History of Essex County, Massachusetts : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Vol. I, Part 29

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton), ed. n 85042884-1
Publication date: 1888
Publisher: Philadelphia : J. W. Lewis & Co.
Number of Pages: 1538

USA > Massachusetts > Essex County > History of Essex County, Massachusetts : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Vol. I > Part 29

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).

I Address at rededication of the church, 1867, p. 12.

SALEM.

next action, which was the choice of elders and dea- cons, it did leave that business uncompleted, at that time, to be finished at a later day. After going so far as to designate the persons of its choice-perhaps by what we might call an informal ballot-it is quaintly added by Mr. Charles Gott, in his letter to Governor Bradford, that "they were only named, and laying on of hands deferred to see if it pleased God to send us more able men over." It is true that at the meeting which followed, August 6th, "appointed for another solemn day of humiliation for the full choice of elders and deacons, and ordaining them," not only were the elders and deacons chosen and set apart to their re- spective offices in a formal and solemn manner, but some ceremony of ordination took place also, in seem- ing repetition of that by which, on the 20th of July, the pastor and teacher had been ordained. In look- ing for the reasons for this we are left largely to con- Jecture. Whatever may have occurred in the consul- tations held by those interested between July 20th and August 6th, the election, which had taken place on the former day, must have been deemed valid, for it was left undisturbed, and no like form was gone through with again. But the church at Plymouth had been notified of the occasion, and representatives of that church had been invited and were expected to be present on August 6th. Their approval and assurance of fellowship were also expected to be given, and were valued, though especial care was taken that it should be understood beforehand that this proffered fellowship would be welcomed on the part of the Salem Church simply as an act of Christian courtesy and brotherly communion, and not as implying any ecclesiastical jurisdiction in one church over another. There had been correspondence previously between them of Plymouth and these of Salem in regard to the true principles and right method of church founda- tion and organization, in which there had appeared to be a general harmony of views and the utmost good feeling, though not entire concurrence in all points.

On the 6th of August a covenant was to be present- ed for adoption, and a more definite recognition and enrollment of the members of the church was to be made by signing and accepting the covenant. In the absence of any definite testimony going to show the motive for the renewal of the act of ordination-the laying on of hands-upon the pastor and teacher- elect, we venture to think that it may have been part- ly that, upon review of the proceedings of July 20th, it was thought that the adoption and signing of the covenant would more properly have preceded the or- daining of the ministers; partly, perhaps, that the contemplated full constitution of the church designed to go into effect on the later day, together with the expected presence on that day of the Governor and others, messengers from the Plymouth Church, as guests of the Salem brethren, and appointed to bring greetings from the older sister church, made it seem to those who arranged the proceedings, fitting that

the induction of the chosen ministers of the church into office should form a part of the observances of the time, as essential to their completeness. Gover- nor Bradford and his associates from Plymouth, " com- ing by sea and hindered by cross-winds," did not arrive till late in the day; but though not present at the beginning, "they came into the assembly after- wards, and gave them the right hand of fellowship, wishing all prosperity, and a blessed success unto such good beginnings."

To assist us in determining-if that is possible-what was the form of the covenant adopted by the Salem Church in 1629, and to explain some of the contro- versies which have arisen over this question, it is nec- essary to present here certain facts in regard to the history of the records of this church.

No records made contemporaneously, or nearly so, with the events and facts which they record are now in existence of an earlier period than 1660, the time when the ministry of John Higginson began. John Higginson was the son of Francis, who was chosen the first teacher in the Salem Church July 20, 1629, and who drew up the covenant adopted August 6th of the same year. There was a book of records purporting to cover the period from 1629 to 1660 in existence when John Higginson was ordained, or at least from 1636 to 1660; when and how it began is obscure. It appears to have borne upon its pages some things which it seemed to the most considerate and exem- plary members of the church not well to hand down to posterity. A committee was appointed accordingly "to review the church book and to report such things to the church as they conceive worthy of considera- tion." In their report the committee say that: "They conceived the book itself and paper of it being old, not well bound, and in some places having been wet and torn, and not legible, is not like to last long to be of use to posterity ; therefore they thought it best if it were kept in a place of safety by the Elders-by that means it will be of use so long as it will last. Only some few passages in it, which do reflect upon particular persons, or upon the whole church, without any church vote, and without the proof, they did mark in the book as thinking they should be struck out." At the same time, " some of the breth- ren propounded, which was readily consented to, that there might be liberty, to such as desired it, to see those passages mentioned in the former book for a month's time." This recommendation appears to have been satisfactory to the church, and to have been adopted and carried into effect. It accomplished all that was expected of it-perhaps more. Not only were the objectionable parts withdrawn from sight, bnt the book itself disappeared, and except some por- tions of it which were transcribed into the new book of records, begun by John Higginson in 1660, its con- tents are unknown. It has been assumed that all that was important in it would be likely to be preserved, and to be contained in the record of the second Hig-

