RESPONSETO CRISIS: AN ANALYSIS OF
NEW HAVEN, 1638 - 1665

ThesIs for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ‘
7 CHARLES w. SORENSEN
' 1973

 

 
  

LIBRARY .-
Michigan 9:31;:
University

    
   

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 1293 000785

n»
134

 

III

I .III

III
II II. 'IIIIIIIIIIII.

ABSTRACT

RESPONSE TO CRISIS: AN ANALYSIS OF
NEW HAVEN, 1638-1665

BY

Charles W. Sorensen

This study examines the town of New Haven,
Connecticut between 1638 and 1665. There are three
general parts to the dissertation. The first,
encompassing Chapters I and II,deals with the motiva-
tion of settlement, the failure of the leadership to
construct a viable port city, and the nature of
authority that governed the every day lives of the
people in New Haven. Chapters III and IV focus on
dissidents within the town and the repressive measures
taken by the civil and religious leaders to quiet
their challenges to authority. The last two chapters
analyze the impact of that repression on the political
structure within the town. Special attention is
given to the office of townsmen and the growth of its
political power.

The thesis of this dissertation suggests that
the initial impetus for settlement was a combination

of an intense religiosity and a strong interest in

Charles W. Sorensen

mercantile activities. Each depended upon the other
for the success of the settlement. When, by the
mid-1640's, New Haven faced the possibility of total
economic collapse, the leadership, dominated by a
merchant group and supported by spiritual leaders,
attempted to rectify the problems by purging society
of those who deviated from the social-political norms.
This resulted in a half a decade of repressive action
taken against any whose actions were considered
dangerous to the well-being of the larger society.

But repressive measures did not end the economic
problems faced by the town. Between 1651 and 1665,
the townspeople, reacting to the continued inability of
the leadership to bring prosperity to New Haven,
rejected those whose ideas had initially guided the
community, and turned to men whose commitments were

not centered on merchant activity.

RESPONSE TO CRISIS: AN ANALYSIS OF

NEW HAVEN, 1638-1665

BY

1.;-
‘ C)

\\‘
Charles W1 Sorensen

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of History

1973

{fin PREFACE

The subject of this thesis is a New England
town, a much debated topic that has maintained the
interest of historians to the present day. Some
writers have exalted the town as the embodiment of
nascent democratic impulses that became fully
developed only in the early nineteenth-century.
Others have emphasized the origins and institutional
aspects of the town, suggesting how and why changes
occurred because of the environment of the new world.

Two recent studies of individual communities
have provided the most exciting analysis of the town in
New England and deserve Special attention.

The first is Darrett Rutman's WinthrOp's

 

Boston: Portrait of a Puritan Town, 1636-1649.

 

Boston, according to this study, was intended to be

a true "city on a hill," one compact community
governed by the ethics of Christian love. Here would
be molded a society where man would eschew individual
worldly goals for the good of the entire community.
The religious impulse, the author argues, represented

more than just a community of visible saints. It

ii

reflected a broad social utopianism that involved the
reformation of the entire community of which the
church was but one factor. Thus the initial reason for
Boston involved an idealism that necessitated the full
devotion of every citizen to succeed.

This utopian dream, based on Winthrop's famous
Model of Christian Charity, would ultimately fail.
Physical factors prevented.the settlement from remaining
as one city and soon small towns dotted the countryside
around Boston. This diversity resulted in a congre-
gational polity that intensified disparate ideas
reflected through economic and political privileges
given to those dubbed as visible saints. As the
church became entrenched in the social-political
structure that finally resulted in a self-sustaining
"tribalism," it lost contact with society and soon
found itself floundering in a sea of unbelievers who
in ever increasing numbers shirked the discipline of
the church to pursue economic gain so available in
Boston. By the time of John Winthrop's death in 1649,
the town had been fundamentally altered by the forces
of the secular world.

Whereas Boston's utopianism never in fact
existed, in Dedham, Massachusetts such ideals provided

the basis for at least fifty years of social tranquilty.

iii

In his provocative study, 5 New England Town: The

 

First Hundred Years, 1636-1736, Kenneth Lockridge

 

 

examines the rhetoric of the founders, the church, and
the political structure, and suggests that those ideas
and institutions, subordinated to the covenant and
tempered by Christian love and forbearance, created

the framework and stimulus for the utopia. In support
of their utopian goal, officials established mechanisms
to exclude obvious dissidents from settling and
provided mediators to settle disputes between indi-
viduals that prevented ruptures in the social fabric.
The town leaders governed by consensus, but a consensus
that readily accepted a hierarchical social structure
while adopting deferential political attitudes. But

as a whole the ideals and practices provided the means
for the Dedham society to enjoy fifty years of relative
tranquility. Not until the 1680's, when a combination
of forces including a generation gap, a shrinking land
supply, and problems with admission policy, did the
communal ideal begin to disintegrate.

Both studies ask similar questions of their
sources and suggest that similar forces worked to
provide cohesive elements to the respective towns.

A utOpian drive Operating through the auspices of

theology provided the initial thrust to the new world.

iv

In one town it worked but in the other it failed. But
by careful examination of the various aspects of society
in relationship to expectations, the authors conclude
that case studies best illustrate the way society
acted upon man, and in turn, the way man responded to
the institutions governing his life. The authors
concur, however, that each town is unique and what is
true for one community may not necessarily be true for
another.

This study focuses on a narrow subject, the
town of New Haven, Connecticut between 1638 and 1665.
Several ideas guided the develOpment of the thesis.
Important to any such study is the question of what
motivated the initial settlement. Lockridge and Rutman
suggest utopian goals were quite influential in at
least two New England towns. Although New Haven was
in part the result of religious zeal, utOpianism was
blunted by a powerful mercantile group that gave a
unique character to the town. When the merchants,
who saw themselves guided by the powerful hand of God,
failed to erect a viable port city on Long Island
Sound, the leadership became rigidly orthodox and
ruthlessly sought to destroy all heresy within the town.

The latter part of the study is an analysis

of the impact that dissenters, and their repression,

had on the internal structure of the town. Although
the religious and political ideals that provided a
framework for New Haven were never totally rejected,
modifications did occur. Those changes suggest how a
community, united by a consensus of values, reacted
when leadership failed to provide economic security for
the town.

New Haven may have been a unique eXperience in
seventeenth-century New England. It was a sea port
town, relatively large in comparison to many inland
settlements. But before broad generalizations can be
made about the New England town, each community must be
similarly studied.

I would like to thank those who have provided
help with this work. The library staffs of the Michigan
State University Library, the Connecticut State Library
in Hartford, Connecticut, and the Beinecke Library at
Yale University, were extremely helpful. I am very
appreciative of the guidance provided by the director
of this study, Robert E. Wall. Every graduate student
would benefit by having such a mentor. Robert E.

Brown taught me a great deal about historical writing
and analysis and offered thoughtful criticism of this
manuscript. The efforts of Charles Gibson, teacher

and friend, can only be appreciated by this writer.

vi

David Bailey agreed to read the final draft of this
dissertation. And a special thanks to Jeanette and

Beth.

vii

PREFACE

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GOD AND MAMMON . . . . . . . . . .

YOU MUST SUBMIT TO AUTHORITY . . . . .

CHALLENGE: PHASE I . . . . . . . .

CHALLENGE: PHASE II . . . . . . . .

THE OCCASION OF THIS MEETING IS DELAWARE BAY

THE TOWNSMEN: SYMBOL OF CHANGE . . . .

EPILOGUE AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

ii

30
66
93
120
143
169

182

CHAPTER I

GOD AND MAMMON

The great exodus from England had nearly ended
in June of 1639 when a group of men led by Theophilus
Eaton, Thomas Gregson, and John Davenport gathered in
a crude building on the shores of Quinnipiac Bay on
Long Island Sound to organize a town. Two forces
were dominant in the settlement that, when combined,
created the necessary stability to organize a community
in the "howling wilderness." The first force concerned
the intense piety of the men which acted not only to
bolster their spirit of adventure but also convinced
them that they were truly on God's errand to redeem
the Christian world. The second factor involved
their plan to erect a viable trading center on the
Sound to counter the Dutch and Swedish influence in
that area. These two ideas were inseparable in their
minds, but more importantly, each depended on the other
for the success of the venture and provided in the
early years a unity that insured the successful estab-
lishment of New Haven. At best this unity was weak,

for it offered few options for the eventuality of

failure which, by the middle of the first decade,
became a reality for New Haven.

Economic motives were undoubtedly important
factors in the decision to come to the new world, but
the constant references to God's mission, Christian
plove and piety, and the concept of a "city on a hill"
indicate that the men were strongly influenced by religion.
John Davenport, the spiritual leader of New Haven,
consistently spoke to this point. In 1634 he complained
that he suffered from both the "persecution of the
tongue" as well as "of the hand" but did so unflinchingly
because it was "for thy names sake, Lord."1 Writing
to a close friend shortly after his arrival in 1639,
Davenport praised the Almighty for having "bestowed
upon us the greatest outward privileges under the sun,
to have and enjoy all his ordinances purely dispensed
in a church gathered and constituted according to his
mind in all things." When he and others of the
Eaton group were in Boston seeking a suitable place to
settle, they depended upon the "eye of God's providence
(to whom we have committeed our ways eSpecially in
so important an enterprise as this. . .)" to guide
them to a "place convenient for our families and
friends." They were convinced that even though

worldly adventures were necessary to sustain them

physically, their true "errand" lay in advancing
"the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to enjoy
the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace."2

Such an emphasis on the ideal of Christian love
also served as a cohesive element to unit the community
by expressing common goals. Such a consensus was necessary
to insure that certain problems did not destroy the town.
One such problem concerned the land title. Unlike
Massachusetts, the New Haven group had not been granted
a charter and their claim depended solrely on a deed
purchased from "Momagugin ye sachem of Quinipiocke . . .
and other of his council" for twelve coates of "English
trucking cloth, twelve alcumy spoons, twelve hatchetts,
twelve hoes, two dozen knives, twelve porengers & foure
cases of French knives and sizers."3 ArchibishOp Laud had
been threatening the Bay colony's charter and the Eaton
group reasoned that only a well established, unified
community could withstand such an assault on their
land claim. The spector of dissenters also became a
constant fear. John Davenport knew full well the
explosive impact of a heretic such as Anne Hutchinson
and the threats she posed to Godly New England.4
In order, then, to insure that the settlers agreed
with the nature of proposed society, the leadership

waited nearly an entire year before formalizing their

relationship to filter out the unwanted. When Eaton
and Davenport finally moved to organize the government,
the latter formulated six questions for the group to
consider that served to warn off those that did not
choose to participate in a mercantile community governed
by the ideals of moral purity.

Since most men believed they were fulfilling
God's mission, it followed that the group should
consider, in Davenport's words, "whether the scriptures
doe holde forth a perfect rule for the directions and
government of all men." This proposition was surely
expected to be approved by the settlers but it is
important to note that none believed that all should
automatically agree. Eaton and Davenport elicited
Open debate on the question, encouraging all to speak
to the idea so if there were doubts among some, the
doubts could be dispelled. After the debate ended the
men voted and even though the proposition was unanimously
approved, the article was written, read aloud a
second time and another vote taken in order "that they
might see in what words their vote was expressed."5
Such a deliberate policy insured the founders that at
least the initial settlers were not misled in the task
at hand and served warning to those seeking less

than a community of visible saints.

Seeking consent to the first question was
important, but the second dealt with a more fundamental
axiom: that the community bind itself to God through
a covenant. Carefully distinguishing between a
church covenant and a plantation convenant (the church
had not yet been organized) Davenport "demanded whether
all free planters doe holde themselves bound by that
covenant in all business." This would include the
necessary foundations of any government, "choosing
magistrates and officers, making and repealing lawes,
dividing allottments of inheritance and all things of

6 Since nine men had been absent in the

like nature."
initial meeting, the leaders, probably at Eaton's

and Davenport's suggestion, carefully explained this to
the men so none could say his opinion had not been
asked.

Yet specifying the convenantal relationship
failed to satisfy the search for purity and Davenport
formulated a third query asking all men wanting to
become free planters or those who wished to settle
"in the plantation with a purpose" to acknowledge
their intention of joining the church. Few men
denied the cohesive force of God's word and all
agreed that the ideal community would encompass only

the visibly elect. Unlike other New England towns,

however, the New Haven settlers never aspired to

utopian goals, realizing that, particularly in a
seafaring town, sinners would always be among them and
to ferret out every reprobate was indeed an impossible
task.7

But if the town could not be pure, then at
least those who ran the government could. Responding
to Davenport's fourth and fifth questions, the
settlers first agreed that all were duty bound to
"establish such civil order as might best conduce
to the securing of purity and peace of the ordinances
to themselves and their posterity according to God."
Basing his argument on scriptures, the Divine then
testified that such a government could be run only
by men of God because such leadership alone could
procure the "peaceable injoyment" of a holy society.
After a brief meditative silence Theophilus Eaton
asked the men to consider "whither Free Burgesses
shall be chosed out of church members" and whether
they alone should have the power and responsibility to
choose magistrates from among themselves.8

Here the leaders who sought a consensus met
some Opposition and although those disagreeing were
eventually brought into line, the arguments they
posed would reflect the basic dissatisfaction that
existed in the town in the first decade. The dissenters

granted that "magistrates should be God fearing men"

and that such men could be found most easily within
the visible church, but questioned whether civil
powers should be taken from the hands of the free
burgesses and given to the magistrates.9 This in
fact meant relinquishing power. Those who raised the
question regarding this matter seemed somewhat convinced
by a group member who explained that the consent of
the governed would still be necessary to select
such men. But they still had misgivings about the
proposed system and apparently felt that it could
easily develop into authoritarian rule. In order to
prevent this from happening, they suggested that
power should return to the hands of the free burgesses
if the magistrates failed to respond to constituent
demands.

In the ensuing debate Theophilus Eaton defined
the working relationship between the governors and
the governed which dispelled the apprehensions of the
small group of dissenters and created, at least for
the first several years, the basis for conceptual
unity within the town. Committees composed of free
planters, explained the soon-to-be governor, would be
appointed to implement governmental decisions and
function as a working arm of the town. In this

manner all could, and presumedly would participate,

if not initially then ultimately, for "the rest are

not wronged because they expect in time to be on the
livery themselves, and to have the same power."10
Fears allayed, the group unanimously approved the
prOposition.

The last matter the group attended to in
their search for a consensus concerned the gathering
of a church. Upon Davenport's suggestion the men
organized small groups of men to give their accounts
of conversion to one another in order to determine
who among them were truly of the elect. Each man in
each group had the right to question the moral
righteousness of every other nominee and give cause
why certain figures should be excluded. At least
one man stood accused of "takeing excessive rate for
meal which he solde to one . . . in his need" but
after humble confession he was exonerated.ll This
careful process pruned the number acceptable to eleven,
Headed by John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton, the
group also included Robert Newman, Mathew Gilbert,
Richard Malbon, Nathaniel Turner, Ezekial Cheever,
Thomas Fugill, John Ponderson, William Andrewes and
Jeremiah Dixon. All would become active in the town
but in the initial meeting seven were designated as
"pillars" and assumed the responsibility of acting as
an interim government as well as organizing the

First Church of Christ.12

Religious piety, then, provided the ideo-
logical framework for the settlers but numbers of men
were driven by an equally important drive, the hope
of establishing a trading center. This did not
contradict their religious convictions for they could
easily argue that the friendly hand of God had inter-
vened in history to make their settlement possible.
With His help the colonials had smashed the warlike
Pequot tribe in the southwestern part of Connecticut
and had opened the area for colonization. Reports
from soldiers and mariners filtered into Boston
describing the excellent port facilities on Long
Island Sound13 and it seemed only logical that this
propitious moment should not be overlooked to expand
the influence of Christian faith by establishing a
port city that would also serve to rival the Swedish
and the Dutch in that area.14 Writing some years
later, a seventeenth—century historian described the
economic motive as being so strong among the New Haven
group that "trade and merchandize had been as insep-
arably annexed to them as the shadow is to the body
in the shining of the sun."15

The origins of the early settlers provides
further evidence of their strong mercantile interests.
Obviously not all men were involved with the sea

and the various genealogical references reveal that

10

the early residents, although sharing common racial
and cultural characteristics, were nonetheless a
diverse lot. Residents from York, Hertfordshire, and
Kent joined individual families from the New England
towns of Boston, Watertown, Charlestown, Wethersfield,
and Hartford to ply their skills as husbandmen, car-
penters, thatchers, coopers, cordwainers, bricklayers,
plasterers and shipbuilders in the new town.16 But
the largest single group were the Londoners who in
one way or another depended upon world trade for their
livelihood. The origins of only sixty-two of the
original 125 settlers who signed the oath of fidelity
in 1639 have been identified, but of that group at

least thirty-five were from London.17

This by itself
may mean little but it is significant to note that

the merchant group provided the leadership in the

town during the first years of the settlement. Politi-
cal power resided in a chief magistrate and four
deputies who were charged with maintaining the "peace
and welfare of the town." Until his death in the mid-
1650's, Theophilus Eaton, a wealthy London merchant,
acted as the chief magistrate while maintaining a
strong interest in intercolonial trade.18 In the

first decade fourteen men shared power as town deputies,

twelve of whom were Londoners and at least seven were

11

active merchants whose activities suggest that they
were desperately striving to create a second Boston.19
One of the most revealing documents regarding
the economic influence of settlement is a letter
written by John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton to
the General Court of Massachusetts explaining why
they chose to leave the colony. The missive is long
and carefully written, designed to justify why they
could not accept a very generous offer of land granted
to them just beyond Watertown. Both men acknowledged
that they had hoped to stay within the province but
felt that God had not delivered them to an area where
they could establish a settlement "convenient for
family and friends." They graciously declined the
offer because they had concluded that the upland areas
did not meet the quality of the meadows in "goodness
and desirableness" even though it is questionable
they had visited the area. Moreover, they suggested
it would be too great a distance from Boston "wherein
we must be compelled to have our dwelling houses so
farr distant from our farms. . . and few of our
friends could bear the charge." Nor were they
convinced, the letter continued, that such an arrange-
ment (the separation of families) was even legal.20

This may well have been an honest evaluation

by Eaton and Davenport but a single sentence falling

12

between the other arguments succinctly and clearly-
states their dissatisfaction with the proposed site in
Massachusetts. They were traders and it seemed

unwise to plant a colony where a "boat cannot pass

from thither, nearer than 8 or 10 miles distance, and
that it is so remote from the Bay, and from any towne,

we could not see how dwelling there would be advantageous

21 Given their merchant back-

to these plantations."
ground it indeed would have been unusual for the group
to accept a landlocked community that would force

many men to become farmers who had not background for
such a task. Then, careful not to offend those in

the Bay Colony "whose words have the power of law

with us,’ they assured the General Court that the

decision had been reached only after careful deliber-

ation and by "god's appointment and direction."

SO this merchant-led venture convinced themselves

as well as Massachusetts that divine providence led

them to Quinnipiac Bay and early in the Spring of

1638 the first permenant settlers arrived in the area.22
During the first several years mercantile

interests were secondary to the normal problems of

establishing a town, but amidst the many activities

merchants were establishing the basis for trade. A

Mr. Johnson, who unfortunately remains anonymous,

received the right to modify a cellar for a warehouse,

13

apparently as a depot for goods to be shipped to and
from the town.23 George Lamberton, a London merchant
who had expressed a strong interest in Boston and who
owned land there, became the most active trader in the
new community. His vessel frequently sailed from the
harbor on voyages to Boston, Saybrook, the Barbadoes,
and Virginia, carrying cargoes that included peas,
grains, salt, and wine. Perhaps on a voyage to Virginia
or perhaps through contacts in Boston, he became
interested in the Delaware Bay region as a site for
another trading post. Upon returning to New Haven,
he convinced the leadership of the town, particularly
Theophilus Eaton, Thomas Gregson,Nathaniel Turner,
Stephen Goodyear, a London merchant soon to become an
official of the colony, and Richard Malbon, another
London merchant and cousin to Eaton, to consider
sending men to that region.24

By the summer of 1641 a company of merchants
had been organized in the town with the idea of
expanding the influence of New Haven. At a July
meeting of the General Court, a session attended by
freemen and non-freemen alike so all men could speak
to the issue, Theophilus Eaton explained that a group
of merchants had purchased land at Delaware Bay.24

The enterprise of settling the area would be privately

undertaken but still under the tutelage of New Haven,

14

for it would serve "for the advancement of the

publique good, as in the way of trade,‘ as well as
"for the settling of churches and plantations in those
parts." Receiving the town's approval, Nathaniel
Turner left the town to go to the area to arrange

25 Shortly thereafter families

"the affayres thereof."
of settlers followed to begin a futile attempt to
rival the Swedish and Dutch in the lucrative fur trade
on the Delaware River.26

The reaction by the two competitors, who may
have collaborated to oust the New Englanders, was
immediate and intense. In the summer of 1642 the
Dutch passed resolutions to "prevent the injury done
to the Indian trade within Dutch territory at the South-
river, . . . principally by one George Lamberton,
residing at the Red Mountain, notwithstanding we have
most expressly protested against him." They charged
that he violated their sovereignty by illegally
entering their territory to buy land and to trade with
the Indians, declaring that they would "not permit it"
unless the merchant agreed to pay stringent duties
levied on his goods.27 When he continued the intrusion
the Dutch began harrassing Lamberton by burning buildings,
imprisoning trading agents, confiscating goods, and

exacting high tolls on all furs taken from the area.28

15

New Haven's dream of colonizing the Delaware
Bay region reached a critical point in the summer of
1643 when the Swedish governor successfully implemented
a plan for Lamberton's arrest. As his ship lay anchored
near a Swedish fort while the men bartered with the
Indians for furs, a messenger from the Governor came
aboard the Cock to ask for Lamberton's help in securing
the arrest of an Indian who had supposedly stolen
a necklace belonging to the Governor's wife. The
New Haven merchant agreed and took several of his
seamen with him to the fort to pursue the matter but
upon reaching shore they were arrested. After separating
the group the captors attempted to bribe John Woolen,
a companion of Lamberton's, with "strong beer and wine"
and promises of gold, silver, a hourse, and a large
tract of land if he would but confess that Lamberton
had hired some Indians "to cutt off the Swedes."
Even after being thrown into irons, cast into a dark
cell, then cajoled with more Spirits, Woolen refused
to acknowledge any treasonous activities of his
master against either the Dutch or the Swedish settle-
ments in the area.29 At his trial in July, Lamberton
defended the New Haven settlement on the basis of an
Indian deed but it was found suspect and the court
:returned a verdict of guilty, punishing the New Havener

13y warning him from the area and forcing him to pay

16

double duty on beaver skins. During the next year the
settlement, defeated legally, tormented by both physical
sickness and their trade rivals, returned to New
Haven, thus ending serious interest in the region for
nearly a decade.30

The religious and economic influences involved
in the founding of the town were never as categorically
separated as they have been in the preceding pages.
In fact the two sustained one another in a delicate
balance that demanded a conforming religiosity to
insure God's help to succeed in acquiring material
wealth. But this had to be tempered by severe self-
discipline to prevent men from accumulating wealth
beyond what was spiritually acceptable. If by chance,
or undue temptation, greater emphasis was given to
storing earthly riches, ministers constantly reminded
the people that divine wrath punished wayward societies.
Few men had qualms about achieving wealth for wealth
was a Sign of diligence in one's calling and necessary
for a successful society. However, they balked at
those, like Mrs. Stolion, who stood accused of selling
material to a man for twenty shillings a yard when
the same "mohejre" could be purchased in England for
only three shillings per yard. This was considered

to be a usurious price and the court called her to

answer to the charge.31 Thus, an equilibrium was

17

achieved between the two forces that offered a rationale
to keep each in check. The problem lay in the failure
of one of the ideals, a problem that became a reality
by the mid-1640's as the dream of developing a trade
empire came to nought.

The prosperity that New Haven hoped would emerge
from the Delaware venture failed to materialize and
the town, once thriving because of the capital of the
initial founders, now felt the pangs of economic
deprivation. Trade patterns continued but they were
usually small operations that dealt with limited
quantities of goods that were shipped to nearby ports
of Connecticut. Total volume was probably insufficient
to effect anymore than a few of the townspeOple.32
Money became scarce and the General Court reminded all
men to accept "Spanish money, called peeces of eight"
at five shillings per coin while declaring that wampum,
probably the most common currency in the town, had to
be accepted for any debt under twenty shillings if it
was "half white and half black." Such measures, the
court believed, would stimulate commerce so that it
"may be better carried betwixt man and man in these
parts."33 Others suggested new means to procure food
for consumption or trade. In May of 1647 Robert Seely,
Lieutenant of the local militia unit, suggested to

the General Court "that the planters in the town

18

whose minds were industrious in that way, might have
libertye to set up wares to catch fish for the relief
of their families and the good of the town."34 The
request was granted, allowing some apparent relief
for those in need.

