USA > Connecticut > The story of the Diocese of Connecticut : a new branch of the vine (Espiscopal Church) > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51
THE MISSION TO INDIANS
The Society from the beginning tried to win the Indian, and even considered concentrating its efforts upon him. The result was less successful than with the Negro, probably because the motive was less disinterested. Bishops in their annual sermons urged just and gentle treatment of the Indians to prepare them for conversion. At the same time it must have been obvious to their hearers that the motive was partly political. The government wished to thwart the French, who were manipulating the savages in their efforts to block English expansion by building up a vast empire from the Appalachians to the Rockies. The mission to the Mohawks in New York achieved considerable political and re- ligious success, but the Society's efforts were weakened in the 1740's by conflict between the friends of the Indian and those of white missions.
The first Episcopal missionary to the Indians of Connecticut was that astonishing layman, James Labarie, a French Protestant. Under the patronage of Lord Bellomont, Governor of New York, he ministered for about three years to the Keehamoochuck or New Oxford Indians, learned their language, and trained some of them to teach others. When an Indian war forced him to leave them, he settled in Fairfield and with official approval, but without salary, taught the many Indians there. The government compelled him to stop after he became an Episcopalian.
His ministry was continued by Henry Caner, the first mis- sionary in Fairfield. Over the years he baptized a few Indian children, and now and then some adults who were "very seriously
·[ 107 ].
disposed" and constantly attended services. He did not hope for general success, because the Indians were rapidly succumbing to the white man's diseases and "fire water." They were becoming bitterly prejudiced against Christianity, from witnessing the shameful failure of so many nominal Christians to honor their pro- fession by decent behavior.
Doctor Johnson had a limited success among the Stratford Indians in the early years of his ministry. At one time he even sheltered a little girl and a young man of a nearby tribe, who were bound to him by an indenture from their parents. He taught the youth reading, writing, and the catechism, and gave him special instruction during Lent in preparation for baptism, along with the little girl. Occasionally he baptized an adult, but there is no evidence that his efforts produced many conversions. John Beach of Newtown failed completely, although early in his mission he intended to visit a tribe about three miles away and hoped to win them. Hostile persons so prejudiced them against him that they refused to hear him and he had to abandon the attempt.
For a time there seemed to be some hope of winning the remnants of the once powerful Mohegan and Narragansett tribes in New London County and in western Rhode Island. Interest in the Mohegans was stimulated by the Rev. Eleazer Wheelock, a Congregational minister, who founded the Indian Charity School for boys in Lebanon. One of his converts was the famous Mohegan preacher, Samson Occom, who went to England in 1765 to assist in the campaign to raise funds that were later used to found Dart- mouth College in New Hampshire. The Episcopalian Superin- tendent of Indian Affairs, Sir William Johnson, patronized Wheelock's school, and it encouraged the S. P. G. plans for Indian missions.
Success seemed ready to smile in 1756. John Uncas, the chief Mohegan sachem, and six other men of the tribe were en- couraged by the parishes in Norwich and Groton, and petitioned for part of the services of the Society's missionary at Norwich. They wanted to be "taught to go to that good place when we die as well as white men."3 The tribe numbered about four hundred, but were too poor to give a minister more than a little sea food and venison.
Their plea was the beginning of a friendly relation with the
·[ 108 ] .
tribe that lasted until the Revolution. In the 1760's it was en- couraged by the evangelistic Matthew Graves. He visited the Mohegans and obtained a powerful influence over them and their preacher, Samson Occom. He even recommended Occom for or- dination and appointment as a missionary to his own and other nearby tribes, with the approval of Sir William Johnson and several of the clergy. But the plan failed because others could not keep a secret as well as Graves, and the Dissenters thwarted it.
Forty miles away, in Rhode Island, the Narragansetts heard of Graves's interest in their race. He favored their earnest entreaties by repeated visits and sermons to them and neighboring tribes. He was rewarded by their confidence in him, their zeal for in- struction, and their gift of forty acres of land to the Church as a glebe. He took several of them under his roof, spared no pains to educate them, and successfully pleaded with the Society to give them the schoolmaster they wanted. Graves was eager to train a hopeful young Narragansett to be a missionary, and in 1767 gave him a letter of introduction to the Society, with the idea of having him educated and ordained in England.
