USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge > Records of the First Church at Dorchester, in New England, 1636-1734 > Part 2
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
May 18, 1631.
Mr. John Maverick
LAST MENTIONED IN
Rev. John Warham
DORCHESTER.
Capt. Southcoate
Thomas Stoughton
June 27, 1636.
Bray Rossiter
Bagot Eggleston
Feb. 10, 1634-5.
Stephen Terry
Feb. 10, 1634-5.
John Benham
Feb. 13, 1638-9.
George Phillips
Jan. 18, 1635-6.
Roger Williams
Jan. 16, 1636-7.
John Moore
April 23, 1638.
John Hoskins
May 24, 1634.
Matthew Grant
Nov. 2, 1635.
Simon Hoyt
Feb. 10, 1634-5.
Henry Smith
Dec. 29, 1634.
Thomas Ford
June 27, 1636.
Nicholas Upsall
after 1640.
John Pierce
after 1640.
Thomas Rawlins
Nov. 22, 1634.
George Dyer
after 1640.
William Rockwell
Jan. 2, 1637-8.
John Grenaway
after 1640.
Thomas Lumbert
March 18, 1637-8.
March 18, 1637-8.
William Gaylord William Phelps
July 5, 1635.
April 3, 1632.
William Hulbert
after 1640.
John Phillips John Hull
Aug. 7, 1632.
July 5, 1636. after 1640.
1
xiv
DORCHESTER CHURCH RECORDS
Nov. 6, 1632.
Mr. John Branker Sept. 10, 1637.
March 4, 1632-3.
George Hull
June 27, 1636.
Eltweed Pomeroy
March 1, 1635-6.
Nicholas Denslow
July 5, 1636.
Giles Gibbs
after Feb. 1, 1635-6.
John Newton
Nov. 22, 1634.
Richard Collacott
John Smith
after 1640. after 1640.
June 11, 1633.
David Wilton John Witchfield
Jan. 6, 1633-4. April 17, 1635.
Nov. 5, 1633.
Mr. Israel Stoughton
after 1640.
Mr. John Cogan
Aug. 5, 1633.
April 1, 1634.
George Minot
after 1640. April 17, 1635.
Henry Wolcot
William Hosford
April 17, 1635.
May 14, 1634.
Roger Clap
after 1640.
Joshua Carter
Nov. 2, 1635.
Joseph Tuchell (Twitchell)
after 1640.
Thomas Hatch, sold house and land to John Phillips at or before
Oct. 31, 1639. after 1640.
Bray Wilkins
John Eales, sold his land in Dorchester Oct. 28, 1640.
Philip Randall April 17, 1635.
Thomas Holcomb, sold homestead to Richard Jones Aug. 12, 1635.
Thomas Dewey, sold homestead, same date as above, conveyed to Richard Jones. Thomas Jeffrey April 17, 1635.
James Parker
April 23, 1638.
Walter Filer John Hayden Edmund Hart
Feb. 1, 1635-6.
William Hathorne
Oct. 2, 1636.
Dec. 1, 1634.
Stephen French John Capen
June 27, 1636.
March 18, 1637-8.
after 1640.
INTRODUCTION
XV
Sept. 3, 1634.
Moses Maverick
Jan. 6, 1633-4.
Mr. Thomas Newbery, inventory of his estate made
Jan. 28, 1636.
John Pope
after 1640.
Thomas Thornton
Feb. 18, 1635-6.
Matthias or Matthew Sension
March 18, 1637-8.
March 4, 1634-5.
Capt. John Mason Joseph Clarke John Tilley
Feb. 10, 1634-5.
Nov. 22, 1634. Jan. 2, 1637-8.
May 6, 1635.
Thomas Swift
after 1640.
George Strange
Nov. 22, 1634.
Nathaniel Duncan
after 1640.
Thomas Marshall
Feb. 10, 1634-5.
Henry Wright
after 1640. .
Jonathan Gillet
July 5, 1636.
Thomas Gunn
Feb. 10, 1634-5. after 1640. Jan. 4, 1635-6.
