USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge > Records of the First Church at Dorchester, in New England, 1636-1734 > Part 1
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.
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
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
This Is Produced By The Photoduplication Program Of The New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, Massachusetts
RECORDS
OF THE
First Church at Dorchester
IN NEW ENGLAND
1636-1734
BOSTON, MASS. GEORGE H. ELLIS, 141 FRANKLIN STREET
1891
. DODby
COPYRIGHT, 1891, BY GEO. H. ELLIS.
Y 98
NOTE.
AT a meeting of the First Church, Dorchester, held July, 1888, it was voted to print the first manuscript volume of the Church Records, 1636-1734. The pastor (Rev. C. R. Eliot), Rev. S. J. Barrows, Will- iam B. Trask, and the deacons (Henry Humphreys, Hiram Clapp, and Richard C. Humphreys), were appointed a Committee upon editing. The work of transcribing the Records was intrusted to Rev. Charles H. Pope, that of writing the Introduction to Rev. S. J. Barrows and Mr. William B. Trask.
-
INTRODUCTION.
THE First Church of Dorchester was formed in England by the great historic forces which sowed the seed of Puritanism on the shores of Massachusetts Bay. The "Mary and John" which brought the first company of our Dorchester settlers was the second of the seventeen ships which sailed from England to America in 1629-30. The one hundred and forty * emigrants who embarked on this vessel at Plymouth March 20, 1629-30,t were gathered for the most part from Devon, Dorset, and Somer- setshire. Before setting sail from England, a church organiza- tion was formed with due solemnity, and ministers were chosen. This event is thus described by one of their number, Mr. Roger Clap, in the memoir left for his children : -
"There came many Godly Families in that Ship: We were of Passengers many in number (besides Sea-men) of good Rank : Two of our Magistrates came with us, viz. Mr. Rossiter and Mr. Ludlow. These Godly People resolved to live together; and therefore as they had made choice of those two Revd. Servants of God, Mr. John Warham and Mr. John Maverick to be their Min- isters, so they kept a solemn Day of Fasting in the New Hospital in Plymouth in England, spending it in Preaching and Praying : where that worthy Man of God, Mr. John White of Dorchester in Dorset was present, and preached unto us the Word of God, in the fore-part of the Day, and in the latter part of the Day as the people did solemnly make Choice of, and call those godly Ministers to be their Officers, so also the Revd. Mr. Warham and Mr. Maverick did accept thereof, and expressed the same. So we came, by the good Hand of the Lord, through the Deeps com- fortably ; having Preaching or Expounding of the Word of God every Day for Ten Weeks together, by our Ministers." (Memoirs of Roger Clap, p. 39.)
*John White says : "There passed away about 140 persons out of the west. ern parts from Plimmouth." (Force's Tracts : Vol. II. John White's " Planter's Plea," p. 35.) Winthrop, writing to his wife from aboard the "Arbella," March 28, 1630, says, " The ship which went from Plimouth carried about 140 per- sons." (Savage's " Winthrop," Ist Ed. 1825. p. 368.)
t The dates throughout are given in old style.
-
iv
DORCHESTER CHURCH RECORDS
The " Mary and John " arrived at Nantasket May 30, 1630. A few days later the passengers had effected a settlement at Dor- chester, being thus about a month earlier than the rest of the Winthrop Colony. On June 6, the first Sunday after the land- ing, services of gratitude and praise were held under the open sky .* And this day, which commemorates the planting in the wilderness of the church organized in Plymouth, England, is coin- cident also with the settlement of the town.
It is not possible to make a complete list of the passengers of the " Mary and John." Nor is it possible to give the names of those who constituted the first membership of the church on its organization in England or on its establishment in Dorchester. Prior to 1636 no records of the church are extant. Such names of the first church members as can be discovered must be gath- ered from other sources.
The records of the town begin Jan. 16, 1632-33.t Two miss. ing leaves probably contained its proceedings from 1630. A list of the male settlers of the town, whose names appear scattered through its pages prior to Aug. 23, 1636, comprises one hundred and forty-five names. Of these many came in 1633 on a ship from Weymouth, England, which brought about eighty passengers, who, Winthrop # says, settled at Dorchester. It is not easy always to distinguish the settlers of 1630 mentioned on the town records from those of 1633 or later dates, nor is it possible to say with - absolute certainty who of these were church members. The date of application for freemanship is a partial guide, since, after May 18, 1631, persons who became freemen of Massachusetts Bay Colony were required to be members of a church. The order requiring this was passed at a General Court held at Boston on the date above and reads "& to the end the body of the comons may be p'served of honest & good men, it was likewise ordered and agreed that for time to come noe man shalbe admitted to the freedome of this body polliticke, but such as are members of some of the churches within the lymitts of the same."