These efforts were undermined by the usual difficulties of reconciling Christian ideals with the dishonest and heartless treat- ment the Indians suffered from the machinations of politicians and land-grabbers. Graves complained bitterly about efforts to cheat the Narragansetts out of their reservation, in flat defiance of the King's commands. The poor Indians were in a pitiable condition, and if the legislature's "cruel votes" prevailed, would be reduced to beggary and lose their friendship for the Crown.
Samuel Peters of Hebron also protested to the Society against such greed and abuse, to save the honor of the State and the credit of religion, and to keep the Indians from learning "the art of beggary." But he felt powerless to stop the growing evil. He and Graves perfectly understood the reasons why Anglican missions to the Indians were not more successful. Most colonists regarded the tribes as a threat and a nuisance, and British poli- ticians manipulated them as pawns in their rivalry with French imperial ambitions. The Indians were aware of the general lack of real interest in their welfare, and naturally were not willing to accept the religion of their exploiters. They instinctively rejected a religion which they felt was political.
·[ 109 ].
ROMAN CATHOLICS AND JEWS
Where there was no such feeling of inferiority and oppres- sion, the Church gained some converts among minority groups. Its present diversity of national strains began even when the population of Connecticut was still overwhelmingly of British origin. In a few coastal towns there were small groups of French exiles. Some were Protestants who had sought refuge in the colonies from per- secution during the reign of King Louis XIV. Others, especially in Stratford, came much later from Nova Scotia, at the beginning of the French and Indian War in 1755. These were the Acadians, whose tragic story is immortalized by Longfellow's Evangeline. They were devout Roman Catholics, and the rector of Christ Church informed the Society that there was not the slightest like- lihood that they would ever be anything else.
The French Protestants or Huguenots were quite friendly, and within a remarkably short time became assimilated into Anglo- American culture, sometimes even Anglicizing their names. Many conformed to the Church, partly through the influence of Jacques Laborie, who became known as James Labarie or Labarree.
Although Roman Catholics generally remained loyal to their church, now and then one would become an Episcopalian. Some attended St. Andrew's in Simsbury, and Doctor Johnson once re- ported that he had recently admitted a Roman Catholic to the Holy Communion. A few Dutch families from New York lived in the western towns of Fairfield County, and some of them attended Episcopal churches. From the Reformed Dutch Church came John Rutgers Marshall, the first rector of St. Paul's Church, Woodbury.
In the colonial records of Connecticut one occasionally finds a Jewish name. Jewish traders entered the colony in the seventeenth century, and in the 1720's a few Jews lived in the sea- ports of Fairfield County. The nearest synagogues were in New- port and New York, and some Jews preferred to attend church rather than to neglect public worship entirely. One of them in Fairfield married a Christian woman and attended services in the Episcopal church. The Rev. Henry Caner described him as an ex- pert in Greek, Hebrew, other Eastern languages, and rabbinical learning, and attributed his conversion to a disinterested love of Christian doctrine.
·[ 110 ].
His example evidently influenced another "sober and sensible" Hebrew in Norwalk, who was inspired by the preaching of Caner and Doctor Johnson. He also was "considerably ac- quainted" with rabbinical literature, but seriously inclined toward Christianity. After many earnest conversations with Johnson, he was baptized by him and became "a sincere good Christian." Johnson also converted a Hebrew in Stratford, Mr. Mordecai Marks, "a very sober sensible young gentleman," who soon became a steady communicant.4
All these contacts, together with a certain measure of social acceptance, did not eliminate the fundamental disagreements between the Episcopalian and the Puritan Congregational majority. Any political tension would revive the irritations that had persisted since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and especially since the English Civil War of the 1640's. After 1763 the imperial policy of strengthening control over the Colonies inevitably stirred the embers of old conflicts, simply because membership in the Church was considered as an expression of loyalty to the Crown.
·[ 111 ].
·[ 112 ].
BISHOP SAMUEL SEABURY'S MITRE. Kept at Trinity College, Hart- ford. (From a photograph in the Diocesan Archives.)