Henry Feakes or Fookes
Elias Parkman
July 5, 1636.
Aaron Cooke
July 5, 1636.
Sept. 2, 1635.
William Read
March 18, 1637-8.
John Leavitt
Nov. 2, 1635.
May 25, 1636.
Bernard Capen
Augustine Clement
Thomas Dimmock
after 1640. after 1640. March 18, 1637-8.
This list comprises 84 names. So many, at least, we may assume were members of the church. We cannot say that they were the only members. Undoubtedly there were some who joined the church who are not recorded as freemen. Thus, taking the names of church members entered on the church records previous to Nov. 4, 1639, we find that, out of 60 names, 17 of them were not freemen at that time. Of these, 7 were subsequently admitted to freemanship; but 10 are not
:
Robert Deeble
March 3, 1635-6.
xvi
DORCHESTER CHURCH RECORDS
found on the lists of freemen. It is not improbable that they may have been sworn in, and no record made of the fact. We may therefore assume that there were other church members pre- vious to 1636 who were not recorded as freemen ; but how large a number we cannot tell. The 84 names we have given, however, are not a matter of conjecture, but of record. Turning again to the town records, we find that out of these 84 names, all of whom must be regarded as church members, 35 were in Dorchester up to the Ist of January, 1637-38. The following are the 35 names derived from the list above : -
NAMES OF FREEMEN FOUND IN DORCHESTER TOWN RECORDS ON OR AFTER JAN. 1, 1637.
Such as signed or owned the covenant of the church reconstituted Aug. 23, 1636, are indicated by a *.
John Benham
in Dorchester, March 18, 1637-8; removed, says Sav- age, to New Haven, 1640, and died 1661.
* Nicholas Upsall died Boston Aug. 20, 1666.
John Pierce died Boston Sept. 17, 1661.
* George Dyer died Dorchester 1672.
John Moore
in Dorchester April 23, 1638; went to Windsor.
* Nathaniel Duncan
in Dorchester March 14, 1645-6; in Boston after 1655.
* John Grenaway living in Dorchester Nov. 12, 1649.
Thomas Hatch
made sale Oct. 31, 1639, to * Robert Deeble John Phillips.
in Dorchester Feb. 7, 1641.
* Bray Wilkins
last mentioned in Dorchester Feb. 23, 1646-7; went to Salem.
* William Read sold land and house to Thomas Clarke Aug. 26, 1639.
went to Windsor ; last men- tioned in Dorchester March 18, 1637-8.
John Eales
Bernard Capen died Dorchester Nov. 8, 1638.
in Dorchester Dec. 1, 1634; went to Windsor and Northampton ; died, says Savage, 1694.
John Hull
was in Dorchester May 20, 1639, and perhaps later.
Giles Gibbs
*
John Capen
died Dorchester April 4, 1692 ; deacon 33 years.
John Pope died Dorchester Oct. 18, 1686.
Matthias Sension Dorchester March 18,
1637-8; went to Windsor, thence to Norwalk, where he died in 1669.
John Tilly name last appears in Dor- chester Jan. 2, 1637-8.
William Rockwell went to Windsor soon after Jan. 2, 1637-8; died there May 15, 1640.
Roger Clap died Boston Feb. 2, 1690-91.
* Joseph Tuchell in Dorchester 23 Feb., 1646.
* Henry Wright last mentioned Feb. 7, 1641.
Thomas Lumbert in Dorchester March 18, 1637-8; Barnstable 1639; died, says Otis, about 1667. William Gaylord
William Hulburt
went to Hingham, sold land iD Dorchester Oct. 28, 1640.
James Parker
Augustine Clement died Dorchester 1674.
went to Weymouth ; in Dor- chester perhaps 1638.
Thomas Dimmock last mentioned March 18, 1637-8.
John Hayden probably in Dorchester March 18, 1637-8, and of Braintree 1640.
went to Windsor previoua to March 1, 1635-6; died May 31, 1641.
