I
'- 91

New Engla:

u

..
sigh-3'31.“- tau-x . r war... a. ; -‘

toward Pr.

' ‘

procedure:
Presbyter:
acceptanc.
late 17th
variety 0
Primary m

Wrches \

 

ABSTRACT

A Study of Presgyterianism in Colonial New England

 

 

by

Walter M. Boston, Jr.

The purpose of this study is twofold: first, to show that the
New England Churches and their leaders indicated strong tendencies
toward Presbyterianism and this enabled them to adOpt some presbyterian
procedures such as synods and councils similar to those used by English
Presbyterians; second, to show New England was the source of the ready
acceptance of Presbyterians from Scotland, Ireland, and France in the
late 17th Century and the result was the development of a homegrown
variety of Presbyterianism in the 18th Century. Church records, both
primary and secondary, of New England Congregational and Presbyterian

Churches were used in this study.

A STUDY OF PRESBYTERIANISM
IN

COLONIAL NEW ENGLAND

By

Walter M. Boston, Jr.

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of History

1971

Copyright by

Walter M. Boston, Jr.

1971

DEDICATION

To Abbie, Jennifer, Andrew, and Jacob - without whom none

of this would have been possible - thank you and peace.

ii

 

 

Margorj
Profess

underst

to Mrs .

Midhiga

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks and appreciation go to my Committee, Professors
Margorie Gesner, Robert E. Brown, and Robert E. Wall, Jr.;
Professor Wall, as Committee Chairman, was especially patient and
understanding.

In addition, I would like to express my sincere appreciation
to Mrs. Doris Swanson, Graduate Studies Secretary, Department of History,
Michigan State University; her help and counsel were invaluable.

Thank you to you all.

iii

Introduction

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

Conclusion

Bibliography

TABLE OF CONTENTS

New England Presbyterianism

Presbyterianism in Connecticut

Presbyterians from Abroad

Presbytery of Londonderry

Presbytery of Boston

Synod of New England

Presbytery of Salem

Presbytery at the Eastward

The Associate Reformed Presbytery

Presbytery of Grafton

42

S4

96

113

129

145

156

175

196

210

212

INTRODUCTION

While definitions of Presbyterians have varied, most churCh
historians have defined Presbyterianism as that form of church
government in which lay members of the local congregation elect
representatives who are called ruling elders, and who direct the life
of the church on their behalf. The elders in the local congregations
are banded together in an organization known as the session; this body
is a legal ecclesiastical group and has charge of the affairs of
the church. However, the actions of the session are subject to the
supervision of a higher body called the presbytery. A presbytery is
composed of the minister and one ruling elder from each congregation
in a certain Specific area; its members are Called presbyters, and
all have an equal voice in the affairs of the body. In addition, the
presbytery has an advisory power over the local congregations and the
actions of the individual sessions. Nevertheless, the decisions of
the presbytery like those of the session are not final, for they may be
appealed to the next highest body, the synod. The synod is composed
of representatives of the clergy and elders in equal numbers from the
various presbyteries in a given area, or if the synod so desires of
all the members of the presbyteries within its bounds. Above the
synod there is a higher court which stands as the last court of appeal;
this covers a wider area than a synod and is known as the General
Assembly. It is also composed of ministers and elders in equal numbers

who have been chosen by the presbyteries to act as their representatives.

Because there are some legislative actions of such an important
character in their bearing upon the whole church, the General Assembly
may not act alone. These actions must be passed back to the various
presbyteries for ratification or rejection, making the presbytery the
key body in the governance and control of the church.

The power delegated to these official(s) church courts is
such that the lay members of the church have little direct power in
the operation of the church. They do have the right, nevertheless,
to present to the presbytery their desire for the settlement or
dismissal of a pastor. The members of the local congregation can state
the terms of which they seek to settle such a pastor. It is, however,
the Presbytery that has the final say as to whether the pastoral call
shall be allowed, or whether the pastoral relations should be dissolved.
Thus it is not possible fer a Presbyterian minister to enter into a
simple contract between himself and a Presbyterian church. The action
and approval of the Presbytery is necessary in each case, and the
ordination of men to the gospel is only performed by the presbytery.

At this point a distinction should be drawn between Presbyterians
and Independency of the 17th century. Basically, the Independents
were onthe opposite end of the scale with respect to church polity.
The Presbyterians believed and supported a rigid hierardhial ChurCh
structure as the earlier definition indicated. Opposed to this, the
Independents worked for the freedom and independence of each individual
congregation. Another distinction between these two groups was that the

Presbyterians were intent on imposing a tyrannical churdh along the

vi

Scottish model while the Independents favored a doctrine of religious
toleration. While these distinctions help us identify the two groups,
they do not describe in absolute terms the conditions as they existed.

J. H. Hexter's investigation of these groups indicated there were
"Independents who were not Independents adhering in a larger proportion
than Presbyterians who were not Presbyterian to a Presbyterian Church that
was not really Presbyterian."1 It seems quite obvious from this that
there is a great deal of confusion between these two groups.

To further complicate an already complicated picture, there is
confusion among the Presbyterians. Whenever one wanted to define
Presbyterianism there was as Alexander Gordon described many years ago
that strange tendency to "run off to Edinburgh or Aberdeen" to find the
model of what Presbyterian government ought to be. From the very
beginning the English Presbyterians showed indications of differing
sharply from the Scottish.2 For example, in England muCh greater
importance was attached to the individual congregations, and while there
were times when the English Presbyterians advocated a hierarchial
Presbyterian system with higher courts exercising jurisdiction over
the churches, they generally insisted that the synod would be
primarily consultive and should not interfere with the sovereign

independence of the individual congregations. Even the Scots

 

1Hexter, J. H., "The PrOblem of the Presbyterian Independent," in
AHR, XLIV, (Oct., 1938), pp. 29-49.

2Goring, Jeremy, et. al., The English Presbyterians (Boston,
1968), p. 20.

 

vii

complained that the English system was not properly Presbyterian.

The purpose of this study will be to show two things: first,
that the New England Churches and their leaders indicated strong
tendencies toward Presbyterianism and this enabled them to adopt some
presbyterian procedures such as synods and councils similar to those
used by the English Presbyterians; second, New England was the source
of the ready acceptance of Presbyterians from Scotland, Ireland, and
France in the late 17th century and the result was the deve10pment
of a home grown variety of Presbyterianism in the 18th century. Both
of these situations existed despite bitter words between the English
Presbyterians and the New England Congregationalists. In the process
it is hoped this study will shed some light on American ChurCh develop-

ment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

viii

In a :
Puritans in 1
However, a c
English Pres!
this came ab

khen
in the New W
0f church p0
their dissat
in Particula
Prelates, th
Episc0p31 5}
had a decide
two things 1
position; tl
it had bEEn
PUritan par
imprint of
goverrlment

Amen
Tears of th
in England.
COHgEnial a

d‘ ~-
lfIlCult t

Chapter I

NEW ENGLAND PRESBYTERIANISM

In a strict sense the churches established by the English
Puritans in Seventeenth Century New England were Congregational.
However, a careful study indicates that there were many facets of
English Presbyterianism present in New England church polity. How
this came about is the subject of this chapter.

When the Puritans were setting up their ecclesiastical system
in the New World, it seemed natural to them to turn to the forms
of church polity with which they were most familiar. Because of
their dissatisfaction with the Church of England as they knew it and
in particular their unpleasant associations with the English
Prelates, they were scarcely in the frame of mind to adopt the
Episc0pal system. At the same time upon leaving England the Puritans
had a decided prejudice against separatism. It is because of these
two things that Presbyterian polity appeared to be in a favored
position; there was no great antipathy against it, and for some time
it had been gaining widespread approval among the members of the
Puritan party. In such a situation it was to be expected that the
imprint of Presbyterianism would be felt upon whatever type of church
government was adopted by the Puritan fathers in New England.

Among the Puritans who came to Massachusetts in the early
years of the colony there were some who had been Presbyterian supporters
in England. However, since the Church of England had not offered
congenial atmosphere for the practice of Presbyterianism it is

difficult to estimate what prOportion of them had been previously

1

‘14

I’m"?

=1 1 .

 

attached tr
been incli:
cal historj
four thousz
Presbyteriz
indication
however, in
the Puritar.

More
Of the Pres
as large as
Practices 0
to introduc
minority of
only ones t
The vasr ma
to be Contei
England chu:
comPlete f0;

SiflCf
England in 1
expected the

completEIY t

attached to its principles.1 Several writers on this subject have
been inclined to accept a statement of Cotton Mather in his ecclesiasti-
cal history of early New England in which he indicated that at least
four thousand of the first twenty-two thousand settlers had been
Presbyterian.2 While one may hesitate to accept this statement as an
indication of an exact number of individual Presbyterians, it does,
however, indicate as a point of fact that certainly there were among
the Puritans who left England many men of Presbyterian persuasion.

More important for this study is the question of the assimulation
of the Presbyterian element in the churches of Massachusetts. A group
as large as Mather suggested had to have an impact on the beliefs and
practices of the church system of New England. A few, however, tried
to introduce a Scottish brand of Presbyterianism. This small
minority of ministers and laymen, as we shall see shortly, were the
only ones to identify themselves with the adoption of Presbyterianism.
The vast majority of Puritans with Presbyterian antecedents appeared
to be content with the Presbyterianized Congregationalism of the New
England churches, and they were not willing to contend for a more
complete form of Presbyterianism as found in Scotland.

Since Presbyterianism was such a growing movement in Old
England in the early part of the Seventeenth Century, it was to be
expected that certain ministers would attempt to presbyterianize more

completely the New England ecclesiastical system. The most vigorous

 

1James Truslow Adams, Founding of New England (Boston, 1949),
pp. 76-77; Robert Thompson, History of the Presbyterian Churches in the
United States (New York, 1895), p. 13.

 

 

 

2Alexander Blaikie, Presbyterianism in New England, p. 1;
Frederick Loetscher, "Presbyterianism in Colonial New England," Journal
of the Presbyterian Historical Society, Vol. XI, p. 86.

 

 

attempt in th
3

Parker and P
Their intenti
anore strict
ignoring the
dismissal frc
taking these
seems the me:
this limited
Elders in the

Acco:
church was d:
1038, fruitlt
the Slammer}

as f0110w5:

attempt in this direction was made by the pastor and teacher Rev. Thomas
Parker3 and Rev. James Noyes4 of the church at Newbury, Massachusetts.
Their intentions were to move the Newbury Church in the direction of

a more strict, Scottish type of Presbyterianism; this they did by
ignoring the role of the congregation in matters of admission and
dismissal from church membership, and in cases of discipline by

taking these powers unto themselves as the Elders of the church. It
seems the membership of the early New England churches valued highly
this limited right to agree or disagree with the decisions of the

Elders in these matters.

According to Coffin in his significant study of Newbury, the
church was divided into two groups of almost equal size.5 There was
long, fruitless contention in the congregation over this matter. From
the statements of those active in the dispute the crucial issue was
as follows:

"As for our controversey it is whether God hath
placed the power of the elder, or in the whole
church, to judge between truth and error, right

and wrong, brother and brother, and all things of
church concernment."

 

3Rev. Thomas Parker: born in Wilts, England in 1595; studied at
Oxford; settled as pastor at Newbury in 1635; died on April 24, 1677;
Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana (Boston, 1852), pp. 481-87.

4

 

Rev. James Noyes: born in Choulderton.

SJoshua Coffin, Sketch of the History of Newbury (Boston, 1845),
p. 73, gives the best documented account of the struggle; for additional
material see Mather's Magnalia I, pp. 433-41, Savages, Winthropfs Journal

 

 

II, p. 137; Alexander Young's Chronicles of the Pilgrims, p. 402.

 

6Coffin, Ibid., p. 87.

The group Opposed to the ministers' acting as Elders claimed that the
right of participation in such decisions was denied to them and that
. . . . . . 7

only the minister exerc1sed the power of disc1p11ne. The essence of
the trouble lay in the question of whose hands the power of church
discipline was committed. The ministers were certain that it should
be in the hands of themselves as Elders, while groups of laymen were
tenacious about their rights and were exceedingly resentful of any
real or supposed encroachment on the congregation or its representatives
as elders. The ministers Parker and Noyes definitely favored a more
Scottish Presbyterianism method of operating the church; they were
suspicious of democracy, and they were persistent in holding to the
more Presbyterian manner of doing things. Neither Parker nor Noyes
were willing to change their views on the matter; Rev. James Noyes,
about four years after the Cambridge Ministerial Convention of 1643,
published his views in a tract entitled "The Temple Measured, or a
Brief survey of the Temple mystical, which is instituted church of
Christ." He said:

"The church is to be carried, not to carry; to

obey, not to command; to be subject not to

govern. If all members, young and old,

children and men, if thousands together must

judge and govern upon conscience together with

the presbyta; first it must needs interrupt

the work; second, it is work enough, a double

labor for the elders to instruct the church

how to judge. There is more time spent in

informing the church, than in determining the

case. Third, pride is an epidemical disease

in a democratical government. Who is sufficient
to hold the reins of authority? Were there

 

7Coffin, Ibid., p. 87.

no

ant

ofi

co:

Neither
another met but
The matters in ‘
satisfactory 50:
called together
or to change the
decision of the
England were no
Presbyterianism
declared themse
privilege of co
There were othe
Newbury ministe
pastor of the l

Hubbard in his

no standing magistrates in the commonwealth,

and in the church, no governors at all, the

offspring is like to be an Ichabod Fourth

confusion and disorder are inevitable.”8

Neither side would concede; one ecclesiastical council after

another met but all were equally unable to resolve the difficulties.
The matters in dispute were taken before the Court in Salem without a
satisfactory solution. The Ministerial Convention of 16439 which was
called together to consider the dispute was unable to heal the rupture
or to change the views of the Newbury ministers. However, the
decision of the Convention proved that the other ministers of New
England were not willing to adopt the views of the champions of
Presbyterianism. The vast majority of the ministers of New England
declared themselves in favor of giving to the lay membership a limited
privilege of consent or dissent regarding the action of the Elders.
There were other New England pastors who favored the policy of the
Newbury ministers. One man we know of in particular. Rev. Peter HobartfO

pastor of the Hingham, Mass., church inclined toward the same views.

Hubbard in his general History of New England describes Hobart as

 

"A man well quafified with ministerial abilities,
though not fully persuaded of the congregational
discipline as some others were. . . . The pastor
was reported to be of a Presbyterial spirit,

and managed all affairs without the advice

 

8Coffin, Ibid., pp. 72-3; quoted from James Noyes, "The Temple
Measured."

9Walker, Williston, The Creeds and Platform of Congregationalism
(New York, 1893), p. 138.

10Peter Hobart was the first minister of Hingham, Mass., beginning
in 1635; for additional information on his attitude, and the situation
at Hingham see Mather's Magnalia I, pp. 448-52; History of Hingham, Mass.,
pp. 121, 159, 156; Savage's Winthrop, II, 222, 313.

 

of the brethren, which divers of the congregation
not liking, they were divided into two parts .

."11
It is likewise apparent that his Presbyterianizing tendency was no
more acceptable to the members of his church than to those in Newbury.
Wherever the ministers as Elders tried to take too much power into
their hands the lay members of the Puritan churches of New England
were inclined to resent it. Of course part of the trouble at both
Hingham and Newbury was undoubtably due to the dictatorial policies
of the pastors themselves. The significant point for this study is
the fact that these ministers were not able to win over either their
own churches or others to a Presbyterian system. What this seems to
illustrate is that from the very beginning there was Presbyterian
sentiment in New England, co-existing side by side with Congregational-
ism. Yet when Presbyterian leaders tried to fOrce their ideas on
admission and dismissals, they would meet strong resistance, even
within their own churches.

Brief notice should be taken of the effort to change the
New England ecclesiastical system in favor of the Presbyterian order

12
by means of political strategy. In the Puritan Commonwealth an

attempt was made to restrict the privilege of voting to the minority

 

11Hubbard, William, A General History of New England (Boston),
in Collections of Mass. Historical Society, XV, p. 192, XVI, p. 418.