BISHOP SEABURY'S FIRST DIRECTIVE TO HIS CLERGY
Samuel By Divine permission Bishop of the Grifopat. Church in the State of Connecticut to the Clergy of the P ? Carch Greeting
It having pleased. Amighty God that the late British (Colony of Connecticut Should Become a free Souscrign & Independent Male as it Nowse; Some alterations in the Liturgy & offices of our Church are Neufsary to Be made to accommodate them to the Civil Constitution of the Country in which. Ligo: for the peace Security & prosperity of which Both as go" Subj. .. and faithful Christians it is our July Constantly to pray-We the Bighogy. aforefait have though fit by & with the advice & assistance of Such of our Cergy as we have had opportunity of Confisting to issues this Injunction. hendby authorising & requiring you Every one of you the prettyters of Decons of the Church above mentioned in the celebration of living Service to make the following alterations in the Liturgy & offices of our (Bunch Di. ifted of a few Save the king you are to thead a ford have the Church. and The worryen for bogat family to Be thus altered we humbly Beje ... the e. to theleft the Governes &tailers of this State Eridue them &C in the 20 x1 peations in the Litany to Be thus Med that it may plesth. * Under the governer & Balers of this with Grove & that it may please: thee to bless & keep the Judges , ifcarior majftrales Giving Them Gra: in the prayer for the whole state of Christ His Be they had. we Befree !! theo also to Save & Defend all Christian Kings Princes and Governors and I work that they & all that are pit in authority may truly & impartily minig ty Aufticevic- that During Every lessing of the Great & General Corto or Assembly you do Iise the following ( lacto in Morning & Evening Prayer - Most Gracious God we hambly Befeh this as for this State in general So Especially for the"
2 Great & General fourt at this, Aisem bled; that thou would be pleased to Direct & prosper all their for full. -ations to the advancement of the Glory the Good of the Church the Safety honor & welfare of thy riconle that all things may & So ordered & Settled by their Prideaveurs union. Best and Surest foundations that peace & happiness Truth. & Justice Religion & piety may be Stablished among us for well Generations. These & all others necessaries for them for us of the whole Church, we humbly beg in the Name & medication of Jesus Christ our most Blessed For) & Savier. Amen.
With a Prayer for the General Assembly of Connecticut (From the Diocesan Archives)
PART TWO REVOLUTION, FREEDOM and GROWTH
·[ 113 ].
·[ 114 ].
CHAPTER NINE
ORDEAL BY FIRE: THE REVOLUTION
ROYALIST AGAINST PURITAN
"I hope when we are sufficiently sifted and tried, we shall come out purer."
(Henry Caner, letter to the S. P. G.)
W HEN the rector of Fairfield penned these words about the slanders he suffered, the Church's severest trials were mercifully unrevealed. The leaves are never quieter than before the summer storm. The people who suffer from great social and political convulsions often feel most secure just before they are struck. On January 2, 1760, Edward Winslow of Stratford wrote a letter to the S. P. G. which now stands out as a choice morsel of historical irony. Rejoicing in recent British victories over the French, he saw "a prospect of such a security to the future hap- piness of these colonies, as that only our ingratitude to heaven can remove it from us."1 Two years later he proudly alluded to the clergy's zeal in cultivating loyalty to the British constitution, in gratitude for its blessings upon America.
Between these letters, Winslow probably read disturbing reports about James Otis's plea in Boston against "writs of assistance," empowering customs officers to search private premises for smuggled goods. Some felt that the dear paternal government cared more for colonial revenue than for colonial welfare.
The Church soon began to share the unpopularity of the imperial officials, whom the masses regarded as "ruffle-shirted Episcopalians." In Connecticut the popular mood was reflected in the government's obvious jealousy of the Church's growth and influence. And, unfortunately, the new imperial fiscal policy coincided with renewed discussions of a colonial diocese. To the latter cause, especially, Winslow attributed the "malignant spirit of opposition" in Stratford, which was abetted by "persons of in-
· [ 115 ].
fluence and authority." Other pastors also noticed the "restless and implacable" disposition. Solomon Palmer of New Haven wrote: "We are as narrowly watched by them as a cat watches a mouse, and every pecadillo is taken notice of and made a great crime."?
The general Puritan animosity appeared even in such a judicious character as President Ezra Stiles of Yale. His diary bitingly describes the Church as animated only by love of dignity and pre-eminence, and as "an Asylum for polite Vice & Irreligion." Such abuse naturally drove into loyalism many Episcopalians who might have espoused the American cause. One example was William Samuel Johnson, the son of Doctor Samuel Johnson of Stratford. As a delegate from Connecticut to the Stamp Act Congress in 1765, he served on the committee to consider colonial rights and helped to compose its report, portions of which were used in a petition against the act. He participated also in writing Connecticut's address of thanks to King George III for the repeal of the law.