Richard Collacott
in Dorchester May 13, 1667, died Boston July 7, 1686.
* John Smith died Dorchester 1676 or 1678.
* Israel Stoughton died in England 1644 or 1645.
* George Minot died Dorchester . Dec. 24, 1671.
* Thomas Swift died Dorchester May 4, 1675 [Town Record].
xvii
INTRODUCTION
Such action, if any, as was taken by the church must have been taken between the fall of 1635 and the spring of 1636, when the larger body of colonists went. Of these 35 persons, 7 are supposed to have gone to Windsor between 1637 and 1640. It would be unsafe to assume that they decided to go to Wind- sor when the larger body of colonists went. They may have gone as individuals, to join the colonists who had preceded them. Nor can we assume that all those persons whose names are not found on the town records later than 1634-35 went to Windsor. Some of them are known to have gone to other places. Of others nothing is known, except that they disap- peared at an early date. We must guard, therefore, against con- cluding that all those who left Dorchester between 1634 and 1637, went to Windsor. Matthew Grant mentions but 15 names as having come up with the church from Dorchester.
Laying aside conjecture and appealing to the records, we find that of 145 male inhabitants mentioned on the town records prior to Aug. 23, 1636, the date of the reorganization of the church, 35 of that number appear on the records on or after Jan. 1, 1637- 38. These 35 are recorded as freemen, and must have been members of the church. In other words, when the church was reorganized under Richard Mather in 1636, there were, as far as can be ascertained in Dorchester, about 35 persons who were church members at that time, 7 of whom afterwards went to Windsor. Of the 28 persons remaining, all but 4 were admitted to freemanship before the arrival of Richard Mather, Aug. 17, 1635, and were thus members of the church before its reorgani- zation. In the list above only male names appear, because only males were admitted to freemanship. It would be difficult to compile a list of the women who went or remained.
Thus it will be seen that the whole church membership did not go to Connecticut or elsewhere, and that there was a sufficient number of members in Dorchester to preserve the continuity of the church life.
Of the 28 persons enumerated, 19 are found on these records as members of the reorganized church. Three of these signed the covenant in 1636. Others owned the covenant on dates between 1636 and 1639 ; one in 1640, one in 1644. Roger Clap and Rich- ard Collacott are recognized as members, but are not recorded as owning or signing the covenant.
xviii
DORCHESTER CHURCH RECORDS
The question how many of the original members of the church formed at Plymouth, England, and who came over in the "Mary and John," went to Windsor cannot be definitely answered. It is a question of subordinate interest, because the membership of the church was re-enforced by arrivals from England up to the year 1635. Deacon Ebenezer Clapp, for twenty-five years a deacon of the First Church, and an industrious and indefatigable student of the history of the church and town, undertook before his death in 1881 investigations on this point. Unfortunately, however, we have no complete or trustworthy record of the names of all the passengers who came in the "Mary and John," nor can we say, except in certain cases, who of them were church members. Any such list must be hypothetical. It will be of interest, however, to mention the conclusions reached by Deacon Clapp, although he did not present them as authoritative or final. His list of sup- posed passengers by the "Mary and John " comprised 59 names. The number of emigrants whom he traced to Windsor was 50. Of these, 30, he supposed, came over in the "Mary and John," and 20 were later arrivals. Subtracting the 30 identified as going to Windsor, we have 29 names remaining, or about one-half of the original number of male passengers, according to this hypothetical list. Of these 29 who did not join the Windsor company, 11 died or removed to other places or returned to England, leaving 18 of the original company in Dorchester. But, as we have remarked above, the important question is not how many of those who went to Windsor came over in the "Mary and John," but rather how many of the enlarged roll of church members in 1635-36 emi- grated or remained. On this point the names and figures we have given from the town records furnish the most reliable data.