12For a more detailed account of this episode, which has been
called a Presbyterian Cabal, see George Lyman Kitteridge's book on
Dr. Robert Child, The Remonstrant: also Palfrey, History of New England,
II, 166-179; Hubbard, General History of New England, 499-518;
WinthrOp, History of New England, 11, 319-392; Walker, Creeds . . . .,

163-181 passim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

who were m«
was restri:
their relig
as apprOpr:
of English
who profes:
were autom;
been arguec
were irked
Contents 5;
felt that ;
make all c
have their
remonstran
has denied
a further

English Pa
presbyteri
be fairly

of English
New Englan
ians had 1.
Cromwell a
and he had

EOIity Of

who were members of the recognized Church. Membership in the church
was restricted to those who could give a satisfactory statement of
their religious experience, and many in the community did not see it

as appropriate to make such a profession. According to the principles
of English and Scottish Presbyterianism, all citizens of the community
who professed a belief in Christ and desired membership in the church
were automatically considered to be members of the church. It has

been argued that the disenfranchised residents of Puritan Massachusetts
were irked by restriction of their liberties. These supposed mal-
contents saw Presbyterianism as the solution for their situation. They
felt that if a system of church government were adopted that would

make all citizens of the community church members they would then

have their civil privileges. Nevertheless, the petition which the
remonstrants presented to the General Court of Massachusetts in 1646
was denied. This did not stop the malcontents, however, from making

a further effort by surreptituously preparing a petition for the
English Parliament, praying that that body would see fit to establish
Presbyterianism in New England. Their chances of winning appeared to
be fairly good for the Presbyterians were, at the time, in control

of English affairs. Doubtless some attempt to Presbyterianize the

New England ecclesiastical system would have been made if the Presbyter-
ians had remained in control. Unfortunately for the remonstrants,
Cromwell and his army came into control of English affairs in 1647

and he had little sympathy with Presbyterianism. Thus the ecclesiastical

polity of the New England Churches was able to continue without

further serious molestation from dissident Presbyterian sources, people
who used Presbyterianism to further their desire to democratize the
churches of New England.

While the more overt Scottish type of Presbyterianism failed
to succeed in New England, and while the direct efforts of men like
Hobart, Noyes, and Parker, failed to make immediate Presbyterian
changes, the English type of Presbyterianism did move quietly into the
Congregational fold without much trouble. The reason for this is
quite plain; the New England Congregationalists did not see much
difference between the English type of Presbyterianism and their
own brand of Congregationalism.

The use of the synod as a means of controlling the various
churches and the theology in those churches was one of the very
important encroachments of Presbyterianism. This shall be discussed
more thoroughly in the next chapter but it is basically a question of
how to exert some control over churches which are suppose to be free
to decide for themselves what will be done in those particular
churches. Under the congregational system, each church is free and
independent and need not consult others concerning what goes on in
their church. The New England leaders, church and lay, recognized
quite early that this would not work. They needed some avenue of
exerting control over the churches in the colony. As the next
chapter will show, the synod was the ultimate means, although, like
the English Presbyterian synod, it would serve more as an advisory

group than a legal ecclesiastical court as used by the Scots.

Anoth
Congregatior
Faith adopts
considered t
held in New
churches, b}
at one in d;
case the Pu

The '_

between the

13
14

Another aspect of similarity between the New England
Congregationalists and the English Presbyterians was the Confession of
Faith adopted by the Westminster Assembly. The Cambridge Synod,
considered by scholars to be the most important of all the synods
held in New England,13 adopted the Confession and "put the New England

churches, by formal declaration, where they had always been in fact,

4

at one in doctrine with the Puritan party in England,"1 and in this

case the Puritan Party in England were the English Presbyterians.
The position of the elder was another example of similarity
between the two groups. The Cambridge Platform states:

"2 The Ruling Elders work is to joyn

with the Pastor 8 Teacher in those acts of
spiritual Rule which are distinct from the
ministry of the word and Sacraments committed
to them. of which sort, these be, as followeth.
I. to open 8 shutt the dores of Gods house, by
the Admission of members approved by the church:
by Ordination of officers chosen by the church:
8 by excommunication of nortorious 6 obstinate
offenders renounced by the church: 8 by res-
toring of poenitents, forgive by the church.
II. To call the church together when there

is occasion, G seasonably to dismiss them
agayn.

111. To prepare matters in private, that in
publick they may be carried an end with less
trouble, 6 more speedy dispatch.

IV. To moderate the carriage of all matters

in the church assembled. as, to propound
matters to the church, to Order the season

of speech G silence; G to pronounce sentence
according to the minde of Christ, with the
consent of the church.

V. To be Guides 8 Leaders to the church, in
all matters what-soever, pertaining to

 

13Walker, Ibid., p. 185.

14
Walker, Ibid., p. 185.

 

10

church administrations 8 actions.

VI. To see that none in the church live

inordinately out of rank 6 place; without

a calling, or Idlely in their calling.

VII. To revent 8 heal such offenses in life,

or in doctrin; as might corrupt the church.

IIX. To feed the flock of God with a word of

admonition.

IX. And as they shall be sent for, to visit, 8

to pray over their sick brethren.

X. a at other times as opportunity shall serve

thereunto."15
It would appear from this and the actual practices of the New England
churches that the position of the ruling elder was a very important
one. Of all the church offices in early New England practice none
were discussed as much as that of the ruling eldership. However, the
discussion seemed to revolve around theory and practice; to some
churches one was more important than the other. The problem seemed
to be one in which, as can be noted above in the Cambridge Platform
statement, the duties of the elder were too broad and encroached upon
the duties and responsibilities of the pastor and the congregation.16
In actual practice, then, it appears the New England churches like
their Presbyterian brethren in England modified the position of
elder. The lay membership was given the right of consent of admission,
dismissions, and discipline. Yet the clergy performed many of these
functions and there appears to be no evidence of dissent on the part

. l7 . . .
of the congregations. The exception to this is the church at

Newbury where Parker and Noyes got in trouble with their congregation

 

15Cambridge Platform, Chap. VII.; Walker, Ibid., pp. 212-13.

161. N. Tarbox, "Ruling Elders in the Early N. E. Churches,"
Congregational Quarterly, XIV; pp. 401-416 (July, 1872).

17Walker, Creeds (Philadelphia, 1893) p. 203ff. Dexter,
Congregationalism (New York, 1879), pp. 439-40.

 

11

when they insisted on the giving the elders of their church complete
control over the church government.

The custom of having elders in the local churches was practiced
in the New England churches, another indication of the extent of
English Presbyterianism in the Puritan churches. The prevalence of
this practice and others prompted Henry Martyn Dexter to say:

"All of which goes to endorse the judgment which
we have reached from other sources of evidence,
that the early Congregationalism of this

country was Barrowism, and not Brownism--a
Congregationalized Presbyterianism, or a
Presbyterianized Congregationalism--which had
its roots in the one system, and its branches

in the other."1

One of the early concerns of the leaders of the Congregational
church was uniformity. How could the local congregations be influenced
if they were in error, either in their theology or polity? One
method was to question a particular church's judgment by sending
them a letter; this was the case when the Salem church chose Roger
Williams as their teacher. The General Court in Boston wrote to
Endicott to remind him of Williams' refusal to serve a church in
Boston because he believed the magistrate could not punish for a
breach of the Sabbath. The Court could not understand how Salem
could have acted without consulting the magistrates; this followed

with a request to "forbear to proceed" until the two groups conferred.20

 

18Larzer Ziff, Career of John Cotton (Princeton, 1962),
p. 207.

19

 

Dexter, Congregationalism, p. 463.

 

20Winthrop, Journal, I, p. 62.

 

"V‘s Iriflihufl't" b.‘.lfi Duo lo! I It.“
s

.[ IN

.1

mr

. \
Milli

12

Later, in May, 1635, after Williams had become the minister in Salem
the General Court took civil action against the Salem people, barred
Endicott from the Court for a year, and in July refused the Salem
petition for some land "because they had chosen Mr. Williams their
teacher, while he stood under question of authority, and so offered
contempt to the magistrates."21 So it would seem that very early in
the history of the churches of New England any attempts at independence
or autonomy would be checked if they ran counter to the General
Court.

In 1653 the General Court again interceded when the Second
Church of Boston wanted Michael Powell for its pastor. As the General
Court found him objectionable it passed an order concerning preaching
without an allowance.22 Although it was found unsatisfactory and
repealed the next session, it nevertheless illustrates the point
made earlier, the autonomy of the local churches was questioned early.

While this very official action took place, there was another
area of control over local churches that was developing; this was the
ecclesiastical council. Professor Dexter clearly indicates that
New England Congregationalism is distinguished from Independency by
the question of the use of the council. He states that since all
local churches belong to the one family of the Lord, they necessarily
owe to each other sisterly affection and activity, the normal exercise
of which takes the name of the communion of the churches. These

councils operated to promote the common good for all the churches;

 

21Winthrop, Journal, I, p. 155.

22Mass. Col. Rec., iii, p. 293, 294, 331.

 

13

their next step would be to form councils with greater authority and
these would become known as synods.

The polity of the Presbyterian church is such that the synod
came after the local congregation and the presbytery in its authority
over the various councils. This was not true in New England. Here
the synod, or consociations as they were sometimes called, stood
after the congregations in order of precedence and authority.

However, their power closely resembled the power of the synod in the
Presbyterian church.

Between 1637 and 1708 there were seven synods held in New
England. All were important in that they showed the New England
churches' commitment to the deveIOpment of the synod as a means towards
achieving some uniformity in their churches. It also indicated an
inclination toward Presbyterianism and the advantages it offered
over the less structured and less disciplined Congregationalism.

A. SYNOD OF 1637:

The first synod held in New England convened at New Town
(later to be called Cambridge when it was decided that a university
would be founded there) in August, 1637. Composed of all the teaching
elders in the colony and led by the Reverends Peter Bulkley and Thomas
Hooker who were moderators, this synod was concerned with the
disturbances brought on by Anne Hutchinson and John Wheelright. The
synod resolved among other things, that private members of the church
might ask questions after the sermon, but this should be done wisely

and sparingly and with the permission of the elders; however, adverse

bitter, and 1
The final act
its conclusic
however, and
development 1
leaven which

through a st.-

hhile Some }
move away f:
would Seem ,
Strong Stat
the Churche

USe of the

l4

. . . . 23
bitter, and reproachful critiCism was to be utterly condemned.

The final act in this drama was played out by the General Court and
its conclusion is familiar to all. One circumstance bears mentioning
however, and it would seem to indicate that at an early stage of
development the new New England way was moving toward the Genevan
leaven which was fermenting at home. This circumstance is seen
through a statement made after the synod:
"The assembly brake up; and it was propounded by

the governour (Winthrop) that they would consider,

that, seeing the Lord had been so graciously present

in this assembly, that matters had been carried on

so peaceably, and concluded so comfortably in all

love, etc., if it were not fit to have the like

meeting once a year, or, at least, the next year,

to settle what yet remained to be agreed, or if

but to nourish love, etc. This motion was well

liked of all, but it was not thought fit to conclude

it . "24
While some historians have chosen to interpret this as indicating a
move away from Presbyterianism which was deve10ping in England, it
would seem the opposite was true; that is, that this was an extremely
strong statement from the governor of the colony telling all that
the churches should meet periodically to settle differences. The
use of the terms "in all love" and "to nourish love" meant that all
would adhere to the decisions of the meetings. This, then, is another

indication that while the leaders of New England talked congregationalism

they were in fact leaning more and more toward adopting certain aspects

 

23A Short Story of the Rise, Reign and Ruine of the Antinomiags,
Familists G Libertines that infected the Churches of New England: and
how they were confuted by the Assembly of Ministers there, etc. (1644);
Winthrop I, p. 284-287; Felt I, 311-319.

 

 

 

 

24Winthrop I: p. 2871.

15

presbyterianism. However, before this is discussed further, there
were additional synods that are worth considering.
B. SYNOD OF 1646:

The reasons for the calling of this synod are best understood
by going to the order passed by the General Court in May, 1646; this
order expressed the desire that the churches of Massachusetts send
their Elders and Messengers to sit in a Synod in Cambridge on the lst
of September next ensuing "to discuss, dispute 8 cleare up, by the
word of God, such questions of church government 6 discipline" in
certain points before suggested, and others, "as they shall think
needful G meete;" and requested the churches "within the jurisdictions
of Plymouth, Connecticut, 6 New Haven, to send their elders 8 messenger
to the Assembly, . . . who, being so sent, shall be received as
parts 5 members thereof, 8 shall have like liberty 8 power of disputing
G voting therein, as shall the messengers G elders of the churches
within jurisdiction of the Massachusetts."25 The four churches
absent were Boston, Salem, Hingham, and Concord. In the case of
Concord it seems they were unable to find someone suitable to attend.
Hingham's experiences of the recent past were such they would not
see fit to respond to an invitation from the General Court. The
more serious absences were Boston, the largest church, and Salem,

the oldest church. The exception they took was stated:

 

25Massachusetts Col. Rec., ii: 155-56.

16

"1. Because by a grant in the Liberties the elders
had liberty to assemble without the compliance of
civil authority, 2. It was reported, that this
motion came originally from some of the elders,
and not from the court, 3. In the order was ex-
pressed, that what the major part of the assembly
should agree upon should be presented to the court,
that they might give such allowance to it as
should be meet, hence was inferred that this

synod was appointed by the elders, to the extent
to make ecclesiastical laws to bind the churches,
and to have the sanction of the civil authority
put upon them."26

Winthrop states that the men who advanced these opinions had just
arrived from England where this kind of liberty was sought and allowed
by those supporting Independency. This would seem to add to the
previously stated Opinion of Dexter about the differences between the
Independents and the New England Congregationalists.27 Because
of early difficulties, namely the reluctance of four churches to
attend and the onset of an epidemic, the initial charge to John
Cotton, Richard Mather, and Ralph Partridge to draw up a plan of a
Scriptural Model of Church Government was not considered by the Synod
as a whole until August 15-25, 1648. The Mather statement was the
one finally agreed upon. Of the platform's seventeen sections the
sixteenth is the one of particular importance. It is of sufficient
import that it deserves to be quoted in its entirety:

"Synods orderly assembled, G rightly proceeding

according to the pattern, Acts 15. We acknowledge
as the ordinance of Christ: 8 though not absolutely

 

26Winthrop, II, p. 329.

27Winthrop, II, p. 329.

17

necessary to the being, yet many times, through
the iniquity of men, 8 perversness of times,
necessary to the welbeing of churches, for the
establishment of truth, a peace therin.

. Synods being spiritual 8 ecclesiastical assemblyes,
are therefore made up of spiritual 8 ecclesiasticall
causes. The next efficient cause of them under
Christ, is the power of the churches, sending

fOrth their Elders, (6) other messengers; who being
mett together in the name of Christ, are the matter
of a Synod: 8 they in argueing, debating 8
determining matters of religion according to the
word, a publishing the same to the churches whom

it concerneth, doe put forth the proper 6 formall
acts of a Synod; to the convictio of errours, G
heresyes, G the establishment of truth 5 peace in
the Churches, which is the end of a Synod.

. Magistrates, have power to call a Synod, by calling
to the Churches to send fOrth their Elders 5

other messengers, to counsel 8 assist them in
matters of religion: but yett the constituting

of a Synod, is a church act, 6 may be transacted
by the churches, even when civil magistrates may

by enemyes to churches and to church assemblyes.

It belongeth unto Synods & counsels, to debate 6
determine controversies of faith, 8 cases of conscience;
to cleare from the word holy directions for the
holy worship of God, 6 good government of the
church; to beare witness against mal-administration
G (27) Corruption in doctrine or maners in any
particular Church, 8 to give directions for the
reformation therof: Not to exercise Church-
censures in way of discipline, nor any other act

of church authority or jurisdiction: which that
presidentiall Synod did fOrbeare.

. The Synods directions 6 determinations, so farr

as consonant to the word of God, are to be received
with reverence 8 submission; not only fOr their
agreement therwith (which is the principall ground
therof, 8 without which they bind not at all:)

but also secondarily, for the powr wherby they

are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed
therunto in his word.