HISTORY OF ESSEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.

ginson. Very likely. We shall probably never know. Some will never cease to regret that they cannot know. If not important in any other sense, some will always think that even the expunged records are important to the completeness of history, and wish that it had been permitted them also to judge for themselves the wisdom of suppressing them. It would be interesting, no doubt, to see what picture the stormy time of Roger Williams' ministry left of itself on the old record- book. At least, as to the faithfulness and accuracy of the copy of those portions, purporting to be trans- cribed from the first book into the second, as far as they go, there should be no valid ground of doubt. But just here a new question, and an important one, precipitates itself upon us as to this very point-name- ly, the accuracy of the copy. The old book, the first book of records, appears to have been begun no earlier than 1636, with the beginning of the ministry of Rev. Hugh Peters;1 consequently its record of events at the organization of the church, in 1629, was not strictly contemporaneons with the events. When we read there the covenant of 1629, as renewed in 1636, what confi- dence may we rightly have that the renewed covenant was the same that Francis Higginson wrote, and the church iu Salem adopted August 6, 1629? Was it the same in substance only, or likewise in form? Over this question a spirited controversy has arisen within the last fifty years.

John Higginson, minister of the church from 1660 to 1708, and son of the framer of the covenant, him- self, as a youth of thirteen, having joined the church in 1629, solemnly renewing this covenant with the church in 1660, records it as having been already "renewed" by the church in 1636, and he is our authority for say- ing that it is the covenant adopted in 1629, as he in- dorses it as such, the record in the margin running thus : " 6 of 6th month, 1629, this covenant was public- ly Signed and Declared, as may appear from page 85, in this book." To this, as renewed in 1660, is prefixed a preamble adopted with it in 1636, which states the fact and shows the motive of the renewal at that time, 1636, and an additional article is appended to it at the end, which was adopted with it at the renewal, in 1660, as applicable to the relation of the church to the Quakers at that time, the fact and the motive of the addendum being likewise plainly stated. Mr. Higgin- son's intention seems clearly and unmistakahly to have been to present the covenant of 1629 in its orig- inal and unaltered form, and to distinguish from it carefully the prefix and suffix above referred to as no part of it. We introduce it here as it stood, unqnes- tioned, for more than two hundred years. And to make evident the parts added in 1636 and in 1660, it is given as it stands in the record of Mr. John Hig- ginson in 1660,-

1 lle wrote hisown name Peter. It has been the modern usage to write it l'eters. Dr. Palfrey, in his "llistory of Now England," writes it Peter.

Gather my Saints together unto me that have made n Covenant with me by sacrifice. Psa. 50 : 5:

6. of 6th Month. 1629, This Covenant was ublickly Signed and Wee whose names are here under written, men- bers of the present Church of Christ in Salem, having found by and experience how dangerous Declared, as may appear from page 85, in this Book. it is to sitt loose to the Corenant wee make with our God : 2nd How Apt wee are to wan- der into by pathes, even to the looseing of our first aimes in entring into Church fellowship : Doe therefore solemnly in the presence of the Eternall God, both for our own comforts, and those which shall or maye be joyned unto us, renere that Church Covenant we find this Charch bound unto at theire first be- ginning, viz : That

We covenant with the Lord, and one with an other; and doe bynd our selves in the presence of God, to walke together in all his waies, ac- cording as he ie pleased to reveale himself unto us in his Blessed word of truth. And doe more explicitely in the name and feare of God, profess and protest to walke as followeth, through the power and grace of our Lord Jesus.

1 first wee avowe the Lord to be our God, and our selves hie people in the truth and simplicitio of our Spirits.