III. WHAT WAS MEANT BY A NEW CHURCH IN DORCHESTER?
Reverting to the authorities already quoted, we are struck by the diversity of expression in regard to the reorganized church. Winthrop says "a new church was gathered." Increase Mather says "a church was constituted." Hubbard, following Winthrop, though he mistakes the date, says "another church"; while Blake simply says that, when "these two companies of people - were thus united, they made one church." The difference of ex- pression shows that accurate and technical definition was not
xix
INTRODUCTION
intended by these writers. The circumstances attending the for- mation of this "new church " were peculiar. When we examine them, we see that the "new church " designated by Winthrop could not mean a new church in the sense in which that term applies to such churches as have never had any previous exist- ence. From the language of Winthrop, three things are at once evident : first, that there had been a church in Dorchester ; sec- ond, that a part of it had gone to Windsor ; third, that it was necessary to reconstitute or amalgamate the old and the new material which remained.
The adoption of the new covenant was a new epoch, but it is not in itself a conclusive sign of an entirely new organization. The Dorchester church made a new covenant in 1842, but this marked only another epoch in its existence.
Another important fact must not be forgotten : it was not the going away of the Windsor emigrants alone that rendered reor- ganization necessary. The coming in of a fresh element and the selection of a new pastor were important factors. If no new ele- ment had arrived while the Windsor emigration was going on, it is doubtful if the church would have needed reorganization. But in those days only a church member could become a freeman. It was necessary that church order should be closely observed. The rise of Antinomianism about this time, of which Shepard (who did much to produce the stay of proceedings April, 1636) was a determined opponent, excited new vigilance and caution. The general disturbance produced by the influx and efflux of settlers also unsettled the Dorchester plantation, and made church reor- ganization necessary. This was the view taken, after mature study, by Dr. Harris, who said : "As a number of church members remained, and the place of those that had left had been in a good degree supplied by new emigrants, they agreed to call an eccle- siastical council to assist in constituting them in church order, with proper officers. It convened on the Ist of April, 1636; but, 'the messengers of the churches not being satisfied concerning the qualifications of some that were proposed as members, the work was deferred.' On the 23d of August following, a church was reorganized, 'with the approbation of the elders and magis- trates.'" *
* Discourse of Rev. Thaddeus Mason Harris, D.D., delivered July 4, 1830, p. 14.
XX
DORCHESTER CHURCH RECORDS
This is also the view of a former editor of the Boston Re- corder, who said : " It is true that both here and at Cambridge, after the removal of some of the first settlers to Connecticut with their ministers, another organization of the church was had. For new emigrants had come in and purchased the houses and lands of those emigrants to Connecticut ; and so great was the change of people that there would be occasion for the reconstruction of the church, whether the people who left went in an organized body or were organized anew in their new field."
One point must not be overlooked. There is no indication that by the Windsor emigration religious services were suspended in Dorchester. The emigrants to Windsor did not go all at once. The first party went in October, 1635, others not until the spring of 1636, while others did not go until two or three years after the reorganization of the church. But how small a gap there was between the corporate life of the old church and that of the re- organized church is seen when we compare dates. It must not be overlooked that the senior pastor of the church, Mr. Maverick, did not go to Windsor. Whether he had any intention of doing sc is not known; but, at any rate, he died on the 3d of Feb- ruary, 1635-36. Mather, importuned to come to Dorchester, must have consented as early as March, though the council was not called until April, and he was not finally settled until August. Blake says, "Mr. Mather and his people came and joined with Mr. Maverick." So far as the blending of the people is con- cerned, he is right. If we are to understand from these words that Maverick and Mather were contemporaneous pastors of the renewed church, he is wrong. But, if Blake meant that Maverick and Mather had both ministered to the amalgamated congrega- tion before the ecclesiastical council, it is very probable. Al- though the council was not held until April, Mather had come from England with his party nine months before. Many of his people immediately took the places of those who went to Windsor. Mather's arrival was six months before Maverick's death. It is therefore probable that he preached some time for the Dorchester people during the continuance of Mr. Maverick's pastorate. But, leaving out probabilities, one fact is conclusive : that the gap between Maverick's death in February and the call- ing of the council and reorganization of the church under Mather in April was only two months, and to the final reorganization
xxi
INTRODUCTION
seven months. During this time the meeting-house was, no doubt, opened every Sunday for religious service ; and the con- tinuity of the church service probably remained unbroken. though the ordinances may not have been administered.