. Because it is difficult, if not impossible, fer
many churches to come altogether in oneplace, in
all their members universally: therefore they

18

may assemble by their delegates or messengers,

as the church of Antioch went not all to Jerusalem,
but some select men for that purpose. Because
none are or should be more fitt to know the state
of the churches, nor to advise of wayes fbr the
good therof then Elders; therfore it is fitt that
in the choice of messengers for such assemblies,
they have special respect to such. Yet in as

much as not only Paul G Barnabas, but certayn
others also were sent to Jerusalem from Antioch.
Acts 15 6 when they were come to Jerusalem, not
only the Apostles G Elders, but other brethren

also doe assemble, 6 meet about the matter; therefore
Synods are to consist both of Elders, 5 other
church members, endued with gifts, 6 sent by the
churches, not excluding the presence of any bre—
thren in the churches."28

The question now arises concerning the authority of the synod. It
has been argued that they were only advisory and could not enforce
any of their decisions. Chapter Sixteen refutes this argument quite
clearly. For example, it states that the synod as a spiritual and
ecclesiastical body determines matters of religion according to the
word, the word as determined by the synod. It continues by stating
that it will establish truth and peace in the churches; I would
suggest that this is extensive authority that was given to the synod.
In paragraph three of this same chapter, it states that the
Magistrates have the power to call a synod; implicit in this is the
tremendous authority and prestige of the Magistrates in the colony
so that any function they may deem to call amounts to an order for
all to hear and obey.

Continuing in paragraph four, the synod is given the

power to reform a church that is corrupt in manner and doctrine.

 

28Walker, Creeds, p. 233-34.

 

 

 

19

While there is a caution against censuring a church, in actual
practice the men at the synod as the most powerful and prestigious
church leaders in the colony had the ultimate of influence over
individual churches they might be trying to reform. This is empha-
sized in paragraph five which declared that not only were the churches
to receive the statements of the synod with reverence and submission
but the power of the synod was that of an ordinance from God. It
would seem quite difficult if not impossible for a particular church
in Massachusetts or Connecticut to go against an eminent group of
laymen and clergy meeting together as a synod.

The results of the synod were presented to the Churches and
the General Court in 1649 and in October of that year the Court
judged:

"it is meete to coment it to the judicyous and pious
consideracion of the severall churches within this
jurisdiccon, desiring a retourne from them at the
next Gennerll Courte hou farr it is suitable to their
judgments and app. bacon, befbre the Courte p.ceeds
any farhter therein."29
After a few minor objections were satisfied, the Court in October, 1651,
thanked all concerned and voted "to give their testimony to the said
booke of discipline, that, fer the substance thereof, it is that wee
have practised and doe believe."30 This would seem to remove any

doubt regarding the power of this particular synod with respect to

the declaration of the General Court and the various churches.

 

29Mass. Col. Rec., iii: 178.

 

30Mass. Col. Rec. iv (1): s7, 58.

 

20

Henry Martyn Dexter has maintained that the synods were for advice
and for the moral power of persuasion only, but again this does not
appear to be the case when one reviews the statements of the synod
and the support they received from the General Court.
C. SYNOD OF 1662

Next to the Cambridge Synod, perhaps the most famous synod
held in New England was the Half Way Covenant Synod, also known as
the Synod of 1662.31

The concern of those who met at the Synod of 1662 was the
extension of the baptism rites to those who were outside the covenant.
When the meeting had ended the decision would mark a new period in
the history of New England orthodoxy. While the decision to extend
baptism was made and while it would have the full weight of the
majority of the members of the synod, the controversey over the Half
Way Covenant would rage into the eighteenth century. Nevertheless,
the decision was made and the power of the synod would carry the day.

Next, it was the General Court's task to consider the
proposals. Although the Court rejected the proposals temporarily,
later "the Court, on their perusall, judged it meete to commend the
same unto consideration of all the churches & people of this

32
jurisdiction, and for that end ordered the printing thereof."

At this point both the church through the synod and the State through

 

31Many books and articles have discussed this synod; the best are
ones written by Edmund Morgan, Visible Saints (Ithaca, 1962), and
Robert Pope, The Half-Way Covenant (Princeton, 1969).

32

 

 

Massachusetts Records, 4, Part 2, p. 62.

 

21

the General Court stood by the finding of the Synod. The majority
of the churches accepted this new doctrine, but there were a few
who showed continued reluctance; these two groups were divided
between churches which believed that this new covenant was too
liberal and would destroy the purity of their churches of visible
saints and those churches like Northampton which believed that the
synod had not gone far enough by extending the sacrament of holy
communion to all. The first group which we could call conservative
would divide again into two groups: the very strict Congregationalist
and the Baptists. Those who remained and might be called the liberals
constituted the vast majority and tended more and more toward a
presbyterian form of church governance through the clergy and elders.
This group was strongly controlled by the belief that the church in
New England needed guiding controls to keep it on the true path of the
church as perceived by the leaders; the way of maintaining this
control was through the synod and the General Court. This was done
quite successfully as the various synods proved.
D. SYNOD OF 1679

In the Spring of 1679 after the colonies of New England had
suffered many calamities such as sickness and Indian wars, the
feeling quickly developed that God was for some reason displeased with
his elect. Consequently, the reverend Elders of the Massachusetts
Colony petitioned the General Court to take action. The response was
to order a Synod called which met September 10-20, 1679. Two

questions were to be considered:

22
"Quaest. I. What are the euills that haue provoked
the Lord to bring his judgments on New England?

2. Quaest. What is to be donn that so many evills may
be reformed?"3

The Synod spent several days discussing the subject; the result was
written and refined by a committee and their report was unanimously
adopted by the Synod. As one would expect from past experience, the
General Court at its October session approved the actions of the Synod
and commended it to the people, "to the serious consideration of all
the churches and people." The Court further enjoined and required:

"All persons in their seuerall capacities concerned,

to a careful and diligent reformation of all those

provoking evills mentioned therein, according to the

true intent thereof, that so the anger and displeasure

of God, which hath binn many wayes manifested, maybe

averted from this poore people, and his favour and

blessing obteyned, as in fOrmer tjimes."34

With this strong endorsement, the Synod was very successful
in the good effect it had on the people; many ministers were inspired
to work harder with their people, resulting in many churches
renewing their covenant with God.35
There was more evidence that this Synod was moving the

churches of New England toward a much broader base than had previously
been thought possible. On re-reading the order by the Court calling
the Synod, one finds that the reverend elders had asked that the Synod

be held "for the reuisall of the platforme of discipline agreed

 

33Mass. Col. Rec., V: 215.

 

34Mass. Col. Rec., V: 244.

 

35Mather, Magnalia, V, 95.

23

upon by the churches, in 1647, and what else may appeare necessary
for the preventing schishmes, haeresies, prophaness, 8 the establish-
ment of the churches in one faith 6 order of the gospell;" and the
Court directed the body to assemble "for the ends aforesaid."36
Thus it would seem that the first order of business was to consider
how those present at the Synod felt about the Cambridge Platform.
Some time was spent early in the Synod to read and consider the
platform, after which they "unanimously approve of the said Platform,
for the Substance of it; desiring that the Churches may continue
steadfast in the Order of the Gospel, according to what is therein
declared from the Word of God."37

Cotton Mather, writing less than twenty years after the
Synod of 1679, believed this phrase to be one of qualification.
Continuing he specifies four areas where the Current New England
opinion had departed from the Platform. Of these four points the
fourth is the one in which a movement towards a Presbyterianism
previously denied by the reverend elders is very obvious. The fourth
point is concerned with the admission of members to the church and
it "hath been as Difficult as any of the rest" to be considered.
In the Platform it advised that the "weakest measure" be used to

determine real faith and "that a personal and publick confession, and

declaring of Gods manner of working upon the soul, is both lawful,

 

36Mass. Col. Rec., v: 215.

 

37Mather, Maggalia, V: 39.

24

expedient and useful."38 While some churches maintained a very severe

examination, many were adopting a practice where the minister deter-
mined who would be admitted to privileges of church membership and
then he communicated his satisfaction to the church membership.39
Cotton Mather's explanation agrees with other sources and would seem
to indicate that when the New England churches passed into the
eighteenth century many were Openly avowing that baptism and a
morally correct life entitled a person to full communion in the Lord's
Supper without his having to prove his piety to the clergy or elders.
Of course there were those who were not yet prepared to go this far,
but they appeared to acquiesce in such a view to the degree that
it produced "no troublesome Variance or Contention among them."40
Another problem discussed at the time of the Synod of 1679

was the differences in regard to the seat and amount of power over
churches as well as in the churches themselves. Here the discussion
of the power of synods entered and we find the clergy at Cambridge
advanced so far to teach that:

Synods being of Apostolical example, recommended as a

necessary Ordinance, it is but reasonable, that

their Judgment be acknowledged as Decisive, in the

Affairs for which they are ordained; and to deny

them the Power of such Judgment, is to render a

necessary Ordinance of none effect."41

It was admitted that there were certain items that the Elders should

 

38Platform, Chap. xii, Sec. 5.

39Mather, Magnalia, V: 226. Ratio Disciplinae, etc., 88.
4ORatio Disciplinae, etc., 84.

“Mather, Magnalia, v: 45.

25

take to the membership of the particular church for their advise
and Opinion:

"Nevertheless, the Pastor of a Church may be

himself Authoritatively suspend from the Lord's

Table a Brother accused or suspected of a Scandal,
till the Matter may and should be regularly examined.
The Elders of the Church, have a Negative on the

Votes of the Brethren; who, indeed, in the Exercise
of their Liberty and Privilege are under the conduct
of the Elders. To take away the Negative of the
Elders, or the Necessity of their Consent unto such
Acts, indeed is to take away all Government whatsoever,
And it is to turn the whole regimen of the Church into
a pure Democracy. And, if the Positive Of the
Brethren can supercede a Negative of the Elders,
either the Elders may be driven to do things quite
contrary unto the Light of their Conscience or

else the Brethren may pgesume to do things which
belong not unto them."

More and more as we move toward the eighteenth century we find the
pastor having the specific veto power over the whole church. The
College of Elders or the Barrowistic Presbytery as Dexter called

it as established by the Cambridge Platform had disappeared in the
majority of churches in New England, if it ever really existed in the
first place. An illustration of this is the case of the Reverend
Samuel Fisk, pastor Of the Salem church from 1718 to 1735; he dispensed
with church meeting entirely and when a church meeting was held to
consider some of his actions occasioned by his Official conduct, he
refused to comply with their findings and recommendations.43

Finally we have the account of what took place in Taunton, Massachu-

 

42N. E. Cong., etc., 111.

43The Christian History, etc., of the Revival and Propagation
of Religion (1743), i: 110.

 

 

 

 

26

setts, in the early spring of 1705; one of the results of the Half
Way Covenant Synod was that many churches renewed their covenant with
God. In many cases the freedom of the Synod's actions permitted
those who were not regenerate to enter into the covenant with the
already-churched members. The Reverend Samuel Danforth described

his church in Taunton response this way:

"It was a most comfortable Day the first of March
when we renew'd the Reformation Covenant .

only we added an Engagement to reform Idleness,
unnecessary frequenting Houses of public En-
tertainment, irreverent Behaviour in Public
Worship, Neglect of Family-Prayer, Promise-
breaking, and walking with Slanderers and
Reproachers of others; and that we should all in
our Families be subject to good Orders and
Government. It was read to the Brethren and Sisters
(those who were already members of the church)

in the Forenoon; they standing up as an outward
Sign of their inward Consent, to the rest of

the Inhabitants. In the Afternoon they (those
who were not members of the church) standing up
also when it was read; and then every one that
stood up, brought his Name ready writ in a Paper,
and put into the Box, that it might be put on
Church Record....

We gave Liberty to all Men and Women Kind, from
sixteen Years old and upwards to act with us;

and had three hundred Names given in to list
under Christ, against the Sins of the Times....
We have a hundred more that will yet bind them-
selves in the Covenant, that were then detained
from Meeting. Let God have the Glory."44

There seems then tO be very little question that the Congre—
gational churches of New England were in actuality exhibiting definite
strains of Presbyterianism. Those who feared the very word Presbyterian

were thinking of the very formal, highly structured form of Scottish

 

44The Christian History, etc., of the Revival and Propagation
of Religon (1743), i: 110.

 

 

27

Presbyterianism, while in fact the men of New England knew there were
many similarities between what they called Congregationalism and
the English Presbyterianism of their day. This was shown most
clearly in the Heads of Agreement, a document which attempted to
move the Congregationalists and Presbyterians closer together
E. HEADS OF AGREEMENT, 1691

The individuals responsible for the Heads of Agreement were
Mathew Mead, the pastor of a large Congregational church at Stepney
(then a suburb of London), John Howe, an ex-Congregationalist but
a man who believed very strongly in modifying the differences among
the Congregationalist, Presbyterians, and the Church of England people,
and Increase Mather, then serving as the agent of the Massachusetts
Colony in England.45 Mather is credited with being the man with
the strongest influence in the forming of the eventual union.
Undoubtedly the final agreement was a compromise but not as much at
the expense of the English Presbyterians as some have suspected; as
stated before and is in part the sub-thesis of this paper, the
English and Scottish Presbyterians differ significantly on church
polity.

Unquestionably the Heads of Agreement had the greatest impact
on the New England churches. Increase Mather's son Cotton preached
two very laudatory sermons on the Agreement as well as having the

document printed and circulated throughout New England in 1692.

 

45Wa1ker, Creeds, 444-45.

28

Ten years later the Heads of Agreement was given a very honored
place beside the other New England symbols in the Magnalia; Cotton
Mather called the Agreement the best possible exposition of existent
Congregationalism. Several parts of the statement, however,
indicate that it was not strictly Congregationalism anymore, but was
tending toward Presbyterianism.

The first of these statements concerns membership in the church;
the Congregationalist supporter would argue that an individual had to
prove before the congregation that he was a saint person; usually this
was accomplished through relating some religious experience. Later,
many churches amended this practice to permit an individual seeking
admission to the church to relate his experience to the pastor or
the elders or both. On the Presbyterian side all were welcomed to
the church if they professed certain beliefs and were known to have
lived a good life. In the Heads of Agreement it states:

"3. That none shall be admitted as Members,
in order to Communion in all the special
Ordinances of the Gospel, but such persons

as are knowing and sound in the fundamental
Doctrines of the Christian Religion,

without Scandal in their Lives; and to a
Judgment regulated by the Word of God, are persons
of visible Godliness and Honesty; credibly
professing cordial subjection to Jesus Christ.
4. A competent Number of such visible
Saints, (as befOre described) do become

the capable Subjects of stated Communion

in all the special Ordinances of Christ,

upon their mutual declared consent and
agreement to walk together therein

29

according to Gospel Rule. In which

declaration, different degrees of

Explicitness, shall no way hinder

such Churches from owning each other,

as Instituted Churches." 6
Those who have argued that this was a compromise in favor of the
Congregationalists are mistaken; the above statement indicates a
tendency toward more open membership, not the extremely restrictive
requirements thought to have been presented by the various churches
in New England of the seventeenth century.

Another problem presented by this definition of differences
between Presbyterian and Congregational concerns the power of the
congregation compared to the power of the pastor and the elders. It
has been argued that in the Congregational churches the people were
consulted on almost every matter and could as a group overrule the
elected elders and the pastor. However, we find this was not the
case and find in the Heads of Agreement this statement:

"7. In the Administration of Church Power,
it belongs to the Pastors and other

Elders of every particular church (if such
there be) to Rule and Govern: and the
Brotherhood to Consent, according to the
Rule of the Gospel."47

In another matter of what has been taught was common Congregational
church polity is the "electing" of a minister for a particular church.

Again it had always been thought that each church was the first and

only party in the decision that a man was to be pastor of a church,

 

46Wa1ker, Ibid., p. 457.

47Walker, Ibid., p. 458.

30

without outside considerations or consultations. While this may have

been practiced in a few churches, generally there was the feeling that

others in the colony should be consulted so that unqualified men would

not be accepted by churches. In fact, it was an attempt on the part

of the ruling elders and pastors of the colony to maintain some

understandable standards. The Heads of Agreement clearly states this

premise.

"4. That in so great and weighty a matter
as the calling and chusing a Pastor,

we jugd it ordinarily requisite, That

every such Church consult and advise with
the Pastors of Neighboring Congregations.