The clergy, including his father, were disposed to defend imperial policy and to emphasize the Dissenters' lack of loyalty, and the desirability of appointing only Episcopalians to office. Some Puritan ministers, on the contrary, blew up the flame of resistance in the colony, which at first did not seem disposed to revolt. The sudden blaze of violence surprised nearly everyone, including even the astute Benjamin Franklin, who pressed the office of stamp master for Connecticut upon Jared Ingersoll. But an armed mob forced Ingersoll to resign, and Governor Fitch, con- sidered lukewarm in his opposition to the Stamp Act, was turned out at the next election.
The Episcopal clergy could hardly find words to express their horror at this popular resistance. Writing to the S. P. G., five of them scored it as "rebellion," and promised to warn their congregations against "the unreasonableness and wickedness of their taking the least part in any tumult or opposition to his Majesty's acts."3 Clerical pens scratched busily, contrasting loyal Churchmen with rebellious Puritans. Davies knew not how truly he was writing history when he declared: "In a word, there is such a fermentation in the country, as though some mighty change was taking place."4 Leaming blamed it upon Jonathan Mayhew's
·[ 116 ].
rabble-rousing, which had incited the attack on Governor Hutchinson's house in Boston. He pointed to a fact now noted by historians, that strongly "New Light" and Separatist eastern towns were more violent against the Stamp Act than western ones, where Episcopalians were numerous. Beach and Dibblee cried up loyalty to their people, and Lamson rejoiced in their steadfastness amid "anarchy and disloyalty."
As agitation blew more fiercely, the menace of violence poured upon pastors and people. Beach was threatened by the Sons of Liberty, and therefore requested the S. P. G. not to publish his letters and expose him "to the rage and violence of the mob."5 Bitter Samuel Peters bragged that Churchmen did not observe the fast day after the Stamp Act passed. His outspoken letters poured scorn upon "rebel" leaders, and were opened by suspicious patriots who made him pay dearly for it. The patriots must have turned purple with fury if they read Scovil's declaration that the disorders showed the necessity of promoting the Church as a cornerstone of loyalty. Viets feared that open loyalty would mean destruction of churches and homes. Christopher Newton was so threatened and spied upon that he became afraid to write any frank state- ment on public affairs.
A comparative calm after the repeal of the Stamp Act raised false hopes for peace in some of the clergy. Events, however, proved the accuracy of Andrews's prophecy that it would not eradicate opposition to the Church. It was small comfort that revulsion against excitement brought some converts, and that the crisis had tested the Churchmen's loyalty to the Hanoverian king, when the Puritans for years had accused them of being loyal to the exiled Stuart pretender to the throne. Puritan clamor had gained its purpose - to make the S. P. G. reluctant to establish more missions in New England.
When it could not blame the Church for supporting the ill- advised fiscal policy, the Puritan-patriot party found an equal offense in the perennial question of a colonial bishop. Probably they were quite familiar with John Beach's letter in 1768, claiming that the Church would increase rapidly if an American bishop could ordain and confirm. Fear of such an establishment was so real that John Adams declared that it was a principal cause of the Revolution. On the other hand, some Episcopal ministers feared
· [ 117 ] .
a collapse of the Church in an independent America. Dibblee voiced their feelings when he wrote, "God have Mercy upon us, if the Provinces here should throw off their connection, dependence and subjection to the Mother Country."6 That fear tended to mould Episcopalians into a royalist party, and inspired Doctor Johnson to assure the Archbishop of Canterbury that Churchmen were the king's "best friends."
Meanwhile, the British government's determination to make the colonists knuckle under was hammering the opposition into a compact party of Puritan republicans, bent upon independence. Samuel Peters blamed all upon a malignant spirit, egging the Puritans into "an universal revolution, or something as bad."7 Behind the cry "No taxation!" he heard the ancient Puritan shout "No bishops!" To him the Connecticut ministers were a set of bigoted clerical tyrants, who might have preached to Oliver Cromwell's army during the rebellion against King Charles I.