Some of those who signed the new covenant were undoubtedly passengers in the "Mary and John." Were they all members of the original church? This we cannot positively say. Not all who came in the " Mary and John " joined the church before sail- ing. Roger Clap, for instance, did not join it until after it was established in Dorchester ; and it is worthy of note that he did not sign the new church covenant. Nevertheless, he was recog- nized as a member of the church of Dorchester for many years after the reorganization. Blake says, "He continued a member of this church for the space of sixty years." Another case is that of Richard Collacott. He was admitted to freemanship March 4, 1632-33, and was thus one of the early residents and church members before the Windsor emigration began. There is no record of his ever having owned the covenant of the reor- ganized church or of having been formally admitted. But the proof of his membership appears on the church records Jan. 13, 1660, when we read that Richard Collacott and his wife were dis- missed to join the new church at Boston. Thus it seems that the early membership of these persons was not abrogated by the Con- necticut emigration and did not need to be renewed. If this was the case with Roger Clap and Richard Collacott, it was possibly the case with others of the first members, though most preferred to own the new covenant. Among those who did this prior to 1639 was Nicholas Clapp, who came to Dorchester in 1633, and may have been a member of the church before the reorganiza- tion, though he is not found among the list of freemen. There were possibly others, as has been suggested, who may have been members and not freemen, and whose names would swell the list we have made. .
. The oldest religious societies in Massachusetts, the Dorchester church among them, are dual organizations, consisting of church and parish. The discussion concerning the continuity of the church does not affect in any way the continuity of the parish. It is worth while to note that, under Massachusetts law as it is at present interpreted, the body of church members who went to Windsor ceased to be a church when they separated from the
.
.
xxii
DORCHESTER CHURCH RECORDS
Dorchester parish. The decision in the famous Dedham case is familiar. "It was laid down that a church separating from a par- ish for any cause loses its existence, and that never in Massa- chusetts had a church a legal existence apart from the parish." It is not necessary to review or discuss the justice of this decision. There is no occasion to appeal to it in this case. It is simply suf- ficient to say that, according to Massachusetts law as at present interpreted, the party that remained with the church in Dorches- ter in 1636 became, through its connection with the parish, suc- cessors to all property, rights, and titles of the original church.
CONCLUSION.
The following points may be deduced from the above exami- nation : -
I. That the whole church membership did not go to Windsor, but only a part of it. This is supported by the testimony of Winthrop, Blake, Hubbard, and a careful study of early records as to the number of those who left and those who remained.
2. Whether the Windsor party went as a church organization or simply as a colony of fellow church members is not known. Both views have been maintained: the decisive evidence is lacking. The editor of the Boston Recorder truly says: "The difficulty about all the documents relating to this subject is that the writers seem to have treated the question as to the preserva- tion of the original organization as a matter of little consequence, while they state the fact of the removal, and so use expressions which may be construed either way."
3. The new church in Dorchester was an amalgamation of old and new elements, partly due to the departure of early members and partly to the arrival of new material. The probability is that the church was much broken up by the ebb and flow of emigra- tion. This transition period was so serious that reorganization was desirable.
4. The question of continuity does not affect the continuity of the parish. According to Massachusetts law, the First Church and Parish of Dorchester has a clear title for two hundred and sixty years.
5. The historic connection of the Dorchester church with the church formed at Plymouth, England, is direct and unbroken. It
xxiii
INTRODUCTION
is maintained by genetic lines of membership. Some streams of blood from the heart of the Plymouth (England) church still flow in the membership of the church at Dorchester. The pres- ent church owes its existence to that immigration; not merely through a parish continuity, but through a continuity of member- ship and Sabbath meetings and Christian life and work; that is to say, through its life as a church.