Unfortunately there are no records of the quantity
of goods shipped either by the town as a whole or
individual merchants but scant references suggest that
Officials made a concerted effort to meet the economic
crisis by improving port facilities. Three leading
merchants of the town, Richard Malbon, George Lamberton,
and John Evance, after "considering the great damage
this town doth suffer many wayes by reason fo the
flatts wch hinders vessells and boates from coming
neare the towne when the tyde is anything low,"
asked the General Court in August of 1644 to give them
permission to dig a channel and construct a warehouse
and a wharf. Since this would undoubtedly benefit
the entire town the men asked that every man between
sixteen and sixty be forced to contribute four days
work on the project. Agreeing with the request, the
Court appointed a seven man committee to decide upon
the exact terms.35 But the work languished and just a
year later Lamberton again requested permission to
build facilities for ships, although this request did

not include asking for a work force nor any town aid

19

beyond the privilege to buy the land "or if the towne

not be willinge to sell it, if I have it for the

present."36
By the middle of the decade the financial

crisis became so acute that the town began experiencing

difficulty paying its debts. Late in 1645 Richard

Malbon, who had just relinquished the post of town

treasurer, informed the town that "the court was much

indebted to himselfe and others" for expenses used

for the "publique safety and about things of common

publique use." Part of the problem lay with some

people who the court said enjoyed all of the benefits

of the town without paying any rates and in response

ordered that an equitable system be established so

"as those that have borne the whole burden hitherto

may be eased." In order to increase treasury funds

all rates that had been due in the past and remained

unpaid, as well as the spring rates due that April,

were to be paid "within a month after the date hereof."37

A year and a half later the problem forced the General

Court to levy a new rate that increased the annual

tax fifty percent for each householder. Although

undoubtedly an unpOpular assessment, the officials

explained that the "towne was indebte and sundry things

were to be paid to several men & the treasurer had it

38

not to hand to pay." The financial pinch also

20

raised fears that the town could not meet its obliga-

tion to support the scholars at Harvard which would be

a "reproach that it shall be said New Haven is fallen

from this service.39
Merchants in New Haven gambled on one desperate

attempt to revive the lagging economy but failure

dashed the last hOpes of building a viable trading

center. A group consisting of Theophilus Eaton,

Stephen Goodyear, Richard Malbon, and Thomas Gregson

ordered the construction of a large vessel. Its first

trans-Atlantic voyage would be doubly significant for

two reasons: First, Thomas Gregson bore the responsi-

bility of convincing Parliament that New Haven Should

receive a charter and the colony intrusted him with

L200 to complete the mission. Secondly and equally

important, the maiden voyage would serve as the initial

impetus for a thriving trade with England.40 The

"Great Ship," laden with a cargo of wooden planks,

corn, peas and skins valued by some at nearly one-

seventh of the total wealth of the community, sailed

in January of 1646.41 However, the vessel succumbed

to the stormy waters of the north Atlantic, destroying

not only the vision Of a prosperous mercantile community,

but the hOpe of receiving a legal patent to the land

as well.

21

The sequel to the mercantile failure in New
Haven is interesting, for it reveals that those who
provided the incentive and leadership were unwilling
to Openly acknowledge their role and thus accept any
responsibility for the economic crisis. Two men,
George Ward and Luke Atkinson, were charged with and
ultimately fined in separate cases for "defaming"
John Davenport. Ward, one of the brothers contracted
to build the "blocks" for the Great Ship, had accused
the minister of having an interest in the Delaware
shceme but Davenport "said he did not medle in the
manadging of any trade." Luke Atkinson, an original
settler in 1639, also claimed that Davenport had taken
part in the Delaware project but refused to admit it.
According to the testimony of John Speede, "Mr. Davenport
had said that wch afterward he denyed," implying that
the New Haven minister was being less than honest
when talking about his association with those who
wished to go to the Delaware. Richard Osborne added
that Atkinson claimed that "Mr. Davenport's name had
bin very pretious but now it was darkened."42 It may
be, as the verdicts in the cases indicate, that the
Divine did not have any direct connection with the
Delaware project but he had apparently sanctioned the
idea of settlement in that area in order to spread

the influence of the church, and the fact that the

22

minister and the Court reacted so defensively suggests
that neither could tolerate the taint of failure on
community leaders.43

As isolated cases the slander charges prose-
cuted for John Davenport may be unimportant but a
similar case developed after the Great Ship failed to
reach England in 1646. George and Lawrence Ward,
brothers who had come in 1639 but subsequently moved
to Branford, charged that Theophilus Eaton, Stephen
Goodyear, Richard Malbon, and Thomas Gregson were
members of a company of merchants who had contracted
them to provide "blocks" for the Ship. The brothers
had dealt with George Lamberton, captain of the ill-
fated ship and George Hart, agent for the company,
regarding the specifications and the money involved.
But after the work had been completed and the vessel
lost, the company would neither pay for the blocks
nor even admit that they had ordered them. The
merchants testified that they knew nothing of the order
nor even considered themselves members of a company.
According to them, every man had acted independently
so if Lamberton had placed the order for the blocks,
it had been his decision alone and they were not
responsible for the debt. Finally after a great
deal of testimony, Eaton, although refusing to

acknowledge his role, stated that he would rather pay

23

a share than to see the Ward brothers receive nothing.
The court action finally ended when town officials
agreed that the brothers must be paid and suggested
both sides appoint arbitrators to settle the matter.44
This reluctance on the part of the leaders to
admit failure signifies the importance attached to the
necessity of succeeding in the secular nature of their
mission. Defeat did not simply mean that trade was
not a viable Option; it meant that a shadow of doubt
had been cast on the sanctity of the community itself.
Such failure could be interpreted only one way: New
Haven had fallen Short of God's expectations and
although no one spoke directly to this issue, the
actions of leading town officials suggests that they
were frantically searching for answers to this per-
plexing problem. The delicate balance between piety
and secular interests had been upset, suggesting to
them that the convenantal relationship had been
destroyed. The only solution lay in their theology
and in order to renew the covenant and re-establish
the prosperity that seemed so distant by 1645, the
community leaders had to rid the town of those who
vilated God's will. Failure, then, would force a
rigid orthodoxy upon the town that many peOple would

find reprehensible and in the process of purification

24

of society, the leadship alienated peOple to the extent
that the image of authority would become tainted in

New Haven.

CHAPTER I--FOOTNOTES

lJohn Davenport to Lady Vere, Mach 18, 1634
found in Isabel M. Calder (ed.), Letters of John
Davenport, Puritan Divine (New Haven: Published for
the First Church of Christ in New Haven by Yale
University Press, 1937), 39. Hereafter cited as
Davenport Papers.

 

 

 

2See John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton to the
Massachusetts General Court, April 12, 1638 in the
Massachusetts Historical Society, Winthrop Papers
(5 vols., Boston, 1929-1947), IV, 18-20. Hereafter
cited as Winthr0p Papers. John Davenport to Lady Mary
Vere, August 28, 1639 found in the New England Historical
and Genealogical Register, IX, (1855), 149-50; Charles
Hoadly (ed.), Records of the Colony and Plantation of
New Haven, 1638-1649 (Hartford: Case, Tiffany and
Company, 1857), 58. Hereafter cited as New Haven Records.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3Ibid., 1—7.

4Davenport arrived in Boston during the Anne
Hutchinson affair and took part in the proceedings
against her. John Fiske, The Beginnings of New
England (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1889), 146;
Winthrop's Journal: "History of New England," ed.
James K. Hosmer (2 vols., New York, 1908), I, 231;
New Haven Records, 12; David Hall (ed.), The Antinomian
Controversy, 1636-1638: A Documentary History_(Wesleyan
University Press, 1967), 358-364; For references to the
Charter Crisis see Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan
Dilemma (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1958),
195-196 and Richard S. Dunn, Puritan and Yankee (New
York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1962), 31-32.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5New Haven Records, I, 12.

 

61bid.

25

26

7Kenneth Lockridge in A New England Town:
The First Hundred Years (New York. W. W. Norton &
Company Inc., 1970) 31, suggests that the utopian
influence can be illustrated by the fact that in the
first twenty years of Dedham settlement the church
congregation and the town members were substantially
the same. But a simple tabulation of those who
signed the plantation covenant in New Haven reveals
that only sixty-nine of the 125 men were or became
church members in the first years. The head count
was taken from the New Haven Records, I, 17-18, and
compared to those who became church members according
to Franklin Dexter's Historical Catalogue of the
Members of the First Church of Chr1st in New Haven,
Connecticut, 1639- 1914 (New Haven, 1919), l- 7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8New Haven Records, 14-15.

 

9The Reverend Samuel Eaton, borther to Theophilus,

may have been the first man to challenge the idea but
the records Show that after his initial dissent others
came forward to relate how similar doubts had been
overcome. Ibid.,; Edward Atwater, History of the
Colony of New Haven to its Absorption into Connecticut
(New Haven, 1881), 99.

 

 

10New Haven Records, 14.
llIbid., 15.
12

The seven men were Theophilus Eaton, John
Davenport, Robert Newman, Mathew Gilbert, Thomas Fugill,
John Ponderson and Jeremiah Dixon, Atwater, History., 101.

l3Isreal Stoughton to John Winthrop, August 9,

1637 and Isreal Stoughton to the Governor and Council
of Massachusetts, August 14, 1637, describes the area
as "excellent" and "too good for any but friends."
Winthrop Papers, III, 479, 483.

 

l4For Boston's interest in the area see Hugh

Peter to John WinthrOp, January, 1637- 8, Winthrop

Papers, IV, 3-4. Lois Mathew' s The Expansion of New
England (New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1909),

245, James T. Adams, The Foundi_g of New England

(Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1920), 206, Isabel
Calder, The New Haven Colopy_(New Haven: Yale University

 

 

 

 

 

27

Press, 1934), 48 and Atwater, History, 101-105 all
discuss the impact of the Pequot war on opening the
area for settlement.

15William Hubbard, A General History pf New
England from the Discovery 29 1680 (Cambridge, 1815),
334.

 

 

l6James Savage, A Geneological Dictionary pf
the First Settlers pf New England (4 vols., Boston:
Little Brown and Company, 1860) is the single best
reference.

 

 

 

l7Ibid.

18Simon Baldwin, "Theophilus Eaton: First

Governor of the Colony of New Haven," Pa ers pf EEE

New Haven Historical Society, 15 vols. (New Haven, 1908),
II, 1-33. Hereafter cited as New Haven Papers. Savage,
Geneological Dictionary, II, 80; Allen Johnson and

Dumas Malone, eds., Dictionary pf American Biography

(20 vols., New York: Charles Scribnersrs Sons, 1928-36),
V, 612.

 

 

 

 

 

19Compiled from the New Haven Records.

 

20WinthrOp Papers, IV, 18-20.

 

ZlIbid.

22Calder, New Haven Colony, 48.

 

23New Haven Records, 31.

 

24Apparently Lamberton was a well respected

merchant for a Boston resident complained that he "did
us much wrong; I expected him to come to the Bay, but
it seems he sitts down at Quillpiack Bay." Ezekial
Rogers to John Winthrop, November 3, 1639. Winthrop
Papers, IV, 151; Savage, Geneological Dictionary, III,
48-9.

 

25New Haven Records, 56-57.

 

28

26Charles Levermore, The Republic 93 New Haven:
A History pf Municipal Evolution (Port Washington,
New York: Kennikat Press, 1866) 9-96.

 

 

 

27E. B. O'Callaghan,(edq) Documents Relative E2
the Colonial History pf New York (14 vols., Albany,

 

 

28Levermore, The Republic, 93.

 

29For the best description of the episode see

the sworn statement of John Thickpenny, a seaman
aboard the Cock, in New Haven Records, I, 106-108.

 

30l§i§., 147; Levermore, The Republic, 94-95.

 

31She died before the trial could be held.
New Haven Records, 81-91. For the best analysis of
usuryfin the seventeenth-century see Bernard Bailyn
(ed.), The Apologia pf Robert Keayne: T23 Self
Portrait 2£.E Puritan Merchant (New York: Harper and
Row, 1964), as well as The New England Merchants 13 the
Seventeenth-Century (New York: Harper and Row, 1955TT—
41-44.

 

 

 

 

 

32For an example of the goods traded see the

court case against John Charles in the New Haven Records,
I, 81—91.

 

33Ibid., 211, 426.

 

34Ibid., 311-312.

3SIbid., 143.

36Ibid., 172.

37Ibid., 181-182.

38Ibid., 310.

391bid., 111-112.

29

40Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana

(2 vols., Russell and Russell, Inc., reproduced from
the 1852 edition and published in 1967), I, 84.

1Thomas Trobridge Jr., "History of the Ancient
.Maritime Interests of New Haven," New Haven Papers, III,
97.

 

42New Haven Records, 184, 279-280.

43Ibid., 56-7; Levermore, Re ublic, 95, suggests

that the Delaware project brought econom1c disaster
to the comm8nity but pursues this analysis no further.

44New Haven Records, 331-333.

CHAPTER II

"YOU MUST SUBMIT TO AUTHORITY"

Reflecting on over thirty years in New England,
.John Davenport told a Boston audience in 1669 that the
key to success for any political system rested on the
citizens' submission to authority. Few in New Haven or
any other New England town would have questioned that
assertion, for all agreed that the passions of man had
to be controlled in order to construct an orderly society.
Two institutions were vital in pursuing that end. The
church provided for the spiritual needs of the people
while the secular state legitimized political power.
The two interacted in such a way that a man in New Haven
faced a variety of controls over most aspects of his
life. But strict demands made upon all did not preclude
men from coming to the town and building up modest
estates. Nor did the town suffer from the hands of a
,harsh theocracy, but rather the town reflected a
political system that allowed most men a means of
expression.

The covenant formed the general framework for

the institutional development of New Haven, providing

30

31

the means to rationalize and implement the control of
man's behavior. There were several covenants that men
had to agree to upon entering. The most important

was the anterior, or covenant of grace, that assured
an individual of salvation. This became the intellec-
tual basis for two other agreements. Once a gathering
of saints had assured themselves of the sanctity of
their mission, they "joyned in a Civil-society, that
union being made the power of Civil Government, and

of making law." This was an association undertaken

to insure a man and his family against "violence and
wrong, and is a consequence of pure Nature," although
the thoughtful decision to "devolve our power into the
hands of civil rulers" was considered to be "positively
moral." An expressedly spiritual action concerned

the covenant that the elect entered into with one
another to organize a "christian communion, by free
confession of faith," a church to facilitate the
worship of God to insure the moral strength of a
society. These contracts demanded that man submit

to authority, be it represented by a minister or a
magistrate, because the power had been granted by God.
If man violated the special covenantal relationship

by acting in ways offensive to the Almighty (or more
realistically the visible church), then he stood in
danger of not only personal ruin but bringing the

wrath of God down upon the entire community.1

32

Such a system also relegated to each individual
a special role to play within the societal framework.
Theorists viewed society as an organic unit which
remained stable only as long as each member willfully
accepted his role. The status of that role depended
upon a person's particular "calling." Some men were
to be farmers or cordwainers while others, the Godly
and learned, were destined to provide the necessary
political leadership to establish a community of visible
saints. One seventeenth-century writer commented that
"every man is to serve his generation by moving in his
own job; and his discharging those offices that belong
to that order that the government of heaven has assigned
to him." If man failed to acknowledge his station in
life, or refuted the power of those above him, the
organic unity of the whole would be upset.2

The heart of the matter concerned the respon-
sibility man had to the legal or spiritual authority
that guided his life. In 1645 John Winthrop admonished
the people that elected officials should not be
questioned "since it is yourselves who have called us
to this office and being called by you, we have the
authority from God, . . . [for] the covenant between
you and us is the oath you have taken of us, which is
to this purpose, that we shall govern you and judge

your causes by the rules of God's laws and your own,

33

3 New Haven's oath of

according to our best skill."
fidelity, signed by all free burgesses and admitted
inhabitants, stated that all men owed obedience to
the town and should accept the burden of protecting
the well being of the community. It was expected
that every man "shall give due honor to the lawfull
magistrates and shall be obedient and subject to all
the wholesome lawes and orders allready made or which
shall be hereafter made by lawfull authority aforesaid."4
Writers cautioned that political power should not be
given to the undeserving and reminded the people that
magistrates should not only be "wise and learned in
the matters of religion, but also able to reduce that
knowledge into practice. But if by chance unholy men
were chosen, their authority still must be obeyed
because of the relationship stood as "wives to their
husbands though unbelievers, . . . and servents to their
masters though forward."5

Deferential attitudes were not unique to
theorists like Davenport but were held in common by
most men in New Haven. More importantly, officials
acted on those assumptions in determining important
decisions within the town. Land was guaranteed to all
permenant settlers in the town but wealth and social
position often determined the amount of land an

individual would receive. Men whose estates were

34

valued at over 500 pounds received an average of
slightly over 300 acres while adult males who were
struggling on estates that averaged below 100 pounds
received a total of fifty acres in the first two
divisions. The middle group of men who could boast

of an estate between 100 to 300 pounds were awarded
roughly seventy—eight acres of land and the individuals
whose estates were above 300 but less than 500 received

6 Of less real impor-

approximately 115 acres of land.
tance but socially significant to the residents, was
seating in the meeting house. The wealthy and socially
prominent were given choice seating near the front
while those of lesser importance sat either on the
side aisles or in the rear of the building.7

Similar attitudes were important in determining
who possessed leadership qualities within the town. For
example, in the mid-1650's the deputies issued a Special
call to Samuel Eaton, the son of the governor, asking
him to consider leaving his home in Boston to accept
a "place of a magistrate in this jurisdiction" because
the Court felt that few qualified men remained in New
Haven who could fill such a position.8 John Nash,
an original settler of moderate wealth,who had become
active in local affairs, resisted an offer in 1660

to become the captain of the New Haven Colony militia.

It may well be that he simply did not want the

35

responsibility, yet he justified his refusal by stating

"that he hOped the rules of God in scripture would be

considered and attended in this matter, whereby it

appeares that such as were chosen were men of courage

and valour, chief men, men of estates, such as

rendered the place to be a place of respect." In his

mind he failed to qualify for the position and pleaded

with the Court to realize that God knew the "uprighteous-

ness of his heart in what he said."9 Two years

before the inorporation of New Haven into Connecticut

the deputy governor expressed a fear that elected

offices could not be filled by qualified men.10
Such ideas were reflected through the two

institutions designed to create an orderly society.

The first was the church, the dominant spiritual power

that effected the lives of most people either directly

"a

or indirectly. John Davenport defined it as
company of faithfull and holy people, or persons

called out of the world to fellowship with Jesus Christ,
and united in one congregation to him as members to
their head, and with one another, by a holy covenant
for mutuall fellowshipp in all wayes of holy worship of
God."11 The elect, described as those "reconciled to
God and saved not of themselves, neither by their own

workes, but onely by the mightly power of God," were

obligated to form congregational bodies duly manned by

36

ordained officers who could dispense the sacraments
(baptism and communion) to the visible saints.12 Man
existed in a tenuous state and the church alone could
provide the strength and stability for a society to
survive.

Though essential to the social-political
structure of New Haven, the church, contrary to the
patterns found in some towns such as Dedham, Massachu-
setts, never encompassed the entirety of the population.
In the twenty-six year period between 1639 and 1665, the
First Church of Christ admitted only a total of 177
male members or an average of only about seven a year.
In the middle of the first decade when church member-
ship reached its zenith, roughly half of the adult
males were also members of the church.13 In the next
twenty years New Haven, as most other New England
communities, faced the crisis of declining church
membership in a society that was gradually increasing
in size. By 1665 eighty-one of the 177 members had
either or were dismissed, leaving approximately
ninety-six members within the spiritual body. Whereas
the total adult male population had been 145 in the mid-
1640's, it has now risen to 218. Thus, forty-four percent

of the adult males now stood as church members, a drop of

approximately six percent. Although not as apparent as

37

the same trend in the rival port of Boston, the church
in New Haven became more isolated as the secular world
grew around it.

Whatever the percentage of men within the church,
it played an instrumental role in the town, exercising
its authority in several ways. The First Church of
Christ restricted membership through severe "tests of

saving grace,‘ and demanded from its elect rigid
conformity to standards established by the judicious
Bible study of its minister and teacher. Many infrac-
tions could result in disciplinary measures against

the accused but the kind of punishment depended upon
the nature of the violation. Drunkedness may have been
sinful but unless a person was habitually inebriated

he could expect little more than a severe warning.
Other charges were serious. Heresy represented the
greatest danger to the community and the church
liberally interpreted it to include any attempt to
"subvert or destroy the Christian faith or religion by
broaching, publishing or maintaining any dangerous

14 This meant that those who flirted with the

errour."
felonious doctrine of anabaptism ran the risk of
severe punishment but it could also be applied to
those described as having an "obstinate carriage."15
If the "heretics" failed to properly repent and acknow-

ledge the error of their ways, the congregation could,

38

and usually did, use the ultimate spiritual weapon,
excommunication.l6
Disciplinary action could affect members in
other ways as well. Although the church could not
legally prevent marriages, it could refuse to sanction
the union when one partner had been expelled from the
congregation or was deemed morally unfit of the other.
Since town officials were always church members, it
stands that an unfavorable word from the minister may
have been enough to prevent the governor from carrying
out the marriage ceremony.l7 Suffrage was considered
both a privilege and a responsibility, a privilege

delegated only to the visible saints because they were
godly and a responsibility on their part to carry out the
God's moral plan for society. But loss of membership
in the church meant the loss of this right. Some in
New Haven found that being cast from the church carried
with it such a social liability that leaving the town
was more acceptable. So Thomas Fugill, excommunicated
for his behavior as town clerk, returned to England
with only bitter memories of life in the unfriendly
wilderness. An acquaintance stated that he was in a
"melancholoy frame," and that he was so embittered
against the "waye and worke of Christ, that he cares
not how many be made like him, in his ruinous state

and condition."18

39

The First Church of Christ had no claims to
the souls of non-members, but the close relationship
of the church and state, combined with the belief of
the leaders that they had constructed a working
theocracy, allowed it to touch the lives of many of the
non-elect. The codified laws of 1656 demanded compulsory
attendance for everyone to the Sunday church service
and reminded the town that "the days of public fasting,
or thanksgiving" were to be kept and observed. Violators

19 There were also

could expect a fine of five pounds.
countless rules intended to prevent man's sinful nature
from dominating his life. The court carefully controlled
the sale of alcohol, prohibited card playing in town,
cautioned men not to smoke in public, and warned that
severe punishments would be meted out to those dared to
participate in such immoral acts.20

Despite the many laws, man erred and the court
punished. For failing to "attend the public ordinances
upon the saboth dayes nor attend the order of the towne
in bringinge his armes . . . but . . . stayeth at home
and sleepeth away his time," Samuel Hodgkins was
hauled into court and warned that if this continued he
could expect serious punishment. George King, charged

with "blaspheming the name of God by cursing, received

the whip; Richard Smoalt, servant to Mrs. Turner,

40

received the same for "scoffing" at the word of God;
Jeremiah Johnson, "speaking in a jesting manner and
mocking way of the holy word of God," was freed only
after a lecture that threatened corporal punishment.21
These are but a few examples that reflect an important
characteristic: spiritual authority, channeled through
the auspices of the civil government, played a dominant
role within the town to check the behavior of those

who seemed to deny the sanctity of the community.

The civil government was the second institution
that helped mold society in New Haven. It joined
with the church in the quest for creating a system pure
enough to withstand the rigorous challenge of the
godless, secular world. But its powers were far
broader. Once chosen by free burgesses, elected
officials assumed the responsibility of protecting the
well-being of all. This included not only defending
against alien religious doctrine but providing for,
and controlling, the material aspects of life in the
town.

New Haven was not a theocracy. Spiritual and
lay leaders alike agreed with John Cotton when he warned
that "if any magistrate should presume to thrust
himself, by his authority . . . into a work which
prOperly belongs to a church officer, let him remember

what befell Saul." He continued by reminding New

41

Englanders that church officers "are called to attend
only spiritual matters and the things of God and
therefore may not be distracted from them by secular
entanglements."22 Even though they accepted a strict
division of power between the spiritual and secular,
church members still dominated the political structure.
Yearly a group of five men, legally chosen by the voting
populace, conducted the business of government through
the General Court, a modified town meeting, and the
Court, the judicial arm of civil authority. The same
men comprised both courts, thus restricting authority
to a small group of men.

One of the most important powers the elected
officials had was the right to decide the amount of
land each adult male would receive. Since land usually
meant wealth, all men closely read the 1639 order that
stated:

Every planter in the town shall have a propor-

tion of land according to the proportion of

estate which he hath given in, and number of

heads in his family, (viz) in the first division

of upland & meadow 5 acres for every hundred

pound, and 5 acres for every two heads, of

upland butt halfe an acre of land to a head

and in the neck an acre to every hundred

pound and halfe an acre to every head.
At various times individuals petitioned the Court for
more land not granted in the usual division or asked

for special consideration regarding land distribution.

Throughout the period this power remained exclusively

42

in the hands of the elected officials and it would appear
from the records that they handled the power well and
no dissatisfaction arose from this policy.

The power of land distribution also had a
social-political function; it could be used as a tool
to exclude undesirable men from settling in the town.
In 1639 a Court granted a committee consisting of some
of the leading men of the town the authority to di5pose
"all the house lotts yett undisposed . . . aboute
this town to such persons as they shall judge meete
for the good fo the plantation and none shall come to
dwell as planters without their consent and allow-
ance whither they come by purchase or otherwise."

Not only did the officials have the power to
decide who might receive land, they could also at least
partially determine how the land could be used.