Among the first group of men who applied for this privilege Oct. 19, 1630, seven months before the passage of this order, are
*Discourse of Rev. Thaddeus Mason Harris, D.D., July 4, 1830, p. 8.
t There are three earlier entries, one dated January 21. It is uncertain whether this is 1631-2 or 1632-3.
# Savage's " Winthrop," Ist Ed. p. 105.
V
INTRODUCTION
thirteen names of Dorchester people. Five of these names - John Crabb, Christopher Gibson, Mr. Ralph Glover, Mr. Richard Southcoate, and Mr. Thomas Southcoate - are not entered subse- quently as having taken the oath, but the name of Gibson occurs later on the church records. After the passage of the order re- ferred to, it is safe and, indeed, necessary to assume that all those made freemen were members of the church.
LIST OF THOSE MADE FREEMEN FROM MAY 18, 1631, TO DATE OF CHURCH RECORDS, AUG. 23, 1636.
Benham, John
Gunn, Thomas
Phillips, John
Branker, Mr. John
Hart, Edmund
Pomeroy, Eltweed
Capen, Bernard
Hatch, Thomas
Pope, John
Capen, John
Hathorne, William
Randall, Philip
Carter, Joshua Hayden, John
Clap, Roger
Holcomb, Thomas
Clarke, Joseph
Hosford, William
* Rawlins, Thomas Read, William Rockwell, William Rossiter, Bray
Cogan, Mr. John
* Hoskins, John Hoyt, Simon
Sension, Matthias or Matthew Smith, John
Collacott, Richard
Hulbert, William
Cooke, Aaron
Hull, George
Smith, Henry
Deeble, Robert
Hull, John
Southcoate, Capt.
Denslow, Nicholas
Jeffrey, Thomas
Stoughton, Mr. Israel
Dewey, Thomas
Leavitt, John
Stoughton, Thomas
Dimmock, Thomas Duncan, Nathaniel Dyer, George
Lumbert, Thomas
Strange, George Swift, Thomas
Eales, John
Maverick, Mr. John
Thornton, Thomas
Eggleston, Bagot
Maverick, Moses
Tilley, John
Feakes or Fookes, Henry
Minot, George
Twitchell, Joseph
Filer, Walter
Moore, John
Upsall, Nicholas
Ford, Thomas Newbery, Mr. Thomas Warham, Mr. John
French, Stephen
Newton, John Wilkins, Bray
Gaylord, William
Parker, James +Williams, Roger
Gibbs, Giles Parkman, Elias
Wilton, David
Gillet, Jonathan
Pierce, John
Witchfield, John
Grant, Matthew
Phelps, William Wolcot, Henry
Grenaway, John Total,
Phillips, George
Wright, Henry 84
* There are two of these names, John Hoskins, 1631 and 1634, and Thomas Rawlins, 1631 and 1635-36. There is a strong probability that they both belong to Dorchester ; but we cannot be certain.
t This was not the more famous man who bore the same name.
Marshall, Thomas
Mason, Capt. John
Terry, Stephen
Clement, Augustine
vi
DORCHESTER CHURCH RECORDS
In those days migrations and transmigrations were common. Dorchester took and gave with the rest. We have seen that the membership of the church was swelled by arrivals subsequent to that of the "Mary and John." Exchanges were also made between the towns. The names of some of the early settlers can be traced in the records of other towns to which they soon after removed. It was not to be expected that the dauntless enterprise which had brought the Puritans to these shores would permit them to remain on the fringe of the coast. The "Westward Ho" spirit early showed itself in organized as well as individual migra- tion. One of the earliest, largest, and most important of these migrations from Dorchester occurred in 1635-36, when a large portion of the population removed to Connecticut and settled at Windsor. This colonial swarming reduced the original hive, a goodly number of the church members going with the junior pastor, Mr. Warham, to Windsor, and becoming the nucleus of another church in that place.
The depletion caused by the migration to Connecticut, as well as the influx of new colonists in 1635, led to the reorganization of the Dorchester Church, when Richard Mather was called to its pastorate in 1636, and the covenant with which this volume begins was adopted.