5. That after such Advice the Person
consulted about, being chosen by the

Brotherhood of that particular Church over
which he is to be set, and he accepting, be duly
ordained, and set apart to his Office over

them; wherein 'tis ordinarily requisite,

That the pastors of Neighbouring Congre-

gations concur with the Preaching-Elder,

or Elders, if such there be.

6. That whereas such Ordination is only
intended for such as never before had been
ordained to the Ministerial Office; .

7. It is expedient, that they who enter
on the work of Preaching the Gospel,

be not only qualified for Communion of
Saints; but also that, except in cases
extraordinary, they give proof of their
Gifts and fitness fOr the said work,

unto the Pastors of Churches, of known
abilities to discern and judge of their
qualifications; That they may be sent
forth with Solemn Approbation and Prayer;
which we judge needful, that no doubt
may remain concerning their being Called
to the Work; and for preventing (as much
as in us lieth) Ignorant and rash Intru-
ders."48

 

48Walker, Ibid., p. 460.

31

Again to repeat, it is Obvious that a church's choice of minister

was not exclusively its own. Many others in the colony were involved
and it would appear from the statement above that these others had
something very close to a veto over the choice of the individual
candidate chosen by the particular church.

The discussion of the independence of the Congregational
churches next considers the subject of the relationship between
churches. As pointed out previously each church congregation was
believed to be completely independent, an often propounded tenet
of congregational polity. In the Heads of Agreement it states:

"1. We Agree, that Particular Churches

ought not to walk so distinct and separate

from each other, as not to have care

and tenderness towards one another. But

their Pastors ought to have frequent

meetings together, that by mutual Advice,

Support, Encouragement, and Brotherly intercourse,
they may strengthen the hearts and hands

of each other in the ways of the Lord.

3. That known Members of particular churches,
constituted as afOresaid, may have

occasional Communion with one another in the
Ordinances of the Gospel, viz. the Word,

Prayer, Sacraments, Singing Psalms, dis-

pensed according to the mind of Christ: Unless
that Church, with which they desire

Communism, hath any just exception against
them."

Communion between churches does not end here for the statement

continues:

 

49Walker, Ibid., p. 460.

32

”1. We agree, That in order to concord, and

in any other weighty and difficult cases, it

is needful, and according to the mind

of Christ, that the Ministers of several

Churches be consulted and advised with

about such matters.

2. That such Meetings may consist of smaller

or greater Numbers, as the matter shall

require.

3. That particular Churches, their

respective Elders, and Members, ought to

have a reverential regard to their judgment

so given, and not dissent therefrom, without

apparent grounds from the word of God."
This is some very strong language, and it would seem the churches of
the colony were put in a position that it was extremely difficult not
to obey or follow the practices Of the councils.
F. THE PROPOSALS OF 1705

These last meetings came at a time when there was great

concern in Massachusetts and Connecticut over the prevalent strictness
of some of the churches. The controversey is best illustrated by
the sharply contrasting philosophies present in the intellectual center
of the Commonwealth, Boston. This difference took the fOrm of
two separate camps, the make-up of which has been grossly misunderstood.
For example, historians have described the two different philosophies
as conservative and liberal; the conservatives led by Increase Mather,

teacher of the Second Church of Boston, and the liberals led by William

and Thomas Brattle, John Leverett, Ebenezer Pemberton and Benjamin Colman.

 

SOWalker, Ibid., p. 461.

33

While some have argued that the conservatives were representing
a return to more strict Congregationalism and that the liberals were
representing a move toward more Presbyterianism, this does not seem
to be supported by the facts of the situation. Receiving support from
his son, Cotton Mather, and other ministers like James Allen of the
Boston First Church, John Higginson and Nicholas Noyes of Salem,
William Hubbard of Ipswish, Samuel Cheever of Marblehead, and Joseph
Gerrish of Wenham, Increase Mather believed that the true method of
improving the religious conditions of New England was to be found
in returning to the principles of the colony's early founders as stated
in the Cambridge Platform. This meant that discipline would be
enforced in the churches and churches would be watched over by
councils, thus preventing the development of looser discipline and
procedure; what this really meant was that there would be an increase
in ministerial and synodical authority.

The means by which these men tried to achieve their objectives
became apparent in September, 1705, when an Association of ministers
met and considered what we know as the Proposals of 1705. Agreement
among those attending came in November of that same year. Generally
what they attempted was to answer this question:

"What fUrther Steps are to be taken, that the
Councils may have due Constitution and
Efficacy in supporting, preserving, and

well ordering the Interestglof the
Churches in the Country.?"

 

51John Wise, Churches Quarrel Espoused, pp. 1-4.

34

The answers to this question are extremely significant because they

show the direction the churches of New England had taken throughout

most of the seventeenth century; the answers also represent the thinking
of those who heretofore had been considered conservative and the
purporters of formal and strict Congregationalism. Consequently, the
answers are quoted directly:

"lst, That the Ministers of the Country form
themselves into Associations, that may meet at proper
times to Consider such things as may properly lie
before them, Relating to their own faithfulness
towards each other, and the common Interest of the
Churches; and that each of those Associations have a
Moderator for a certain time, who shall continue till
another be Chosen, who may call them together upon
Emergencies.

In these Associations,
2dly, That Questions and Cases of importance,
either provided by themselves or by others presented
unto them, should be upon due deliberation Answered.

3dly, That Advice be taken by the Associated
Pastors from time to time, e're they Proceed to any
action in their Particular Churches, which be likely
to produce any imbroilments. That the Associated
Pastors do Carefully and Lovingly treat each other
with that watchfulness which may be of Universal
Advantage; and that if any Minister be accused to the
Association whereto he belongs, of Scandal or Heresie,
the matter shall be there examined, and if the
Associated Ministers find just accusation fOr it, they
shall direct to the Calling of a Council, by whom such
an offender is to be proceeded against.

4thly, That the Candidates of the Ministry undergo
a due Tryal by some one or other of the Associations,
concerning their Qualifications for the Evangelical
Ministry; and that no particular Pastor or Congregation
Imploy any one in Occasional Preaching, who has not
been Recommended by a Testimonial under the Hands
of some Association.

3S

5thly, That they should together be consulted by
Bereaved Churches, to Recommend to them such Persons
as may be fit to be imployed amongst them for present
Supply, from whom they may in due time proceed to
chuse a Pastor.

6thly, That hereunto may be referred the Direction
of Proceeding in any of their particular Churches,
about the Convening of Councils that shall be thought
necessary, for the Welfare of the Churches.

7thly, That the several Associations in the Country,
maintain a due Correspondence with one another, that
so the state of Religion may be better known and
secured in all the Churches, and particularly it is
thought necessary to the well-being of these Churches,
that all the Associations of the Country meet together
by their Respective Delegates once in a year.

8th1y, And finally, that Ministers Disposed to
Associate, endeavour in the most efficacious manner
they can, to Prevail with such Ministers as unreasonably
neglect such Meetings with their Brethren in their
proper Associations, that they would not expose them-
selves to the Inconveniencies that such Neglects
cannot but be attended withal.

Second Part, It is Proposed,

lst, That these Associated Pastors, with a proper
Number of Delegates from their several Churches, be
formed into a standing or stated Council, which shall
Consult, Advise and Determine all Affairs that shall be
proper matter for the consideration of an Ecclesiastical
Council within their respective Limits, except always,
the Cases are such as the Associated Pastors judge
more convenient to fall under the Cognizance Of some
other Council.

2dly, That to this end these Associated Pastors,
with their Respective Churches, shall Consociate and
Combine according to what has been by the Synods Of
these Churches recommended, that they act as Consociated
Churches in all holy Watchfulness and Helpfulness
towards each other; and that each Church choose and
depute one or more to Attend their Pastor, as Members
of the Council in their Stated Sessions, or occasionally,
as Emergencies shall call for.

3dly, That these Messengers from the several Consociated
Churches shall be chosen once a year at the least.

 

1w. 1;..E.V.mra. “sills..- I

in Iv . ., 141w
“View.

 

36

4thly, It is propounded, as that which from our be-
ginning has been Recommended, that the Churches thus
Consociated for these purposes, have a stated time to
meet in their Council, and once in a year seems little
enough, that they may Inquire into the Condition of the
Churches, and Advise such things as may be for the
Advantage of our holy Religion. But the more particular
time is best left to the Determination of each respective
Association.

5thly, That the Associations shall Direct when
there is Occasion for this Council to Convene, on any
Emergency, and shall direct whether the whole, or only
a certain Number Of these Consociated Pastors and
Churches shall Convene on such Occasions.

6thly, It appears agreeable to the present
Condition of our Churches, and from our beginnings
acknowledged, That no Act of the Councils are to be
reckoned as Concluded and decisive, for which there
has not been the Concurrence of the Major part of
the Pastors therein concerned.

7thly, The Determinations of the Councils thus
Provided, for the necessities of the Churches, are to
be looked upon as final and decisive, except agrieved
Churches and Pastors have weighty Reasons to be the
contrary, in which cases there should be Provision for
a further hearing; and it seems proper that the Council
Convened on this occasion, should consist of such
Pastors as may be more for number than the former, and
they should be such, as shall be directed to, and
convened for this purpose by the Ministers of an
Association, near to that whereto these of the former
Council belonged, unto which the agrieved should
according apply themselves, and in this way expect a
final issue.

8th1y, If a particular Church will not be
Reclaimed by Council from such gross Disorders as
plainly hurt the common Interest of Christianity,
and are not meer tolerable differences in Opinion,
but are plain Sins against the Command 6 Kingdom
of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Council is to declare
that Church no longer fit fOr Communion with the
Churches of the Faithful; and the Churches rep-
resented in the Council, are to Approve, confirm and
Ratifie the Sentence, and with-draw from the Communion
of the Church that would not be healed; Nevertheless,
if any Members Of the disorderly Church, do not

37

justifie their Disorders, but suitably testifie against

them, these are still to be received to the wonted

Communion by the Churches; and if after due waiting,

the Church be not recovered, they may upon [Advice]

be actually taken in as Members of some other Church

in the Vicinity.

These PrOposals were Assented to by the Delegates

of the Association, eet according to former Agreement,

at B. . September 13th, 1705. To be Commended

to the several Associated Ministers in the several

parts of the Country, to be duly Considered, that so,

what may be judged for the Service of our Great

Lord, and his Holy Churches, may be further Proceeded

in."
The formal approval by the Minister's Convention took place on
May 30, 1706, and there is little doubt that these proposals repre-
sented a wide-spread feeling in New England favoring a stricter
church government. It is also significant that this feeling
was shared by such liberals as Ebenezer Pemberton and Benjamin
Colman. As a consequence, there is no substance to the argument that
these proposals represented the work Of a small faction of ministers
led by the Mather's; in fact these proposals represented the vast

2

majority of Boston churches and their leaders.5

Despite some powerful support, the Proposals failed to produce
the results desired by its advocates, participants and writers. The
reasons for this is quite simple; for the first time in the history
of synods in New England the General Court refused to support the

Proposals and without this support, a stricter church system in

Massachusetts was impossible. Governor Joseph Dudley, no friend of

 

52Walker, Creeds, p. 491.

38

Congregationalism or of Presbyterianism, showed that clerical influence
Of the past in Massachusetts had ended; he did this by withholding
his support of the Proposals. This does not, however, detract from
the importance of the Proposals, for it is that they represented in
the minds of the ministers of Massachusetts that is significant. It is
a fact that the Proposals represent the culmination Of several decades
of thought in Massachusetts, all beginning with the Cambridge Plathrm;
it also indicates that the conservatives and some of the liberals
may have accepted certain forms of Presbyterianism.
G. THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM OF 1708
While the Proposals were failing to take hold in Massachusetts,

similar and related proposals were progressing and eventually succeeding
in Connecticut. One only has to compare the pr0posals and the
Saybrook platform to find that those who wrote the later had read the
Massachusetts' Proposals of 1705. The calling of the Saybrook synod
also indicated that the thought present in Connecticut was quite
similar to that of Massachusetts. This can be seen by reading the
Connecticut General Court's call for a synod;

"This Assembly, from their own Observation and

from the complaint of many others, being

made sensible of the defects of the discipline

of the churches of this government,

arising from the want of a more explicite

asserting the rules given for that end in

the holy scriptures, from which arise a

firm establishment amongst ourselves,

a good and regular issue in cases subject

to ecclesiastical discipline, glory to

Christ our head, and edification to his

members, hath seen fit to ordein and

require, and it is by authoritie of the same
ordeined and required, that the ministers of

39

the churches in the several counties of this
government shall meet together at their
respective counties towns, with such
messengers as the churches to which they
belong shall see cause to send with them on
the last Monday in June next, there to
consider and agree upon those methods and
rules for the management of ecclesiastical
discipline which by them shall be judged
agreeable and conformable to the word

of God, and shall at the same meeting
appoint two or more of their number to be
their delegates, who shall all meet
together at Saybrook, at the next
Commencement to be held there, when they
shall compare the results of the ministers
of the several counties, and out of and
from them to draw a form of ecclesiastical
discipline which by two or more persons
delegated by them shall be Offered to this
Court at their sessions at Newhaven in
October next, to be considered of and
confirmed by them, and that the expense of
the above mentioned meetings be defrayed
out of the publick treasury Of this Colonie."

The synod met at Saybrook on September 9, 1708, and while
there is no record of their daily discussions we know what the final
results of the Synod were. It seems its first decision involved
adding the Savoy Confession as adopted by the Massachusetts Synod of
1680 to the Plathrm as the doctrinal basis of the Connecticut
churches. Next they adopted the Heads of Agreement, a statement which
the Mathers believed was the best exposition of Congregationalism
but was in fact more Presbyterian in its polity.

Before the calling and meeting Of this synod the county

delegates were asked to prepare statements concerning church discipline.

 

SSWalker, Ibid., pp. 499-500.

40

When the synod met they considered each statement and decided on the
one by the New Haven delegates. The result was fifteen "Articles for
the Administration of Church Discipline" and this was to be the very
heart of the polity of the Connecticut churches. It was in this
statement that we find the culmination of what had been developing
in New England throughout the seventeenth century. While terms like
association and consociation are used they are in fact presbyeries
and synods in the English Presbyterian sense. Later in this paper
we will discuss the impact of this platform on the relations between
the Connecticut churches and the Presbyterians of the Middle Colonies,
but suffice to say that the cooperation between the two groups was
extensive.

As further evidence of the importance the churches of
Connecticut placed on this Platform, it was sent immediately to
the General Court for its approval. It was enacted into law on
October, 1708, with this statement:

The Reverend Ministers delagates from the

elders and messengers of the churches in this
government, met at Saybrook, September 9th, 1708
having presented to this Assembly a Confession
of Faith, Heads of Agreement, and Regulations

in the Administration of Church Discipline, as
unanimously agreed and consented to by the
elders and messengers of all the churches in
this government: This Assembly do declare

their great approbation of such a happy
agreement, and do ordain that all the churches
within this government that are or shall be

thus united in doctrine, worship, and discipline
be, and for the future shall be owned and
acknowledged established by law. Provided
always, that nothing herein shall be intended
and construed to hinder or prevent any society
or church that is or shall be allowed by the

41

laws of this government, who soberly differ or
dissent from the united churches hereby
establish, from exercising worship and discipline
in their own way, according to their consciences.

It appears that the Hartford and New London Counties accepted
the Platform as it came from the Synod, but New Haven fOund it too
strict and Fairfield found it too liberal. Consequently the
Fairfield group met as a council on March 16 and 17, 1709, and agreed
to a document that was more strict in church discipline than the
Saybrook Platform, in that it had a more judicial tone.SS For
example the Consociation became a full fledged church court with
the power to excommunicate a delinquent church. Walker states
that this "was an interpretation not far removed from Presbyter-
ianism."S6

To summarize to this point, we can see the movement of the
New England churches away from the independency they had been supporting.
They had moved steadily toward a presbyterian-styled church, one in
which the clergy and elders with the cooperation of the General
Court's control the religious life of the colony. They had no
intention of giving up any power to the independency movement; they
wanted to control what was being preached in the pulpit by deciding
who would preach in their churches and thereby control what was preached.

Out next effort is to consider who some of the leaders were in

the various synods and hopefully to better understand these synods and

their polity.

 

S4Conn. Records, V: 50.