Since timber was a commodity vital for a variety of
reasons, it serves to illustrate this point. A

General Court ordered that no trees be cut on any land
except the cutters private property and appointed men
to search for illegally cut wood and claim it for the
town. For their effort they could keep half of the
confiscated property. Special restrictions were placed
on cutting wood in the area "where the tree masts

grow" and fines were levied against those who violated

the order.25 Town officials even designated, at

43

times, the kind of corn to be grown in certain parts
of the town and attempted to insure the protection of
all crOps by enforcing fence construction around every
field.26

Economic pressures also forced the Court to
pay strict attention to matters concerning money.
Exchange rates were established for Spanish money as
well as the most commonly used specie, wampum. During
the financially depressed decade of the 1640's local
officials constantly admonished sellers that usury
offended God's dictum of a just price and ordered that
"all commodities well bought in England for ready
money" could be sold at a profit not to exceed three
pence per shilling or "when bought from ships or other
vessels here, not a penney a shilling wholesale."
Although only one case warranted court action, and then
the accused died before the court could complete its
action, laws remained on the books reminding citizens
that obedience was expected.27

Equally important was the power to determine
and regulate the rates of workmen and laborers in the
town. Maximum day wages for "carpenters, joyners,
plasterers, bricklayers, mowers, coopers, thatchers,
ryvers of clapboards, pailes, shingles and lathers and

like callings which require strength and skill"

averaged two shillings in the summer and twenty pence

44

daily in the winter.28 Those who performed the same
taskes but who failed to qualify as masters could
realize wages of eighteen pence in the summer and
fourteen pence in the winter while "unskillful,

negligent laborers and boyes,‘ were paid according to
their services in both seasons. Price regulations also
affected those who mastered small vessels, cut and sold
timber, mowed salt marsh grass or rented rooms to
boarders. The actual money transaction, said the
court, had to be in "corne, as the price goeth in the
plantation, or in worke as the rates settled . . . or
in cattell of any sort . . . ."29
Rates, however, meant something quite as
important as wage-price controls; it referred to the
tax all were expected to pay on their land. At a
General Court in October of 1643 the deputies ordered
"that rates be paid on upland and meadow from the first
division at four pence per acre and all second division

30 The tax was to be

land to be taxed at two pence."
paid in two installments, one in April and the other in
October, and the town would accept beaver skins, corn,
wheat, rye, pease, and wampum in lieu of English or
Spanish coins. Although rating remained a constant
problem in New Haven, it was somewhat stabilized by

the end of the decade when a committee that had been

studying the problem submitted, and the town accepted,

45

a report that based New Haven's tax structure on that
of Massachusetts.31

While such control was felt by all to be
essential, the court also had to face the larger problem
of protecting the settlement from the dangers that
always lurked in the wilderness. They had been
commissioned to enjoy Gods peaceable kingdom but only
watchful diligence could insure this. Thus, shortly
after the town had been established a series of laws
were passed establishing the ever necessary and impor-
tant watch. Each town quarter provided a watchmaster
who directed six men to patrol the area in pairs each
night from March first through October. The orders
were simple yet vital: patrol the inhabited section
of town "and bring to the court of guard any person or
persons whom they shall finde disorderly or in a
suspitious manner, within doors or without, whether
English or Indian or any other stranger."32 There
were certain common cries for fire or enemy attack,
regulations regarding arms, and fines for being late,
absent, or negligent while on duty.

A second phase of town security lay in the
organization of the local militia and more directly
affected the male citizenry of New Haven. Each man (or
a servant acting as a substitute) between sixteen and

sixty was obligated to train in local squadrons once

46

or twice a month and in a larger town company six to
eight times a year. Having a defective weapon, or
being late or absent, were violations punishable by
fines and sufficient evidence exists to suggest that
militia training, as with the watch, was less than
pOpular with the average man in New Haven.33 True,
both duties were essential to such a frontier community
and few if any men would argue that they were unneces-
sary, but rare was the man who could avoid a court fine
for such infractions.

Acting in its judicial capacity, the magistrate
and deputies sat monthly to hear civil cases involving
less than twenty pounds and criminal cases not warranting
capital punishment. Most legal matters in the town
fell under their jurisdiction, although a second
court system emerged after 1643 composed of magis-
trates from the towns in the colony of New Haven which
handled problems of a more serious nature.34 Generally
speaking, the local courts were confronted with
questions involving virtually every aspect of man's
life in a New England community. They ranged from
acts judged immoral to simple violations of town law.
Since this study does not intend to provide a catalog
of such cases, several examples will illustrate the

kind of control extended through the judicial process.

47

The most intimate relationships between men and
women posed some of the most perplexing problems for
the Court. Sexual offenses were usually described as
"sinful dailiance" between couples, often young servants,
and usually punished by a public whipping.35 Occassion-
ally a more serious breach of morality would be noted
that in turn called for a private meeting with the
chief magistrate who, after studying the problem, could
dismiss the accused or ask for a public trial. If
the participants were young with no background of
delinquency, officials usually admonished them to
abstain from such behavior and allowed the family,
or if they were servants the master, to mete out the
punishment.36 In some cases the court followed the
dictates of the law and "punished" by forcing the
couple to marry. There were cases, such as beastiality,
however, so heinous that the Court followed Biblical
dictates and awarded the death penalty. While one such
incident did occur in New Haven, a case of a servant,
notorious for his "prophane lying" and "scoffing" was
accused of fathering a monsterous pig, such incidents
were rare and excessive punishment was the exception.37
Drunkenness serves as another example of the
way the Court dealt with problems that seemed to plague
the town. Laws were passed or more technically

orders were issued, granting monopolies to a select

48

few to sell beer, wine, and spirits.38 Although

never formally law, restrictions were enforced against
night meetings in private homes where drinking had
occurred or would likely to occur in the future. The
most common deterrent, however, involved severe
discipline of the violators. Those who had been
arrested for such infractions usually met privately
with the chief magistrate or the Court to determine
whether they were disposed to drunkedness or whether

39 If the case warranted further

it was "an act only."
action, judicial proceedings were initiated. Theoret-
ically an offender could be subject to capital punish-
ment and the Court generously warned men of this,
particularly if they were a backsliding saint, but
penance seldom went beyond the usual means unless the
person's actions seemed injurious to the community.
Then discipline could result in the loss of his house
lot and even exile from the town.40
The two most time-consuming tasks the Court
faced dealt with the numerous actions taken against
petty offenses and rendering decisions between
private citizens. Violations of town ordinances
became a norm in the first decade and the monthly
Court must have maintained a frenzied pace deciding who

stood guilty of having a faulty weapon or who could not

justify a missed watch or being late for a training day.

49

Penalties were slight but they certainly must have
been considered a nuisance by the relatively large
percentage of adult males who found it difficult to
maintain the diligence that could prevent such court
action. Even leading town figures such as Nathaniel
Turner, Mathew Gilbert and Francis Newman were fined
for petty violations.41 In addition the citizens of
the town brought numerous private problems to the same
officials that ranged from personal slander to breach
of contract. A variety of such charges were handled
in one of two ways: the court could appoint mediators
to the case or conduct the hearing themselves.42
Some in New Haven were unable to care for
themselves and in such cases the Court assumed the role
of a social agency, providing food, shelter, or perhaps
a small stipend until the indigent could again function
as a reSponsible citizen. In extreme cases the town
officials moved to separate entire families if the
traditional structure could no longer provide guidance
for the children. Thus Thomas Trowbridge, an early
settler of New Haven but heavily in debt, saw the
Court declare his goods attached, and since he had no
visible means of support, his family was "dissolved."
The children became charges of the town sergeant who
received a small portion of the attached goods to help
provide an education for the wards as well as "nurture

them in the feare of God."43

50

The local court, then, acted as a means to
control man's deviant behavior but the records suggest
that officials attempted to judge the cases in an
even handed manner. Litigants in civil cases were
encouraged to speak freely or if they wished, to hire
a representative to plea the action. If the Court
appointed arbitrators to settle the matter, the litigant
could respond by challenging the suitability of the
appointee, even if it involved respected members of
the community. For example, Henry Bishop, tenant on
John Davenport's farm, became involved in a bitter
dispute with the Divine and challenged an appointed
arbitrator on the grounds that he could not impartially
weigh the evidence.44 Perhaps the best example concerns
servants, for they were the single group that posed
the greatest challenge to the town's moral standards.
Even so, they could expect fair court proceedings. If
the responsibilities eXpected of the master-servant
relationship were not fulfilled, the court could,
and did, intercede to revoke the written or unwritten
contractural relationships.45 If a servant could prove
physical abuse or mistreatment he could expect to be
removed from the household. When the court was
convinced that the "ulcers, chillblanes and sores" on
the servant of Samuel Andrews were the result of

negligence on the part of his master, he was removed

51

from the home.46 Sometimes this power was used to
extend a legal contract or decide to whom servants
legally belonged. At any rate the proceedings were
always cautious and deliberate as the Court attempted
to deal justly with even those who presented threats.
To assume, however, that men bore unbearable
burdens under the strict regulations of a New England
town, would be erroneous. For the most part these men
and women had voluntarily chosen to come to New Haven
and fully realized that they would have to abide by
strict moral codes. In a day of intense religiosity,
particularly when leading spokesmen were espousing

building "the city on a hill,‘ this did not seem
unusual. Furthermore, secular institutions provided
a means for most adult males to speak to the critical
issues.

Although no one in New Haven would have suggested
that their political system revolved around the ideal
of "democracy," town officials did govern by a consensus
of the people. John Davenport argued that magisterial
authority represented God's power but saw no discrep-
ancy in the logic when he stated that such power is
"by the people's free choice, at least the suffrages

"47 The "voice" of the people

of the major part of them.
was the General Court, the legislative body that sat

monthly to conclude the major business for the town.

52

It provided a means for men to speak to pressing issues
of the day. By law all free burgesses (the term free
planter was used interchangeably and designated the
same legal distinction) were required to attend such
meetings and probably all planters, those who were
inhabitants of the town but not church members, also
accepted the obligation. At times when the matters
were relatively unimportant, the officials of the town
asked the "whole town" to express their feelings by
a show of hands.48 When major questions or problems
faced the town, such as asking for new taxes or measures
to be taken against seemingly hostile Indians, all
men of the town were expected to attend to insure that
whatever decisions were made reflected the broad
agreement of adult males.

A major criticism of seventeenth-century New
Haven involves the limited franchise that, according
to some historians, successfully precluded a majority
of men from voting, thus insuring the near totalitarian
control by a spiritual oligarchy.49 To be sure, not
all men were awarded the right to vote but the per-
centage of eligible males remained relatively high
throughout the 1639-1664 period. In 1643, the date
of the first complete list of adult men recorded in
the town, approximately fifty percent of the adult

male planters could qualify as voting freemen. But

53

only forty-two percent chose to be declared voters by
the General Court, suggesting perhaps that many simply
did not feel compelled to participate actively because
they were satisfied with the general tenor of the
system. By the mid 1660's, the percentage eligible
to vote had dropped to approximately forty-four percent
while the actual legal freemen had remained at the 1643
level. These figures are not large in terms of
twentieth-century standards, but they are significantly
higher than the oft—quoted twenty-five percent.
And the fact that suffrage never became a tOpic of
criticism, even during the years of intense dissatis-
faction, suggests that perhaps most men were relatively
satisfied with the franchise and fully accepted the
political deference so apparent in that century.50
There is little doubt, however, that an elite
group of men dominated the political system. Each
year the freemen were charged with electing a chief

magistrate or "governor,' and four deputies to conduct
local affairs. The magistracy was dominated throughout
the period by only three men, one of whom, TheOphilus
Eaton, held the position nineteen years. During the
same period New Haven voters chose twenty-one

different men to fill 114 seats as town deputies.

Five dominated that position by being chosen forty-

seven percent of the time while the next seven most

54

frequently elected men captured twenty-four percent of
the seats. The same general pattern is true of the
townsmen, elected officials whose power slowly replaced
that of the deputies after 1651.51 In the fourteen
years after that date there were 105 seats open for
election. Thirty-one men filled those vacancies.

Of that number eight held over forty-five percent of
the seats while the other twenty-three men shared the
remaining positions.52 These facts are not meant to
condemn the system but only suggest that for whatever
reasons, voters relied heavily on a small group who
they decided were best qualified to provide leadership
for the town.

Town officials delegated many of the duties of
government to committees composed of citizens whose
responsibility it was to study various problems and
report back to the General Court with proposed solu-
tions. Such groups sat as screening agents for prOposed
settlers, studied sites for bridges and mills, established
the procedure for land divisions, determined the best
areas for open grazing, and handled a myriad of
other tasks. Whatever the matter under consideration,
familiar town names dominated the list. With few
exceptions the men were church members and if the
problem being considered was extremely sensitive the

town minister joined with the elders to examine the

55

aspects of the case. Many who were committee
appointees also held or had held elected positions.53

The relatively small group of men who dominated
the political offices in New Haven were for the most
part the financially successful of the community.
The average tax rate paid in 1643 by those who were
or became town deputies amounted to three pounds ten
shillings. The average 1643 estate amounted to nearly
498 pounds but wealth at death of these men slipped
to roughly 445 pounds (nearly half of the men left
probated estates). Thirty percent of the men who
eventually became townsmen had estates in 1643 averaging
108 pounds. The probated wealth of the same men reveals
an estate that had jumped to 332 pounds per individual.
Generally speaking, these men were being chosen by an
electorate whose general wealth, based on the 1643
list of estates as well as the available probated
material, averaged 345 pounds per adult male or slightly
above that of the townsmen and slightly less than that
of the deputies.54

When compared with available statistics
regarding the non-freemen of the town, the wealth
patterns of both the elected officials and the freemen
suggests that there was a disparity between the groups.

The general wealth of the planters who signed the initial

pledge of loyality to the town government averaged

56

approximately 150 pounds in 1643 and 262 pounds at

the death of the men. But of the men who came to New
Haven after 1643, and left some record of their estate,
only a few could match the latter figure. On the
average the planter estates approximated 100 pounds
between 1639-1664.55 Obviously such figures could be
in error because many men did not bother with a will.
But it does suggest that the relatively successful man
was more often than not a freeman and that elected
officials were usually chosen from those whose material
acquisition afforded them the luxury of civic responsi-
bility.

This is not to say that those who were not
freemen or office holders were entirely excluded from
participating in town matters but the positions open
to such men were usually appointive and of secondary
importance. Beginning early in the 1640's town
deputies appointed fence viewers for each quarter
vflnose duty involved checking all fences on a regular
.basis to insure that crops were protected from wan-
dering swine. Although the average wealth of these
:men.at their death amounts to 242 pounds, most were
appointed at a time when their financial fortunes
vuare minimal. For example Roger Alling, John Moss,
Charemiah Whitnell, and John Clark all served in 1645

‘WhEHI it is doubtful that their average wealth amounted

57

to much more than twenty-five pounds (it would average
210 pounds at their death). In addition, nearly
forty-two percent of the positions during this period
were held by non-church members.56

The ideals of an organic, static, deferential
society did not mean that men shunned economic mobility
or saw material success as contradictory to the governing
theories. To be sure not all men found the demanding
New England countryside willing to yield the fruits
of hard labor, but continuous effort combined with
shrewd land transactions could result in an individual
laying up substantial worldly goods. For example, many
must have aspired to follow the patterns of John
Cooper who came to New Haven with an estate of only
30 pounds but probated an estate of nearly 225 pounds.
Thomas Munson's worth as tenant farmer in 1643 was
apparently so insignificant that officials did not list
it, but in a life of over thirty years in the town he
developed wealth of nearly 280 pounds. And there
were many others. Roger Allings estate grew from an
estimated 40 pounds in 1643 to 394 pounds at his death
in 1674; John Nash was listed as a tenant in 1643
with no visible estate but his probated wealth amounted
to 1664 pounds, and Samuel Whitehead, who started
with 60 pounds in 1643 accumulated 370 pounds by

the time of his death.57

58

Success was not guaranteed, however. William
Peck, a Deacon of the church as well as an active
participant in local offices, could not develop his
12 pound estate much beyond 55 pounds during his life
in New Haven. Others began with healthy sums that
ranged from 100-200 pounds but never saw them grow
much beyond that. Because of the emphasis on trade
in the initial years and the subsequent failure of the
venture, some men of wealth, including Thomas Gregson,
Richard Miles, Stephen Goodyear, Theophilus Eaton, and
Nathaniel Turner, suffered losses in total wealth
that ranged from 110 pounds to over 325 pounds.58
The evidence would suggest, however, that after the
chaos of the first decade the town and the general
around it offered men a chance to succeed economically.

The authority patterns described in the
proceeding pages cannot be stereotyped or explained
only in negative or positive terms. By twentieth-
century standards New Haven did not express tolerant
social goals and although some in the town would find
strong controls repugnant, most men and women accepted
such authority as an unalterable fact of life. Those
‘who came to settle but who found the rigors of such a
life untenable had but two alternatives: either to
leave the community or challenge the system of controls

that governed society. The majority of citizens were

59

satisfied or at least they did not voice strong
disapproval of the system. Those that did pose
challenges to existing order could expect that local
leaders would do all in their power to withstand the

threat and reassert the ideals of conformity.

CHAPTER II--FOOTNOTES

lLoren Baritz, Cit 22 3 Hill: A Histor of
Ideas and Myths i3 America (New York: John Wiley 33d
Sons, 1964), 22-23, has a concise analysis of covenant
theology. But no understanding of the matter is
complete without consulting Perry Miller's Errand Into
the Wilderness (New York: Harper and Row, 1956, 5-6,
38-44, and The New England Mind: From Colony to
Province (Boston: Beacon Press, 1954), 11-12,-2l—26,
68-76. John Davenport's "A Sermon Preached at the
Election of the Governor at Boston in New England,
May 19, 1669," in the Publications of the Colonial
Society of Massachusetts, Transactions, 1904-1906
(vol., X, 1907), 4-6, provides a good discussion of how
an important New England minister viewed authority.

 

 

 

 

2Perry Miller and Thomas Johnson (eds.), The
Puritans" A Sourcebook gf Their Writingg (2 vols??—
New York: Harper and Row, 1963), I, 19; Edmund Morgan
(ed.), Puritan Political Ideas, 1558-1794 (New York:
Bobbs Merrill Company, 1965), 49; Miller, Errand, 43.

 

 

 

 

3Miller, The Puritans, I, 205-207.

 

4New Haven Records, 19.

 

 

5Davenport, A Sermon, 11; John Cotton, A
Discourse About Civil Government i2.§ New Plantation
Whose Desiggig Religion (Cambridge: Samuel Green and
M. Johnson, 1663), 7-11.

 

6The figures were taken from the New Haven

71bid., 302-304; Franklin E. Dexter and Zara
Jones Powers (eds.), Ancient Town Records: New Haven
lkwni Records, 1649-1769 (3 vols., New Haven 1917-1962),

I, 219-221.

60

61

8Ibid., 205-207.

91bid., 458.

lOIbid., II, 40-41.

llJohn Davenport's Profession of Faith, found in
the Davenport Papers, 73.

 

lzIbid., 70.

13The data was taken from Dexter, Historical
Catalogue, l-7, New Haven Records, 91-93, The Egg
Eggland Historical and Genealogical Register, IX, 1855,
357-363, and the four volumes of Savage, A Genealogical
Dictionary. All population figures were tabulated by
centering on a Specific date, 1643 for example, then
finding as many names as possible before and after
that date and tracing them through genealogical
sources to find birthdates and dates of death to
determine if the individual lived in the town at the
reference year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

l4J. Hammond Trumbull (ed.), The True-Blue
Laws 2: Connecticut and New Haven and the False Blue
Laws Forged by Peters (Hartford: American Publishing
Company, 1876), 224.

 

 

 

5Concerning the charge of anabaptism see the
case of Anne Eaton in Newman Smyth, D. D., "Mrs.
Eaton's trial (1644) from the Records of the First
Church of Christ," New Haven Papers, V, (1894), 134-135.
Also see "concerning Glover, His Seeking Reaffirma-
tion to the Church, August 11, 1644," First Church
pf Christ Records, Connecticut State Library, Microfilm.

 

 

 

l61bid.

17New Haven Records, 246.

 

18Thomas Harrison to John Winthrop, February 14,
1647/8 in the Winthrop Papers, V, 87.

 

19Trumbull, True Blue Laws, 220.

 

62

20Ibid., 224, 233.

21
I, 327.

Ibid., 258, 293, 308; Ancient Town Records,

 

22Cotton, A Discourse, 7. For examples of the
historians who argue that New Haven represented an
established theocracy, see Calder, The New Haven
Colony, Adams, The Founding, Charles M. Andrews, 2A2
Colonial Period 9: American History (4 vols., New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1936), II, Henry Bronson,
"Early Government of Connecticut," New Haven Papers,
IV, and Robert C. Black III, The Younger John Winthrop
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1966).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23New Haven Records, 192.

 

24Ibid., 25.

251bid., 47—48.

26ggig., 83, 126, 150.

27ggig., 26, 35, 150, 154-155, 405.
28;g£g., 52-55.

291232.

3oggig., 3o.

31

Ibid., 494.

32Orders for the watch were reviewed and
restated periodically, particularly when an Indian
attack seemed likely. Ibid., 33-34, 40, 204-205,
481-483; Trumbull, True Blue Laws, 245-250.

 

33£§i§. ; New Haven Records, 74, 76, 166, 187.

 

 

63

34Unlike Massachusetts and Connecticut, New
Haven did not adopt the jury system. One historian,
though, states that the functions of the deputies
acted as such for no matter what the decisions were,
they were never the opinion of a single man. See,
Calder, New Haven Colony, 125-126; New Haven Records,
113-114.

 

35For the best analysis of servants in the
seventeenth-century see Edmund Morgan's The Puritan
Family: Religion and Domestic Relations in Seventeenth-
Century New England (New York: Harper and—Row, 1966),
106-132 and John Demos, A Little Commonwealth:
Family Life iA_Plymouth Colony (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1970), 107-130. Cases in New Haven
are found in the New Haven Records, 38, 77, 81. 84.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36Ibid., 62, 295, 469.

37Just four years later another servant,
Thomas Hogg, also stood accused of the same act but
received only a severe whipping, imprisonment, and a
"mean dyet of hard labour," Ibid., 62-73, 295-296.

38;§i§,, 273; Trumbull, True Blue Laws, 228.

 

39New Haven Records, 306, 449; Ancient Town
Records, I, 55-56.

 

 

40New Haven Records, 46.

 

41%.] 26, 27, 52-53, 449-450, 478, 419.

42£Q£Q., 268, 281-282, 329-333, 449-450.

43£§i§,, 29, 46, 59, 61, 80, 133, 178-179, 365.

441bid., 392—393, 401.

45See the following examples: Ibid., 135;
.Ancient Town Records, I, 437.

46New Haven Records, 162-165.

 

64

47Davenport, A Sermon, 11, For the arguments
concerning the question of democracy in New England
see the following studies: B. Katharine Brown,
"Freemanship in Puritan Massachusetts," American
Historical Review, LIX, no. 4, (1954), "Puritan
Democracy: A Case Study," Mississippi Valley
Historical Review, L, (1963—1964), 377-396, Puritan
Democracy in Dedham, Massachusetts: Another Case
Study," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, XIX
(1962), 422-428, and "A Note on the Puritan Concept of
Aristocracy," The Mississippi Valley Historical
Review, XLI, (1964), 105-112. Lockridge, A NEE
England Town, 37-56 and 139-165. Kenneth Lockridge
and Alan Kreider, "The Evolution of Massachusetts Town
Government, 1640-1740," William and Mary Quarterly,
3rd series, XXIII (1966), 549-574. Robert E. Wall Jr.,
"A New Look at Cambridge," Journal of American History,
LII, (1965-1966), 599-605, SHE—ffie massachusetts Bay
Colony Franchise in 1647." William and Mary Quarterly,
3rd Series, XXVII (1970), 136-144.

 

 

 

 

48Trumbull, True Blue Laws, 230.

 

 

49See footnote 22.

50The figures were tabulated from the New Haven
Records and the Ancient Town Records, I.

 

 

51The office of the townsmen, a tOpic to be
discussed in chapter six, was introduced in 1651 and
gradually assumed the power of the General Court. See
Lockridge and Kreider, "The Evolution" for the best
general assessment of the relationship between the
townsmen and the general town meeting.

52Tabulations were made from the New Haven
Records and the Ancient Town Records, I.

 

53Ibid.

54Ibid. ; Town of New Haven Connecticut:
Register 2i Probate Records, Vol. I, 1647-1687 (Filmed
by the Genealogical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah).
Hereafter cited as Probate Records.

 

 

55Ibid.; New Haven Records and the Ancient
Town Records, I.

 

 

 

65

56Ibid.; Probate Records. The data on church
membership was taken from Dexter's Historical Catalogue,
107, the New England Historical and Genealogical
Register, IX, 357-363 and Savage, A Genealogical
Dictionary, I-V.

 

 

 

57New Haven Records; Ancient Town Records, I,

and Probate Records.

 

 

 

58Ibid.; New Haven Records; and Ancient Town
Records, I. Atwater's History, 120, suggests that so
many of the wealthy lost money because they over-
extended their initial investments in trade while at
the same time constructing extravagant dwellings.

 

CHAPTER III

CHALLENGE: PHASE I

In his lengthy Magnalia Christi Americana,

 

Cotton Mather described New Haven as a happy, unified
community. The reason, Mather stated, lay with the
church and its refusal to allow anyone to join who had
not been subjected to a rigorous test of saving grace.
Such policies, the author concluded, created an atmosphere
where "the God of Love and Peace . . . remarkedly
dwelt" among the people.1 This idyllic picture of
the town would undoubtedly have surprised contemporaries
who witnessed the rancorous quarrels of a people who
sought, but could never find, the right combination for
harmonious living. In their search for heavenly prin-
ciples, town and church leaders created a rigid
orthodoxy that left little room for dissenting voices.
A number of people refused to accept this, however,
and their probing criticism erupted into bitter
challenges to the symbol of all authority, the church.
There is little to suggest that the principles

of authority represented by the ideals and practices

66

67

of church and state were not accepted during the first
several years. Between 1639 and 1644 the Court dealt
with many problems, but for the most part they were of
minor importance and resembled the problems faced by
every other New England community. Men and women were
accused of immoral behavior that ranged from drunken-
ness to sexual violations and although at least two
people, an Indian and a male servant, were executed
for more serious crimes, the town officials were more
concerned with gates being attended, fence rails
laying unrepaired, or men missing the monthly training
session.2 The dissatisfaction, if it existed, was
minor and there is no indication that the citizens
of New Haven were unhappy with the nature of society.
By the middle of the decade, however, a subtle
change appears. The Court began trying more cases
involving men who questioned the fundamental assump-
tions about the nature of authority, while the
church responded to internal threats by lengthy
hearings with the accused or by excommunicating
those who posed the greatest danger of destroying the
unity of the spiritual body. In the summer of 1644
Henry Glover, one of the initial founders of the town
who was admitted to the church in 1641, stood before
the congregation guilty of "scandalous" behavior.