As many of the first members who came in the "Mary and John " went to Windsor, the question has been raised whether the church in Dorchester or the First Church in Windsor, Conn., is the proper heir of the church gathered in Plymouth, England. Since it is beyond doubt that both churches were essentially de- rived from the same historical root, both may rightfully and fra- ternally claim to be children of the same parentage. The question of ecclesiastical primogeniture is not here intrinsically important. Any facts, however, which show the original relation of the two churches to each other and to the parent church organized in England are interesting and valuable. More light is needed on various points. Dogmatism must be dismissed. The early set- tlers hardly imagined how much every scrap of information con- cerning their doings would be prized in later days, or they would have taken pains to anticipate our doubts and questionings.
Three questions are naturally suggested by the emigration to Windsor of so large a number of the Dorchester plantation. First, did the church go to Windsor by an official act as a church
vii
INTRODUCTION
organization ? Second, what proportion of the church member- ship went? Third, what was meant by a "new church " in Dor- chester ?
I. DID THE CHURCH GO TO WINDSOR BY AN OFFICIAL ACT AS A CHURCH ORGANIZATION ?
The only conclusive evidence on this point would be the records of the church previous to 1635. These, as has been said, are not extant. What action the church took, or whether it took any, is therefore not known. The subject of the emigration to Con- necticut excited heated and prolonged debate in the colonial gov- ernment .* Urgently advocated on one side, it was vehemently opposed on the other. The division most probably extended to the Dorchester church also. At least it is suggested by the fact that the church membership did not go as a unit. A part went to Windsor, a part remained in Dorchester.
In examining the question, care must be taken to distinguish between the church acting as a church organization and the simple body of church members acting individually or fraternally. The distinction was not carefully made by the early New England his- torians. This has led to misconception and misapplication of their words by later writers. Winthrop, Thomas Shepard, and Rich- ard Mather were contemporaries of the first settlers. Winthrop, in his Journal, vol. i. 183, 1636, says, "Mr. Mather and others of Dorchester, intending to begin a new church there (a great part of the old one being gone to Connecticut), desired the approbation of the other churches and of the magistrates." It is clear from Win- throp's statement that a new church organization was formed in Dorchester. He does not say, however, that the Dorchester church, as a church, had gone to Connecticut. His language, "a great part of the old one being gone to Connecticut," refers appar- ently to the colony of church members. Had the church taken formal action and gone as an organization, we should suppose that Winthrop would have mentioned it. His reticence gives color to the probability already assumed, that the controversy about the emigration shattered and divided the original organi- zation.
.
-
Rev. Thomas Shepard, of Newtown, now Cambridge, was also present at the council in Dorchester, April 1, 1636, mentioned by
* Savage's " Winthrop," vol. i. 140.
viii
DORCHESTER CHURCH RECORDS
Winthrop. He was one of those who were not satisfied with the qualifications of some who presented themselves for approval at that gathering. He publicly expressed his dissent. After return- ing home, he wrote a letter to Richard Mather, for whom he had a strong personal friendship, endeavoring to console him upon his failure to secure the approbation of the magistrates and the neighboring churches. There is nothing in this letter which throws light on the question whether the Windsor emigrants went forth as an organized church or not, unless it be the assumption of the need of a new church in Dorchester, and the use of the expression a "foundation for a church," as if it were wholly a new structure. (Albro's Life of Shepard, p. 215, et seq. Origi- nal in library of Massachusetts Historical Society.)
In his reply to this letter, Richard Mather, with warm affection and deep humility, reciprocates the kindly feeling of Mr. Shep- ard. He regrets the bringing of "stones so unhammered and unhewn," evidently referring to the new immigrants. Only one passage in his letter has significance with reference to the point we are considering. It is the following: "But you will say, Why, then, did you present yourself with the people before the Lord and the churches? I will tell you the truth therein. They pressed me into it with much importunity, and so did others also, till I was ashamed to deny any longer, and laid it on me as a thing to which I was bound in conscience to assent ; because, if I yielded not to join, there would be, said they, no church at all in this place, and so a tribe, as it were, should perish out of Israel, and all through my default." (Albro's Life of Shepard, p. 219. Original in library of Massachusetts Historical Society.) While Shepard treats the matter as if it were a new foundation, Mr. Mather's words seem to imply that a church or tribe already existing would perish unless he yielded to their importunities to come to them. A large portion of the church membership had gone to Windsor with one of its pastors. The pastor remaining in Dorchester had died. The flock was scattered and without a shepherd. These may have been strong arguments in the importunity which induced Mr. Mather to yield .*
*It is interesting to note that between the leaves of the letter of Thomas Shepard to Richard Mather of April 2, 1636, in the library of the Massachu- setts Historical Society, and what is apparently a copy by Mr. Shepard of Mr.