SSOrcutt, History of the Old Town of Stratford and the City
of Bridgeport, (New Haven), 1886, 1: 312-13.

 

 

S6Walker, Creeds, p. 510.

Chapter II

PRESBYTERIANISM IN CONNECTICUT

During the 17th and early 18th centuries the Congregational
Churches of Connecticut practiced a Presbyterian type of church
polity. This trend in Connecticut results from the Presbyterian
influences in 17th century New England - the synod system and the
presences of actual Presbyterians.

The churches of Connecticut sprang from the same impulse which
sent the English Puritans to the Bay Colony. Some of the early
settlers of Connecticut had first migrated to Massachusetts, and then,
for various reasons, moved to the attractive Connecticut River valley.
The important sites were the settlement of Windsor, Hartford, and
Wethersfield under the leadership of Thomas Hooker, Samuel Stone,
John Haynes, and Roger Ludlow. This group sold their holdings in
Newtown, Watertown, Roxbury, and Dorchester, and migrated to the
Hartford area,1 where they established the same type Of churches of
the Bay Colony. In other words, the churches of Connecticut followed
the commonly accepted practices and patterns of Puritan New England.2

In Connecticut the early ministers the Massachusetts churches
defended the way of the churches of Christ in New England against

those who attacked the validity of their system of church government.

 

1Trumbull, A Complete History of Connecticut (New Haven, 1818),
pp. 58-68.

 

2Walker, 6. L., History of the First Church in Hartford
(Hartford, 1884), pp. 133-38.

 

42

43

The Rev. John Davenport, the first pastor of the New Haven congregation,
wrote a strong defense of the New England polity in his answer3 to
"A Letter of Many Ministers in Old England, requesting the Judgement
Of their Reverend Brethren in New England concerning Nine Positions,
written Anno Dom. 1637". One of the ablest develOpments of the
position of the New England churches came from the pen of Rev.
Thomas Hooker of Hartford when he wrote his treatise entitled "A Survey
of the Summe Of Church-Discipline" in reply to the publication of
the Rev. Robert Rutherford of Scotland on "The Due Right of Presbyteries,
etc.," in which he had advocated the government of the Church of
Scotland.4 These facts are mentioned because they indicate a certain
amount of unanimity among the early Puritan ministers of New England
on the subject Of church polity.

Whenever the ministers of Connecticut participated in the
general convention of New England churches, they did so on equal
terms. At two of the most important gathering of the early New
England ministers, the so-called Cambridge Synod of 1637 and the
Ministerial Convention of 1643, Thomas Hooker of Hartford, Connecticut
was chosen one of the co-moderators.5 From all points of view it
appears to be a reasonable assertion that prior to the 18th century
the Congregational churches of Massachusetts and Connecticut followed

along parallel lines.

 

3Hanbury, Historical Memorials 11 (London, 1839), pp. 18-39.

 

4Hooker, "A Survey of the Summe Of Church Discipline, etc."
(London, 1648).

5Walker, Creeds, p. 133, 138.

44

The Proposals of 1705 were Obviously of a Presbyterianizing
character failed to be adopted in Massachusetts, but in Connecticut
they played a conspicuous part because they were utilized in the
Saybrook Platform of 1708.6 In Massachusetts these proposals, because
they were Opposed by some outstanding people and lacked the support
of the legislature, were not put into effect.7 However, in Connecti-
cut these same prOposals, which have Presbyterian implications, were
also Opposed by certain leaders, but the General Court in Connecticut
was favorable to them and they were enacted by the Court to become
part of the law of the state.8 One reason fOr this lies in the fact
that Connecticut was under a semi-independent charter and was able
to choose its own upper house and governor, and the governor at that
time was a minister, Gruden Saltonstall.9

He was a firm believer in the desirability of a stricter
organization among churches. He had wide influence and was popular
with both the ministers and the legislature. It was the habit of
the Connecticut Court to interfere in the affairs of the churches.

In Massachusetts the situation was quite different. It was under a

new charter after 1692, and as a result, the old-time clerical influence

 

6Wise, A Vindication of the Government of New England Churches,
p. 107-11. Trumbull, pp. 482-86.

 

7Walker, A History of the Congregationa1_Churches in the
United States, p. 203-4, part of The American Church History Series,
Vol. III.

 

8
Blake, S. Leroy, The Early_History of the First Church 9f
Christ, New London, Conn. (New London, 1897), pp. 230 ff.

 

9Records of the General Court Of Conn. Vol. V, p. 87.

45

was practically at an end. The Governor of Massachusetts came by

royal appointment, and he was not [always] a friend of the Congregational
churches. Here we have the roots for the divergence in the type of
Congregationalism which developed in these two sections of New

England. During the 18th century this gap widened with the Congre-
gationalists of Connecticut becoming increasingly friendly toward the
Presbyterians and developing a Presbyterianized form of Congregationalism
among themselves. The main step in this growing divergence was the
adoption of the Saybrook Platform by Connecticut in 1708.

The General Court, under the direction of Rev. Gurden Salton-
stall, the minister-governor of Connecticut, ordered the representatives
of the churches to come together in various county towns on June 28,
1708, and there to draw tentative schemes of church government and
to choose delegates to a general assembly which was to meet at
Saybrook at the commencement of the new Connecticut College. On
the basis Of the several county plans, the delegates to this general
council were to prepare a form of government fOr submission to the
legislature. So on September 9, 1708 the synod met with an attendance
of twelve ministers and four laymen. This body adopted a threefold
platform. It approved the Confession of 1680,10 which was a slight
revision of the Westminister Confession of Faith as the doctrinal
standard for the churches. Secondly it adopted the Heads of Agree-

11
ment of 1691, which had been a means fOr Congregational and

 

10Walker, Creeds, pp. 367-402.

11Walker, Ibid., pp. 455-62.

46

Presbyterian cooperation in England; this was an attempt to compromise
the divergent views regarding church government already present in the
colony. In the third place the synod prepared fifteen articles which
were a more detailed development of the Massachusetts Proposals of
1705. This was the most important and only original part of the
synod's work.

In this third section of the synod's proposals, it provided
that the churches of Connecticut were to be grouped in "consociations"
or standing councils. A consociation was to be composed of the
ministers and a lay representative from each congregation in a given
district. There were to be one or more such bodies in each county.
These consociations were to consider all cases of discipline which
were too difficult for the local church to handle. The decision
rendered by the consociation was to be considered final, except in
cases of unusual difficulty, in which even the next neighboring
consociation was to be called into joint session. The local parish
was to seek the help of the consociation in ministerial ordination,
installation, and dismissal. The consociation was to be vested with
powers very similar to that of a Presbytery.

Provision was also made in the Plathrm for the formation of
ministerial associations. All the ministers Of the colony were to

be distributed into associations whose purpose would be to furnish

 

2
1 A Confession of Faith-~Owned and Consented to by the Elders

and Messengers of the Churches in the Colony of Conn. in New England--
Assembled by Delagation at Saybrook, Sept. 9, 1708. Printed by
Thomas Short, 1710, New London, in New England.

47

Opportunity for consultation and the licensing of ministers. These
associations were to send delegates to a "General Association" of
the entire colony which was to meet annually.

As mentioned earlier these recommendations of the synod were
immediately approved by the General Court and made into a statute

l3 . . . . .
The various consoc1ations and assoc1ations were

of the colony.
formed in the several counties of the colony during the early part
of 1709. The first General Association of Connecticut met in May
of that same year.

The organization of consociations was not as smoothly and
uniformly accomplished as the above statement might indicate.
These consociations, composed of one lay member and one minister
from each church, were to elect officers which were to function
during the interim between meetings. In the main this is quite
similar to a Presbyterian Presbytery. Now while all Of Connecticut
adopted this plan, there were modifications of it in actual practice.
New Haven county accepted the Platform with an attached sheet in
which they interpreted the terms in such a way that their consociation
was very free and more like a Congregational council.14 On the
other hand, the county of Fairfield made the provisions more strenuous
by a Presbyterian interpretation put on record at the time the

. . 15 . .
consociation was formed. They made the consoc1ation a church

court. Hartford and New London counties accepted the new rules

 

13Records Of the General Court of Conn. Vol. V, p. 87.

l4Congregational Order. The Ancient Platforms of the Congre-
gational Churches of New Eggland, p. 284-86.

15

 

 

 

Orcutt, History of the Old Town of Stratford and the City of
_Bridgeport, Part I, pp. 312-13.

 

48

just as they came from the synod. There were, however, certain indi-
vidual churches which did not accept the system graciously and
considerable quarreling resulted from the inauguration of this
presbyterianizing system.16 The great majority, however, of the
churches and ministers accepted the plan. It is possible that the
system would not have been into effect if it had not had the hearty
support of the legislature of the colony and had not been enacted by
it into an official statute. It is evident that in practice this
was not the pure Presbyterianism that one associates with the
Scottish model. It was in reality a Presbyterianism of an English
nature. The consociations in actual practice were more than
advisory bodies but they did not attempt tO exercise the power of
excommunication or to dominate the policies of the individual
churches as the Scottish Presbyterian polity might insist.17
The chief manifestation of this Presbyterian churches of the
Middle colonies. During the 18th century the churches of
Connecticut drifted away from an intimate relationship with the
churches of the Bay state and developed a closer contact with the
Presbyterian Synod of New York and Philadelphia. There are many
evidences to show the growing fellowship with the Presbyterians.

The first real manifestation of the goodwill of Connecticut

Congregationalists toward Presbyterians is shown by their joining

 

16The quarrel in the East Windsor Church is told in Stiles,
Ancient Windsor, pp. 240-46, and the dispute in the Norwish Church
is described in Caulkin's, History of Norwich, pp. 284-88.

 

 

17The 150th Anniversary of the Fairfield County Consociations, p. 21.

49

the ten annual conventions with the Presbyterians representatives
from the Synod Of New York and Philadelphia from 1766-1776.18

The convention met in alternate years in New Jersey and Connecticut.
The main purpose of these conventions was to consider ways and means
of protecting the churches in America from the possible infringement
upon them which might come through the establishment of the Church
Of England in this country, and the consequent setting up of

Bishops and collection of taxes for the Established Church. They
spoke of meeting to gain information of their united cause, of joining
their endeavors for spreading the gospel, and of preserving the
religious liberties of the churches.

The convention, with representatives from each denomination,
met regularly for the ten years preceding the outbreak of hostilities
between the American colonies and the English government when the
primary purpose was automatically superseded.

Friendly relations continued after the struggle fOr independence.
For many years both groups sent letters of goodwill to each other and
had regular Committees of Correspondence to further this intercourse.
In 1790 the General Association of Connecticut voted that a further
degree of union with Presbyterians was desirable and a Committee Of

Correspondence was appointed to secure this result.19

 

18”Records of the Presbyterian Church" published by the Presby-
terian Board of Publication, Philadelphia, 1904. The minutes of these
conventions are given in Appendix.

19Records of the General Association 1738-99, pp. 133.

50

In response to this, the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1791
proclaimed its desire "to renew and strengthen every bond of union"
between the Congregational and Presbyterian Churches, and recall
"with much satisfaction the mutual pleasure and advantage produced
and received by their former intercourse."20 They took steps at once
to bring about this result and appointed a committee for that purpose.
Accordingly, a joint committee representing these two bodies met at
New Haven in 1791 and provided for an exchange of fraternal delegates
at their official meetings. This proposal of the commissioners was
approved the following year by the General Association and the General
Assembly, and three representatives of the Connecticut churches were
send to the General Assembly. The next year, 1793, three Presbyterian
delegates took their seats in the General Association. At the request
of the Presbyterians in 1794 both sides agreed that the representatives
of each body should have full right to vote in the meetings Of the
other.21

The most famous, and by all standards, the most far reaching
cooperative program with the Presbyterians was that undertaken under
the provisions of the Plan of Union of 1801.22 Under the terms of
this plan the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church agreed to
work together on the western frontier. The two bodies were to provide

missionaries and share the burdens of building churches there. This

 

20Minutes of the General Assembly, 1789-1820, pp. 29, 33.

21Minutes of the General Assembly, 1789-1820, p. 80 and Records
of the General Association 1783-1800, p. 154.

22Walker, p. 524 ff.

51

Plan of Union Operated effectively for almost half a century and was
supported considerably by the churches of Connecticut. Indeed, the
Congregationalists of Connecticut were so friendly to Presbyterianism
that they continued to support the Plan of Union for several years
after they saw the majority Of the churches on the frontier turning
to Presbyterianism and the Congregational Associations becoming
Presbyterian Presbyteries.23 This willingness to cooperate with the
Presbyterians of the Middle States indicates something of the extent
of the Presbyterian influence upon the churches of Connecticut.

This Presbyterian tendence was also manifest in a rather
confusing use of Presbyterian terms. Certain of the more enthusiastic
supporters of Presbyterian ideas occasionally used Presbyterian terms
in place of the commonly accepted Congregational designations.

The Reverend Nathan Strong, pastor of the First Church of Hartford,
spoke of his church as "the North Presbyterian Church".24 It

appears that it was a rather common practice to use interchangeably
Congregational and Presbyterian names to describe Connecticut

Churches during the latter part of the 18th century and early part

of the nineteenth.25 We find such statements as that made by the
General Association of Connecticut in 1788, when referring to the Plan
of Union which Offered it as a "Scheme fOr the union of Presbyterians

in America" and in 1805 this same body called the Saybrook Plathrm

 

238weet, W. W., Religion on American Fronter, Harper Bros, N.Y.
1936), p. 43-4. See also "Diary of Thomas Robbins," Vol. I., p. 280.

24

 

Walker, G. L., The First Church in Hartford, p. 358.

 

25Sweet, p. 38, Vol. II.

 

3.71111 1. .t .

 

52

"The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in Connecticut."26
These statements, of course, must be regarded as reflecting the views
of some who had a broad interpretation of Presbyterian principles.
When the Presbyterian minded ministers were speaking, they were
inclined to the use of Presbyterian terms. Perhaps the most
frequently quoted statement of this sort was that made by a group of
fifteen members of the Hartford North Association. George L. Walker
in his "History of the First Church," Harthrd, quotes it as fOllows:

February 5, 1799. "This Association gives infOrmation
to all whom it may concern, that the Constitution of
the Churches in the state of Connecticut, founded on
the common usage, and the confession of faith, heads

of agreement, and the articles of church discipline,
adopted at the earliest period of the settlement of
this State is not Congregational, but contains the
essentials of the church of Scotland, or the Presby-
terian Church in America, particularly as it gives a
decisive power to Ecclesiastical Councils; and a
Consociation consisting of ministers and messengers

or a lay representation from the churches is possessed
of substantially the same authority as a Presbytery.
The judgements, decisions and censures in our Churches
and in the Presbyterian are mutually deemed valid. The
Churches, therefore, of Connecticut at large and in our
districts in particular, are not now and never were
from the earliest period of our settlement, Congre-
gational Churches, according to the ideas and forms of
Church order contained in the book of discipline called
the CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM: there are, however, scattered
over the State, perhaps ten or twelve churches which
are properly called Congregational, agreeable to the
rules of Church discipline in the book above mentioned.
Sometimes indeed, the Associated churches of Connecti-
cut are loosely and vaguely, through improperly termed
Congregational.

 

27Wa1ker, G. L. 9p. cit., pp. 358-9.

53

Dr. George L. Walker indicated he believed this statement
was really a perverted interpretation of history:
"When fifteen ministers in an association like Hartford
North, present at this action, could so misstate history
and forget the principles of the first fOunders, one
ceases to wonder that the people generally were not
disturbed at being called Presbyterians. . . one may
wonder, however, what Thomas Hooker would have said to
the implication of his successor, that Presbyterianism
was the form of polity he came to this country to plan;
and to this amazing statement that the Constitution
founded on the ”heads of agreement and articles Of
church discipline" was adopted "at the earliest period
of the settlement Of the State." Whatever the merits
or demerits of the Saybrook system, such a declaration
of its antiquity takes one with surprise."28
It would seem that the Walker statement was the biased
viewpoint of certain individuals who, for some particular purpose
could not accept the tendencies toward Presbyterianism existing in
New England. However, this may be,there was a period in the history
of Connecticut churches when certain individual congregations were
popularly called Presbyterian. Undoubtedly some of them leaned to-
ward the Presbyterian system and may have incorporated certain of its
provisions within the framework of their polity.
It is sufficient for our purpose to know that fOr many
years in the history of Connecticut Congregationalism there was
much partiality shown toward Presbyterianism by certain members of the

various ministerial associations. This development well illustrates

the Presbyterian tendencies in New England Congregationalism.