2 Wee give our selves to the Lord Jesus Christ and the word of his grace, fore the teaching, ruleing and sanctifyeing of ue lo matters of worship, and Conversation, resolveing to cleave to him alone for life and glorie ; and oppose all contrarie wayes, cannons and constitutione of men in his worship.

3 Wee promise to walke with our brethren and sisters in this Congre- gation with all watchfullnes and tendernes, avoyding all jelouslee, Buspi- tions, backbyteings, censuringe, provoakings, secrete risings of spirite Against them ; but in all offences to follow the rule of the Lord Jesne, and to beare and forbeare, give and forgive, as he hath taught us.

4 In publick or in private, we will willingly doe nothing to the ofence of the Church but will be willing to take advise for our selves and ours, as ocasion shall be presented.

5 Wee will not in the Congregation be forward eyther to shew oure oune gifts or parts in speaking or ecrupling, or there discover the fayl- ing of oure brethren or sisters butt atend an orderly cale there unto ; knowing how much the Lord may be dishonoured, and hie Gospell, in the profession of it, eleighted, by our distempers, and weaknesses in publyck.

6 We bynd our selves to etuddy the advancement of the Gospel! In all truth and peace, both io regard of those that aro within, or with- out, noe way sleighting our sister Churches, but using theire Coun- sell as need shalbe: nor laying a stumbling block before any, noe, not the Indians, whose good we desire to promote, and soe to con- verse, as we may avoyd the verrye appearance of evill.

7 Wee hearbye promise to carrye our selves in all lawfull obedience, to those that are over ns, in Church or Commonweale, knowing how well pleasing it will be to the Lord, that they should have incour- agement in theire placee, hy our not grieveing theyre epirites through our Irregularities.

8 Wee resolve to approve our selves to the Lord, in our perticular cnl- inge, shunning ydleness as the bane of any state, nor will wee deule hardly, or oppressingly with any, wherein we are the Lord's stew- ards :

9 alsoe promysing to our best abilitie to teach our children and servants the knowledg of God and his will, that they may serve him also ; and all this, not by any strength of our owue, but by the Lord Christ ; whose bloud we desire may sprinckle this our Covenant made in his name.

This Covenant was renewed by the Church on a sollemne day of Humil- iation 6 of 1 moneth 1660. When also considering the power of Temptation amongst us by reason of ye Quakers doctrine to the leavening of some in the place where we are and endnugering of others, doe sec cause to remember the Admonition of our Saviour Christ to his disciples Math. 16.

Take heed and beware of ye leaven of the doctrine of the Pharisees and doe judge so farre as we understand it yt ye Quakers doctrine in as bad or worse than that of yje Pharisees ; Therefore we doe. Covenant by the help of Jesus Christ to take heed and beware of the leaven of the doctrine of the Quakers.

The preamble, postscript and marginal note we have italicized.

Until about fifty years ago, no doubt is known to have been publicly expressed or privately entertained

SALEM.

that the covenant, as renewed in 1636, was, with a near approach to verbal accuracy, the same that was adopted in 1629. In connection with a " discourse delivered on the First Centennial Anniversary of the Tabernacle Church," in 1835, by Rev. Samuel M. Worcester, pastor of that church, and published, the author places the covenant of 1636-the foregoing covenant of these pages-in an appendix, with the following passage taken from its first paragraph in quotation marks, namely : "That we covenant with the Lord, and one with another, and do bind our- selves, in the presence of God, to walk together in all his ways, according as he is pleased to reveal himself unto us in his blessed word of truth :" and follows the quotation with this explanatory observation, "I have seen fit to throw into the form of a quotation that part of the Preamble of the foregoing Covenant, which I suspect was, in substance at least, THE COVE- NANT 'which the church was bound unto at their first beginning.'" [The italics are ours ] This conclu- sion, though couched at first in the form of a suspi- cion, was fortified with sundry reasons to support it, and affirmed later in more confident terms : "The conclusion is to my mind irresistible from the internal evidence alone, that the covenant printed in the Mag- nalia of Mather [that of 1636 as given above], and often cited as the covenant of the First Church at its beginning, could not have been the first Covenant of that church."