ix
INTRODUCTION
Increase Mather, in the life of his father, Richard, referring to the same event, says, "The church which was first planted in that place, being removed with the Reverend Mr. Warham to Con- necticut, there was an Essay towards Gathering a church April 1, 1636." (Life and Death of Rev. Richard Mather, edition of 1850, p. 73.) The natural assumption from Increase Mather's words is that the church went as a church. Yet we cannot be sure that he did not mean simply the body of church mem- bers. William Hubbard, 1682, says : "The first attempt of gath- ering any church in the year 1636 was at Dorchester on the first .of April, when the former pastor and most of the old church being removed to Connecticut, Mr. Richard Mather, with several Christians that came along with him out of Lancashire, having settled their habitations there, and intending to begin a new church, desired the approbation of the magistrates, and of the neighboring churches," etc. (General History of New England, p. 273.) Hubbard, like Winthrop, is explicit in the expression " most of the old church being removed to Connecticut." He evidently refers to the body of church members. If the church took any organic action, it is not alluded to.
Cotton Mather in 1702 simply follows his father Increase, say- ing, "The church formerly planted there being transplanted with Mr. Warham to Connecticut, another church was now gathered here Aug. 23, 1636, by whose choice Mr. Mather was now become their teacher." (Magnalia, vol. i. p. 450, Life of Richard Mather, Hartford Edition, 1853.)
Mather's reply, are found two pages of memoranda, possibly the outline of a sermon ; and between these, without word or comment, are written the follow- ing twenty-one names: Mr. [Nathaniel] Duncan; John Grenaway; Richard Callacott; William Rockwell; John Holman; Bernard Capen; Richard Wade; Thomas Dimmock; Robert Deeble; John Pope; John Phillips; John Ben- ham; William Hannum; John Capen; Nicholas Upsall; Thomas Swift; Thomas Deeble; Thomas Millett; Augustine Clement; Thomas Twitchell; John Holland. Nearly all of these names, as will be seen by comparison with the lists herein, are of people then in Dorchester; and most of them had come before Mr. Mather. Others were later arrivals. Two of these names, those of John Holman and Thomas Dimmock, had a line drawn through them. It is impossible to tell just what this memorandum was made for. It may be the names of those who importuned Mr. Mather to settle in Dorchester. Twelve of these names are afterwards found on the church records. It is worth while noticing also that three of these persons (William Rockwell, William Hannum, and Thomas Deeble) afterwards went to Windsor. Did they intend to go when this memorandum was written?
x
DORCHESTER CHURCH RECORDS
Mr. James Blake, Jr., born April 30, 1688, one of the most accurate and trustworthy of the local historians of Dorchester, says : "Mr. Warham and about a half of the church removed to Windsor in Connecticut Colony, and M1. Mather and his people came and joined with Mr. Maverick and that half of the church that were left, and from these people so united are the greatest part of the present inhabitants descended." (Annals of Dor- chester, 1750, p. 14.) The natural inference from his language is that the church did not go to Connecticut as an organization, but rather that the emigration divided the original society.
In strange contrast to Blake's are the words of Governor Hutchinson in 1764: "Mr. Warham, their minister, and the whole church followed the next year." (History of Massachu- setts, vol. i. p. 96, edition of 1795.) Hutchinson is thus unques- tionably wide of the mark; and many of the later historians have copied his misleading statement, which a reference to Winthrop would have corrected.
Important in its bearing on this subject is the manuscript title- page of this the first and oldest volume of the Dorchester church records. It reads : "Records of the Second church in Dorchester which was gathered after the First Church Removed and settled themselves at Windsor. Beginning August 23 Anno Domini, 1636." It must be carefully noted, however, that this title-page is not a part of the original records, but a later addition made some eighty years thereafter, probably by Rev. John Danforth, who appears to have taken charge of the book on the death of Deacon Daniel Preston in 1695. Here, again, the question arises, Does Mr. Danforth refer to the church membership as removed and settled at Windsor or to the church as an organi- zation ? Probably on the title-page no attempt is made to state all the facts, but simply to indicate that the new or Second Church was numerically the successor of the first. Yet the word- ing of the title-page, though written by a later hand, gives strong color and support to the yet unverified surmise that the church went to Windsor as a church organization.