The exact charge is unknown but it apparently involved

68

his contemptuous attitude that the church found
repugnant and since he refused to repent, he was
excommunicated. Such a breach, though, could destroy
that body and the Elders moved quickly to readmit him
before irreparable damage had been done. But Glover
seemed unwilling to acknowledge his faults and only
after long hours of counseling did he overcome his
"pride and passion" that allowed him to reaffirm his
membership in the church.3 The following year a
certain Bamfield Bell, known only as a relative of
Francis Brewster, a prosperous citizen of the town,
was arrested and charged with "singing profane songs."
He reportedly told his accuser William Paine, another
of the original settlers and a visible saint, that he
represented "one of the holy brethern that will lye for
advantage." Others offered the condemning evidence
that Bell constantly denounced those who "walke in the
wayes of God." For his blatant contempt of the
Godly he received a severe whipping.4

By themselves such cases may be relatively
insignificant and could possibly be explained away
as exceptional incidents that one could expect to find
in a society that demanded strict conformity to social
mores. But the challenge to order and orthodoxy became
obvious to all when the actions of four women, Anne
Eaton, Lucy Brewster, Mrs. Leach, and Mrs. Moore,

became a public scandal.

69

Unfortunately little is known of the personal
lives of the women. Anne Eaton, daughter of George
Lloyd, Bishop of Chester, married Thomas Yale and bore
him one son, David. Upon her husbands death she
married the wealthy merchant, Theophilus Eaton,
governor of the colony of New Haven until his death
in 1657. As the governor's wife she enjoyed a pres-
tigious social role in the community. She cared for
a large household, owned land in the town and probably
assumed the social role of a woman respected by all.5
Lucy Brewster married Francis, a moderately wealthy
citizen of New Haven who apparently depended upon
trade for his livelihood. He signed the oath of
fidelity but was neither a church member or a freeman.
Upon his death his widow married Thomas Pell, an
intriguing character to be discussed in the subsequent
chapter. As practicing doctor, he was known by all and
probably held the respect of most men even though he
never joined the church nor signed the freeman's
oath. More importantly, he openly defied the town
court, refusing to acknowledge contempt charges
leveled against him or even appearing personally to
hear the accusations.6 Mrs. Leach had wed Edmund
Leach, a man whose name appears in the records as

active in selling goods to traders bound for Virginia

and the Barbadoes. Her daughter, Mrs. Moore, was the

70

last of the quartet who, except for the trial, remains
entirely unknown.7
The women were all friends of one another who
apparently met frequently. It is not known whether the
meetings were merely social or whether they were
intended as private gatherings to discuss theological
considerations, but it is known that several times
they fervently criticized respected authority figures
in New Haven.
Certainly the most shocking case involved
Mrs. Eaton, who, according to the church, had fallen
under the influence of Anabaptist principles. She
had apparently been converted by the arguments of
Andrew Ritor, an English theologian whose works were
being published in London. She had been given the
books by Lady Deborah Moody who had apparently visited
with Anne on her way to Long Island Sound.8 The first
visible sign of her heresy appeared only when she
refused to remain in the church during communion and
baptisimal services. The problem did not stop there and
soon, according to John Davenport, she "was absenting
herselfe from the sermon and from all public worship
in the congregation, though she knoweth that it is
an offense to the whole church."9
Since the charge reflected such a dangerous

tendency for the community, the minister and Elders

71

desperately sought to convince Mrs. Eaton of her

error. Numerous private meetings were called and the
accused testified that indeed she had rejected the
orthodox position on baptism, admitting that the
treatise by Ritor had changed her mind. Whereas she

had formerly believed that baptism was akin to circum-
cision and should be administered to all infants, she
now acknowledged that it could only be considered a
matter of spiritual preparedness. Administering it

to an infant, she explained, violated scripture.
Davenport, undoubtedly assisted by others, read the

book in an attempt to destroy the arguments and convince
her that according to Colossians 2:11 all infants should
be baptized. But she remained adamant, telling them
that they were laboring in "vain and should have no
other answer." Then in a very curious manner she

asked why they hesitated with initiating the proceedings
against her, suggesting perhaps she understood the
significance of her act and even enjoyed placing the

10 After

church in such an embarrassing situation.
Davenport and the Elders were convinced they had

failed, only one option remained open: "to bring

sundry particulars of which she was privately admonished
into the public notice of the Church, because she
refuseth to hear us in a private way, according to the

rule in Matt. xviii, l7."ll

72

Seventeen charges were filed against her,
but the Elders told the congregation that "there
were almost as many more which we leave out (nor did
privately admonish her of) because they are not
sufficiently proved by two witnesses." The accusa-
tions were specifically stated in the trial but
rested on the assumption that her deviant behavior
testified to the violation of the third, fifth,
sixth and ninth commandments.l2 She had failed to pay
proper respect to her family, her servants, and
most important of all, to the church.

The Eaton household was large, numbering by
one account at least thirty people.l3 Among them
lived "old Mrs. Eaton, the Governor's mother, who
became the target of Anne's seemingly erratic
behavior. At the dinner table one evening she
slapped her mother-in-law's face with such force that
according to testimony it could be felt "three days
later." Theophilus grabbed his wife to prevent the
assault and all the while he held her she screamed
"I am afflicted, I am afflicted." The church judged
this to be a violation of the fifth commandment
because it broke the "rules of her relation to her
mother; and also the sixth commandment is broken in

her sinful rage and passion in her striking her mother."14

73

Mary Eaton, daughter of Anne, also experienced
many difficulties with her mother and testified about
her strange behavior. The two had disagreed about the
amount of knitting Mary had done on a pair of gloves
and the mother "grew outrageous" and physically
punished the daughter by striking her, pinching her,
and knocking her head against a dresser causing a
nose bleed. On another occasion Mrs. Eaton had
charged that her daughter looked and acted as if she
were pregnant, "saying her belly was great and her
breasts big almost to meet and she looked blue under
the eyes and that she vomited and . . . looked very

in."15

Mary denied this and witnesses confirmed that
there had been little evidence in her personal behavior
that would lead one to predicate such charges.

Pressed by the minister and the Elders on this point,
Mrs. Eaton confessed that her accusations were aimed
at preventing her daughter from committing such a sin
because "she observed her temper and carriage (saying
her carrage was wanton.)"l6 At one point the

mother's charges became ominous when she accused her
daughter of "ruining souls, especially of Mary Launce,"
maintaining that Mary was "wrought with the devil."

The Elders informed Mrs. Eaton that such behavior
violated the fifth, sixth and ninth commandments as
well as the general doctrines of Christ's love laid

down in the New Testament.17

74

In a general sense servants were part of the
family and custom as well as law demanded that they be
treated fairly.18 But Mrs. Eaton did not. Mary
Launce, the servant that Mary Eaton had supposedly
.corrupted, complained that her mistress pinched her,
"saying she had too much blood in her face," then hit
her in the eye with a barrel tap, "pinched her by the
arms, and pulled her by the nose, so that it made her
nose bleed." When Mary Launce asked why she should be
treated in such a manner, Mrs. Eaton only answered
"my dear, my dear, near twenty times but yet she
continued pinching her, but gave no reason . . .
but followed her into the buttery and there pinched
her also."19 Not content with singling out individuals
for specific faults, Mrs. Eaton summed up her feelings
about all of her female servants whe she called them
wicked wretches and assurred them that "God would send

"20 Members of the church

their souls to hell.
pleaded with her to modify her actions, asking only
that she "live in love and peace." Acquaintances of
Mrs. Eaton said they sympathized with the servants
because they observed that Anne's emotional state had

deteriorated.21

According to the two best accounts of family
life in New England, the husband-wife relationship

lay at the heart of the social structure. A woman

75

had few legal rights and should, according to the
writers of the day, submit herself to the authority of
her husband, for he "stood before her in the place of
God: he exercised the authority of God over her and he
furnished her with the fruits of the earth that God

22 Thus, a breach of the marriage covenant

had provided."
and the relationships within it violated not just
moral standards but the explicit law of God. According
to the church, Mrs. Eaton had done just that.
Her contempt of the traditional concept of
marital submission was obvious, but more than that,
she had the audacity to display her attitudes before
the very men who would decide her future in the church.
One evening as Davenport, Thomas Gregson, an elder,
and William Hooke, the teacher of the First Church
of Christ, sat in the Eaton home discussing the case,
they asked for a candle and sent a servant to Mrs.
Eaton to get one. This request precipitated the following
exchange between husband and wife:
she bid her ask her Master for a candle, saying
she had none; he said you have, she said again
I have none; he said you have. Mrs. Eaton
answered which you gave me last night,
Mr. Eaton said I gave you nine, he said you
took them yourself, and then went out and
fetched one.
In the same insolent spirit she had asked her

husband to reprimand one of the male servants because

he failed to bring her water one morning but Theophilus

76

Eaton found no just cause and let the matter pass.
Upon hearing of this Mrs. Eaton in a fit of temper
told her husband that "you and this man may go
together, for the man well out of this house I can get
my bread and cost you nothing." The church declared
that her impudent behavior had violated the marriage
covenant "contrary to I Cor. 7.10" as well as the
fifth and sixth commandments.24
Mrs. Eaton's most serious threat, however,
concerned her attitude toward the Church and particu-
larly her refusal to accept the orthodox position on
infant baptism. Here her arrogance and heresy became
apparent to all as she refused to attend Sunday
afternoon baptismal services. And when John Davenport
ascended the pulpit to lash out at such "false"
doctrine that threatened New England from time to time,
she openly showed her contempt by walking from the Church
or, when Davenport promised only a brief discourse on
Sunday morning she was heard to whisper, "I wish he

25 This kind of breach could

would" or "I pray be so."
not be tolerated by any Church for who knew how many
others she could influence. Orthodoxy seemed in peril
and men reasoned that the entire community might be
destroyed unless the heresy was checked. So in

Spite of the fact that Anne Eaton was the wife of the

Chief magistrate and undoubtedly enjoyed a prestigious

77

role in New Haven, the Church held that she had broken
the covenant and had to suffer the consequences.
Despite the serious threat she posed, John
Davenport and the Elders moved very cautiously, giving
her every chance to renew her covenant with God and
the church, and it seems rather obvious that Anne was
considered a special case. Whereas most cases as
serious as contempt of authority were dealt with
quickly to prevent the influence from spreading,

Davenport argued that Mrs. Eaton's errors were not
of that nature that they called for a present cutting
off, but he rather inclined to give a public admonition."
He believed that despite her odd behavior patterns,
whe still owned the covenant but when she stood before
the congregation and asked the Church not to issue a
decree of censure he realized he could go no further.
Since her errors had been made public, a censure was
necessary and he proceeded by warning that she must
"attend unto the several rules you have broken, and
to judge yourself by them, and to hold forth your
repentence according to God, as you will answer at
the great day of Jesus Christ."26
Such blatant violations of orthodox doctrine
demanded stern disciplinary measures, but the First

Church of Christ seemed reluctant to pursue this course.

Patiently the accusers waited to see the "fruits" of

78

the censure, expecting that Anne would confess and
repent. During that time she busied herself writing
several letters to the Elders, but she failed to
convince them that she was truly repentant. Rather
than reforming her activities, she continued in her
errors, remaining offensive to her family and
church.27 By this time much of New England gossiped
about the heresy of Mrs. Eaton and finally nearly a
year after the initial proceedings, friendly churches
from the Connecticut River Valley gently pressured
the New Haven church to deal with the matter at hand.
Informing her that she had offered no convincing proof
of personal change, the leaders now moved for excommuni-
cation.28

But still the leaders gave her one last chance
to show evidence of change and asked what hindered
her from acknowledging her faults. She deftly answered
that it had to be due to one of two reasons: either
she had been falsely charged with something she did not
do or the Elders had incorrectly applied a rule to
her case. She refused to admit to any sin and thus in
fact maintained her contempt for the authorities who
insisted she must understand the danger of her position
on baptism. When the Elders pressed for a specific

example of what rules were incorrectly applied to her

case she replied that she did not violate the fifth

79

commandment in her behavior toward old Mrs. Eaton
because Mrs. Eaton was not her mother. There must
have been feelings of frustration on the part of
Davenport and the Elders since they realized she
refused to accept a charge clearly proven by witnesses
that included her husband and now, feeling the
uncomfortable pressure from sister Churches who
perhaps felt they had been negligent, they "parted
from her with these expressions, that we must give an
account to the Church of what we found and did bewail
the hardiness of her heart."29 In the latter part of
May, Anne Eaton stood before the congregation for the
last time, heard a damning review of her faults, and
was formally cast from the Church.30
Scant information remains on the aftermath of
the Eaton trial but it would be reasonable to assume
that it remained a popular topic of conversation for
a long time. Although there were no written criticisms
made against Davenport and the Elders, it again is
logical to assume that vocal criticism did exist,
particularly since visiting ministers from up the river
had vocally noted their displeasure with the way New
Haven had handled the case, and some citizens probably
doubted the judgment of their Church leaders in

allowing the heresy to remain so long untouched.

Moreover, the number of cases on record after 1645

80

suggests that perhaps peOple were more willing to
challenge traditional voices of authority and this in
turn may suggest that authority itself, represented

by town and Church leaders and deemed necessary for the
town to survive, had lost its preeminent position
before the people.31 The Court now became the

center stage as town officials moved against those

that raised the same ominous threats as Anne Eaton

and officials devoted their energies to rooting out
ideas injurious to society to insure the longevity

of their Godly experiment. Just a year after the

Eaton crisis three women, Mrs. Francis Brewster,

Mrs. Edmund Leach, and Mrs. Moore, were called before
the Court to answer "several miscarriadges of a publique
nature."

There were specific charges that the Court
leveled against Mrs. Brewster but underlying all of the
accusations lay her scorn for the First Church of
Christ. Elizabeth Smith and Job Hall, two servants
in the Edmund Leach household, testified that they
heard the three women talking and during the course
of the conversation Lucy Brewster criticized John
Davenport. She complained that his prayers and
sermons led people to believe that "to come into the
church is as much as the receiving of Christ."32

In the same conversation she stated that the services

81

made her "sermon sick" and confessed that when the

minister said "that if a man lived where he might
joyne the church and did not, it would prove to be a
delusion to him" her "stomacke wobbled as when she

bred child." She was so upset, the servants said,

that she ordered her son to burn her sermon notes.33

Her disdain of John Davenport's ministery
Inerely represented her disgust with the power and
eauthority the Church seemed to have within the town.
EShe spoke of contributions given to the Church as
"going to mass or going up to the high alter," an

aipparent reference to the Catholic Church, the symbol

C)f repressive heresy for nearly all New England

I>uritans. She also criticized the manner of gathering

ervidence against peOple by going "two and two together,

earid writt down what scandelous Persons say, and soe

luiirry them, and compare their wrighteings," and she

Eoruayed that such men might stay away from her. At one

EDCKint, according to the witnesses, she compared the

(Zliixrch Elders to the Turks because two people had
1>eaena severely whipped a month before and said her son

Stated that he would rather "be hanged than to fall

‘iIItXD their hands."34

Much of the criticism of Mrs. Brewster centered

(or; Iier arrogant manners and her compulsion to demean

tllcuse she held in contempt. For example, witnesses

82

told of a meeting with Mrs. Charles, a Church member

who apparently with some emotion told Mrs. Brewster
of the charges against another member, William Preston,
‘who was subsequently excommunicated. Mrs. Brewster
feigned sympathy "to draw from the sister what she
could" and then related the whole matter to Mrs. Moore

"in a scoffing manner."35 At another time she spoke

to Mrs. Eaton concerning her problems and suggested

that if the court decided to banish her, she should come

to Mrs. Brewster and "acquaint her with her judgment
and grownds about baptizing, & then she, the said

Mrs. Brewster would complain to the court" that

Eaton was the cause of all the unrest and all of

the women could be banished to Rhode Island together.36

Mrs.

The latter idea may have been made in jest
as Lucy Brewster insisted but it became apparent to
the Court that she was indeed thwarting their rightful

role when she interfered with the lives of Widow

Potter and Edward Parker. Mrs. Potter had apparently

k>€aenn cast from the Church for her "obstinate carriage"
1311t; by 1646 wanted to return in order to marry Edward
Parker, a planter of the town who had alienated
himself by accusing Richard Malbon, a magistrate, of
being derelict in his official duties. Perhaps
because of this or other incidents that reflected

badly upon his character, the Church judged Parker to

83

be unfit and refused to allow the marriage or even
consider the widow's request for readmission until
she negated the marriage plans. Mrs. Brewster, upon
hearing of this, counseled the couple and suggested
that they force the hand of the Church by gathering
two of three witnesses who would simply be the matter
of confronting the Church, demanding permission be
given and if this was denied, the couple could vow
fidelity before their witnesses "and goe together."
Even though Parker and the widow refused to agree

to such an insolent plan, Lucy "pressed the . . .

advice upon them two of three times."37

And although
the accused denied the charges during the Court
proceedings, the magistrates accepted the evidence
against her as true, declaring that this "gave much
offence to the Court."38
There were two other charges brought against
Lucy Brewster. The first concerned the two servants
who had provided the bulk of the testimony. Job Hall
had been called before the three women and subjected
to oral abuse. Lucy had accused him of lying to the
Court and suggested that if she had her way, he and
Elizabeth Smith, "his slutt and harlot," would be
given the whipping post. The latter, being accosted

On the street, was told that she lied to "keep her

Whores back from whipping," adding that she would not

84

call her by her rightful name "until she had been
whipped and married." The Court said such behavior
was "uncomely and sinful" and that even Michael the
Archangel did not carry on so with the devil.39 The
second charge stated that Mrs. Brewster had retailed
wine to others against the eXpressed orders of the
General Court and that, in sum, she used her house as
a tavern. Richard Malbon had been one who had made
the latter accusation and she reacted by saying he
had lied. This only reaffirmed the Court's belief
that she had no respect for officials called by God
to Govern their fellow man.40

Although she refuted each point at the time
of the accusation, Mrs. Brewster was called upon at
the end of the examination to summarize her defense.
She challenged the most damning charges, specifically
those dealing with the Church, by denying that she
had never questioned Davenport's sermons or found his
theological positions untenable. Nor had she, Mrs.
Brewster continued, ever said she was sermon sick or
referred to any respect of Church worship as repre-
senting the high mass or altar.41 Her second line of
defense was an attempt to deny the validity of the
witnesses Elizabeth Smith and Job Hall, by proving

them to be less than honorable people. Witnesses

were called who revealed that Job had had second

85

thoughts about his testimony after it had been given,
while another reviled the character of Elizabeth, but
all to no avail: the Court declared that Mrs. Brewster
"had proved nothing to disable any of the witnesses"
and their remarks were to stand as evidence.42
If Mrs. Brewster signaled a danger to the
future of the New Haven community by her actions, the
second of the accused, Mrs. Moore, must have been
viewed as the devil incarnate as she began her ordeal
before the Court. The primary witnesses were the
same two that had spoken against Lucy Brewster and the
facts they presented were condemning. At a prayer
session held in Mrs. Moore's house and attended by her
daughter, Mrs. Edmund Leach, the former said that the
Lord had indeed brought them into a wilderness, "the
wilderness of Sinai where they are bondage with Hagar &
her children, but let never a soul of us (speaking of
the family at prayer with her) have any fellowship

with them."43

She added that there was no scriptural
basis for pastors and teachers, declaring that they
were merely the invention of men which meant in fact
that they had no authority over peOple. They that
led the New Haven flock had a "vayle before the eyes
of the ministers and peOple in this place, till

that be taken away, . . . cannot be turned to God."

She listened to Davenport only when he preached the

86

love of God but whenever he turned to the practice of
that love, she refused to listen.

The case against her became more omnious when
Thomas Kimberly, a noted member of the community,
told the Court that he had counseled privately with
her to convince her that the institutional structure
of the Church was scripturally based. He cited
Ephesians 4:11 and Mathew 28:20 which speak of Christ
commanding some to become pastors and others teachers
that the word of God might be spread. She replied
that God had been with the Apostles until their death
but to project beyond this would be accepting only
an interpretation of men and not God's command.
Twice Kimberly suggested that the Bible transcended
time and had meaning for all ages in reference to
teachers and pastors but she remained adamant and
stated "that scripture he hath made his angels minis-
tering spirits, & . . . alledged that of Christ, a

"44

spirit hath not flesh and bones. When pressed

further she fell into a rage and shouted that she
would goe to none of them for truth of her salvation,
she was as cleare as the sun in the firmament, & if

he were not so, she would speak no more with him."45
More questions elicited little response as she refused

to accept his authority to interrogate her further.

87

Exasperated, the Governor confronted her and
warned that her positions were in error for God's
promise could not be so narrowly construed to suggest
the Apostles themselves were expected to have gone
to all parts of the world. It seemed only logical,
he continued, that God spoke to the generations
that followed but this argument fell on deaf ears as
Mrs. Moore sat mute.ib Finally in an emotiona1,angry
outburst Theophilus Eaton shouted that "had she kept
her error to herselfe, herselfe only would have been
hurt," then adding the key passage said "but it is
not to be suffered that she should blaspheme and
revyle the holy ordinances of Christ & the church &
people of God," or spread her errors while corrupting
others "and disturbing the peace of the place."47
Her heretical ideas were abominable but could have
been tolerated if she had not been so active in
spreading her heresy.

The last of the triumvirate was Mrs. Leach,
the daughter of Mrs. Moore. She had confided in
Mrs. Brewster and told her that she once considered
joining the church "but now declyned it, because she
found so many untruthes amonge them." When confronted
'with the accusation by Theophilus Eaton, she "boldly
confessed." The court warned against such slander

EUJned at a "church of Christ desiring to walk uprightly"

88

and reprimanded her for spreading the falsehood
"from one to another." Mrs. Leach did not respond to
the court's final charge "but as guilty seemed to take
the weight of the chardge herselfe, & continuing in the
court she spake uncomely for her sex and age."48
The women were silenced by an unyielding Court
who saw it as their duty to ferret our heretical
doctrine that could decay the inner strength of their
society. But in effect, the public clamor the women
had made was only a beginning to the dissatisfaction in
New Haven. Others in subsequent years would also

challenge the nature of authority in the town and such

challenged would have far-reaching effects.

CHAPTE R I I I --FOOTNOTES

lMather, Magnalia, I, 16, 85.

2For examples of such cases see the New Haven
Records, 20-24, 26, 31, 38.

 

3"Glover," First Church pf Christ Records.

 

 

4New Haven Records, 142.

 

5Mather, Magnalia, 81; New Haven Records, 185.
Ola Winslow, Meetinghouse Hill, 1630-1783iTNew York:
first published by Macmillian Press, 1952, republished
by W. W. Norton, 1972), 186-187.

 

 

 

6New Haven Records, 50, 93, 139; Atwater,
History, 148.

 

7For information on both Francis Brewster and
Thomas Pell see the New Haven Records, 77, 80-81, 161,
173, 199, 334, 343, 353, 366, 392, 402, 441, 455;
Levermore, Republic, 130-134, has a brief discussion
of the dissidents. After stating that they should be
considered representative of the "deepest spiritual
discouragement that the town experience," he notes
that the unrest was coincidental with the failure of
the Delaware venture and the voyage of the Great Ship
but pursues the relationship no further. As a matter
of fact he suggests finally that the dissenters should
"serve here as illustrations of the common mode of
thought and action."

 

8Lady Moody, a friend of the WinthrOps, had

fled to Massachusetts in 1640. But by 1642 her views
on baptism had resulted in her excommunication from the
Salem church and she moved to Long Island. Rufus M.
Jones, The Quakers $2 the American Colonies (New York:
Russell and Russell, 1926, first publiEhed in 1911),
216-217.

 

 

89

90

9New Haven Papers, 134-135.

 

10Ibid., Colossians 2:11 reads: In whom also ye
are circumcised with the circumsion made without hands,
in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by
the circumsion of the flesh.

 

11New Haven Papers, 138.

 

lZIbid.

13Mather, Magnalia, I, 153.

14New Haven Papers, 138-139.

 

15Ibid.

16Ibid.

l7Ibid.

l8Demos, A Little Commonwealth, 107-117.

 

19New Haven Papers, 140-141.

 

20Ibid.

ZlIbid., 141-142.

22Demos, A Little Commonwealth, 82-100.

 

23New Haven Papers, 142-143.

 

24ggig. The Biblical passage reads, "And unto
the married I Command: Let the Wife Depart not from
Her Husband."

25Ibid., 143. I have labeled Mrs. an Anabaptist
because she disagreed with the issue of infant baptism,
the one common characteristic of all those were labeled
such in the seventeenth-century. See Franklin H.
Littlee, The Anabaptists View pf the Church (Boston:
Stan King Press, 1952), 107.

 

91

 

26New Haven Papers, 145-146.
27£E$E°

28ggig., 148-149.

29gglg.

30

Ibid. There is an interesting epilogue to
Mrs. Eaton's life. After her trial she sold her
prOperty to Richard Perry, but remained in the town,
the heretical wife of the most esteemed man in the
area. Upon her husbands death in 1657 she returned to
England and the town grudgingly voted to send an
escort with her to Boston as a gesture of the

respect all head for Theophilus. Ancient Town Records,
I, 357. For a note on her death in August of 1659

see John Davenport to John WinthrOp Jr., August 20,
1659 in the Davenport Papers, 143.

 

 

31New Haven Records, 242. Calder, New Haven

Colony, 97-99, devotes only two pages to the various
cases of heresy and suggests that they represented only
the intolerant attitudes common to New England.

 

 

32New Haven Records, 243.

 

33Ibid.

 

34Ibid., 239, 244.

351bid., 235.

36Ibid., 246.