In a sense, Peters was right. For generations, Puritan clergymen had preached doctrines of political liberty derived from seventeenth-century authors. They regarded themselves and their people as heirs of the Puritan rebels, and the Episcopal Church as representing Charles I's royalism. The battle which their fore- fathers had waged in the 1640's was only the first phase of an age- long crusade for a republican church and government. Both sides regarded the coming American Revolution in that light. Their feelings were further inflamed during the war, when the established ministers strained every nerve to support and defend the military effort, and were morale officers of the patriot cause. They became special targets of British and Tory enmity - the butt of raids, threats, abuse, insults, and imprisonment.
Such reprisals were natural, especially after the Loyalists felt the heavy hand of the patriot majority. Their flight from the state began in the summer of 1775, and continued throughout the war. Loyalists were proportionately more numerous in Con- necticut than in the other New England states - and far bolder. At least 2000 men openly proclaimed their allegiance to the king at the beginning of the war, and there were many more "passive" Loyalists, who kept discreetly silent and took no active part on either side. Many Connecticut "Tories" were prominent enough to be mentioned in Lorenzo Sabine's Biographical Sketches of
· [ 118 ].
Loyalists of the American Revolution - including practically all the Episcopal clergy.
Too strong to be ignored, the Loyalists were ruthlessly sup- pressed by law. A long series of statutes aimed to restrain and punish all enemies of the American cause - by disarming, dis- franchisement, imprisonment, confiscation of estates, house arrest, and prohibition of travel without a special license. Sons of Liberty eagerly watched and reported Tory activity, and the state Council of Safety spent much time in considering the fate of Loyalists. Its records teem with the names of Episcopalian Tories arrested and confined in safely patriotic eastern towns. The jails were soon so crammed that the guards had to be strengthened. Loyalists es- pecially dreaded Newgate Prison in East Granby, a dank aban- doned copper mine used for ordinary criminals and celebrated by legends of terror.
Many Loyalists, too bold to scare easily, gave the state end- less trouble. Some secretly aided the British with supplies and in- formation, or by enlisting in General Howe's army on Long Island. Some promptly returned to Connecticut as recruiters, in the full knowledge that they were risking their necks. They persuaded scores of ardent young Churchmen to enlist in the Prince of Wales' American Volunteers, the Queen's Rangers, or the King's American Regiment, whose chaplain for a time was Samuel Seabury, later the first Bishop of Connecticut.
Tory participation in British raids inspired the fiercest patriot resentment. Loyalists "tipped off" the British about a patriot storehouse of arms and ammunition at Danbury, and guided Gen- eral Tryon's raiders who destroyed it. Others guided and partici- pated in ruthless and devastating forays upon Norwalk, Fairfield, and New Haven. The fact that Episcopalian churches and homes went up in smoke, along with the rest, comforted nobody on either side. The crowning outrage was a descent upon Groton led by the unforgivable Benedict Arnold, and rendered infamous by the cold- blooded murder of the fort's commander, Colonel Ledyard.
An especially dreaded band of Tories lived in New Cam- bridge (Bristol), and hid out in a cave still called "Tory Den." They were reported to be influenced by the "designing" James Nichols, the missionary at Waterbury and nearby towns. One of them was the Loyalist hero, Moses Dunbar, who attended the lit-
·[ 119 ].
tle Episcopal church on Federal Hill. Accepting a captain's com- mission in Fanning's Loyalist Regiment, he prowled about western Connecticut to enlist recruits and was captured and clapped into Hartford jail. Tried on the evidence of his own written confession, he was convicted and sentenced to death, but contrived to escape. Recaptured, he was hanged on the hill where Trinity College now stands. Years later his widow used to point to his grave under a tree, when she made trips to Hartford.
Dunbar's declaration to posterity, written on the evening before his execution, perfectly voices the spirit of many Loyalist Churchmen: "As I am fully persuaded that I depart in a state of peace with God and my own conscience, I have but little doubt of my future happiness thro' the merits of Jesus Christ ... I die in the profession and communion of the Church of England." The deep religious faith of that tough partisan appears vividly in a let- ter written from jail to his children: "REMEMBER your CREA- TOR when in youth and learn your Creed, Lord's Prayer, Ten Commandments and Catechism, and go to church as often as you can, and prepare yourselves, as soon as you are of a proper age, to be worthy partakers of the Lord's Supper. I charge you all never to leave the Church."8
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.