, though not yet fit for the Lord's Supper, to own the covenant they made with their parents, by entering thereinto in their own persons ; and it is the duty of the church to call upon them for the perform- ance thereof ; and if being called upon, they shall re- fuse the performance of this great duty, or other- wise do continue scandalous, they are liable to be censured for the same by the church." [Cong. Chs. of Mass., p. 71.] There are several entries upon our records which read like a compliance with this decision, and from which it seems that the Church exercised the right of discipline in the case of men and women not in full communion. Only on their
169
THE HALF-WAY COVENANT.
coming to adult age, and upon approbation of their fitness, persons owned the covenant, professed faith in Christ, were received into full relations, and were admitted to the Lord's Supper. This view of the church membership of baptized children was advo- cated as lately as 1844, in an elaborate treatise by Rev. William A. Stearns, then pastor of the Evan- gelical Congregational Church, Cambridgeport, Mass., and afterwards President of Amherst College. These baptized children of parents, who were in full com- munion, were held to be in the Church by a kind of apostolic succession ; but not in it in full communion, so as to be admitted to its full privileges, till they could claim experience of the new birth, and had made full public confession of their faith.
At this point the theory seemed to some to prove more than was claimed or even admitted by those who held it. Hence arose the controversy which dragged its length through more than a century of the ecclesiastical life of New England. For the question naturally arose whether such persons, who had received the sign and seal of their church mem- bership, in the rite of baptism, at the hands of their parents who were in full communion, had the right to present their own children for baptism. A further question also arose, whether such persons, being in the Church by their birth and baptism, should also
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.