 

28Wa1ker, G. L., p. 359.

Chapter III

PRESBYTERIANS FROM ABROAD

The second impulse toward Presbyterianism in New England
came from abroad via migration. One of these groups was the French
Huguenots who came to the area as a result of the persecution in
France after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. These
immigrants remained loyal to the practices Of the French RefOrmed
Church which had at an early period adopted the Presbyterian form of
church government, a form more closely resembling English Presbyterianism
than Scottish Presbyterianism. They had endured much for their faith
and it was to be expected that at least the first generation would
have a deep and emotional attachment to the principles for which they
had sustained the loss of their homes and positions. The number of
these French Protestants that came to New England was relatively
small, since they generally favored a more southern location, but
there were some refugees who fOund New England, and more especially
Boston, to their liking. Here they were received with consideration
and friendliness, and gifts were actually made to help them in their
need by the Puritan authorities.1 They found favor with the Puritans
because of their resistance to the Roman Church, and their adherence
to Calvinistic tenets. Since they had already endured so much,

and since their church practices was somewhat similar to those of

 

lMassachusetts Archives, Council Records, 1686-87, p. 79.
See also Baird, History of the Huguenot Emigration to America, Vol. 2
(New York, 1885), pp. 200-08.

 

54

55

the Puritans, and moreover, since the French had to have their
service in a different language, the Puritan leaders were willing to
allow them the right to worship according to their own custom. Indeed,
in 1687 Boston officials granted them permission to use the Latin
School for the purpose of public worship.2 The French Church used
this facility until 1715 when they were reluctantly granted permission
to erect their own house of worship.

A stricter form of Presbyterianism might have developed in
New England by the coming of the French Huegunots if they had settled
in greater numbers. As it was, their settlements were weak and
struggling, and, by a series Of misfortunes, they were not enduring.
The first real settlement attempted by the French immigrants was in
the vicinity of the present town of OxfOrd, Massachusetts, in what
was then known as the Nipmuck country. This endeavor at colonizing
was supported by Gabriel Bernon, a wealthy French Protestant, who
had managed to escape from France with a considerable fortune.
Owing to his influence, a large grant of land was obtained from the
General Court on the frontier about fifty miles west of Boston. In
the Spring of 1686 or 1687 a small group of about ten families

migrated to this location and endeavored to establish a colony.3

 

2Baird, Vol. 2, p. 221. Massachusetts Archives Council Records,
1686-87, p. 155.

3Baird does not give any reference showing why he holds to 1687.
Daniels, ”The Huguenots in the Nipmuck Country," p. 67 favors the year
1686 and supports his view with the following fOotnote: "It has been
dbimed by some that the settlement was made in the spring of 1687, but
we see no reason fOr doubting the statement of Whitney and of Holmes that

56

One of the leaders in this endeavor was the intrepid French Protestant
minister, Rev. Daniel Bondet.4 The little company was joined by
others during the next year so that there were probably between
seventy and eighty people (counting the children) in the new
community within the first year. In the early period of their
settlement the settlers met in the home of Pastor Bondet fOr their
religious services. The earnestnas of their religious life is shown
by the fact that during the second year they built a house of worship.
At Oxford, the life of this colony was brief owing to its
advanced location on the frontier which made it easy prey fOr the
Indians. The hostility of the Indians is shown by the fact that
theylnurdered the young daughter of one of the villagers and carried
off two children in the summer of 1694. From that day the colonists
were in a perpetual state Of fear lest the whole settlement should be
attacked by the savages, and two years later their feeling of insecurity
was greatly accentuated by the massacre of one of the settlers, a
Mr. Johnson, and his three children. With one accord the French
settlers decided to fOrsake their frontier location and return to
Boston. The Oxford refugees who remained in Boston decided to make
another attempt at settlement in the spring of 1699; they reclaimed

their abandoned farms remaining there until 1704 when they became

 

it was in 1686. Bondet in his letter to Cornbury, 1703, says that he

had then been in America about fifteen years. This is indefinite.

When he particularizes and says his was nine years in OxfOrd, two waiting
in Boston, and five years in New Rochelle, we have sixteen years, which
gives 1686 as the time of settlement.”

4Baird, Vol. 2, p. 256.

57

convinced that the danger from the Indians was so great that they left
never to return.

The OxfOrd colony enjoyed religious services from the beginning.
Pastor Bondet ministered to them until the fall of 1695 when he
returned to Boston. The effort Of the people to support a pastor is
shown by their agreement to pay him forty pounds annually, a consider-
able sum for such a small, newly founded community.S Perhaps they
received some financial assistance from other New England churches.
He is reported to have been a faithful and industrious pastor and to
have performed his ministerial duties well.6 In the second endeavor
to settle the Oxford location the colonists were accompanied by 3
Rev. Jacques Laborie, a minister who had come from London in 1698.7

It is obvious that from the nature of the circumstances this
Presbyterian church could not have been very thriving. The greatest
accomplishment of the membership seems to have been the maintaining
of themselves as an organized church and the erecting of a crude
meeting house. Very little data is available on the functioning of

this congregation, but it is reasonable to believe that it fOllowed

the principles of the Reformed Church of France and adopted a Presby-

 

5
p. 518.

6Gov. Houghton gave him a certificate telling "of his great faith-
fulness, care and industry in performance of his duties to Christians and
Indians", Foote, Ibid., p. 519.

7Baird, Vol. 2, p. 282; p. 145 in the footnote gives a brief bio-
graphical survey of his life. He tells us that after leaving New OxfOrd,
Mass. he went to New York and took charge of the French church in that city,
as Peiret's successor, for two years, October 15, 1704 to August 25, 1706.
As early as 1716 he settled in Fairfield, Conn. where he practiced medicine
and surgery until his death about 1731.

Foote, The Huguenots; or RefOrmed French Church (Richmond, 187),

 

58

terian system of church polity in so far as it was able to do so.
However, this became more modified under the influence of the English
Presbyterians in the colony.

The most important attempt of the French refugees to establish
a Presbyterian church in New England was made in Boston. It was not
possible for these French-speaking Protestants to join in the worship
services of the English Puritans because of language differences nor
did they have the inclination to give up their [more strict] Presby—
terian practices. Therefore, soon after their arrival in Boston,
probably as early as 1685,8 the French families united together in
forming a church. The chief organizer may have been Rev. Pierre Daille
who came to America in 1682, and was active in organizing several
French congregations in the new world. The first settled pastor of
the congregation was Laurentius Van den Bosch.9 He probably began
his ministerial labors during the year 1686. UnfOrtunately he did not
adapt himself well to the situation, and in a very little time had
stirred up much contention in the congregation itself and with the
Puritans of Boston. Rev. Pierre Daille saw the seriousness of this and

wrote to Rev. Increase Mather, requesting that the annoyance caused

 

8Fosdick, L., The French Church in Boston (New York, 1906),
p. 157.

9Laurentius Van de Bosch was of French parentage; his given
name was Laurent du Bois, but while in Holland he adopted a Dutch
patronymis. He stopped in England before coming to Boston and had
confOrmed to the Church of England. Cf. Baird, Vol. 2, p. 224.

 

59

by Mr. Van den Bosch would not diminish Mather's goodwill towards the
French for the fault of a single person should not be the cause of
harm to all.10 UnfOrtunately for the church, Van den Bosch remained
only a year.

The Rev. David Bonrepos was the next regular pastor who came
with a company of French refugees from the Island of St. Christopher
in 1686.11 While this new company augmented considerably the French
congregation it never was very large. The Rev. Mr. Bonrepos was
able to smooth out the irritations which had been caused by his
predecessor and he revived the friendly relations with the Puritan
pastors of Boston. His pastorate in Boston was scarcely more than a
year, for he accepted a call to take charge of the religious life of
the Huguenot settlement of New Rochelle, Staten Island, and New
Paltz in the province of New York.

Because it had to carry on without the guidance of a regular

pastor}2 the next eight years were difficult fOr the small struggling

congregation; the congregation probably consisted of about twenty

 

10Letter of May 2, 1686 from Daille to Increase Mather,
contained in the Mather Papers in the Prince Library; Public Library
of the City of Boston. A Copy of this letter is in the Appendix to
Baird, Vol. 2, p. 398.

llBaird, Ibid., pp. 225-26.

12See excerpt from the letter of Bonrepos, Ibid., p. 226.

60

French families. The congregation was supplied by such French
preachers as were available and one of the English pastors who could
speak French fluently.13

The French congregation revived under the leadership of the
Rev. Pierre Daille who became pastor of the church in 1696 and continued
in that capacity until his death on May 21, 1715, in his sixty-
seventh year.14 He was accepted by the Puritan minister of Boston
with genuine friendliness. The Dutch minister Selyns of New York
described him thus: "He is full of fire, godliness and learning.
Banished on account of his religion, he maintains the cause of Jesus
Christ withe untiring zeal."15 He was loved by his own people and
respected by the townspeople of Boston. His salary was not large,
owing to the fact that there were not many French families in Boston
and they had an extra burden of caring for the colonists that had
returned from Oxford. In order that Pastor Daille might remain with
his congregation, the General Court of the Colony at one session
appropriated twelve pounds towards his maintenance in response to a

16
petition from the Elders of the French Church. While this appears

 

13Rev. Nehemiah Walter, pastor of the First Church in Roxbury,
Mass. Fosdick, L., p. 161.

14Blaikie,, Presbyterianism in New England, pp. 33-4; Memorial
History of Boston, 11, p. 252.

15Letter Of Henrius Selyns to the Boston Ministers, M.S.S. in
”Mather Papers", Vol. V., No. 17, in Prince Library in Boston. Also in
Appendix of Baird, p. 397.

 

 

16Massachusetts Archives, Vol. XI, p. 150, the petition was signed
by John Rawlings, Peter Chardon, and Rene Grignon Elders Of the French
Congregation; Baird, p. 235.

61

to have been the only time that such a grant was made from the state,
it was quite significant.

The French Church in Boston followed the Presbyterian procedure
in the organization of the congregation. All writers are agreed that
there were in the church elders who were known as "anciens."

These elders, together with the pastor, constituted the Consistoire or
the Church-Session which had charge of the oversight of the flock and
the spiritual and temporal concerns of the church. The anciens

were elected by the people and held Office for a period of years.
Owing to the absence of the original records it is impossible to name
all those who filled the office of elder. We have indirect sources

of names of some of the Elders who served during the pastorate of
Pierre Daille. In 1704 the congregation purchased a lot in what is
now School Street with the intention of building a house of worship

on it. The deed for the lot is made out to John Tartarien, Francis
Bredon, and Jean Dupuis, Elders of the French Church, fOr themselves and
the other members of the congregation.18 Baird also mentions

Pierre Chardon, Jean Millet, Jean Rawlings, Mousset, Guillaume, Barbut
and Rene Grignon as also having been Elders between 1696 and 1705.19
It was the Elders of the congregation who presented the petition to

the General Court for a contribution to the maintenance of their Pastor,

Pierre Daille.

 

17Fosdick, p. 163; cf. Baird p. 232-33. Blaikie, p. 32-39.

18Suffolk Deeds, lib 22, fol 102 cf. the Memorial History of

Boston, p. 253.

19Baird, p. 233.

 

 

 

62

Throughout the pastorate of Pierre Daille the French Congregation
met in the Latin School House, which was part of the educational
system of Boston. More than ten years before the death of Daille the
French Congregation had purchased property and petitioned the Boston
Council for the privilege of constructing their own house of worship.20
For some unexplained reason the Boston authorities did not grant them
the permission at that time.21 More than ten years later the permission
was given and the French Congregation proceeded after the death of
Daille to build an unpretentious brick building which they used until
the church disbanded in 1748.22

The Rev. Andrew Le Mercier who had received his education in
Geneva, Switzerland, was the last pastor Of the congregation. He
was offered one hundred pounds in New England currency for his
salary which indicates that the members of the congregation had become
more prosperous. He began his ministerial labors in Boston in the
latter part of 1715. He was not considered to be as brilliant a
preacher as his predecessor. His sermons were probably dry and hard
to follow and this is in part responsible fOr the statement of the
leading laymen of the congregation that "he has driven all our young

people to other churches."23 This must not be considered to be the

 

20MS. Minutes of the Selectman of the Town of Boston (in office)
of City Clerk) p. 95 cf. Memorial History of Boston 11, p. 254; cf. Fos-
dick, p. 158, Massachusetts Archives, Minutes of the Council under the
date of January 12, 1704.

21Memorial History of Boston 11, p. 254.

22Ibid., p. 254, cf. N.E. Historical and Genealogical Register,
XII, p. 319.

 

2 . .
3Massachusetts Archives, XII, pp. 522—7; also Memorial History
of Boston, 11, pp. 356-7.

63

only cause, however, of the unusual decline in membership during his
thirty-four years as pastor, for there was a tendency for the second
generation of French to adopt the customs and language of their
English neighbors and through marriage they naturally drifted to the
English-speaking churches. By 1748, the congregation was so small
that the only reasonable procedure was to disband the society. This
was carried out on May 7, 1748, when the church was sold fOr three
thousand pounds old tenor to the trustees of the Rev. Croswell's new
Congregational Society. Le Mercier lived for sixteen years after the
dissolution of the church, spending his last years upon an estate
which he owned in Dorchester, Massachusetts. He died on March 31,
1764.

It was during the pastorate of the Rev. Le Mercier that the
French church became affiliated with the Scotch-Irish element
(Presbyterian) in New England. Le Mercier was a dedicated Presbyterian
holding strongly to the discipline of the French Reformed Churches,
and as soon as he had opportunity he sought to complete the organization
and to bring the French church under the care of a Presbytery. Le-
Mercier took an active part together with his Scotch-Irish friends
in the organization of a Presbytery in 1729. The meetings of the
Presbytery were frequently held in the French meeting house and from

all accounts the French pastor appears to have taken an prominent

64

part in the deliberations and discussions of that body for several
24
years.

Another aspect of the Presbyterian migration from abroad was
the Scots from the North of Ireland. While they were loyal to the
Scottish Presbyterian system, they nevertheless chose New England as
one of their sites for migration. In order to better understand
these Scotch-Irish Presbyterians it is necessary to make a brief
survey of their previous life in Ireland.

In 1610 under the direction of King James I of England a plan
was formulated for the settlement of enterprising Scots and Englishmen
onto certain lands which he had newly acquired in the North of Ire-
land.25 The primary purpose was to place there an armed group to
act as a buffer against the ravages of the undisciplined and marrauding
clans of the native Irish. The actual settlers were mostly Scottish
with the result that the Ulster plantation took the character Of the
Scottish occupation of the North Of Ireland. They were more inured

to hardships and they proved themselves more capable of enduring the

vicissitudes of the settlements than the English of that period.

 

4Blaike in his book "Presbyterianism in New England," frequently
refers to Le Mercier in connection withe Presbytery of Londonderry.
His active participation is shown by his part in the Hillhouse contro-
versy which split the Presbytery. Le Mercier is credited with having
written the tract entitled: "Remarks on the Preface of a Pamphlet
published by John Presbyter in order to vindicate Mr. James Hillhouse,"
cf. library of Massachusetts Historical Society, small quarto, 17 pp.
Baird footnote, p. 242.

25For a full description of the Ulster settlement see Bagwell,
Richard, Ireland Under the Stuarts, Vol. I, (New York, 1909), pp. 63-90.

 

65

It was early that the Scots in Ulster showed a definite interest in
religion, especially as administered in the Presbyterian way. They
had brought with them their own Presbyterian pastors and supported
them even though it had been an added burde , since in some places
they also had to support the established Church of England. Their
interest in religion was further evidenced by the fact that they
attended in large numbers the lengthy morning and afternoon church
services; and also by the fact that befOre some communion services
people were known to spend the whole night in conference and prayer.
Moreover, there are records of religious revivals in the early
period of the Ulster settlement.26 It is not surprising, therefore,
that within a few years the colony was under the careful control of
the pastors and elders of the Presbyterian church, which came to be
regarded with real affection by these Scots.27

The causes underlying the emigration of the Scotch-Irish to
America may be briefly summarized:28 they were surrounded by hostile,
native Irish who felt they had been cheated and deprived of their rights.
Also the Scots were subjected to misrule on the part of the local

governors and blocked frequently by the English Parliament in their

 

26Reid, James Seaton, History of the Presbyterian Church in

Ireland (Belfast, 1867), VOl. I, pp. 106-112.