Again, in a discourse delivered at Plymouth De- cember 22, 1848, and published the following year, Dr. Worcester reiterates the same opinion with greater emphasis, and qualified by no doubts : "What has been generally printed, for a hundred and fifty years, as the First Covenant of that church, and adopted August 6, 1629, is not that covenant. It was adopted as a special covenant in 1636" is his confi- dent decision, which he proceeded to support with the asserted facts and resulting reasonings which had brought his mind to this conviction. And yet, again in 1854, in discussion of the same subject before the Essex Institute, the same ground was firmly main- tained by him. In the next year, 1855, two publica- tions appeared, both issued by the Congregational Board of Publication, which gave their sanction to this later view of the first covenant. One was "The Ecclesiastical History of New England," etc., by Jo- seph B. Felt, Vol. I., and the other a new edition of Morton's "New England's Memorial," in the appen- dix to which the editor, or editors, indorse the same

conclusion. Mr. Felt says, 1 that "this cove- nant [of 1629] differs from the second, formed 1636, which has long been supposed to be the first, and from the hand of Higginson, when it was probably drawn up by Peters at the later date." He appears to have relied, as Dr. Worcester had done, mainly on internal evidence as his warrant for this belief.2

In the new edition of "Morton's New England's Memorial," Appendix A, under the heading "The Articles of Faith and Covenant of 1629," there is attributed to the editor of an earlier edition of the work, the learned Judge John Davis, an important oversight in not discovering that with the covenant of 1629 was adopted a separate confession of faith, and in misinterpreting history, in that he omitted to connect this confession of faith with the covenant of 1629 as a virtual part of the constitution of the church at its beginning.

The foregoing authorities,-Worcester, Felt and the editors of "Morton's Memorial," edition of 1855, witnessing to the strong probability, if not moral certainty of considerable and important differences between the covenant of 1629 and the renewed covenant of 1636 (if they be not reducible to one authority, viz. : the Rev. Dr. Worcester, followed by the others), lay especial stress upon the indications, or proofs, that the covenant of 1629 was adopted jointly with a creed, or confession of articles of belief. The covenant proper of 1629 they believe to have been materially shorter than that of 1636, but to have had this credal adjunct, which made the church constitu- tion of 1629 to differ greatly from the renewed cove- nant of 1636 in being distinctly and emphatically doctrinal in its aspect.

An arraignment so weighty as this of what had passed for verified history for many generations, though sustained by a support so considerable, and by names of repute, was not likely to go long un- challenged. Nor did it. Taking only the time neces- sary to subject the evidence in the case to a rigid re-examination, the Hon. Daniel A. White, judge of probate of Essex County, and a leading member of the First Church for many years, replied to the published statements of Rev. Dr. Worcester, in which the traditions current for a couple of centuries as un- disputed truth were set aside as we have seen with great assurance as founded in misconception-as sanctioning "an egregious and singular error." Point by point the champion of the long accredited opinion, -namely, that the covenant of 1636 was, with no mate- rial difference, the covenant of 1629,-stoutly contend- ed for the trustworthiness of the ancient and long unquestioned opinion. The testimony of John Hig- ginson was held to be explicit. His knowledge of the facts was not to be impeached. What Cotton Mather said of the first covenant was also to be ac- cepted, he contended, with as much confidence as if it had been said by Higginson himself, for he, Hig- ginson, wrote that, having "known the beginning and progress of these (New England) churches unto this day, and having read over much of this history (in the Magnalia), I cannot but in the love and fear of God bear witness to the truth of it." The first cove- nant is given by Mather as agreeing with that of 1636, only differing from it in lacking its preamble. The important testimony of Rev. John Fiske is also

1 Page 115. 23

2 Page 267.

HISTORY OF ESSEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS.

cited by Mr. White-only lately brought to light, but dating almost from the renewal of the Covenant in 1636, as Mr. Fiske came to Salem, from England, in 1637, and was for some time an assistant of Rev. Mr. Peters. In Mr. Fiske's private book of records " we find recorded," says Judge White, "in the handwrit- ing of Mr. Fiske, the First Covenant of the Salem Church, with the preamble to its renewal, Mr. Fiske's record of the Covenant being essentially the same as that which we have taken from the Salem Church book " (that already presented in this writ- ing).