6. The churches at Dorchester and Windsor are thus both heirs of the same parentage.
All that has been attempted in this introduction has been to bring together such facts as are now available concerning the period in the history of the church preceding the date of these records, in the hope that future investigators may be able to supplement the facts, and to verify or correct the conclusions.
No analysis of the present volume of records has been at- tempted. Its publication places it within the range of all stu- dents of New England history ; and the notes made by the faith- ful transcriber, Rev. Charles H. Pope, who has shown a deep interest in the work, furnish all the detail necessary for those who have not access to the original manuscript.
The events recorded in this, the oldest existing volume of records, have been the subject of comment and review in sermons preached at Dorchester, by Rev. John Pierce, D.D., of Brookline, Mass., June 17, 1830; by Rev. Thaddeus Mason Harris, D.D., on the 200th anniversary of the church, July 4, 1830; by Rev. Nathaniel Hall, on the 240th anniversary, June 19, 1870; and in the Proceeding of the 250th Anniversary [Boston : Geo. H. Ellis. 1880]. Much interesting and useful matter concerning the church has been published in the History of Dorchester [Boston. 1851]. The story of town and church has also been briefly told in the " Memorial History of Boston."
SAMUEL J. BARROWS. WILLIAM B. TRASK.
NOTES OF THE COPYIST.
WHILE the reader is put in possession of the identical spelling and punctuation of the original records, there are a few particu- lars, which could only be gleaned from close study of the old volume, that ought to be definitely mentioned for the benefit of all who may study this transcription.
First, there are two sets of entries : those beginning with the title-page, and continuing with the Covenant, list of members, and records of meetings; then an altogether separate series, begun at the end of the book, which was turned upside down, wherein baptisms were recorded and afterward a variety of other items. One who is poring over the book for any special purpose needs to take these two sets of entries as, in effect, two parallel books.
Before making this copy, the original was paged continuously through the two parts, so that pages 4 and 169 are contemporane- ous, and so on.
Second, it is possible to say pretty nearly when these records were begun. The first dated entry, properly speaking, is that which registers the baptism of Rebecca Wiswall, April 6th, 1639, p. 171, the statements on pp. 169 and 170 being avowed recollec- tions. From this time the baptisms are constantly dated, while the admissions to the church are dated from Nov. 4, 1639 (p. 6). The names of those who signed the Covenant are all in one hand- writing, easily identified as that of the "teacher," Mr. Mather, who speaks of himself under that title on p. 173. He is clearly the penman of the chief part of the records for some years ; but another hand appears from time to time,- namely, that of Deacon John Wiswall, who gradually took the whole work in charge. His autograph is to be seen on p. 258, disfigured by an altogether different penman's addition of the word "Dea.," which was not transcribed, of course. In 1657-58 Deacon John Capen began to record; but "ffeb 91/2" another person made affectionate mem-
xxvi
DORCHESTER CHURCH RECORDS
orandum that he had "ended his work " (p. 136). Next Deacon Preston's marked chirography follows until Oct. 22, 1695. From that point the facile pen of the Rev. John Danforth carries on both parts of the record, till some person not identified completes the volume.
Third, we have a most important succession of annotations on the earliest records, made by one who had excellent opportunities of knowing whereof he wrote. From the beginning of the baptis- mal entries (p. 169) Mr. Danforth interpolated remarks upon the persons mentioned in the records. These often contain matter of the highest historic-genealogical value. We have printed them in parenthesis, as they are easily distinguished from the few parenthetical remarks of the clerks themselves. It is certain that Mr. Danforth wrote these, both from the writing itself and from several particular entries. Note specially a father's remark on his child's baptism, p. 233; the initials "I. D." after the date 1716 on p. 238 ; the reference to the "last words in the pastor's hear- ing," p. 11; and notably the kind and thankful remarks upon the ordination of his colleague on p. 167, where "the aged pastor " breathes such noble thoughts in forms so classical. Mr. Danforth also copied from the town book into the margin of this record the dates of birth of many of the children baptized in the church, his general accuracy in which attests the value of his annotations.
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.