37Ibid.

38Ibid., 247-249.

39Ibid., 246, 247, 252.

4OIbid., 250.

92

41Ibid., 251.

42Ibid., 252-253.

431bid.

44;9;g,, 254-255; For information in Kimberly

see Savage, A Genealogical Dictionary, III, 23.

 

 

45Probably a reference to Ephesians 4: 11-12.
46
New Haven Records, 255.
47Ibid.
48

Ibid., 255-258.

CHAPTER IV

CHALLENGE: PHASE II

By mid-decade the women had been quieted and
many in the town undoubtedly felt that the crisis had
passed. In the years following, however, the ideals
of authority were tested by a far more important
element in New Haven. Prominent men joined those of
lesser rank to challenge forcefully the basis of
institutional control that more and more seemed to
demand rigid conformity to community values and act
in ways demeaning to the sanctity of their official
position. The crisis began in 1645 when a noted
community leader, Thomas Fugill, falsified land
records to enhance his personal holdings and ended in
1649 when Ezekial Cheever, the local schoolmaster,
eloquently appealed for the right of dissent.

Thomas Fugill seemed an unlikely candidate to
thwart the ethics of the community. He had come to
New Haven with the original group of settlers in the
late 1630's and played an important role in estab—

lishing the town. His prestige was such that he was

93

94

chosen one of the "seven pillars" entrusted to gather

a church and hammer out the final organization of
government. He served for one term as local deputy

as well as holding down the position of "public

notary" whose job it was to "attend the court and

from time to time to keep a faithful recorde of all
passages and conclusions of the court."1 This included
the important task of recording the amount of land

each adult male received in each "division,' a policy
implemented in most New England towns to distribute
acreage according to social position, need, or a
combination of both.

That such a man should sin against God and his
fellow men violated basic principles that were supposed
to govern elected or appointed officers. Not only
were they expected to be men of ability who had
power "over their affections," but more importantly
those chosen were expected to be just men, "in the
sense of this test, whose wills are sanctified
and inclined by the spirit of God to perform to men
whatsoever is due to them according to the Rules of

the Lord."2

In addition, all magistrates (defined by
the Puritans to include all who held civil offices)
were "to rule in the fear of God, a filial, reveren-

tial, obedential fear of God," for that encompassed

the "whole duty of man." If man should fail in

95

combining just rule with a loving fear of God, a
society could not expect to be blessed by providence.
Rather, unjust leaders could endanger that society
by rendering to a state "of being punished by the
wrath of God."3
According to the charges that the General
Court brought in March of 1645, the notary had altered
the land records of the second division to more than
double his rightful share of twenty-four acres. The
original allotment granted Fugill an area "of cleared
grownd by the west rocke, provided it was not within
the 2 mile nor granted to any other . . . and bounded
by the two rivers."4 When he entered the grant in
the official records and presented it to the committee
to distribute the land, he "left out the 2 mile, hath
mentioned nothing of the two rivers and hath added
(or so much as he desires)." So instead of twenty-
four acres of land, the notary through manipulation had
taken fifty-two acres and thirteen rods. Moreover,
the court charged that he kept two record books, one
representing the original grants that differed from the
second which was used to defraud the town. The General
Court condemned the wrong as "unrighteous" and a
"miscarriage and unfaithfulness in his place" which
served to benefit him at the expense of the larger
community. Officials demanded that he answer the

charges.

96

Fugill's defense rested on firm denials of
tampering with the record books but more importantly
his behavior throughout implied that even in the light
of condemning evidence he refused to acquiesce, thereby
indicating by implication recognized authority. The
court argued that in the original records the notary
had excluded an important qualifying phrase to his
land grant which read "according to his own proportion."
Later, however, when it became obvious that officials
would study the records, he hastened to add that
phrase but did so with "other pen and ink, [in] a
lesser character and crooked, as with trembling hand."
When Fugill began to justify his actions the governor
interrupted him "to prevent further rashness and
sinfull expressions" and assurred the defendant that in
his mind there was little doubt the records had been
altered. But the accused "boldly" insisted there had
been no wrong and even offered to take an oath that
"they were written at one and the same time," an
attitude that changed only when the books were produced.
Still, Fugill refused to admit to the wrong, denying
it "againe and againe."6

When he finally confessed to the charges,
he attempted to justify his actions but what he
offered seemed flimsy indeed to those who demanded

personal discipline and integrity from the elected

97

few. Fugill admitted that he had fenced the land from
the second division without the advice of the town
surveyor and agreed he had committed an offensive
action by "taking a quantity so far above his propor-
tion." But he argued that he could justify it in part
because his grant had been for clear land and had he
not "carried the fence to the rock" the extra land
fenced would have made up for the difference in quality.
To prove his assertion he claimed that the additional
acreage did not exceed twelve pence an acre. In his
resignation statement he played for an understanding
and sympathetic ear by suggesting that his health made
him unfit for such responsibility "by reason of his
low voyce and dull ear and slow apprehension."7

No excuses satisfied the officials who saw in
the incident the seeds of decay that could undermine
confidence in a society and prove disasterous to the
stability of the community. Theophilus Eaton condemned
Fugill's "bold and sinfull way of protestation and
offering to take an oath, as if by confident contradic-
tions he would drive men from the truth they knew."
Such an oath, stated the governor, would only prove
that he like other "prophane men . . . think they must
swere that they may be believed, and in this case it
would beéihigh breach of the 3rd commandment."

Subsequently, Thomas Fugill suffered the pain of

98

excommunication as well as "loss of place" in New
Haven. The court declared that he stood guilty of
defrauding the town in the "unrighteous act in taking
and detayning of the towns land and falsifying of
orders and his contempt of the court." He was punished
by a fine of twenty pounds and saw his land "reduced"
to its "dew mounds, according to the first grant."8
Life in New Haven offered few possibilities
for Fugill after his conviction. In the months
following the former notary began selling land to
residents of the town and then finally left for
England, returning a bitter, disillusioned man.9
An acquaintance in England commented that Fugill had
a "melancholy frame . . . of Spirit . . . and I
feare his spirit so embittered against the whole
waye and worke of Christ, that he cares not how many
be made like him, in his ruinous state and condition."10
Two interacting forces intensified the
dissatisfaction within the town after the Fugill
affair. The first concerned the economic problems
the town suffered during the initial decade. Life was
uncomfortable for numbers in the community. Money
was scarce, food difficult to obtain at times, and
debts remained outstanding, causing many to question
whether or not they were being punished as a back-

sliding society or if God did indeed have a "controversy"

99

vvith New Haven. The second factor involves the town
officials who, seeking to discover the origins of the
problems, blindly lashed out at those they saw as
injurious to society. As the compaign to purify
increased in tempo, repressive, intolerant methods
became the norm and authority, once held in esteem by
most people, now came to signify a threatening,
ominous force that controlled men, not out of the love
of God, but for the sake of authority itself.

The case of two men reflect the general
severity of punishment awarded to those who in ever
increasing numbers were challenging authority in New
Haven. James Steward, who was neither a freeman nor
a church member, refused to join a work force headed
by Richard Malbon to repair some highways in the
town. When Malbon came to him "he at first grumbled
at it" but the grumbling soon became a stark refusal
to work for the town. When warned that he could be
held in contempt since the orders had been issued by
the General Court, he alleged he had no tools.

" Mr. Tuttle tendered the lending of tools, provided
he would make them good" but Steward replied that
he "would not come into their clawes or pawes."
JOhn Cooper, the town sergeant, testified that the
accused had displayed the same contemptuous manner

When he had confronted Steward with the same work

100

order. Cooper added that the defendant not only
refused to come himself but also attempted to prevent
others from accepting the responsibility since he had
told Roger Knap that "he was a fool for going so
easily." After hearing the case the Court held that
Steward was in "contempt of the surveyors, magistrate

fined him five pounds and imprisoned
11

and magistracy,‘

him "at the Court's pleasure."
James Heywood is the second of the two men

who challenged authority. He was charged with going

aboard a Dutchman's vessels anchored in the bay

"and there did drink strong waters in such excesse

that he made himselfe drunk by it, so that he had not

use of reason, or of his tongue, hands or feete."

Theophilus Eaton, presiding over the court, stated

that the particular crime was even more heinous because

he had proved himself to be a visible saint. Although

the defendant had been free of moral taint previously,

the church cast him from the congregation, with the

governor adding the Biblical admonition "a whip for

the horse, a bridle for the ass and a rodd for the

fool's back." Since the court judged the violation to

be an "act only" Heywood was apparently allowed to

return to the church after publically confessing his

error. The Court deliberated on the question of

corporal punishment for the act but yielded to a fifty

shilling fine.12

101

Growing distrust and fear of authority in the
town also involved the minister, the key spiritual
leader who represented the necessary link between man
and God. John Davenport believed that when Christ
ascended into heaven He "gave gifts unto men, and
disposed of them in several functions and for the public
ordinary ministery he gave Pastors, Teachers, Elders,
Deacons, helpers, for the instruction, government and
service of his Church to the world's end."13 Such
men were to be chosen by the individual congrega-
tions and since they represented not only the highest
calling of man but the spiritual strength of a
society, they were to be revered "according to the
dignity of their office." This did not mean, however,
that such men were free of legal charges or bitter
personal disputes.

Henry Bishop, brother of James who was in
active, important member of the community, had been
a tenant farmer for the New Haven minister but for
reasons not entirely clear, had left the services owing
a debt of nearly twenty pounds to Davenport. The
minister hoped to settle the case in a friendly way
out of court but Bishop "refused it, saying he would
issue his owne matters himselfe." Private meetings,
rather than convincing the former tenant that the money

due was a legitimate debt, served only to intensify

102

the antagonism between the two. Bishop, forced by
the court to "ingage" at least sixty pounds of his
estate lest he flee the town before the case was
settled, asked that the same rules be applied to
Davenport. But officials assured him this would be
unnecessary Since the minister had a visible stake in
the town. Finally Bishop agreed that arbitrators,
"indifferently chosen," would settle the matter.14
Throughout the case the defendant behaved in
such a manner that suggests he had little respect for
the authority of either the minister or the court
officials. Bishop first challenged one of the arbi-
trators chosen to represent John Davenport because the
two had once disagreed on the cost of a job on the
Davenport farm. The objection was overruled because
it "hath not the force of a just exception in it."15
By law, attachment of one's goods prohibited a man
from disposing any of the goods "ingaged," but the
<:ourt found upon questioning Bishop that he had threshed
fabout twenty bushels of wheat to either use or sell.
Instead of acknowledging his error he complained that
much of it had gone to waste because his former
employer refused to provide bags for the grain. ‘When
Jasper Crane, the arbitrator first challenged by

Bishop, informed the court that "there is 14L 143 8d

(Lie to Mr. Davenport from Henry Bishop upon account

103

for corne . . . according to his covenant" the latter

refused to accept the responsibility of repayment.

Bishop also implied that Davenport and the arbitrators

dealt unfairly with him by refusing to accept wampum

in payment but instead suggested that he relinquish

two calves in lieu of cash.16
Although the records do not clearly indicate

the resolution of the case, it is probable that

Davenport received the money. Within seven months

nearly two thirds of the debt had been paid in cattle

and the minister seemed content to take "the rest in

corn, which he conceives as a great favor to the farmer."

Shortly thereafter Bishop prepared to "take leave of

the town."17
The New Haven minister offended many in town

by using his sanctified position to seek special

privilege. Thomas Munson, sergeant of the local

militia, testified in court in December of 1648 that he

had been mistakenly charged some months earlier with

taking men away from their monthly training session to

repair Davenport's house. He eXplained that the

Divine had requested help to repair his cellar and

refused to wait until the following week because

"he was not willing to have his house lye open on the

Saboth day." It is unclear whether Munson went to

the training field to find the men for the task as was

104

initially charged, but testimony by three members of

the band leave little doubt that the company was

generally upset by the request. They charged that if

the practice continued "they would trayne no more."18

The governor freed Munson from any charge and warned

men to "be more wary how they express themselves,"

but it is doubtful men soon forgot Davenport's actions.
The most serious challenges to authority in

New Haven involved two prominent men. Thomas Pell

had come to the town sometime in the early 1640's.

As a medical doctor he played an important role in

the community and even though he never became either a

church member or a freemen, he was well thought of

in the town. Sometime after 1645 he married Lucy

Brewster, the widow of Francis Brewster and a known

dissident who had been charged and convicted by the

Court for contemptuous attitudes toward the church.19

Ezekial Cheever, born the son of a Spinner in London,

received his education at Emmanual College, came to

Boston in 1637, journeyed to New Haven the following

year and became, by vote of the participants, one of

the "seven pillars." He signed the plantation covenant

in 1639 and after that his name appears in the records

as buying land, testifying in Court, representing

New Haven as a deputy to the General Court of the

colony, and even preaching an occasional sermon.

105

His most important role, however, was that of town
schoolmaster.20

In the two years following 1647, the Court
unsuccessfully attempted to prosecute Thomas Pell.
There were two general charges brought against him.
The first involved a fine imposed on his wife while
she was still married to Francis Brewster. It had
never been paid and after the death of Francis,
and her subsequent marriage to Pell, the Court argued
that he now bore the responsibility. The second
charge stated that the doctor had never taken an oath
of allegiance to the community as law required and
demanded that he now do 50.21 His actions in the
proceedings are important for Pell Simply and bla-
tantly ignored the official orders and by so doing
challenged the civil basis for an orderly society.

Pell was initially ordered to answer to the
Court in November of 1647 but he began what became a
common tactic for him - refuse to acknowledge the
charges and ask for extensions to study the problem.
When officials demanded that he answer "for some ill
returnes he sent to the general court when they sent

to him for his wife's fines, he responded by claiming
that "he thought it not of his debte" nor did the
court, he countered, have the right to "take what is

mine." Then he argued that he had not been aware of

106

the court order, a weak claim Since officials reminded
him that they had been issued at a general court some-
time before. But the court was lenient and stated
that if he would just come in to give a "faire answer,
something might have bine considered." When he asked
for time "to consider of it" the court granted him a
month to study a c0py of the transcript.22
Pell's diligence paid off as the defendant
could prove negligence on the part of Richard Perry
in recording the original proceedings. In doing so
Pell shifted the attention temporarily away from the
fine to an assault in the Court itself. He listened
as officials warned that he must recognize the
legality of his wife's debt but responded by arguing
"there is that charged in the order that is not proved."
When asked for proof he cited a line in the transcript
stating Mrs. Brewster (now Mrs. Pell) was guilty of
"excessive in drinking and with other inconviences."
Angry officials retorted that there "was neither any
such charge, nor any penney of the fine imposed upon
such considerations . . . [and] no excese was charged
no in the original.order was there any word sounding

that way."23

It had to be, they argued, an error of
the "secretary who probably had left out a line in
ingrossing the order out of the first copy." Even

though Perry volunteered to Show Pell the mistake,

107

he refused, stating that it "was good dialect, no
oversight in the secretary and he could prove it."24
The venue was changed to the Court of Magistrates of
the colony and unfortunately the records no longer
exist. But whatever the outcome (and he probably had
to pay since in another case against him no mention is
made to it) Pell had demonstrated that he could, at
least for a time, challenge and withstand the power
of the Court in New Haven.

Within seven months Pell was again summoned
to Court to answer to a major violation: he refused
to take an oath required of all freemen, planters,
and inhabitants to pledge "fidelity and due subjection
to the just lawes standing in force." A ten Shilling
fine had been imposed upon him some months earlier for
denying the pledge and when asked to justify his
actions he replied that he had taken the oath in England
and felt he need not perform the ritual again. The
court asked again the reasons for his position but
strangely enough gave him the option of "considering
it further," an Option he gladly chose. Proceedings
turned into a deft bout between the accusers and the
accused over the question of the fine. The court

asked if he had taken any order to pay it,

he said no. Mr. Goodyeare said he hoped

he would. Mr. Pell said he knew not . . .

He said he would be silent for he had given
offense heretobefore with speaking, but the

108

court desired an answer, whether he paye or
no, but his answer was that he desired to be
silent.25
Finally the Court, at a subsequent session, ruled
that Pell, for refusing to take an oath and for refusing
to pay a legally imposed fine, stood in "high contempt"
of court.
Contempt proceedings usually resulted in imme—
diate court action but not so with Thomas Pell.
Three months after he had been placed under contempt,
Pell brought action in Court against John Griffin for
an outstanding debt. At the same time he claimed
that for acting as arbitrator between John Budd and
Robert Parsons, he was entitled to some goods from the
latter's estate. When he concluded these proceedings
on behalf of himself, the Court reminded him of his
fine and whether he would now pay it. "He said no."26
When the officials demanded an explanation, he again
asked, and received, more time to consider the matter.
Pell, perhaps realizing that New Haven did not
offer the opportunity he sought, left the town in
1650. But his duration there is important for his
actions suggest that some men had greater flexibility
in relationship to demands of acceptable social
behavior. True, he represented an unusual man,

talented in a profession beneficial to the community

and thus could expect preferential treatment. But

109

at the same time, according to the ideals guiding
society, he shared with the other citizens a larger
responsibility--that of submitting to delegated
authority. When he refused to accept that responsi-
bility, his life became an example few officials
wished to see emulated. Unrelenting pressure to conform,
drove him from the town.

The most prestigious man to stand before the
First Church of Christ was Ezekial Cheever. His case
is Significant for two reasons. First, he represents
the last of those who forcefully challenged authority,
in the town, thus marking a symbolic end to the
troubled decade of the 1640's. More importantly,
the nature of the trial suggests a tense, defensive
spiritual leadership that became adament in their
demands to enforce conformity. What began as a church
trial to exonerate the church officials from a charge
of "partiality and usurpation" quickly became an
attack on Cheever the man and instead of facing one
charge he was forced to defend against a variety of
accusations.

The school master faced two principle charges.
The first the church described as "uncomely gestures
and carriage before the church," a violation of I
Corinthians 14:30. Francis Newman and others witnessed

Ezekial wrapping a handkerchief "about his face and

110

then pulled it off again" and holding his head or putting

his head down on the seat and smiling and laughing.

The defendant explained that the handkerchief may have

been used for his head because he had often been troubled

by "the pain of headaches." But he knew of no

"uncomely gestures" or contemptuous actions on his

part. He testified that he could not speak to the

issue of smiling and laughing nor determine "whether

there was nay more than a natural ordinary cheerful-

ness of countenance seeming to smile, whether it be

sinful, or avoidable by me." He continued by chiding

the Court that if the evil charges against him were

true, he could only suggest that "they arise, not

from lightness, but over seriousness and vehemency

of spirit, and too much activity."27
The second accusation represented a far more

serious violation. The records are not entirely clear

on this point but apparently William Thorp, a church

member, had accused the elders of "usurpation and

partiality" but retracted the charge a bit later.

In order to clear the church from any taint the congre-

gation voted to repudiate Thorp's original "Slander."

Cheever was one of several who refused to affirm the

majority Opinion and although the other dissenters

finally changed their minds, the teacher stood firm.

The church stated that such an action left the Spiritual

111

body "under a suspicion, as they were guilty" and
considered his not voting "a disorder, and hath the
appearance of a contempt, which is offensive to the
church and to some that are not of the church."28
His behavior violated the fifth and ninth commandments
according to the church Elders.

Cheever's dissatisfaction with church authority
did not suddenly develop in the latter part of the
decade but slowly evolved from the Anne Eaton case in
1645. After Anne had been charged, convicted, and
discharged from the Church, the congregation deliberated
whether or not She should be allowed to attend Sunday
services.29 Cheever "and some others" dissented from
the decision to preclude her from any church activity
until She had shown proof of her repenitent attitudes.
He (the others remain nameless but apparently decided
not to challenge the majority opinion) argued that
the proceedings were hardly just since the Elders
asked only those speaking "for her conviction" to
testify while "dissenting brethern doubts." Such
restraints on man's liberty of expression gave the
congregation little voice, providing no alternative
but to "consent with the Elders, or to say Amen."
That, explained the defendant, "did not satisfy me,
nor did I see how the Church by rule could refuse her
so just and reasonable request . . . desiring help

where she came so short."30

112

Throughout the trial Cheever continually
alluded to the presumptuous attitudes of church officials
and challenged the basis of their self-righteousness.
William Thorp stated that among the offensive words
Spoken by Cheever against the Church was the accusa-
tion that "we have nothing to do not but to say Amen,
we all are clerks now." The ruling Elders saw this as
offensive because it implied that they ursurped their
rightful roles within the church while tacitly
admitting that the congregation was "weak and childish."31
Cheever denied that he had uttered those exact words
(although others testified that he made the same
contemptuous remarks to them) but admitted he could
have said them "because I had such a notion in my
head." He explained that his thoughts on such matters
were not meant to reflect badly upon the church nor
that he "guilefully" went about to hide his sins.
Since the case had evolved from the Anne Eaton's
problem he explained that all he wanted to suggest
was that She deserved more satisfactory treatment.32

Cheever maintained this attitude even though
John Davenport had privately counseled him, hoping
to convince the accused to change his mind. But
Ezekial boldly challenged the apprehension they had

over his position and "asked if they thought they

had all the light." He maintained that others in the

113

town felt the same as he did and even though they
were men "whom he and they brought to reverence"
and some were even "wiser than they, and knew his
judgment, yet did not carry it toward him as they
did."33
The strongest defense offered by the defen-
dant, and the one that troubled the minds of some in
the town, concerned the use of witnesses.34 Cheever
doubted that the charges brought against him were valid
since two men did not witness the same act at the same
time. He asked "whether 2 witnesses testifying the
same kind of words or actions at several times,
known to each of them severally, and apart from each
other, be sufficient proof." Citing Biblical passages
he argued that "every act of Sin proved against him
by witness, must be two at least" since the same
"particular act of sin, cannot be committed in two
particular distinct times and places." If one assumes,
he wrote, as the court did, that two separate witnesses
testified to the same sin committed at different
times, then one must accept that both men are truthful.
But that need not be true since one man could be
truthful while the other dealt falsely with the issue.
Man's guilt rests on the sin and not the witness
and Cheever believed that those who had testified

against him had not proved any Sin "for they do not

114

mutually witness to each other's testimony, but each

for himself, so that each act of sin alledged by them

hath but one witness only."35
Cheever's vitriolic criticism of the church

and his general contempt of authority caused the Elders

to challenge his use of "reason." He cited the case

of a Guilford man executed for beastiality but was

severely critical of the proceedings because there had

been no witness to the "filthiness." Could it be,

the Elders queried, that he challenged the Court's

judgment in the case? He said no but asked "what if

all the world affirm a thing, is it therefore true?"

He had agreed with the initial action but then he

"saw such convincing reason" that he changed his

mind. This indeed, replied the Elders, was his problem,

for "he must not leave scripture and take. up reason."

Such self-defeating action "shows too much of an

overweening conceit of his own sufficiency, undervaluing

Court and world if they cross his conceits." And his

behavior was dangerous because he refused to give

"due honor to the wisdom of God in the Scriptures

whose perfect rules duly attended will prevent all

such dangerous consequences, and by which all such

sins so discovered may be duly punished." Instead

of warning others of the perils of his ideas, the court

claimed that he had advised others "how to secure

115

themselves and one another from censure and punish-
ment for the same."36

Lengthy examination did not break the recali-
trant spirit of the accused. Cheever steadfastly
maintained that the Elders did not provide the means
for any dissenting ideas. William Hooke, the teacher
of the First Church of Christ, "and sundry of the
brethern," told the defendant that they had long
grieved over his "offensive carriage" both in public
meetings and in his private life, wondering what God
would do to him. There was little doubt what they
would do. A long debate that did nothing to change
"the spirit and carriage of Br. Cheever" preceded the
censure which "by vote ordered, that he be cast out
of the body, till the proud flesh be destroyed, and
he be brought into a more member-like frame."37

In his final rebuttal Ezekial Cheever challenged
the entire proceedings against him while at the same
time condemning the authoritarian discipline of an
unyielding church. He stated that "no order appointed
by Christ shall require every member to act with them
in every vote" nor did he see any Sin or "contempt"
in his refusal to clear the Elders of partiality.
In his closing remarks the teacher said:

Whereas . . . I am charged with a still,

proud contradicting frame of spirit, I humbly
entreat the particulars wherein I have

116

differed, may be produced and offered to the
judgment of the Godly, I spoke not but out of
conscience in a righteous cause (as I think)
when I could not be silent; I must act with
the Church, and (which is uncomfortable)

I must either act with their light, or may
expect to suffer, as I have done, and do at
this day for consciousness sake; but I had
rather suffer anything from men, than make
shipwreck of a good conscience, or go against
my present light though erroneous.3

His eloquent plea for the right to dissent did nothing
to change the attitude of the church and Cheever, like
others before him, left New Haven, victimized by.a
society bent on exonerating itself before the eyes of

God.

CHAPTER IV--FOOTNOTES

1New Haven Records, 11-21; Savage, A Genealog-
ical Dictionary, II, 215.

 

 

 

2Cotton, A Discourse, 16; Davenport, A Sermon,

 

7-9,

3Ibid., 11.

4New Haven Records, 221.

 

SIbid.

61bid.

7Ibid., 224.

8Ibid., 262-264.

9Ibid., 273, 313, 441.

10Thomas Harrison to John Winthrop, February 14,
1647/8, Winthrop Papers, V, 197-198.

 

11New Haven Records, 261-262.

 

12Ibid., 306.

13John Davenport's Profession of Faith found in
the Davenport ngers, 74-75.

fit

 

14New Haven Records, 392-393.

 

lsIbid., 433.

117

118

l6Ibid.

l71bid., 453.

18Ibid., 420-425.

19New Haven Records, 343, 362, 420, 437, 454-

455; Ancient Town Records, I, 32, 37; Savage, A
Genealogical Dictionary, I, 290; Atwater, History, 243.