The "confession of faith," which Dr. Worcester supposes was adopted by the church in 1629, in con- nection with the first covenant, Mr. White believes -and believes he has proved-was of much later date, probably 1680, and was expressly declared not to be intended, even at that date, to be imposed as a rigid test upon all candidates for admission to the church. He produces much evidence to show that the impo- sition of doctrinal tests as a uniform and indispensa- ble condition of admission to church membership was expressly disavowed by the church at the begin- ning, and that for a long time at least it consistently adhered in practice to the position thus taken. Not denying that Mr. Francis Higginson was commis- sioned "to draw up a confession of faith and cove- nant in Scripture language," or that he did so, he finds all that these terms describe and define in the single instrument commonly known and spoken of as the first covenant; "covenant," or " confession of faith and Covenant," he finds it called, the terms being used interchangeably, and when designated as "the confession of faith and covenant," the pro- noun referring to it is in the singular number, indi- cating but one instrument or writing. Morton, hav- ing full knowledge of things from the beginning, writes, in his "New England's Memorial :" "The con- fession of faith and covenant fore-mentioned was acknowledged only as a direction, pointing unto that faith and covenant contained in the holy Scripture, and therefore no man was confined unto that form of words, but only to the substance, end and scope of the matter contained therein. . Some were . admitted by expressing their consent to that written confession of faith and covenant ; others did answer to questions about the principles of religion that were publicly propounded to them ; some did present their confession in writing, which was read for them, and some that were able and willing, did make their confession in their own words and way. A due re- spect was also had unto the conversations of men, viz. : that they were without scandal." 1

Besides much other external and historical evi- dence, too voluminous to be introduced here, but pre-

sented as bearing upon the writer's main conclusion and fortifying it, Judge White comments also care- fully upon the internal evidence in the alleged anach- ronisms contained in the covenant of 1636, much relied upon to prove that it could not have been the same as that of 1629. On this point he dissents from the judgment expressed by Dr. Worcester, Mr. Felt and the editors of "Morton's Memorial," edition of 1855, and at the same time equally forecloses, it may be here observed, by unconscious anticipations, 80 far as the weight of his name goes, a similar opinion from another source presently to he noticed,-an opinion not expressed till after Judge White's death, -- by his former pastor, Rev. Charles W. Upham.

This opinion of Rev. Mr. Upham is remarkable, not only for the weight that justly attaches to any opinion of his upon matters to which he had given many years of study, and to which he brought a trained mind and habits of research, but still more for the reason that it is a direct reversal of an earlier opinion of his own on a point since strenuously controverted, without so much as an allusion on his part to any change of opinion, or to any judgment previously en- tertained and expressed, and now abandoned or mod- ified ; remarkable, moreover, as being in direct oppo- sition to the well-known and elaborately-maintained opinion of his able and candid parishioner, Judge White, with whom he had been in life-long associa- tions of intimacy, aud the worth of whose deliberate judgment he knew so well how to estimate, and yet to his dissent from whose judgment he makes no ref- erence whatever that we have been able to discover. Mr. Upham's last conclusion, in regard to the identity of the covenant of 1629 with that renewed in 1636, is against it, and agrees with that of Dr. Worcester- that there were two covenants; that of 1629 very short, that of 1636 quite long. But on Dr. Worces- ter's more important position, that there were articles of belief required to be adopted as a confession of faith, distinct from the covenant, but in force in con- nection with it, in 1629,-against this opinion Mr. Upham expresses himself on all occasions distinctly and emphatically.

It is to be remembered that Rev. Charles W. Up- ham, whom we now cite, was for twenty years pastor of the First Church (from 1824 to 1844), conversant with its records and with early Salem history, and the author of important historical discourses of com- memoration, delineating with great fullness of detail the story of the early days of the Salem Church. Mr. Upham delivered a "Second Century Lecture of the First Church" in 1829 of a historical character, and gives in an appendix, as the "first covenant of the First Church," the covenant already given on a preceding page of this work, it being the same as that which was renewed in 1636, he holding-that is, at that time-to the long-established and settled opinion upon the question in hand. Mr. Upham remarks at the end of the covenant that "at a very early period

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.

History of Essex County, Massachusetts : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Vol. I, Part 29

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton), ed. n 85042884-1 Publication date: 1888 Publisher: Philadelphia : J. W. Lewis & Co. Number of Pages: 1538

Author: Hurd, D. Hamilton (Duane Hamilton), ed. n 85042884-1
Publication date: 1888
Publisher: Philadelphia : J. W. Lewis & Co.
Number of Pages: 1538