 

27Bagwell, 9p: cit., p. 231.

Ford, Henry Jones, The Scotch-Irish in America (Princeton,
1915), pp. 165-208. Ford discusses the various causes underlying
this migration to America; however, he does not seem to stress
sufficiently the religious factors involved. See also Frederick W.
Loetscher, "Presbyterianism in Colonial New England," Journal of
Presbyterian History, June, Sept., Dec., 1921, p. 99.

 

 

 

66

designs for the advancement of their economic life. Examples of this
latter fact were the prohibition of shipping foodstuffs to England and
in 1699 the prohibition to export one of their main manufacturing
products, woolen goods. The British Parliament threw obstacles in
their path so they could not develop a trade with foreign countries,
and as a result of these actions poverty abounded in the Ulster
platation. The settlers were frequently caught in the shifting
political and religious movements of the period, a fact which often
led to suffering on their part, as is illustrated by the famous
siege of Londonderry in 1688-1689. As time went on they were
not allowed the degree of religious toleration they wanted, fOr as
Presbyterians they came to be excluded from public offices, and in the
second decade of the 18th century they were fOrced to endure certain
forms Of persecution for their adherence to their ecclesiastical
system. Under these conditions they naturally became dissatisfied
religiously, politically, and economically.

These Scottish settlers were not the type to give in mildly
before a hostile situation.29 They were men who would fight at
great personal cost if they felt it was the thing to do. This
they demonstrated time and time again when they battled for their
rights against the government and the power of the established church.
Their uncongenial environment seemed to bring out certain sturdy and

forceful qualities which enabled them to face hardships courageously.

 

29Ford, p. 157.

67

Their very religion did not encourage any form of softness; even in
warfare they were inspired by the thought that they were fightiig on
the Lord's side and they marched to their conflicts singing the Psalms.

It was not, then, as weaklings running away from trouble that
they contemplated moving to America, but as people convinced that in
spite Of hardships they would have greater opportunity fOr the kind of
life they desired. In Ireland they came to feel that they were walled
in by the impossible circumstances which they were not in position
to change, but in America they expected to have a fighting chance.
America seemed to offer them the opportunity which they craved, and
consequently they came in droves, glad to put up with great personal
inconveniences for the sake of economic opportunity and religious
freedom.

Their first attempt to come to America in considerable numbers
had been as early as 1636 when a group of them had built a ship called
the "Eagles Wing" and started for New England.30 However, when the
party of 140 was in mid-ocean the ministers came to the conclusion
that the violent storms were a sign of the Almighty that they should
not go on but should return to Ireland, where they felt God must still
have some important work for them to accomplish. Nevertheless, they
cherished the hope that if life should become too unbearable for them

they would make another attempt.

 

SOReid, Vol. I, pp. 189-90; 203-06 and Ford, pp. 165-67.

68

It was not until the second decade of the 18th century that
events seemed to combine against the Scotch-Irish so that for the
sake of their own self respect many felt impelled to move to America.
They found themselves discriminated against by the narrow, commercial
policy of the English Parliament; they were increasingly oppressed
for their adherence to Presbyterianism; and to climax all this many
of the long term leases which had been made following the Restoration
in 1688 matured in 1717 and 1718, and the landlords took advantage
of the situation to raise unjustly the rental for the land. These
circumstances inspired them to make an effort to bring to fulfillment
their cherished dream of new life in America. The actual migration
set in about 1714 and by 1718 it reached the point where whole
communities were being transported. This stream of Scotch-Irish
migration continued to flow steadily throughout the greater part of the
18th century.

Generally speaking New England was their first choice because
of the generally favorable attitude toward Presbyterianism there.
Boston records show that in 1718 five shiploads carrying about 120
families arrived.31 They felt that since they had so much in common
with the Puritans they would be well received, but they were some-
what disappointed in that the Bostonians did not extend as warm a

welcome as the Scots had expected; this expectation was a result of

 

slBlaikie, pp. 47-49.

69

the Scots belief that they and the New Englanders shared a common
religious background. Nevertheless there were many shiploads that
decided to remain in New England, and as a result they made quite an
addition to the colony.32

These Scots arrived in New England with an intellectual and a
emotional attachment to the Presbyterian way. For them Presbyterianism
was not a weak and sentimental theory; it was a martyr-filled tradition
which stirred them as they recalled the struggle against Prelacy and
Popery. They associated it with solemn leagues and convenants, with
blood stained moors, and with lengthy, harrowing sieges of Presbyterian
towns. This was part of the faith Of these hardy Scots, who hoped
to establish the Presbyterian system in their own towns in the New
World. To survey Presbyterianism in colonial New England it is
necessary to study some of the towns which were fOunded or settled
in considerable numbers by the Scotch-Irish for these towns were quite
significant in the growth of the Presbyterian movement in New England
outside Of the Puritan churches. The Presbyterian congregations with
strong input from the Scotch-Irish element were quite strong over a
period of years, and they offered important sustaining power for
colonial Presbyterianism in New England in the 18th century.

In the early part of the 18th century the Massachusetts
authorities were anxious to have more people settle upon the frontier

to act as a buffer against the Indians. So many of the settlements

on the western edge of the Bay Colony had been attacked by marauding

 

32Wood, Sumner Gilbert, Ulster Scots and BlandfOrd Scouts (West
Midway, 1926), p. 106.

 

70

bands of Indians that the colonists had become exceedingly fearful
for their lives. In desperation whole groups of them had forsaken
their outposts and returned to Boston. This practice became so
common that the General Court had felt obliged to pass a law pro-
hibiting the settlers on the frontier from abandoning their locations.
Naturally under these circumstances there was a demand for strong,
fearless settlers who would scatter along the exposed region. This
incoming group of Scotch-Irish represented the type sought, for they
had come from a land where they had been surrounded by hostile
neighbors and many of them were veterans of fierce struggles in
Ireland.

At the time of their arrival in Boston the frontier was about
fifty miles to the westward. The town of Worcester had previous to
1713, been occupied on two different occasions but each time it had
been abandoned because of the danger from the Indians. Nevertheless
in 1713 it was revived again by certain English settlers and a block
fort was built and at least four houses which could be used as
garrisons were erected.33 The town had about two hundred English
inhabitants when the Scotch-Irish immigrants arrived in 1719.34
It is estimated that the population was almost doubled by the new

addition of approximately fifty families. The lands which they

 

33Lincoln, William, History of Worcester (Worcester, 1837), p. 42.

34Ibid., p. 48, pp. 163-64.

 

71

occupied in the north part of Worcester were given them by a
direct grant of the General Court of Massachusetts. The opinion has
been advanced that it was the poorer and more illiterate part of the
five shiploads that were sent to Worcester.35 Whether or not this
is true they seemed to make good settlers, fOr in a short time they
were represented upon the town board of Selectman and some of their
number were elected to town offices. Their English neighbors
undoubtedly valued them as a reinfOrcement to the safety of the town,
but in some other respects they did not appreciate their presence.
Unquestionably the uncleanly habits of the Scots must have been
distasteful to their neighbors.36 This does not mean that the English
were models of cleanliness, but it seems that their personal habits
were better than those of the Scots'. The practice of washing one's
face and hands daily was almost unknown among the Scots of the period.
Rarer still was the person among them who took time to bathe oftener
than once a year, and some even lived a whole lifetime without taking
a bath. When one considers the long religious services in small
meetinghouses one begins to appreciate the odors which must have
arisen to inspire the English to witticisms at the expense of the Scots.
Realizing the uncouthness of their appearance and the unclean-

liness of their habits it is easier to understand why the English

 

35
p. 42.

36Ibid., p. 41.

Perry, Arthur Latham, Miscellanies (Williamstown, Mass., 1902),

 

72

resented the assumed superiority of these Scots in matters of religion.

The Scots were certain that their system of doctrine and ecclesiastical

discipline had been revealed to them through the Holy Scriptures.

To them all other systems were in a large measure false. Much of

their difficulty with their English neighbors is explained by their

conviction that Independency was sure to be chaotic and would lead to

anarchy. They did not hold these opinions quietly but voiced them so

loudly and persistently that they provoked much strong resentment.

Undoubtedly this explains in a large measure the unhappy character of

their relations with their Worcester neighbors.37
The English had erected a crude log meetinghouse the year

before the Scots had come and shortly after their arrival they built

a larger and better one. It proved to be exceedingly difficult fOr the

English settlers to understand why the Scotch Presbyterians wanted to

worship by themselves according to their own distinctive modes. For

a time the Scots attended the services in the regular meetinghouse

but they soon wanted a service more to their liking so they occasionally

held some of their own services in the open air or in bad weather in

one of the garrison houses. They went so far as to fOrm a separate

religious society, which was for a short time under the leadership of

Rev. Edward Fitzgerald.38

 

37Wood, pp. 106-07.

38Lincoln, p. 163. Lincoln states that Mr. Fitzgerald
accompanied them from Londonderry, Ireland.

73

It is not meant to infer that they cut off all connection with
the Congregational Society on the Common, for under Massachusetts
regulations they were obliged to support and participate in the official
church of the parish. Naturally the poor Scots were not pleased to
be compelled to contribute to the support of the Congregational
society when they were anxious to support more adequately their own
pastor. At a time when the Congregational church was without the
services of a pastor the English element invited Mr. Fitzgerald to
supply the pulpit for one Sabbath, which he did, but he was not asked
to return. Therefore even before the Congregational society called
another man in 1725, Mr. Fitzgerald was compelled to leave on account
of insufficient support.39

In 1725, Mr. Issac Burr was settled as pastor of the Worcester
Congregational Church. At that time the unwritten understanding
between the two groups was that if the Presbyterians would aid in his
support they would be permitted on occasion to have Presbyterian
ministers in the pulpit. With this in mind the Scots united with the
other body, but as time went on they discovered that their hopes were
not being realized so they withdrew and ordained and installed
William Johnston as their pastor.40

While the exact date of his installation is unknown it was

sometime before 1737 for in that year a group of nine Scots under the

leadership of Mr. John Clark presented a written petition to the town

 

39Lincoln, pp. 144, 164.

40Lincoln, p. 164.

74

meeting, appealing to the justice of their fellow townsmen for relief

from the payment of the tax support of the town church so that they

might be free to provide for their own pastor, William Johnston. The

copy of the appeal presented to the town by the Scots has been lost

but the reply of the English settlers of Worcester has been preserved

in the town records. Since the reply illustrates the attitude of

the English settlers of New England toward Presbyterians, we quote it

in full:

"At a meeting of the inhabitants of Worcester, March 14,
1736, 37

In answer to the Request of ten persons Desiring
to be Dismist and Released from the Support of
the Rev. Mr. Issac Burr, Pastor of the Church in the
Town, or from any other Except Mr. Johnston, 6, The Town
Came into the following vote, vizt:

The Town upon mature Consideration think that the
Request is unreasonable and they they ought not to
comply with it upon many considerations:

i first, that it Doth not appear in the Petition
who they are that Desire to be Set off, only from the
names of the Subscribers. that it would it would be
for the Town to act too much at random to set them off
upon such a general request.

ii secondly, it doth not appear that the Petition-
ers or others joining with them have been actuated by
Just reason or any such principles of Conscience as
should at all necessatate their forsaking the assembling
themselves with us. For as to the Westminster
Confession of Faith which they say they promised
adherence to in their baptism, it is the same which
we hold and maintain and desire to adhear
to. and asto the worship discipline 6 government
of the Church as it is set forth by the Assembly
of Devines at Westminster, they are not substantially
differing from our own professed principles. as themselves
well know, they may enjoy the same worship, ordinances
and Christian privileges 6 means of their Spiritual
Edification with us in the way which they call Presbyterian
and their consciences not be imposed upon anything.

1.1 4.1 t 1 i
g; . I.§.'i1..!.¢1r.‘l

 

75

Forasmuch also, as a number of those now withdrawing
from us were jointly concerned in the settlement of the
Rev. Issac Burr our present minister, and joined with us
in church for worship and communion, and we know not why
it should be contrary to their consciences to continue
in communion and worship with us, but rather reason
to think that their separation is from some irregular
views and motives which would be unworthy for us to
countenance.

iii we look upon the petitioners and others
breaking off from us as they have done, full of
irregularity and disorder, not to mention that the
ordination of their minister they speak of was disor-
derly with respect even to the principles which they
themselves pretended to act by, as well as with respect
to us to whom they stand related, and with whom they
cohabit and enjoy with usin common all proper social
Christian 6 civil rights 6 privileges. But their
separating from us being contrary to their own
Covenant with us, and also very unreasonably weak-
ening to the Town whose number and demensions, the
North part being expected by the vote of the Town from
paying to Mr. Burr, will not admit of the honorable
support of two ministers of the Gospel.

Upon which and other accounts the Town refuse to
comply with the request of demissing said Petitioners.

The above passed in the affirmative by a great majority,
6 therefore ordered that the Petition or Request afore-
said be dismissed."41

The significance of the Worcester situation is the way in
which the English on the scene viewed the Scotch-Irish Presbyterian.
They saw very little difference between the two groups but it is the
clanishness of the newcommers and their generally anti-English attitude
that fOrced them to make further attempts elsewhere to build a church

of their own.

 

41Early Records of the Town of Worcester, Book I, pp. 106-08
contained in the Collections of the Worcester Society of Antiquiry, Vol.
11 published by the Society, 1881, Worcester, Mass.

 

 

76

Boston was the port of entry for most of the Scots coming to
colonial New England. In the summer of 1718 five shiploads, containing
about six or seven hundred of these Scotch-Irish, arrived in Boston.
Such a large influx naturally taxed the ability of the town to provide
for their necessities. Of course they had no intention of remaining
in Boston, but many made it a temporary home. As we noted before, a
large section of them moved to Worcester. Another large division
went up to Casco Bay in Maine and spent the winter there. There were
some who were attracted by Boston and decided to remain in or near it.
Because some of these Scots were poor the Selectmen of Boston on
August 13th chose an agent to appear in court,

"To move what he shall think proper in order to secure
the town from charges which happen to accrue or be
imposed on them by reason of the paigengers lately
arrived from Ireland or elsewhere."
Again in the records of the Selectmen for August 22nd,
"A list of strangers obtruding themselves into this
Town who by order of the Selectment were warned to
depart vizt- Sundry persons who arrived in this town
from Ireland about two months since vizt Thomas
Walker, John Rogers, James Blare, Elizabeth Blare, 44
Rachel Blare were accordingly warned October 22th."
'During the winter a number were warned to leave or find sureties for

their support. This does not mean that all the Scots who came in

this migration were paupers. They had all paid their passage over as

 

42Cullen, James Bernard, The Story of the Irish in Boston,
(Boston, 1889), p. 51.

 

43"A Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston,"
containing the Records of Boston Selectmen, 1716 to 1736, pp. 41-42.

“mm. , p. 46.

77

none were for slaves or bondsmen, but undoubtedly some of them had used
most of their resources to pay for their passage. On the other hand,
there were men of considerable estate who came with these immigrants.
As we have seen most of the Scots moved out of Boston, but
there were some who were in a position to assure the town of their
ability to support themselves in various trades or in farming in the
vicinity. This scattered group in the Boston area was alert to the
possibility of setting up a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian Church. About
ten years later their hOpes were aroused by the incoming of an
additional group of their countrymen who settled in Boston. However,
it was under the leadership of a young man who had been trained for
the ministry in the University of Edinburgh that the actual process
of gathering together a Presbyterian congregation in Boston took
place. This man was John Moorhead who came from the vicinity of
Belfast, Ireland. He came to Boston sometime between 1727 and 1729,
licensed to preach.45 He set about the task of drawing together
the Scotch Presbyterian elements in Boston and by July, 1730, had
completed the arrangement for a church there. Before this time he
had been ordained by the newly organized Presbytery of Londonderry,
Ireland. From all available sources it appears that the date of his
ordination was either March 30 or 3lst. The Rev. Moorhead made a

notation in his "Registry of Marriages and Baptism" as follows:

 

4SWriters disagreed on the exact year of his coming. See
Sprague, William B., Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. III: 44,
(New York, 1859), compare with Blaikie, op. cit., p. 63, Snow, Caleb
Hopkins, A History of Boston (Boston, 1825), p. 221.