 

 

 

0Johnson and Malon, Dictionary of American
Biography, IV, 47-48; New Haven RecordsT—9, 16, 17,
20, 50, 66, 71, 210, 274; John T. Hassam, "Ezekial
Cheever and Some of His Descendants," The New En land
Historical and Genealogical Register, XXXIII_(1879 ,
165-187.

 

 

 

 

 

21New Haven Records, 334, 362, 402-403.
221bid., 334.
23

Ibid., 362-363.

24Ibid., 402-403.

25Ibid.

26Ibid., 455.

27"Trial of Ezekial Cheever Before the New
Haven Church, 1659," found in the Collections 2£.EEE
Connecticut Historical Society (23 vols., Hartford:
Published for the Society, 1860), I, 22, 30, 37-38.
Hereafter cited as Collections. Hassam's "Ezekial
Cheever" is little more that direct quotes from the
above source and offers no analysis.

 

 

 

28Collections, I, 22.

 

29There is no evidence that Cheever participated
in the actual proceedings but it is probable that his
advice was sought since he was the town schoolmaster and
a lay minister who occassionally preached. New Haven
Records, 308.

 

119

 

30Collections, 1, 35, 44.
3lggig., 29, 33, 43.
32;§£§., 44.

33ggig,, 26.

34

After the trial John Davenport wrote to John
Cotton (May, 1650) asking him to "take into your
serious thoughts the question about single testimony
of several persons who speak fully to the things and
with concurrance therein, though not jointly in the
circumstances of time and place, and to answer that
logical quirk which Mr. Prudden told you of, and what
other arguments you find in that postscript of Mr.
Cheever, his answer to the Church, and which you have
elsewhere met with." The letter is found in A. B.
Davenport's History and Genealogypf the Davenport
Family, (1881), 343.

 

 

35Collections, I, 48-49.

 

36Ibid., 28-29.

371bid.

 

381bid., 46-47.

CHAPTER V

"THE OCCASION OF THIS MEETING IS DELAWARE BAY"

Not every person had the courage of an Anne
Eaton, Lucy Brewster or Ezekial Cheever to challenge
the ideals and attitudes governing the town. There
were other means of registering dissent, however.
After 1646 it is evident that townspeople were less
than satisfied with the general conditions of New
Haven. People did not speak directly to the issue but
rather expressed their dissatisfaction in subtle
ways such as neglecting the duties necessary to every
town. Militia training, night watches and fence
mending became tasks that few men accepted willingly.
The church, the vital center of New England, witnessed
severe problems in the church finances because people
were contributing a poor quality of wampum to its
coffers. In the midst of this disorder several leading
merchants of the town attempted to assert their
leadership in one final drive toward settling the
Delaware region. The attempt failed because of many
factors but among the most important was the attitude

of the people.

120

121

It is difficult to isolate the cause of such
discontent but two key ideas discussed in previous
chapters had an important impact on the community.

The economic hardships effected nearly everyone in the
town and men undoubtedly asked why and questioned
whether the ruling magistrates were providing adequate
leadership. When this factor is coupled with the
severe repression of dissidents in New Haven after
1645 it becomes more obvious that the leadership was
searching desperately for ways to stabalize conditions
in the town.1 To suggest that these factors would have
no impact would be to suggest that New Haven, a rather
small, homogeneous community, had little social inter-
relationship. This was most certainly not the case.
People did communicate with one another, rumors did
flow and all were familar with those castigated for
heretical ideas or deviant behavior.2 Few people

lost faith in the basis of the social structure but
the actions of many implies that few exhibited any
real confidence in the ability of the community

to overcome the difficulties.

Between 1646 and the mid-1650's New Haven's
leading figures sensed that the social-political-
religious fabric was being destroyed. Theophilus
Eaton complained of "sundry miscarriadges bye

drinke . . . of late" and, although he could not

122

establish who the offenders were, suggested rigid
controls on the sale of Spirits. Others noted that the
general populace seemed to ignore the work restric-
tions in force for the sabbath and it remained for the
General Court to remind people that in order to
implement God's law in the town men and women must
restrict "their ordinarie, outward imployments . . .
from sunn up till sunn sett, either upon the land or
upon the water."3 Emergency cases as well as acts of
mercy were the only exceptions. Men willfully and
deliberately violated laws confining swine to fenced
areas, the court stated, by allowing the beasts to
"goe abroad at night and upon the saboth day, when they
think none can or will pownd them." By 1653 an
exasperated governor summed up the problem by acquain-
ting the town "that hee hears that sundrie orders
made in the town are not attended; about alarms,
traynings, watching and warding on the Lord's day."
Such actions, warned the governor, can only "bring
great mischief to the town."4
The town orders most consistently violated,
and the ones that reflect the general apathy toward
civic responsibility, were laws defining the functions
of the local militia, the watch and the maintainance
of fences. Court orders establishing the local

militia date to the founding of the town and were

123

particularly important in the late 1640's when it
seemed that Indians might at any time threaten the
community.5 In the face of common adversity it would
seem plausible that a New England town would unite to
ward off the danger but this was not the case in New
Haven. Men offered innumberable excuses for missing
training sessions. John Bassett, for example,
eXplained he was forced to miss training because he
feared his hay might spoil if not immediately attended.
Others had to absent themselves to do business in
neighboring towns or search for lost cattle or
remove a wagon left unattended in a nearby field.
Those living in the outlying regions (the records
began designating them as farmers about this time)
questioned whether they had any obligation to offer
their services since they were so far removed from the
actual town. Officials would excuse those with
reasonable explanations for missing a session but did
not accept the idea that a certain segment bore no
responsibility to protect the community.6 They were
all guided by the same spiritual hand and all had to
sacrifice to defend the physical city.

The nightly watch, also established in the
town's infancy, protected the community when it was
the most vulnerable to attack, yet men were reluctant

to attend their appointed duty. Men complained that

124

"the watch as it is now, is too heavy for them to
cary on, and that it is not equally carried, severall
in the town not watching at all."7 Exemptions became
more difficult to obtain, particularly in times of
"these furries and disturbances." The law made pro-
vision for men, though, to hire substitutes for their
watch and many did. But the law came down hard on
the increasing numbers who missed their watch or were
generally negligent in the performance of their
duty.8

The most persistent problem concerned fencing
corn fields as protection against swine, an important
task since the town depended upon a good harvest to
stave off hunger during the long New England winter.
By the latter part of the first decade this matter
occupied the interest of all. Theophilus Eaton and
the town deputies constantly warned the town of the

causing a
"9

many complaints "of fences being down,‘
great deal of damage "in corn and meadows. Fence
viewers had been appointed for each quarter (this
refers to the method of dividing and surveying used

in New Haven) but had little success either in

forcing men to better care for their fences or convin-
cing them that they endangered the entire town's

food supply. Firm laws were enacted, threatening to

confiscate a portion of a man's property if that

125

person did not yield to the wishes of the court or

pay the fines levied by the court.10
Finally the governor appointed a committee

who after studying the problem recommended the

appointment of a man to impound stray cattle and

swine. He would also be responsible for acting as

the fence viewer, replacing viewers assigned to each

quarter. John Cooper, hired by the town for this

task, was ordered to view "all fences every week

within two miles of the town and to tell every man

whose fence is defective once every week." So warned,

the responsibility rested on the shoulders of the

owner. He could be fined for every length of rail

left unattended besides an additional six pence for

every warning by COOper. If a person's negligence

allowed a cow, calf or swine to wander free, the keeper

of the pound would receive four pence whereas if

he had to capture a stray horse the cost jumped to

six pence.ll
Still the law had no immediate impact. Men

representing the Spectrum of society failed to maintain

proper fences, were hauled to court and assessed

fines. Within a year after he had assumed the position,

John Cooper complained to Governor Eaton that "there

is great remisses and neglect in setting up fences

according to the order made in November last" and

126

unless the town could enforce the orders "whereby
the fines layd by the particular court may be paid

without delay, he said he would have to resign his
position.12 Officials promised to enforce the laws
and threatened severe fines for the offenders but
still the court maintained a frenzied pace each month
as they heard and acted upon as many as twenty
violations.

Dissatisfaction within the town was compounded
by the perplexing problem of taxes, an issue that
affected nearly everyone and a topic that became the
center of debate in the late 1640's. In March of 1648
Lieutenant Robert Seely introduced a resolution to
change the rating structure to equalize the burden of
taxation. Some men, he said, "which had good estates
at first, and land . . ., whose estates are sunk"
are able to "pay as they did," while "divers persons
whoe had good land for their heads, whose estates
are smaller, yett paye great rates, and others whose
estates are increased, having but little land paye

but a small matter to publique charges."13

Acting
upon his suggestion the General Court studied the
rating system in Massachusetts and felt that it might
be useful to implement a Similar system which called
for, among other things, a tax on the tradesmen in

the town.14

127

The General Court of October 15, 1649 initiated
legislation to rate everyone according to his economic
condition and made explicit provisions for a privileged
group of merchants who had been exempt from the rating
scale previously. Since all men, including "labourers
and handycraft trades and seamen of divers sorts and
conditions . . . some following their trades more and
some less," were involved the court gave its full attention
of the problem so all paid according to their wealth.
Prices were established on the Massachusetts model
for the varying types of land and all farmers were
ordered under the penalty of law to bring a list of
cattle, swine and the number of acres of land they
owned.15 Less than a month later the same officials
decided the fate of "sundry men rated for trades and
merchandizing." The court ordered "that Mr. Evance
pay for trade besides what he payes for other estates"
and the sum to be taxed amounted to 550 pounds.

Mr. Atwater was held liable for taxes on 400 pounds,
Mr. Goodenhausen for 300 pounds, Mr. Westenhausen

for 500 pounds and Mr. Allerton was charged twenty
shillings "for a single rate." The merchants protested
in vain to the decision which may have served as a
stimulus for that group to look beyond the Quinnipiac

area for new trade outlets.l6

128

Other economic matters plagued the town and
served to increase the frustration of those who saw
the community unable to respond to the needs of the
people. The court focused criticism on the general
populace for failing to abide by court orders but
interestingly enough again singled out the merchant
group for acting in ways injurious to the town.
Officials in April of 1650 criticized people for paying
debts in wampum that had little value or was so
deteriorated that men could not exchange it for goods
or specie. Some proprietors refused to accept it as
payment of goods thereby decreasing the ability of some
to care for themselves. A committee, after considering
the alternatives, recommended that men should have
the liberty to reject wampum but standards were
established to maintain the value of it.17 Town
magistrates also warned that the practice of shipping
products from the town to be sold elsewhere would be
prohibited, a warning directed at the traders and
merchants within New Haven. In the same capacity
officials criticized the exhorbinant prices charged
on goods imported to the town and although no action
was taken at the time, the court implied harsh punish-
ment of those "traders" who chose to continue such

. . . . . 18
practices in a time of preSSing economic need.

129

Perhaps the clearest example of the impact
of the disordered town, so clearly discerned by the
leadership, concerned the church and the contemptuous
attitudes expressed by the actions of the peOple.
In May of 1650 the court "informed" the citizens that
the wampum men were contributing to the church was
"so abated that they afford not . . . the maintenance
to the teachings." The officers found great difficulty
using it as a medium of exchange, complaining that
much of it was returned and that some men simply
refused to take the wampum in payment for goods.
Officials were concerned that men would take lightly
such a "weighty" responsibility, suggesting that
those who gave unusable money represented a "corrupt

19 The town magistrates joined the

frame of mind."
minister and elders in a committee to "consider and
order how and by what means, comfortable and sufficient
maintenance may be raised and duely paid, to uphold
the ordinances and incourage the officers."20
General attitudes toward spiritual responsi-
bility changed little in the following year. In
November of 1651 the court again complained that
contributions were both unfit to use and too meager
to meet the demands of church expenses. To rectify

the matter officials ordered "that all men put in

silver or bills" and that they enlarge their

130

contributions to meet their former pledges to the
church. Once every three months all men were to settle
their accounts with the deacons "and paye their debts
to the treasury in good paye, that those which receive
it may be encouraged in their worke."21 In case some
refused to pay their fair share to the First Church
of Christ the court warned that magistrates would
simply rate them according to their ability to
pay. To insure that all men met their responsibility
the town deputies were "to take notice who are the
inhabitants in the town and are not admitted planters,
that they may be called in question and things
reduced to order."22
John Davenport expressed serious concern
that such deteriorated conditions might well prove
fatal to the church. Late in the summer of 1653 he
wrote to his good friend John Winthrop Jr. complaining
about "the state of his body," his "wasting" conditions
and being "weake in spirit." He feared that his
physical illness may be serious and expressed a
willingness to travel to Boston or perhaps even return
to London if need be. But he did not leave the town
because being the spiritual leader of a congregation
he had to abide by the sixth commandment and sacrifice

‘whatever necessary to serve Christ. He explained

that his love for his flock and his "tender care of

131

the church" caused him to tarry in this land beset
by problems.23 For nearly a year he verged on physical
collapse but his strong moral committment, combined
with medical prescriptions from Winthrop Jr., con-
vinced him to stay. In the end he thanked God for
his recovery, refused an offer to assume the ministry
in Boston and settled to the task of ministering to
New Haven.24

Davenport's year of illness corresponded to
a year of general malaise suffered by the populace
and did little to encourage Optimistic appraisals for
the future of the town. It was a long and severe
winter and many complained of "paine in their heads
and sides, and stoppings at their breasts." Others
were taken with greate colds and shivering, others
with sweating, but most with inward cold." Davenport
wrote to Winthrop Jr. of the problems, stating that he
could be a "greate blessing" to the town if he
decided to reside there.25 Interestingly enough John
Davenport, perhaps the best example of a covenant
theologian and a man who warned many times that such
punishment could only reflect on the sinful nature
of society, did not chose to interpret the infliction
as a Sign of divine wrath. Perhaps he felt such

exhortation would lead to the final collapse of the

town but whatever his attitudes, the year of sickness,

132

coupled with the agonizing economic problems, encouraged

some to consider again settling the Delaware region.
Interest was revived in the area in the early

1650's when town magistrates devoted two general

town meetings to the topic. TheOphiluS Eaton told

the gathered citizens that many people in New Haven

"have bine with him and expressed a sense of diffi-

culty in carrying on there family occassions with

27 Others felt, he stated, that

comfort in this place.
the town was over populated "and therefore they thinke
there is a necessity that some should remove."

Within Eaton's talk to the town there are subtle

hints that people were demoralized or had lost confi-
dence in what the future held for them in New Haven.

The governor heard "that divers are discouraged about
fences and other occassions" and elicited open debate
that, when finally concluded, had united the townspeOple
in the belief that a crisis existed. The most logical
solution to the problem lay "in some part of the town

removing from the area,‘ and since the Delaware

region had been long familiar to the New Haveners
they agree it "was the fittest place to remove to."28
The town was urged to help those who wished to leave
"for the good of posteritie hereafter, wch they hoped
would be done if good foundations, both for church and

common wealth, were laid in the place."29 At a March

133

meeting the town officers appointed a committee to

coordinate the efforts of colonization in order to

satisfy "both them that staye and them that goe."30
A short lived expedition followed. Approxi-

mately fifty persons, headed by Jasper Crane from the

neighboring town of Branford and William Tuttle of

New Haven, sailed for the Delaware but were stopped

by Governor Stuyvesant at Manhatten. Some were

arrested, goods were confiscated and all were warned

from the region or suffer the penalty of a Holland

imprisonment. The financial loss of the party exceeded

300 pounds.31 Their plea of help to the United

Colonies and a subsequent exchange of bitter, threatening

letters between the New Englanders and the Dutch came

to nought. New Haven's suggestion of a war declaration

received little support and all preparations ceased

in the early summer of 1652 when the English and Dutch

declared war upon one another. Interest in the

Delaware project was postponed two years.32
During the summer of 1655 Theophilus Eaton,

acting as the governor of New Haven Colony as well as

the leading citizen of the town, prepared to renew

the interest in the Delaware Bay area. In a November

town meeting he reported that he had contacted the

"Swede's governor" concerning the project, and now,

apparently assuming that citizens still desired to

134

move from New Haven, asked "ye town to now consider

which way it may be carried on."33

But a lengthy
debate followed and a surprised Eaton realized that
few wished to pursue the ideal of a new settlement.
A committee, appointed to restore the zeal that
officials thought had once been there, reported late
in November that after speaking with "sundry peOple"
it was apparent that "for the most part they were
willing to help forward the work, some in person,
others in estate, so that the worke might be carried
on and foundations laid, according to God."34
Although there was an expressed interest it
seems in retrOSpect that it was a forced interest,
encouraged by the same leadership that had fostered
the ill-fated venture the previous decade. A widely
support movement would seeingly have little diffi-
culty finding men to lead the group but that was far
from the case in this instance. Few men were willing
to risk their lives and estates in the lucrative yet
foreboding area. Direct invitations were made to
John Davenport, William Hooke, the teacher of the
First Church of Christ, and Theophilus Eaton to
settle in the proposed new town. Eaton, although
recognizing the necessity of providing the correct

leadership for the group, refused because "the

jurisdiction hath an interest in him, which he must

135

have respect to." Hooke turned down the offer
because his wife had gone to England and he would soon
follow and Davenport begged Off because of his
health.35 Finally Francis Newman, prominent in local
affairs, and Samuel Eaton, son of TheOphilus, agreed
to lead the southward trek but even these men professed
some of the same misgivings, yet agreed rather than
to see the plan collapse.36
Stephen Goodyeare best represents the group
most actively seeking a settlement in the Delaware
region. In the spring of 1655 Goodyeare, probably
representing a company similar to the one organized
in the mid-1640's, hired John Cooper to journey to
Boston to elicit support. He returned with the
discouraging news that few if any Bostonians wanted
to participate.37 But Goodyeare, the deputy governor
of the colony as well as one of the leading merchant-
citizens of New Haven who remained active in trade
activities, volunteered to "adventure his person and
estate to goe with them in that design" rather than
to see the idea dropped. He requied only that a
"considerable company" of men testify to an interest
in the project. Again the town debated the issue and
agreed to vote money and men to carry a letter of
negotiation to the Swedish governor explaining the
intent of the New Haven group. This expedition would

be lead by none other than the deputy governor himself.38

136

Even though a prestigious individual had
promised to risk his life and fortune those who
supported any notion Of going to Delaware wanted
still more assurance. The town, and there is no
evidence to suggest the number of New Haveners
involved in the episode, then voted to free any
man who wanted to join the company and even conceded
the new town the right to remain independent.
Officials did stipulate, however, that they had to
organize the new society "upon the same foundations
of government as were first laid at New Haven,

39 "And for their

which were now read to them."
further incouragement, the town granted" three further
concessions. The first released participants from
hiring substitutes for the nightly watch; the second
was a promise "to lend the company the two small

gunns wch are the Townes . . . wth at least a half a
hundred shot for the bigger gunn . . . and a meet

proportion of muskit bullitts,‘ and the last was a

guarantee for extended time to pay their rates on the
property within the town.40
Yet the proposed settlement was never estab-
lished nor did the group even depart for the Delaware
region. Historians who have dealt with the matter

have given a very logical, sound, yet incomplete

argument for the failure. The assertion has been

137

that since the Confederation of New England refused

to unite in a war against Opposing forces in the area,

New Haven, representing the aggressive, acquisitive

characteristics later to be enshrined in the Yankee,

could no longer consider opposing either the Dutch

or the Swedes. Then the unforseen deaths of Samuel

Eaton, his father Theophilus Eaton and Stephen

Goodyeare stripped the company of its leadership.

Others suggest even men like Goodyeare were convinced

by 1655 that their land claim was invalid and thus

may have willingly abandoned the idea.41
Such ideas certainly influence those interested

in the Delaware area and may well have played a

deciding role in the final resolution not to settle

there. But one important factor has been omitted--

the internal support the company received from the

New Haven citizens.42 All evidence suggests that

there was only marginal interest from local citizens

and the support that did exist emerged because of

the strong influence of important merchants who had

been residents there since the initial founding and

had provided the political leadership in the first

decade. That they wanted to assert themselves amidst

the chaos of the 1650's is understandable, for by this

time it was certain the town could not rival the growing

power of Boston nor develop a viable trans-Atlantic

138

trade pattern. They were respected men, wealthy,
socially prominent and pious, but leadership was
slipping from their hands. New forces were develOping
in the town that no longer sought the success of trade
and men were assuming political power who did not
Share the dreams of what-might-have-been. The
Delaware venture represents the last attempt by a
merchant group to fulfill their original plan for

New Haven. What support there was came because the
town was economically depressed but more and more men
were reacting to a new order that had been slowly

evolving during those pressing times.

CHAPTE R V--FOOTNOTE S

lSee Chapters 1, III, and IV.

2Records of the town are not rife with rumors
but that they existed is evidenced by stories circulating
after the Anne Eaton trial that the couple did not
Sleep together. See the New Haven Records, 268-270.

 

3When the court found strangers working on
Sunday, though, it was usual for the court to release
them if they had meant no disrespect to the church.
New Haven Records, 273, 358, 337-338.

 

4Ancient Town Records, I, 33, 184.

 

5New Haven Records, 481-485. Trumbull, True-
Blue Laws, 245-248.

 

6Ancient Town Records, I, 76, 184-185, 210, 411.

 

7By law certain men were exempt. The 1656 code
states "that all ruling elders, deputies for courts
intrusted for judicature, all the chief military
officers, as captains, lieutenants, and ensignes,
the jurisdiction treasurer, deacons, and 11 physitians,
schoolmasters, and surgeons allowed by authority in
any of these plantations, all masters of ships and
other vessels, above fifteen tun, all publick millers,
constantlyimployed, with others for the present
discharged for personal weaknesses, shall in their
own persons, in time of peace and safety, be freed
from the said services." Trumbull, True-Blue Laws, 250.

 

8New Haven Records, 477; Trumbull, True-Blue
Laws, 249-250.

 

 

9New Haven Records, 445, 484-485.

 

139

 

 

140

loIbid.

ll;§£§., 404-406. Levermore, The Republic, 63.

 

12New Haven Records, 445, 419, 449-452;
Ancient Town Records, I, 25-28, 52, 61.

 

 

13New Haven Records, 448.

 

l41bid., 494.

15Ibid., 448.

16Ibid., 494, 499, 502. The new rates also
affected others and was enforced by the town court
throughout the decade of the 1650's. In April of
1658 a certain James Mills was confronted for not
paying rates on goods aboard his vessel anchored in
the harbor. The Court dismissed his plea that since
he was not an inhabitant he was exempt from the law.
He was assessed twelve pounds. Ancient Town Records,
I, 344.

l7Ibid., 18.

l81bid.

19Ibid., 21-22; Levermore, The Republic . ...,

74-76.

20Ancient Town Records, I, 21-22.

 

21Ibid., 98.

22Ibid.

23John Davenport to John Winthrop the Younger,
August 20, 1653 found in The Davenport Papers, 87-88.

 

24John Davenport to John Winthrop the Younger,
August 22, 1654, John Davenport to John Winthrop the
Younger July 5, 1654, and John Davenport to John
Winthrop the Younger September 19, 1654. Ibid., 90,
95, 101-102.

141

25John Davenport to John Winthrop the Younger

August 22, 1653. Ibid., 100.

6Perry Miller, Orthodoxy in Massachusetts,
1630-1650 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933),
1.3-1.7.

 

7Ancient Town Records, 1, 54. Andrews, Ins
Colonial Period II, 144-149 suggests that this repre-
sented the aggressive nature of New Englanders and was
symbolic of the same forces that drove the original
settlers from England. Also see Calder, The New Haven
Colony, 76, 77, 185-190.

 

 

8Ancient Town Records, 1, 54.

291bid., 66.

30Ibid.

31Rollin G. Osterweis, Three Centuries of New

Haven, 1638-1938 (New Haven: Yale University PEESS,
1953), 28-29; Levermore, The Republic . . ., 96-99;
Calder, The New Haven Colony, 189-203.

 

 

 

32Ibid.; David Pulsifer (ed.), Records of the

Colony gnyew Plymouth in New England (12 vols.,——
Boston: William White, 1859), I, 183, 198-201, XII, 70.

33Ancient Town Records, I, 223; Charles Hoadly

(ed.), Records pf the Jurisdiction pf New Haven, 1653-
1664 (Hartford: Case, Lockwood and Company, 1858),
128-130. Cited hereafter as Jurisdiction Records.

 

34Ancient Town Records, I, 223, 226.

351bid.,

36Ibid., 227.

37Ibid., 235.

38Ibid.

142

39Ibid., 237.

40;§l§,; Jurisdiction Records, 128-129.

 

41See for example, Osterweis, Three Centuries,
28-30; Calder, The New Haven Colony, 204-205; Levermore,
REPUbliC o o 0’ 97-99.

 

 

 

42Further evidence showing the unwillingness
to leave the town concerns an invitation by Cromwell
to settle Jamaica early in the summer of 1656. John
Nash "spake what he conceived to be the mind of the
generallitie of the town, vizt: that they see it
as the work of God and should be encouraged, and if
they see meete persons goe before them, that is ingage
in the designe to goe with them or quickly after, fitt
to carry on the worke of Christ in the commonwealth
and also in Church-affaires, they are free and will
attend the providence of God in it." He went on to
say, however, that they needed more encouragement,
probably in terms of money, and a guarantee of the
healthfulness of the place. The letter sent to
Cromwell contained the above ideas and suggests
above all else a rationale for not quitting in New
Haven. Ancient Town Records, I, 278—279. The
General Court for the jurisdiction of the colony met
about the same time in New Haven and the records
bluntly stated that although the peOple have nothing
but "great love, care and tender respect of his highness
the Lord Protector . . . yet for divers reasons they
cannot conclude that God calls them to a present
remove theither." Jurisdiction Records, 180-181.