As will be seen, however, from previous quotations, so loosely is the word "church " used by writers of the time, and so often without any distinction between the church as an organization and the church as a congregation of individual worshippers, that it would not be safe to adopt one signification as wholly exclusive of the other.'
xi
INTRODUCTION
The question, therefore, as to whether the church at Windsor went as a church organization can be decisively answered, it would seem, only by recovering its original records. There is little hope of finding these ancient records either in Windsor or in Dor- chester. On the one hand, it is assumed that they were taken by Mr. Warham to Connecticut; on the other, that they remained with the senior pastor of the church, Mr. Maverick, in Dorchester. It is not impossible, however, since manuscripts vastly older have been by good fortune exhumed from obscurity, that the missing records may some day be brought to light. Should this good fortune occur, on no point will they be examined with more inter- est than on this one concerning what action, if any, the church took in the heated controversy relating to the emigration. Until such decisive evidence is produced, we may accept the judgment of a former editor of the Puritan Recorder, now Congregationalist (presumably Rev. Parsons Cooke, D.D., of Lynn, Mass.), who said, in 1855, "Whether the Windsor church removing from Dorchester, removed in an organized capacity, that it voted in church meeting to remove as a church, and carried with them their church records, formally dismissing those left behind, and continuing to keep their records as the same church, more light is required. As to the evidence produced by Mr. Jabez H. Hayden, in his very acceptable article, it proves clearly that another church was organized at Dorchester. Of this we were well aware; but the expression 'a large part of the old one being gone to Connecticut' would seem to indicate that the church itself did not go. The difficulty about all the docu- ments relating to this subject is that the writers seem to have treated the question as to the preservation of the original or- ganization as a matter of little consequence; while they state the fact of the removal, and so use expressions which may be construed either way." (Stiles's History of Windsor, 864.) Whether that portion of the church which went to Windsor was formally reorganized or not after settlement there is not known.
II. WHAT PROPORTION OF THE MEMBERSHIP WENT TO WINDSOR ?
From the quotations already given from early historians, it will be seen that their language was sometimes misleading on this sub- ject. Thus Hutchinson says, "The whole church went to Con-
xii
DORCHESTER CHURCH RECORDS
necticut "; and the same might be inferred by a modern reader unacquainted with the facts from the language of Increase Mather and Cotton Mather, his son. They give no indication that even a part of the old church remained in Dorchester. Nor does the manuscript title of this volume of the church records already quoted and ascribed to Rev. John Danforth give any intimation that a part of the old church remained in Dorchester. Even Dr. Thaddeus Mason Harris, one of the most honored and learned of the pastors in the Dorchester succession, in an early article on the history of the First Church, failed to make this distinction. Dr. Harris said, "Their whole church and most of the congrega- tion determined upon going." (Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, First Series, vol. ix. p. 153.) This mistake may have been derived from Hutchinson. However that may be, twenty- six years afterwards, Dr. Harris took pains to correct his error. In a sermon delivered on the celebration of the two hundredth anniversary of the church, held July 4, 1830, he says, "Some of the first comers still remained here," and again, "A number of church members remained," thus materially qualifying his previous language and referring to the remainder as the nucleus of the reorganized church.
Of the older historians, Hubbard and Winthrop are more accu- rate, the former saying " most of the old church being removed to Connecticut," and the latter saying "a great part of the old one being gone." James Blake, Jr., is also careful and explicit on this point.
Fortunately, we are not dependent wholly upon surmises or loose statements, either ancient or modern, concerning the pro- portion of the Dorchester people who went to Windsor. A study of the early town records throws some light on the question.
The first emigration to Windsor took place October, 1635. It was continued in the spring of 1636. We have already given a list of those who were made freemen and who were therefore nec- essarily church members from the passage of the law imposing this requirement May 18, 1631, to Aug. 23, 1636, the date at which the church records begin. We now present the same list of freemen, arranged chronologically with reference to their date of admission to freemanship, and giving also the date on which their names last appeared in the town records. Of those who remained subsequent to 1640 it is so stated.
xiii
INTRODUCTION
LIST OF FREEMEN ADMITTED BEFORE AUG. 23, 1636, THE OPENING DATE OF THE PRESENT CHURCH RECORDS.
1630.
[John Crabb, Christopher Gibson, Mr. Ralph Glover, Mr. Richard Southcoate, and Mr. Thomas Southcoate, before referred to, are among the names of those who desired to be made freemen Oct. 19, 1630, from Dorchester, but are not entered subsequently as having taken the oath.]
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.