 

 

CHAPTER VI

THE TOWNSMEN: SYMBOL OF CHANGE

Throughout this traumatic period New Haven was
undergoing certain changes that stripped power from the
hands of those who had enjoyed it since 1639. Leader-
ship within the community shifted from a merchant class
supported by Spiritual leaders to men whose major
interests lay outside the Atlantic community. They
were the townsmen, officials whose office was first
established in 1651 and one which grew in power until
it controlled the functions of government by 1660. It
was not, however, a sudden, violent, revolutionary
change but rather a gradual modification of political
prerogatives and the shift of those rights to men who
recognized the futility of the mercantile dream. When
it came to the question of who possessed the power or
authority to make important decisions concerning the
future of the town, few were willing to yield to those
who had nearly destroyed the community in the first
decade.

The death of two prominent men denied the

merchants of active leaders and removed from office

143

144

those who had dreamed of forging New Haven into a
prototype of Boston. The death of the chief magistrate
Theophilus Eaton in 1657 was indeed a blow to many
Since it was he who had guided the town since its
founding in 1638. A pensive John Davenport considered
the death a near fatal blow to the town and confided
to John Winthrop Jr. that "my spirit is much streight—
ened & indisposed for wrighting letters by that late
dreadful stroake upon us, from the hand of the most
high, in the loss of our incomparable Governor & my
faithful friend, under which we still bleed, and, I
feare, unto the death of our politique body unless God
be pleased to shew himself in the mount, above all that
we can ask or think."1 The calamity was compounded
a year later by the passing of Stephen Goodyeare,
deputy of the colony until his defeat in the election
following Eaton's death, and who represented those who
most actively sought to build the town into a trading
center.2 The loss of the two men symbolized a Shift
in political power, for while Eaton and Goodyeare
served out their last years a new political man was
emerging through the office of the townsmen.

Although there are no discernible character-
istics, such as age, that differentiate the townsmen
from other town officials, they are unique in one

way; they did not unduly emphasize the necessity of

145

trade. Thirty men held the office between 1651 and
1664 and of that group only two, Rober Alling and
Joshua Atwater were directly dependant upon trade as

a major source of income. And they served only for
limited tiems; Atwater served for two years and

Alling for five but not concurrently.3 The other twenty-
eight men represent a variety of occupations. There
was at least one blacksmith, one COOper, one carpenter
and one laborer. Five can be identified as "farmers"
but since land was a commodity quite available to most
white adult males the majority of these men, including
the merchants, owned some amount of land.4 But the
significant fact is that such men were not preoccupied
with trade as former leaders had been and their growth
of policital power corresponded to the decline of
influential men who had guided the destiny of the town
throughout the previous decade.

Other New England towns had adOpted the office
of townsmen (the term selectmen can be used inter-
changeably) in the 1630's but the magistrates in New
Haven found no need for a change in the structure of
town government until the early part of the 1650's.

By that time the chief magistrate and four deputies,
elected yearly, found their job too burdensome to handle
alone. They usually held monthly Court meetings to

care for judicial proceedings and presided over General

146

Court meetings to enact laws or "orders" to govern the
community. At a General Court meeting in October of
1651 the deputies asked "that there might be some men
chosen to consider and carry on the towne affaires
that these meetings wch spend the Towne so much time
may not bee so Often."6 The motion was approved and
nine men were appointed to act as interim officials
until the May election when the townsmen would be
chosen annually by the voting pOpulace.7 Legally

they were subordinate to the town deputies and chief
magistrate and depended solely upon them for grants of
authority to perform specific duties. Gradually,
however, the townsmen would assume more power.

The relationship between the townsmen and the
town meeting or court can best be described as equivocal,
for the power of the former corresponded to the inertia
of the latter. During the first years the town meeting
explicitly defined its ultimate authority over the
townsmen. For example, in December of 1651 a General
Court held lengthy debates on the division of the
ox pasture and the amount of land each man could expect
in that area to either plant corn or cut wood. After
the major decisions had been reached the court delegated
the power to the townsmen to implement the policy.8
A few months later the town gave the new officials

permission "to dispose of the fresh meddow on the

147

Indian side, and of what other meddowes belongs to the
town as they shall see cause," but in both instances it
was clear who bore the responsibility of determining
decisions.9 Throughout the decade the town periodically
reminded the townsmen that their powers were not inherent
but depended on the good will of the town. But even
so, the townsmen assumed the major policy making rights
and dominated the town by 1664.10

Within a year after this office had been'
established the townsmen began to assume a greater
degree of independency. Beginning in December of
1651 they began holding formal meetings to handle the
ever increasing work given to them by the town court.11
This arrangement for separate meetings was formalized
in 1657 when a General Court ordered "that the first,
second day (Tuesday) of every month, at five o'clock
in the after-noon, the Townsmen have agreed to meet
constantly."12 New Haven residents were informed "that
if any in the town have business with them, they may
know when they shall be attended." In this manner then,
business was funneled to a select group of men,
business that ranged from caring for the indigent to
parcelling out land.l3'

These powers, however, were not automatically

assumed but evolved gradually. For the most part

the major chores assigned in the early years were tasks

148

that were relatively unimportant and time consuming

for the busy town deputies. They had to contract men
to act as chimney sweeps, deal with a "stinking
pernicious weed called nightshad" which bountifully
grew in the town, decide the fate of an elderly man who
could not provide for himself and was unable to buy
passage to London, appoint fence viewers, consider the
feasibility of repairing the meeting house and a variety
of other jobs the deputies felt were too insignificant
to deal with personally.14 But these explicit confir—
mations of power to the townsmen contained provisions
that allowed them to determine when an order Should be
modified or to decide "what other circumstantiall

15 By the Spring of 1653

considerations are necessary."
the townsmen were initiating orders and then introducing
them to the General Court so "any that would have
libbertie to object against [what] was done, but none
did, but what was done was by silence confirmed."l6
Such concessions to the townsmen prepared them to assume
power in areas of major importance.

Probably the most significant responsibility
the townsmen assumed concerned the question of taxes,
a problem the town magistrates had been unable to
solve in the previous decade. Early in 1652 the Court
empowered the townsmen to collect all information

from "every planter at the town and Farms" to determine

149

the community estate so officials could levy a rate
to meet the money obligation New Haven had to the
colony.17 Two years later, the deputies, reluctant to
enact another rate, charged the townsmen with seeing
that the old debts had been paid but at the same time
permitted them to "alow and order that another rate
be gathered" if they determined it was necessary.18
By the end of the decade these men formed the body that
could investigate and collect information on taxes,
provide the town marshal with delinquent tax payers
and audit the towns treasury records. But the most
important responsibility was the explicit power to
"first seek the old debts and . . . to . . . grant a
rate when they shall see cause."19
Equally important was the control the townsmen
had over the use of the land. During the years of this
study there were no major land divisions as there had
been in 1643 but men nonetheless could petition for
land. When Mr. Ling and Mr. Tuttle "propounded for
some meddow wch lyes upon Stony River neere their own,"
the Court ordered the townsmen to "dispose of it as

"20

they see cause. A short time later they were given

the power to "dispose of the fresh meddow on the Indian
side, and of what other meddowes belongs to the towne."21

John Davenport, Jasper Crane and Mathew Gilbert were

recipients of equal shares in the home lot and land of

150

a certain Mr. Roe who had been granted acreage but

22 When John

decided not to leave his London home.
WinthrOp Jr., left New Haven after a short residency,
the townsmen negotiated the purchase of the home and
assumed reSponsibility for its use and care.23 In
addition to this function this group of officials
could also decide how the commons should be divided
for pasture, what regulations were in effect for
cutting wood on town property, who could fence land
for raising of corn or who had access to the meadow
grass for use as hay.24

The growing strength of the townsmen and their
evolving patterns of independent action, is best
illustrated by two important matters that engrossed
the town in the 1650's. The first concerned the
younger John Winthrop's interest in settling permenantly
in New Haven, an interest that cooled when the New
England entrepreneur realized that the bogs around New
Haven contained little valuable iron ore. The second
involved the wish of some in the town, particularly
John Davenport, to separate the outlying areas into
individual villages. In the first instance the
townsmen and Davenport, representative of the tradi-
tional authority figures that governed the town in the

previous decade, confronted one another directly and

the townsmen emerged the victor. In the second case

151

John Davenport again represented the minority position,
and even though it is not clear whether the townsmen
crusaded against him, it is evident that few in the
town were willing to abide by the wishes of the New
Haven Divine. .

WinthrOp's interest in the town stemmed from
hislmuxato establish an iron works in the area and
inspired an intense drive by community leaders, partic-
ularly John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton, to convince
the New England savant to join them in New Haven.25
Their interest in Winthrop was motivated by the deplor-
able economic conditions the town faced and they
reasoned that a flourishing iron industry would
necessarily depend on a strong merchant fleet to ship
the finished ore.26 Furthermore, Winthrop was a
prestigious individual famed for his medicinal know-
ledge and scientific curiosity. A man of this stature
would add a great deal to a town suffering from a malaise
for which no cure had been found and could perhaps
provide the impetus to fulfill the dream they had
brought to the shores of Quinnipaic Bay nearly twenty
years before.27

Although the WinthrOp matter would ultimately
conclude with the townsmen successfully challenging the

authority of John Davenport, they initially supported

the move to bring WinthrOp to the town. In October

 

152

of 1654 Theophilus Eaton, after conferring with the
members of the First Church of Christ as well as the
towns people at a General Town meeting, wrote the
Savant that he had been ordered to "give you a further
invitation" and assured him that everyone welcomed

his proposed settlement and recognized the importance of
the iron works.28 Another letter sent the following
spring clearly shows how eager the townsmen were for
the move. Eaton told Winthrop that "our townsmen (in
perticular) have desired me to signifie, that if our
wise and gracious God incline your spirits to settle
here, they shall receive it as a pledge of favour" to

those who both "need and desire it."29

To encourage his
removal to New Haven they offered to send men to aid
him but at least for the time he chose to remain in

New London.

Fearful that Winthrop's reluctance to remove
to New Haven signified a change of mind, the town,
probably at the instigation of both Davenport and the
townsmen, conceded him privileges few could have
expected. Davenport, a lifelong friend and devoted

admirer of WinthrOp, expressed his earnest and
hearty desire . . . that you would be pleased to accept
this Townes offer, and to settle your habitacions among

us, though you should dwell here but somme part of the

years and another part of it at Pequod or where ever

 

153

30 A house was

else your occassions may invite you."
purchased for WinthrOp's family and made ready for the
honored man. The New Haven Divine related that his

wife had "the house made warm, the well cleansed, the
pumpe fitted for your use, some provisions of wood

layed in" as well as seeing that thirty bushels of wheat
and twelve candles had been provided for the new house-
hold. In addition Mrs. Davenport had found a maid-
servant who was "reported to be cleanly and saving, her

mother is of the church."31

Believing that he would
soon come, a vessel was secured for his passage.

By the time John Winthrop had moved to the town
in the summer of 1657, Stephen Goodyear, probably the
staunchest supporter of the iron works and a man who
spent a great deal of his money and energy in a
futile attempt to make it successful, had organized a
company, hired an agent and had begun work on the
buildings.32 But subsequent problems proved over-
whelming. The company could not find correct stone
that would withstand the heat of the blast furnace and
the capital funding was insufficient for the many
expenses. Then Goodyear, traveling to England to
seek more support for the project, died and within a
year after moving to New Haven, John Winthrop quit the

town.33

154

Winthrop's removal, considered a disaster by
many in New Haven, brought about a struggle between the
representatives of the new political power and those of
the old. The problem develOped over the question of
Winthrop's property and what should be done with it.
Davenport bombarded his esteemed friend with letters
in the following months assuring him of the love and
respect of the people, disavowing caustic rumors aimed
at Winthrop for leaving and suggesting that it would
be to everyone's benefit if he would return to the
Quinnipiac area.34 After nearly a year of pleading and
cajoling that had little effect, the New Haven minister
cautioned WinthrOp that his house, described as the
grandest in the town, could not lie vacant for the
town hoped to use it as a means to attract "persons of

35 While WinthrOp was always

publick usefulness."
welcome to reestablish his residency, Davenport reminded
him that the town needed the house and had certain
"expectations and necessities" for it.36
The response by the younger John WinthrOp
precipitated the struggle between the Townsmen and John
Davenport. In August of 1659 Winthrop stated that he
was "unwilling, yea, very unwilling, to part with ye
house.37 Yet he agreed that if necessary he would

allow certain men to "dispose of it as they shall

see cause." The men he designated were Francis

155

Newman, now governor of the colony, John Davenport and
Mathew Gilbert, an original founder of the town, former
deputy and Deacon of the church. It is important to
note that all were men who represented the "old guard"
and whose authority to lead the community was now being
challenged by the townsmen. Davenport suggested that
instead of selling the house immediately they delay

the action in hOpe that the needed stone for the blast
furnace could be found "wch he conceiveth might be an

inducement to him to come hither."38

But the Townsmen,
anxious that the matter be settled and unwilling to
let men such as Davenport decide this important matter,
forcefully stated that Winthrop had had enough time.
Since he "did shewe himselfe willing to part with the
house" the town should buy it. Besides, they reasoned
that Winthrop's decision to leave had been final and
the selling of the house would "not alter him from
coming or not coming to New Haven."39
Early in 1660 the Townsmen assumed the initia-
tive and purchased the house in the name of the town.
The entire transaction was completed without seeking the
advice or consent of Davenport. In fact extant evidence
suggests that Winthrop had designated new men to act as
his agents in the prOperty matter. A perplexed John
Davenport confided to Winthrop in April of 1660 that

he had read a letter "written by yourself to Sergeant

156

Whitehead, about your house, in the name of the townsmen,
which it seemes, was an answer to a letter sent, but

I know not whom, nor when, to yourself, in the name

of the townsmen, and with their consent, that they might

"40

purchase the house, for the use of the town. "All

of this was done,’ he explained, "without my knowledge,
and my wifes and sons." He complained bitterly that no
one had made the transaction known to him "in the
least" nor that such a letter was being drafted and
sent.41 But it is obvious that by this time Davenport
and the townsmen had reached an impasse and the latter
knew it.

So the matter ended. The dispute over the
control of the Winthrop property had not been a
bitterly fought battle that resulted in organized
groups or parties to vent their wrath upon certain men.
But it is nonetheless significant for in a quiet,
subtle manner the townsmen displayed their new political
power. The wishes and demands of men such as John
Davenport were quietly ignored as the townsmen acted
in ways considered necessary for the good of the larger
community. By 1660 they were confident that they and
not Davenport spoke for the town and they were correct.
There is no indication that the citizens of New Haven
were troubled by the direction taken and John Davenport

stood alone, a figure from the past who no longer

commanded the destiny of the community.

157

A second issue that bore witness to the changing
nature of political authority developed because the
outlying suburbs questioned the right of New Haven
officials to enforce certain orders concerning their
responsibility to the town. In increasing numbers the
farmers challenged the laws that forced them to share
the duties of the watch or monthly training sessions.
They felt that the distance to the town, usually four
to six miles, should preclude them from that responsi-
bility.42 The town vacilliated on the question,
exempting the farmers at times or designating certain
farmers free from such tasks but generally all were
expected to participate in protecting the town. Fines
were meted out from time to time to those, like Francis
Hall, who "was complained of for refusing to watch
himselfe and for counseling others to it allso."43
This was considered a contempt of authority and injurious
to the social well being of the community.

Throughout the 1650's more complaints were
registered against the farmers for refusing to share
the burdens placed on the citizenry of the town. At
a May 1659 session of the General Court "William
Andrewes & the rest of the Farmers at Southend pro-
pounded their desires, & request, that the rates

they have hitherto paid for their necke of land might

for time to come be abated, wch they said they have

158

very heavy, it being an overplus beyond that other

44 But the town replied that this

inhabitants pay."
was only fair since they have "an overplus of land
beyond what other inhabitants have" and referred the
matter to the townsmen to settle.45 At the same town
meeting the Farmers were called to court to answer to
their delinquency in attending work on a mill. The
town had agreed that all should share the work load
for the project but apparently some in the farming
regions doubted whether the mill would function
properly and for that reason withheld their support.
But such an argument carried little weight with the
court.46 Others complained that the families in the
suburbs were so far removed from town that many
violated the Sabbath by not attending the First Church

47 This latter point became the

of Christ regularly.
focus of an attempt by John Davenport to restructure
the community of New Haven.

The pressure from the suburbs intensifed
throughout the decade until representatives from those
areas petitioned the General Court for the right to
incorporate into separate villages. Late in 1658 the
Governor informed the town "that he had received
certaine prOpositions from ye Farmers at Stony River,

& South End & from them on the further side of the East

"48

River. Although the petition admitted "that they

159

were but few inhabitants at present, yet they conceived
that there is land to accomodate a competent number for
a village." They asked that they be granted two
specific rights. The first involved a definite
boundary line between the proposed villages and New
Haven to preclude subsequent disputes that were
common in such instances. The second was a request
for the right to levy taxes against those that lived
within or owned land within their jurisdiction. And
although not a formal request, it was understood that
separation would also give them the right to organize
a church and hire a teacher and minister.49
John Davenport emerged as the spokesman for
the petitioners. He combined spiritual considerations
with secular reasons to justify his intense desire to
modify the town. He argued that the farms were at such
a distance that the Sabbath "cannot be kept as a day
of holy rest in all your dwellings, thus plunging the
community into a sinful state by violating the fourth
commandment.50 Since the real goal of the community
concerned "the honor of God and of posterity" it seemed
only just to demand that His hold ordinances be observed
as a means "to prevent sin in others, which cannot be
done in this way." Educating the young, an important

device to insure that all children were reared with

the proper respect to the church, would ultimately

160

fail unless everyone had access to a school and this
could only be accomplished by permitting thenew
villages to establish centers of learning.51 He urged
everyone to remember that prosperity was awarded only
to God fearing communities, and how, he queried, could
the farmers honor the Almighty when everything seemed to
prevent them from honoring the Sabbath. This could, he
warned, "bring the wrath of God on the plantation, as
ye secret fact of Achan, for which wrath came upon the
whole congregation of Israel" because Israel failed to
uphold the righteousness of God.52
While righteousness and the need to observe
the Sabbath were important components of his analysis,
Davenport nevertheless emphasized the idea that
material success could be achieved only when viable
trade patterns were established. He reasoned that
creating villages would add to the yield of commodities
for trade and since the trade had to be funneled through
New Haven all communities would benefit. New devices
to encourage trade remained the only hope for the town,
for if the towne did not consider some way to further

53 The

trade, "how they would subsist he saw not."
Divine believed that when all of the recent developments
of the community were considered, including a new mill,

the struggling iron works and now the creation of

separate villages, they created the basis for mercantile

161

activities that would salvage the havoc in New Haven.
"Now put all things together: The Towne falling into a
way of trade will be in a better state, & ye villages
accomodated, the honour of God in ye sanctification of
ye Sabbath, and ye upholding of civill order provided
for." He concluded his lengthy plea by asking that
everyone involved "make use of reason & understanding,
that it may be done in such a way as may be for the
good both of Towne and Farmes, and the Lord guide you
in it."54

Francis Newman agreed with Davenport and fully
supported the petition movement. In fact his state-
ments during the debate implied that the town would aid
the development of new villages. Newman feared that
continuing to force the farmers to attend the First
Church of Christ made Sunday a "day of toyle rather than
a day of holy rest."55 He encouraged the farmers who
submitted the petition to consult with one another to
consider the exact boundary lines and then promised
that the town "would afford due encouragement to such an
end," a promise that had little visible basis of
support.56 When he lamented that the distance to the
outlying regions caused some to leave the services
early in order to return to their homes before nightfall,
the anti-village voices reminded him this was the

"practice of some Townedwellers as well as Farmers,"

162

and that many people "are found standing without in the

57

time of publique exercise."‘ Thus they implied that

the problem of moral or spiritual laxity could not be

solved by simply creating new villages.58
Those who Opposed the organization of new

villages cogently argued that any such decision would

have a negative impact upon New Haven and in the end

the prOposal died for lack of support. They were not

convinced that Davenport's ominous prophecy of doom

would effect the community but rather believed that

modifying the town by allowing villages to be organized

would create an economic liability that well may destroy

New Haven.59 Since the town depended on the outlying

areas for foodstuffs as well as feed for their cattle

they reasoned that the town would be hard pressed to

find adequate substitutes. Instead of faciliating the

ideas of the church it would act in ways harmful to the

spiritual body because New Haven could become so destitute

60 There were

that it could not support a minister.
periodic revivals of interest in 1659 and 1660 with
long and tiresome debates that finally ended in a
stalemate. A committee appointed could "not grant all
that the Farmers desired, nor would they (the farmers)
accept all of the tearmes wch the committee propounded."
Over ten years would pass before the establishment of

the first village in New Haven.61

163

The founders of New Haven and the ideas they
brought to Long Island Sound in 1639 were not realized.
Their narrow focus on trade and their stubborn refusal
to acknowledge failure broght near economic ruin to
the town by the early 1650's. When they combined
incessant efforts to create a viable mercantile center
with strong repressive measure against dissenters,
their authority became tainted. This process, then,
culminated in the ten year period after 1651 when men
such as John Davenport found himself unable to assert

his wishes upon the community.

 

 

CHAPTER VI --FOOTNOTES

lJohn Davenport to John WinthrOp Jr., January 21,
1657/8, found in Massachusetts Historical Society,
Collections, 4th series, VIII (1858), 489. Hereafter
cited as MHS, Collections.

 

2For the material referring to Goodyear's
mercantile interests see Calder, New Haven Colony, 62,
165; Atwater, History, 135; Ancient Town Records, I,
63-64. In his letter to John Winthrop Jr., July,
1658, Davenport Papers, 121, Davenport stated his
surprise that Goodyear was defeated and declared that
he had expected him to be chosen governor of the
colony. He explained the defeat in terms of divine
providence, for the proxies from the sister towns had
cast their votes for Goodyear only for the governor-
ship, believing that he would easily be chosen. They
did not cast votes for him either for deputy governor
or magistrate, so when he did not win the governor's
post, he was stripped of all offices.

3Information was taken from the New Haven
Records and the Ancient Town Records, I.

4For example, ten of the thirty men were
listed on the 1643 land division list and held an
average of ninety acres. New Haven Records, 91-93.

5Lockridge, A_New England Town, 38; Darrett
Rutman, Winthrop's Boston: Portrait of a Puritan
ggwn, 1630-1649 (Champ'el'—Hi11':_m-Tlhle 'UnIVers‘I't'y o' "’1? North
Carolina Press, 1965), 66.

 

 

 

6Ancient Town Records, I, 101.

7Ibid. After that date the townsmen were elected
annually.

81bid., 103.

164

165

91bid., 108. Lockridge and Kreider, "The
Evolution," offer the best analysis of the role of
selectmen in relationship to the general town meeting.
They assert that in Dedham and Watertown, Massachusetts
the selectmen, because of their aggressiveness, dominated
the town until the latter part of the seventeenth-
century.

10For example the General Court would state that
the Townsmen could draw up an order but the town would
have to confirm it. It seems, however, that the
Townsmen were free to order what they wished and no
evidence suggests that the town negated decisions made
by the townsmen. See Ancient Town Records, I, 440, 447.

 

llIbid., 114-116.

lzIbid., 316.

l3Ibid., 317.

14Ibid., 206-208, 243, 291. Levermore, The
Republic, 70-73, 103-105, provides a brief yet 9333
description of the duties of the Townsmen and suggests
that they represent a "new party" but only in the sense
that they are assuming more town power. He suggests
no relationship between the assumption of power and the
challenge to authority of the previous decade.

 

15Ancient Town Records, I, 206.

l6Ibid., 111.

17Ibid., 130.

lBIbid., 223.

19Ibid., 227, 316, 489.

201bid., 104.

2lIbid., 108.

221bid., 116.

166

23Ibid., 412-413.

24£§£Q., 103, 116-117, 108, 305, 323, 438.

25For a brief description of Winthrop's activi-
ties see The Younger John Winthrop, 175-176. Black
suggests that the main reason Winthrop left New Haven
within a year after settling evolved around the harsh
blue laws that made the town a very uninviting place
for a man of such worldly interests. Also see Dunn,
Puritan and Yankee, 92-95, and Calder, New Haven

Colony, 153-160.

26TheOphilus Eaton and Stephen Goodyear,
undoubtedly supported by John Davenport encouraged the
town to approve accomodations for Winthrop because
they felt it was in the public interest to increase
trade. See Ancient Town Records, I, 235, 260, 330.

27Davenport corresponded almost continually
with WinthrOp, and the letters suggest a reverence for
WinthrOp that bordered on adulation. For example see
John Davenport to John Winthrop the Younger, February 2,
1657, Davenport Papers, 111.

28TheOphilus Eaton to John Winthrop Jr.,
October 4, 1654, MHS, Collections, 47.

29Theophilus Eaton to John WinthrOp Jr.,
April 12, 1655, Ibid., 475.

30John Davenport to John Winthr0p the Younger,
.Mayy 1655, Davenport Papers, 103-105.

31John Davenport to John Winthrop the Younger,
December 22, 1655, Ibid., 107.

32Black, The Younger John Winthrop, 176.

33For a description of the problems as discussed
jby the town see the Ancient Town Records, I, 305-306,
313, 316, 317. The best general description is Dunn,
lPuritan and Yankee, 93-95.

167

34See John Davenport to John Winthrop Jr.,

April_l658, John Davenport to John WinthrOp Jr.,
December 19, 1658 and John Davenport to John Winthrop
Jr., May 20, 1658 found in MHS, Collections, 493, 497,
498—499.

 

35John Davenport to John Winthrop Jr., April 1,

1659, Davenport Papers, 136.

 

36Ibid.

 

37Ancient Town Records, I, 412.

 

38Ibid.

 

9Ancient Town Records, I, 413.

 

4OJohn Davenport to John Davenport Jr., April 5,

1660, Davenport Papers, 154.

 

4libid.

 

42See the New Haven Records, 241, 374, 382.

43£§i§., 386-387; Ancient Town Records, I, 50-51.

44Ibid., 403.

451b1d.

46Ibid.

47Ibid.

481bid., 392.

49;§i§.; Levermore, The Republic, 108.

 

50Ancient Town Records, I, 393; Levermore,
flflue Republic, 109, deals with the village question but
tuses it as an example of the town meeting procedures
arui states that Davenport is in the minority but goes
rug further in the analysis.

 

168

51Ancient Town Records, I, 394.

 

szIbid.

531bid., 393.

54Davenport did not quit in his attempt to
revive trade. In 1662 he told the court that he had
met two godly merchants in London who would come to
New Haven and settle if they could be assured of land.
The following year at least one merchant came to the
town and remained for some years but he did not become
important in the town. Ibid., 393, II, 4, 57, 61.

55Ibid., 394.

56Ibid., 396.

57Ibid.

58Perhaps as a means to dodge the obvious
implications of anti-village group's statement,the
Governor proposed and the meeting approved of an order

that any person found "walking or playing in the streets,

in the evening after the Sabbath, or whosoever shall
(without just cause) depart before the publique
exercise be ended . . . shall be warned to answere it
at the next Court." Ibid., 397.

591bid., 394-395.

60Ibid., 396.

61Levermore, The Republic, 176.

 

CHAPTER VII

EPILOGUE AND CONCLUSIONS

Between 1660, the zenith of the townsmen's
political strength, and 1665, the date the town of New
Haven reluctantly accepted incorporation into Connecticut,
another discernible change occurred within the political
structure. Because of the crisis that the incorpora-
tion issue precipitated, the town, receiving dynamic
leadership from William Jones, reestablished its
authority over the townsmen in an attempt to unite
the townspeople against the new Connecticut charter.

For a time the town again called upon John Davenport
to express the sentiment of the people but his leader-
ship did not signify a rejection of the changes that
had occurred in the previous decade. Times were
changing and few believed traditional ideas were
viable for the present.

The origin of the problem was a charter and
the fact that New Haven did not possess one to validate
its claim to the land. The initial purchase of the
area had been from "the sachem of Quinipocke" and the

one attempt to secure a royal charter in the mid-1640's

169

170

failed.l With the Stuart restoration in 1660 came a
renewed interest to strengthen their hold on the
colony by having it recognized legally but several
factors worked to the detriment of such a goal.

While New Haven depended upon the benevolence
of the royal government for a charter, it nevertheless
resisted the restoration by harboring two men who
participated in the death of Charles I. They were
William Goffe and Edward Whalley, signers of the 1649
death warrant and major-generals in Cromwell's army.2
Fleeing to New England in 1660 these men were hurried
through the colonies until they found refuge in homes
of friends such as John Davenport who not only cared
for the regicides but helped prevent royally commissioned
officers from finding them.3 Goffe and Whalley were
forced to spend their remaining years hiding in the
New England wilderness, fugitives from English law,
and the fact that New Haven leaders did little to aid
in their capture alienated them from the royal govern-
ment.

Other factors compunded the problem for New
Haven. Connecticut was blessed with the leadership
of the younger John WinthrOp who forsaw the potential
of combining Connecticut and New Haven into one
(economic-political unit. As the governor of Connecticut

lne received an assembly commission as agent for the

171

colony to secure a charter. And because he had close
friends such as John Davenport in New Haven, he also
agreed to represent that colony in its attempt to get a
charter. Historians generally believe that Winthrop,
while accepting the assignment from his friends on
the Sound, never intended to pursue the issuance of a
separate patent. In fact he correctly perceived that
New Haven, town and colony alike, was economically
impotent and the only success it could expect would come
by submitting to the control of Connecticut.4 After
several years of bitter debate and eloquent pleas by
New Haven representatives, the town and colony
acquiesed to their fate of becoming a subordinate part
of their sister colony.5

Connecticut's aggressive, expansive tactics
had a towfold impact on the internal conditions of
New Haven. The first involved the townsmen. By 1660
they cared for most of the matters within the town with
the exception of judicial proceedings, a matter that
had always remained in the hands of the town deputies.
Legally, the townsmen had always been subject to the
control of the general town meeting and now, faced with
the unhappy prospect of becoming a dependant part of
another colony, the town deputies used the town meeting
to unite the New Haven citizens in Opposition to the

Connecticut charter. Time and again the records reveal

172

that the general court convened the townspeople to
inform them of the latest development with Connecticut
or called a meeting to listen as leaders asked the
people to unite and challenge incorporation so the King
could "see the evil in what they have done and restore
us to our former state, that we and they may live
together in unitie and amity for ye future."6
The incorporation issue stimulated the general
court to resume its position of power within the town
but certainly partial credit belongs to William Jones
who provided active, dynamic leadership during this
period. He had married the youngest daughter of
Theophilus Eaton in a London wedding in 1659 and came
to New Haven the following year.7 He spent two years
in the town before he took the oath of fidelity, an
oath that included a plea to the king to grant a
charter to the colony "for the advancement of Christ's
kingdom," and stipulated that if colonial autonomy
ended in New Haven, the oath was void.8 By May of
1662 this Gentleman had earned the respect of the
Exeople and because they considered him prOper magis-
‘terial material, elected him deputy governor of the
cxalony. Since the governor, William Leete, was a
(3uilford resident, this meant that Jones was now the
cfliief magistrate of the town and legally in charge of

tjne town meeting. He clearly dominated the proceedings

173

of the general court and in May, 1664, he was named
moderator of that body, an act symbolic of the new
importance the meeting had assumed.9

As the town meeting asserted its prerogatives
in response to the external crisis, it began to assume
the powers it had relinquished to the townsmen. Rating,
an important function the townsmen had come to dominate,
again came under controll of the town. In October of
1661 the town meeting complained that many outstanding
taxes were yet to be collected and charged the townsmen
to perform that difficult task. But the town itself
ordered a new rate to be levied. Again in 1664 the
general court debated the issue of another rate and

subsequently levied a tax.10

It is important to note
that in neither case were the townsmen given the right
to determine the rate. vThe town also began to receive
and act upon petitions for land, a power that had been
in the hands of the townsmen since the previous
decade.12 Although the latter group remained and were
annually elected, their role concerned, as was the
initial purpose, matters of secondary importance.13
The second discernible effect of the incorpo-
ration crisis involved John Davenport. His leadership
had been rebuffed twice near the end of the 1650's but

he remained the most learned man of letters the town

or colony had. For this reason, and because of his

174

close friendship of John Winthrop Jr., the town turned
to him during those troubled times. He correSponded
regularly with Winthrop about the matter of Connecticut's
charter and asked how the mistake had been made, the
mistake that allowed Connecticut to absorb New Haven.
He insisted that New Haven remain independant and
condemned as irrational Connecticut's assertion of
control over towns such as Branford.l4 Davenport also
remained in constant touch with the town, reporting
periodically on the state of affairs and probably did
his share to convince the townspeople to vote disapproval
of Connecticut's dastardly move.15

This does not mean, however, that New Haven
rejected the trends of the 1650's and returned to
embrace the ideas or leadership of those who had
initially founded the town. Certainly John Davenport
was an important figure, but he spoke for a declining
percentage of peOple within the town. New Haven faced
the same problem as most other New England towns:
rigid church membership policies excluded an increasing
number of the young who could not give an account of
their saving experience. Church records reveal that only
twenty-five new members were admitted to the First
Church of Christ in New Haven between 1653-1665.16
That meant that approximately fourty-four percent of the

adult males were church members, a drOp of about six

175

percent from the mid-1640's. Some towns enacted the
Halfway Covenant as a means to bring people into the
Church but Davenport, adament in his conviction that
such a move would dilute the purity of the New England
way, forcefully rejected the idea.17 John Davenport's
leadership abilities, then, were called upon not as an
affirmation of his former role in the town, but out of
an immediate need for eloquent, forceful arguments to
defend the independant status of New Haven.

New Haven enjoyed a unique experience of its
own. Unlike Dedham, Massachusetts the town, although
espousing the need to live peaceably under the watchful
eye of God, never found the secret to a successful
utOpia. Nor was it guided, as Boston, by the forces
of perfection in the search for the ideal community.18
New Haven's settlers, were, like many other New Englanders,
intensely religious and found in their theology the
framework for a new society. This was tempered,
jhowever, by a strong mercantile influence that played
ea dominant role in the first decade, resulting in a
saociety that saw itself (through the rhetoric of the
lfifiadership) as the handmaiden of God in the midst of
cxnnstructing a port city to do trade with the secular

wcnrld. The two forces balanced one another, each

gijxing support to the other to maintain the success

0 f the community .

176

The balance, so necessary to a community that
teetered on the precarious abyss in the wilderness,
was destroyed when the mercantile venture failed. In
a desperate attempt to discover why, leaders turned to
the covenant, their only reasonable means of under-
standing the crisis, and began several years of intense
activity to purify society. Between 1644 and 1649 the
First Church of Christ and the town Court challenged
any heretical Opinions that surfaced in New Haven.
Several notable peOple joined those of lesser rank in
tasting the harsh discipline of a society which sought
to redeem itself in the eyes of God.

Harsh policies toward some did not mean,
however, that the majority found life terribly uncom-
fortable in New Haven nor that people were governed by
ideals forced upon them by a theocratic state. Settlers
faced severe economic problems in the first decade but
the probated estates of a number of men suggest that
hard work could cull moderate wealth from the rocky
soil. The political framework provided a means for
;peOple to express their sentiments and ideas to an
(elected body, that, once elected, assumed full power in
'town. Although suffrage qualifications based on church
Inembership excluded an ever increasing number between
1638 and 1662, all men could speak to major issues

through the General Court. And the records suggest

177

that the leaders used that body to insure their decisions
were approved by a consensus of the citizens. New

Haven officials demanded severe moral discipline in

the town as well as deferential attitudes toward

their positions as magistrates, but there is little

to suggest that there was wholesale dissatisfaction

with the order of things.

Yet, the total submissive attitude toward
authority began to change by the end of the first
decade. Influential men challenged the intellectual
basis of deference, particularly regarding the unques-
tionable integrity of town leaders. Townspeople
began to show less and less interest in providing
necessary services such as volunteering and serving in
the watch and militia, and maintaining adequate fences
to protect crops, services that were all necessary to
insure the longevity of a city in the wilderness.

'The church, considered by many to be the very heart of
the society, decried the shameful policy of contributing
:vampum that was so deteriorated that it could not be
Inseda By the early 1650's the problems were so severe
-that.many feared for the future of the town and a
trumber of peOple revived an old interest in the
[Melaware Bay region with the idea of establishing a
'tcnwn. But the leadership, representing the same

nuercantile interests that had nearly destroyed the town,

178

found few people willing to risk the dangers and the
idea collapsed for want of support.

The town did not collapse, however, but
rather grew in numbers while recovering some of its
economic strength. But important changes had occurred.
The office of townsman had been created to carry out
the burdensome chores the town deputies found too time
consuming. And these men, who dominated the town
government by 1660, were not predisposed to the idea
of making New Haven in the image of Boston. Thus, the
thrust of mercantile ideas no longer dominated
thinking of the town. And while the church continued
to represent the religious influence in the town, the
spiritual leadership never regained the influence it
once had. Restrictive church admission policies
isolated the church more and more in a growing popu-
lation where the majority of men could not prove
themselves to be of the visible elect. Town Officials
reflected this tendency by acting on issues without
(monsulting the minister and openly repudiating sugges-
‘tions by the spiritual leaders regarding fundamental
rmodividations in the town that the minister felt was
ruecessary to maintain the integrity of society.

By 1662 New Haven developed into a town quite
clifferent from the town it had hoped to be in 1639.

:Dt had not become a first rate port city and depended

179

more heavily on the land as its source of wealth. The
ideals of authority had been challenged and in the
gmocess, changed. To be sure, the town did not
repudiate the church nor many of the deferential
assumptions regarding politics or society, but all had
been tempered by the severe ordeals of the 1640's.

The influence of a small group of Godly merchants had
given way to men who depended on the same spiritual
source but tempered by the realities of the secular

world.

CHAPTE R VI I --FOOTNOTES

1New Haven Records, 1-7.

 

2Calder, The New Haven Colony, 221-226;
Atwater, History, 419-444, provides the most complete
narrative of the episode, and Andrews, The Colonial
Period, II, 184-185.

 

 

 

3For Davenport's description see his letter to
Thomas Temple, August 19, 1661 found in the Davenport

Papers, 190-193.

 

4See Dunn, Puritans and Yankees, 92-95, 123-125.
144-146 and Black,The Younger John Winthrop, 247-254.

 

 

 

5For example see the Ancient Town Records, II,
12-14, 102-103, 137, 139; John Davenport to John Winthrop
Jr., June 22, 1663 in MHS, Collections, VIII, 521-525.
John Davenport also wrote a long document entitled
"New Haven's Case Stated," found in Atwater's History,
566-583.

 

 

6Ancient Town Records, II, 12-14, 71-72, 96-97,
125, 137, 144-145.

 

7Ibid., 105, Atwater, History, 422.

8Ancient Town Records, I, 520-521.

 

91bid., II, 45, 144-145.

loIbid., I, 489.

llIbid., II, 97.

121616., 63.

180

181

13For example they continued to appoint fence
viewers and provide necessary care for indigents.
Ibid., 41, 73.

14See John Davenport to John Winthrop Jr.,
June 22, 1663 and Davenport to Winthrop July 13, 1665
in Davenport Papers, 216-219, 251-254.

 

15Ancient Town Records, II, 12-14.

 

 

l6Dexter, Historical Catalogue, 307. For the
methodology in determining pOpulation figures see
footnote 13 of chapter two.

 

 

l7Edmund Morgan's, Visible Saints: Tng_History
pi i Puritan Idea (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1963), 130-138 provides a good general description of
the halfway covenant. For Davenport's ideas see his
Anopher Essay (Cambridge, 1663), 5, 9, 12-13, 34-35,
58—59 and John Davenport to John Winthrop Jr., June 14,
1666 in the Davenport Papers, 262-263.

 

 

 

18See Lockridge, A New England Town, 1-79 and
Rutman, Winthrop's Boston, 3-23.

 

 

BIBLI OGRAPHI CAL ES SAY

There have been numerous scholarly works
written on the New England community in the seventeenth-
century. This bibliography, however, will deal with
only those books that directly affected the development
of this thesis.

Manuscript sources dealing with the first
thirty years of New Haven are scarce. The Connecticut
Archives, housed in the State Library in Hartford,
Connecticut, is a massive collection of material,
nicely indexed, but the bulk of it deals with Connecticut
after 1665. The collection does have data dealing
‘Mith the incorporation crisis of 1662-1665 but that
Jnaterial is more readily available in printed form.

'The First Church of Christ Records provides useful
iJrformation by listing church members and gives one
good example of an excommunicant being received back
itho the church. Generally speaking, the records

art: very incomplete. There are numerous extant wills
cxf early New Haven settlers that were useful for

tinis study. Richard Perry's Book of Names, a manu-
script written between 1649-1652 by the town secretary,
was used as an aid in determing population figures.

182

183

No study could be made of the town without the
excellent volumes of printed records now available.
Charles Hoadly edited The Records pf the Colony and

Plantation pf New Haven, 1638-1649 (Hartford, 1857),

 

and The Records pf the Colony and Jurisdiction prNew

 

Haven from May, 1653 pp the Union (Hartford, 1858).

The first includes both entries of the town government

as well as the government of the colony of New Haven

and one must be careful to distinguish between the two.
The latter focuses exclusively on the colony but there
are materials concerning the Delaware venture that are
important for the town. This volume also contains the
1657 codified laws of New Haven although J. H. Trumbull's

True-Blue Laws pf Connecticut and New Haven and the

 

False Blue Laws Forged py Peters (Hartford, 1870) was
'used for this study. The three volumes of the Ancient

'Town.Records: New Haven Town Records, 1649-1769 (New

 

Ifiiven, 1919-1962), edited by Franklin E. Dexter and
Zara J. Powers are essential. The first volumes cover
time period of this investigation and they contain data
(If every description. Probate records, jucidial pro-
ceedings, general court meetings, court meetings and
records of the townsmen are all included. The editors

hamna included an excellent index that facilitates the

use of the volumes.

184

The personal letters as well as the sermons of
John Davenport are important for any study of New Haven.
The extant letters of Davenport can be found in Isabel
M. Calder's edition of The Letters pf John Davenport,

Puritan Divine (New Haven, 1937). The collection

 

includes extensive material on aspects of his theology
as well as letters to his friend the younger John
Winthrop that deal with personal as well as public
issues. The Massachusetts Historical Society Collections,
VII (Boston, 1865), and VIII (1867) contain letters of
John Davenport, TheOphilus Eaton and William Leete and
provided useful information on some of the issues and
events of the 1650's and 1660's. Davenport's 1669
election sermon illustrates his ideas on authority and
is found in The Publications of the Colonial Society of
Massachusetts, X, (Boston, 1907). His Another Essay
(Cambridge, 1663), exemplified Davenport's dissatis-
faction with the Halfway Covenant of 1662. The five
volumes of the Winthrgp Papers, published by the
.Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1929-1947)
sfluould be used with James K. Hosmer's edition of
EdinthrOp's Journal, "History of New England, 1630—1649"
UNeW'York, 1908) for information on Davenport and Eaton
vfliile they were in Boston. There is also scattered

rmaterial in the New England Historical and Genealogical

Register.

185

The best description of dissenters in New Haven
are the records of the proceedings against two of those
charged in the town, Anne Eaton and Ezekial Cheever.

The case against Cheever can be found in volume one of

the Collections p£_the Connecticut Historical Society

 

(Hartford, 1860) and the church actions against Mrs.
Eaton are found in the Papers pf the New Haven Historical
Society (New Haven, 1894), volume five. Both incidents
are important when considering the question of toleration
in New England.

Other sources were consulted that in varying
degree were useful to this study. B. B. O'Callaghan's
Documents Relative pp the Colonial Period 25 N2! Yppk,
l4 vols., (Albany, 1856-1883) and the Records pf png_
Colony pbeew Plymouth in N§w_England (Boston, 1855-1861)
provided information dealing with New Haven's claim
on the Delaware. Perry Miller and Thomas Johnson's
two volumes of sources entitled TthPuritans (New York,
1963) and Edmund Morgan's Puritan Political Idggg,

1558-1794 (New York, 1965) are good for a general

 

overview of the Puritan mind. Charles Manwaring's

three volume edition of A Digest p£_Early Connecticut

lProbate Records (Hartford, 1905), has scattered material

on New Haven settlers.

There are some standard secondary works that
:must be consulted before any aspect of seventeenth-

century New England is studied. Perry Miller's

186

contribution to the study of the Puritan mind should

begin with the Errand Into the Wilderness (New York,

 

1956) since it provides a concise interpretation of the

author's thesis. Orthodoxy in Massachusetts (Cambridge,

 

 

1933) read with The New England Mind: The Seventeenth-

 

 

 

Century (New York, 1939), and The New England Mind:

 

From Colony pp Province (Cambridge, 1953) will provide

 

 

a stimulating analysis of American thought between
1630 and 1720. Edmund Morgan will give the Miller
reader a needed respite from his ponderous literary

style. The Puritan Family: Religion and Domestic

 

 

Relations in Seventeenth-Century_New England (New York,

 

 

1944) studies the family as a microcosm of the larger
society by skillfully incorporating the Ramusian logic
of relationships into the social patterns Of early

Massachusetts. Morgan's The Puritan Dilemma: The

 

Story pf John Winthrop (Boston, 1962) and The Visible

 

 

 

Saints: The Historyp£4a Puritan Idea (Ithaca, 1965)

 

 

also provide useful information on the early seventeenth-
century. The first deals with the pragmatic applica-
tion of ideas to the everyday world while the second
traces the evolution of visible sainthood from 1630
to the Great Awakening.

The present interest in historians has shifted
somewhat from the broad interpretations of the Miller-

Morgan school to narrow case study topics. Thus, New

187

England towns have received an increasing amount of
attention by scholars. Sumner Chilton Powell's Puritan
Village: Th2 Formation pf a New England Town (Middle-
town, 1963) spearheaded this interest. He emphasized
the unique innovations the settlers of Sudbury,
Massachusetts made when they came to the new world.
Kenneth Lockridge, in A_New England Town: The First
Hundred Years 1636-1736 (New York, 1970), provides a
larger setting for his study of Dedham, Massachusetts
and suggests that the closed-corporate-christian
community of Dedham functioned as did many other peasant
communities. His work provides a stimulating analysis
of the evolution of the community throughout the century.
He co-authored an article with Alan Kreider entitled
"The Evolution of Massachusetts Town Government, 1640-
1740," William and Mary Quarterly, XXIII (1966) that
gives a thoughtful analysis of the struggle for political
control in two towns between the town meeting and the
townsmen. Darrett Rutman's WinthrOp's Boston:_ Portrait
5;: §_Puritan Town, 1636-1649 (Chapel Hill, 1965)
«deals with some of the same concepts as Lockridge in
Iris attempt to trace the changing nature of Boston and
time ideas that governed its founding during the initial
twenty years.

Although there is no satisfactory work on New

kniven, it has received a great deal of attention by

188

historians. Two seventeenth-century figures considered
the town an ideal model of a Godly settlement. Cotton

Mather's Magnalia Christi Americana (Boston, 1852

 

edition) should be read as an example of what Perry
Miller called the jeremiad. In it, New Haven and its
leaders are revered and looked upon as model Christians
but even with its bias it offers some useful information.

William Hubbard's A General History pf New England

 

 

From Discovery pp 1680 (Cambridge, 1815) shares some of

 

the same biases of Mather but puts far greater emphasis
on the mercantile influence within the community. An
author who writes a bit later, Benjamin Trumbull, A

Complete Historypf Connecticut: Civil and Ecclesiastical

 

 

 

(2 vols., New Haven, 1818) provides some good narrative
material on the Regicides and the incorporation problem.

The nineteenth century produced several authors
who wrote lengthy studies of the town and colony.

Edward Lambert's History pf the Colony_p£ New Haven,

 

 

before and after the Union with Connecticut (New Haven,

 

1838), and Edward Atwater's History pf the Colony pp New

Haven pp Its Absorption into Connecticut (New Haven,

 

1881) are typical of the filiOpiestic school of
historians whose adulation for the founders biased

their works, but the accounts are important as sources
of information. The best account is Charles Levermore's

The Republic pf New Haven: A History pf Municipal

 

 

 

189

Evolution (Port Washington, New York, 1888). He

 

gives a full factual account of the early period but
provides no real thesis in regard to the changes in
the town government.

There are three well written books written
since 1930 but none deal specifically with the town of
New Haven. The moSt readable is the fifth chapter in
the second volume of Charles M. Andrews, The Colonial
Period pf American History_(New Haven, 1936). This is
a good narrative but is colored by the persistent theme
that the colony of New Haven is propelled by an expan-
sive, aggressive urge. He relied heavily on a mono-
graph written by his student, Isabel M. Calder. Her

New Haven Colony (New Haven, 1934) has stood as the single

 

best work on the colony. It is a meticulously researched
book with a great deal of information for the reader.
But the concentration falls on the colony, not the town,
thus the author does nothing to develop the internal
tensions of the community nor even perceives a rela-
tionship between the economic disaster of the first
(decade and the repressive measures to stamp out dissenters.
Rollin Osterweis, in Three Centuries pf Ng!_§§ygn,
21218-1238 (New Haven, 1953), offers a very readable
summary of the works by Andrews and Calder.

A question that has raised a great deal of

Ihistomical debate has focused on the role of democracy

190

in colonial America. For many years historians accepted
unquestioningly the assertion that James T. Adams made

in The Founding p£_New England (Boston, 1921) that New

 

England was controlled by twenty-percent of the adult
males and that in fact they represented a repressive
spiritual oligarchy. B. Katharine Brown has written a
series of articles that challenge the Adams thesis.
"Freemanship in Puritan Massachusetts," American
Historical Review, LIX (1954, "A Note on the Puritan
Concept of Aristocracy," Mississippr Valley Historical
Review, XLI (1954-1955), "Puritan Democracy in Dedham,
Massachusetts: A Case Study," Mississippi Valley
Historical Review, L (1963-1964), and "Puritan Democracy
in Dedham, Massachusetts" Another Case Study," William

and Mary Quarterly, XXIV (1967), focus on the idea that

 

even though the New Englanders did not call their
society democratic, their government functioned very
close to the twentieth-century ideal of representative
<democracy. Robert E. Wall's articles, "A New Look at
Cambridge," Journal pr American History, LII (1965-1966)
and."The Massachusetts Bay Colony Franchise in 1647,"
William and Mary Quarterly, XXVII (1970), offer a
slightly different analysis of the question.

Other works that proved useful for the study
include Loren Baritz's C_i_§y p_r_1 2 Hill: A History

(of Ideas and Myths in America (New York, 1964). The

191

author includes an excellent analysis of the political
thought:h1Massachusetts that evolved around the idea

of the organic state. A good biography, The Younger

 

John Winthrpp (New York, 1966) by Robert C. Black III

and Richard Dunn's Puritans and Yankees: The Winthrop

 

Dynasty pr New England, 1630-1717 (Princeton, 1962)
were useful in understanding the activities surrounding
the iron works in New Haven. James Savage's A

Genealogical Dictionarypr New England, 4 vols.

 

(Boston, 1860-1862) is necessary to trace individuals

within thetown.

‘l
Yl
?
:
Y
i.
.r
I
'0'.
.-
,x
C
1
.
..
r
E
5.
..
t

.: -L1'~‘Ho“wht‘.fii'§:tm~ w 'm-'.*.*f.‘-- w "fr?- '

 

It.

"7'11 11111111111111.1111“