 

 

78

"I began to baptize on and after March Slst, 1730."46 He was probably
installed as pastor of the congregation on March 31, 1730.47 The
congregation was not fully deve10ped at that date but in a few months
the interested parties gathered in the home of John Little on Milk
Street to elect their ruling elders according to the government of
the Church of Scotland. On the 14th of July, 1730, they elected
John Young, Robert Patton, Samuel McClure, Richard McClure and Thomas
McMullen as their Elders.48

John Little, a market gardener, was one of the Scots in
Boston who by his industry had been able to accumulate some money
and property. He favored the plan to establishing a Presbyterian
church in Boston. Many of the early meetings of the society, it
appears, had been held in his home. On May 14, 1729, he purchased a
lot on which there stood a barn, which was located on Long Lane.
A short time later he converted the barn into a place of meeting for

49
the "Church of the Presbyterian Strangers." Shortly thereafter

he gave the property in a perpetual trust to the Presbyterian

 

46Blaikie, p. 65.

47Odiorne, James C., A Complete List of the Ministers of Boston,
Etc. in the N.E.H. 6 G.R. Vol. I: p. 135.

 

Blaikie, p. 65. Blaikie is the most reliable writer on
the early history of the Boston church. He was for many years a
pastor in Boston and was engaged in a long suit to get back the property
of this first Presbyterian Church. He investigated the early sources
carefully. The original records of the church are not now available.

49Snow, p. 222.

79

church. There was a diSpute between John Little and the representatives
of the church regarding certain claims of Mr. Little before it was
finally conveyed to the church. The matter was agreeably settled by
a board of arbitration which was probably composed of three men from
among the French Presbyterians, and as a result the prOperty was
given to the Presbyterian church in 1735.50

The barn given by John Little was the first place used by the
congregation for worship. When it became too small it was made more
commodious by the addition of two wings. This rude structure
remained their place of meeting until 1742 when they felt impelled
to build a better place of meeting. By 1744 they had their new and
more attractive church. The society was now flourishing under the
leadership of the Rev. Moorhead and a church session composed of
twelve elders, each one having charge of a certain section of the
membership.51 It was Moorhead's duty to visit and pray with the
sick in his area, to advise or reprove, and to obtain aid for the
poor. Six years after the founding of the church the communicants
were about two hundred and fifty.53

Rev. John Moorhead was a sincere and earnest worker; he was

zealous in the enforcement of the doctrines of the Scottish church,

and he watched carefully over the morals of his people. Occasionally

 

SOBlaikie, pp. 68-73.
SlSnow, p. 221.
52S

prague, Vol. III, p. 45.

531618., p. 46.

80

he was so severe in his exercise of the discipline of the church
that some were offended and withdrew from the society.54 He visited
the sick frequently. Once or twice a year Mr. Moorhead took with
him one of his Elders and visited every member of his congregation.
On these visits he inquired into the spiritual state of the heads of
the family, catechised the children and servants and prayed especially
for the Spiritual needs of each one. Twice a year he called together
all the families in each of his twelve districts to meet at the
church where he questioned the older persons on the doctrines of the
Confession of Faith and again catechised the children and youth.
Edward L. Parker gives an illuminating reference to Rev.

John Moorhead:

"He was a man of distinguished talents, and eminent

for his piety; but subject to a natural temperment

so excitable as not infrequently to lead to rah and
imprudent acts and expressions, which called forth on
one occasion from Mr. David Macgregor, his particular
friend, this reproof: 'Mr. Moorhead, you have doUble
the grace of common Christians, but not half enough for
yourself.' ”55

Rev. David McClure gives us a good first hand account of the
method and content of the Rev. Mr. Moorhead's preaching:

"Mr. Moorhead was a plain, evangelical and practical
preacher. He paid very little attention to the
ornaments of style in his pulpit performances. His
discourses appeared to be extemporaneous. He expounded
the Scriptures in course in the morning, and delivered
a sermon in the afternoon. He preached the Law and

 

54Ibid., pp. 45-6.

55Parker, Edward L., History of Londonderry (Boston, 1898),
p. 131.

 

81

Gospel in their spirituality and purity. He in-
sisted principally on the peculiar doctrines of the
Gospel - the deep depravity of human nature; the
Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the efficacy of the
atonement; the special agency of the Divine Spirit in
regeneration; the necessity of repentance, 0 faith in
Christ, and of good works."56

The Rev. John Moorhead continued as pastor of the Boston church for
about forty-four years until his death in December, 1773. The
Boston church was stronger during his pastorate than at any other
time during the colonial period.

In 1738 the migration to Pelham was a formal organization of a
band of discontented Scots from Worcester for the express purpose
of establishing a frontier settlement of their own where they could
have complete freedom in their religious services.57 They selected
a spot about thirty miles west of Worcester. The Indian situation
had improved sufficiently by this time so that it was fairly safe
to move westward. In making their contact with Colonel John Stoddard
who owned the land upon which they settled, this revealing statement

appears:

"The said Robert Prebals engages for himself and for his
heirs... to have with himself twenty families of good
conversation settled on the Premies, who shall be such as
were inhabitants of the Kingdom of Ireland or their Des-
cendants being Protestants and none be admitted but such
as bring good and undeniable credentials or certificates
of their being persons of good conversation and of the
Presbyterian Persuasion as used in the Church of Scotland,
and Conform to the Discipline thereof unless they shall
otherwise agree hereafter."S8

56Sprague, p. 46.
S7Lincoln, pp. 48, 165.

S8"Proprietory Records of the Town of Pelham" as copied in C. W.
Parmenter, History of Pelham (Amherst, Mass., 1898), p. 15.

82

In August, 1740, the proprietors voted to build a meetinghouse
to raise 120 pounds towards building it and chose a committee to
agree with a workman to raise the house and provide for the settling
of a minister.59 After this they raised 220 pounds in two install-
ments for the erection and completion of the structure. The new
church first extended a call to their former pastor at Worcester,
the Rev. William Johnston, but in the meantime he had moved to Windham,
New Hampshire, and did not see fit to accept it. In 1742 the Rev.
Robert Abercrombie a native of Edinburgh, Scotland, began to supply
the pulpit, and two years later he was settled as pastor, which
position he continued to hold for ten years.60

Scots from Worcester were probably among the company of those
who began to occupy what was known as the "Boston Township" about
1736.61 This township was located near the border of the present
state of Vermont, and for a number of years was not large enough to
support a pastor. However, it does appear later in the annals of
New England Presbyterianism in connection with various presbyteries,

and especially during the pastorate of Samuel Taggert.

 

591616., p. 38.

OParmenter, p . 261 .

61One reason for feeling the Worcester men were among the
settlers of Coleraine is the fact that John Clark whose name headed
the list of petitioners in Worcester who sought exemption from the parish
taxes now appears among the first settlers of Coleraine. See Vital
Records of Coleraine "Massachusetts", p. 155; also see Perry, p. 16 and
Holland, Josiah 6., History of’Western Massachusetts, Vol. 111 (Springfield,
1855), p. 336.

62Rev. Samuel Taggert will appear in connection with the Synod

of New England and the Associate Reformed Presbytery.

 

 

‘eas

83

The town of Londonderry, New Hampshire, was founded in 1718
by a group Of the Scots who came through Boston. This group had
previously lived in the valley of the Bann in Ireland on the Antrim
side of the river. They set forth as a body under the guidance of
their faithful pastor, Rev. James MacGregore. Soon after their
arrival in New England they explored for a suitable place to settle.
They had a promise from Governor Shute of the Province of New Hampshire
that they could have a grant of land in any unapprOpriated portion
of the territory under his jurisdiction.63 The Governor was especially
anxious to have the northern and eastern areas of the colony settled
to give greater protection from the Indians and the French. For that
reason he probably directed their attention to the eastward along
the coast of what is now part of the state of Maine. Late in the
autumn they sailed eastward to explore the vicinity of Casco Bay in
which place their ship anchored for the winter. It was a hard winter
for the little company since they did not have a sufficient food
supply, but fortunately there were no deaths during the winter. The
severity of the winter was undoubtedly a factor which led them to
turn their thoughts southward when the Spring time made it possible
for them to continue their search for a home. However, some few in the
company had been attracted by this territory and they remained at

Portland and Wiscasset. The remainder of the group turned their

63Early Records of Londonderry, Vol. I, pp. 10-11, 17.

 

84

attention toward another location near the Merrimac River in the
southern part of the state of New Hampshire. They sailed back down

the coast and up the Merrimac River to the town of Haverhill where

they anchored. It is said that the people of Haverhill were not
pleased to see so many "Irish”, as they called them, move into their
territory. The Scots had in mind a location about fifteen miles to

the north which was known as Nutfield owing to the prevalence of many
walnut, chestnut and butternut trees. A representative group of the
men went out to examine the tract and decided that it was the kind of
place which they had been seeking. According to their previous
arrangement with the colonial authorities they selected an area of
twelve square miles for the township which was granted to John Moor and
one hundred and seventeen others by Governor Samuel Shute on June 21,
1722.64 Even before they returned to the ship, however, the prospecting
party set about to erect a few temporary huts.

Having settled upon a location the leaders of the party were
anxious to get their pastor, James MacGregore, to accompany them.
During the previous winter he had received a call from the townspeople
of Dracut which he had accepted and he had served as pastor and teacher
for them that winter. A party of the men from the boat now came around
by way of Dracut to prevail upon Rev. James MacGregore to accompany
them to their new community. He made the trip with them and on April

11, 1719 (0.5.), the two groups met at Londonderry and Pastor MacGregore,

64
38-41.

Early Records of the Town of Londonderry, Vol. I, p. 12,

 

 

85

according to the tradition, delivered them an impressive address
in which he congratulated them upon the prOpitious termination of
their wandering and their signal preservation as a company while

crossing the ocean, and he exhorted them to continue their confidence

in God in their new country. The next day, standing under a large oak,

he delivered to the company the first sermon ever preached in that
place. He spoke on the text "Isaiah 32:2, A man shall be as an hiding
place from the wind, etc." After that he returned to Dracut for a
few weeks before joining the company permanently. It is significant
of the veneration which the people had for their pastor that one of
the very first frame houses built was for Pastor MacGregor. The
faithfulness of Rev. James MacGregore was demonstrated by his willing-
ness to forsake his secure position at Dracut and join with his old
friends in their new struggling community. In May 1719,65 he came to
them with his family of seven children and remained with them as
their pastor until his death in 1729.

One of the first tasks of the settlers was to make provisions
for their religious services according to the Presbyterian order.
As soon as they were organized as a town and parish they formally
invited the Rev. McGregore to become their pastor.66 He accepted
their call, but as no Presbytery then existed in New England, the

installation ceremony was dispensed with. On a day appointed for the

 

65Early Records of the Town of Londonderry, Vol. I, p. 17.

66Ear1y_Records of Londonderry, p. 17.

 

v13."

 

86

purpose, the people met, and he solemnly assumed the pastoral charge
of the church and the congregation; they in turn recognized him as
their pastor and spiritual guide. He preached for them on the occasion
from the text, "Moveover I will make a covenant of peace with them;
and it will be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will place
them and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of
them forevermore."67

The church and the community had a long continued growth,
which began during the pastorate of MacGregore. At a communion
season in 1723, there were one hundred and sixty communicants; at
another a few months later, two hundred and thirty; and at the one
immediately preceding his death, three hundred and seventy five.68

As the first pastor of this important Presbyterian Church
of Londonderry, the Rev. James MacGregore holds a special interest
for us. Before coming to America he had been ordained in Ireland
on June 25, 1701, and had held a charge at Aghadowey until it became
evident the church could not support him adequately. The records of
the Ulster Synod of this period reveal an interesting sidelight regarding
him.69 In 1704 he was brought before them and admonished for his
behavior at Coleraine in having taken several cans of ale, when as he

admitted "less might have served", but it was not shown that he was

drunk. One must keep in mind that this was an age of hard drinking

 

67Parker, p. 129.

68Early Records of Londonderry, p. 11 and Parker, p. 131.

 

69Ford, p. 346.

 

 

87

among all classes, and it was taken for granted that ministers would
drink moderately. This seems nhave been the only time his behavior
was questioned publically. This was viewed very highly by his con-
temporary, Cotton Mather, who after two month's association with him
at. Boston was the means of helping to find him employment at Dracut.
In his diary Cotton Mather made the following notation on October 3d,
1718, "Encouraged the people of Draycot unto inviting of a worthy
Scotch Minister lately arrived here, to settle among them."70

From other sources we have a portion of his letter of recommendation
for Mr. MacGregore, "a person of very excellent character; and
considerably qualified for the work of the ministry as well as his
Christian piety, serious gravity, and as far as we have heard, every

71 He was chosen from among fifteen candi-

Way exceptional Behavior."
dates for the pastorate of the church at Dracut on October 15, 1718.
In the town meeting it was voted that he should be invited "to
Settle at Dracut to preach the Gospel, and do the work of a settled
minister" for which services he was to receive a salary of 65 pounds
a Year for the first four years, after which it would be increased
to 70 pounds, and if the community should grow to have over fifty
fa~l'l‘tilies he was to receive eighty pounds per year. His loyalty to his
own people is shown by his willingness to forsake this position and
Work in the infant community of Londonderry where he was to receive
\

70DiarLof Cotton Mather, Park 11, October 3, 1718.
71

 

Ford, p. 347.

 

 

88

as salary every year twenty shillings out of every occupied "lott"
iii tire said town and also every lot was to give a day's work to the
minister's settlement.72 He was said to be strictly evangelical in
his doctrinal views, and particularly spiritual and experimental
if! liis preaching.73 He has been described as having had a robust
Cons titution and enjoying good health up until his last severe ill-
ness, His services to the people of Londonderry were cut short by
11153 death at the age of fifty-two years on March 5, 1729.74
Shortly after the death of Pastor MacGregore the Rev. Matthew
(learke assumed the leadership of the church although he did not become
its formal pastor. During the interim that Clarke was supplying
tiles church the congregation remained on the alert to find a regular
IDaustor. A considerable group of the English Puritans who had settled
111. the town was not anxious to have another Scotch-Irishman, but since
tile: Presbyterians were in the ascendency they succeeded in October,
1733, in calling the Rev. Thomas Thomson, a Scotch-Irishman of the
pIriesbytery of Tyrone, Ireland, to be the regular pastor of the church.
His ministry was acceptable to the Scots for he was friendly, affable,
Pleasing in his manners, and interesting as a public speaker. The
PLllfiitan element was not content, however, and made the few years of
ThOmson's pastorate unpleasant by their persecution. The leader of
this group, John Taggart, had to stand trial before the session for

\

72Early Records of Londonderry, N.H., pp. 17, 18.
7

 

3Parker, p. 136.

4 .
7 Early Records of the Town of Londonderry.

 

 

 

89

slandering the minister.75 Thomson's troubled ministry, which lasted
:Ei.\re= years, came to an abrupt end with his death on September 22,
117E$£3 at the age of thirty-four. The sincere affection which his
parishioners had for him is demonstrated by their generosity in
providing seventy pounds towards the education of his infant son.76
'T11211t the church grew under his guidance is demonstrated by the fact
that at one of the sacramental seasons in 1734 there were 700 in
zatrtwendance.

The turmoil during the pastorate of Thomson was only one
Zirlclication of the difference of opinion which was developing in the
‘tIDerL The community had grown to such an extent that it was possible
ifsblr it to support two churches. Therefore, the inhabitants of the
Vvfiisstern part, who were mainly Scots, were in 1738 incorporated into the
west Parish of Londonderry. The East Parish contained a greater
nlumber of the English but the church in the East parish continued to
fLrnction along Presbyterian lines at least until 1791, thereafter
becoming Congregational. The East Parish church will be seen especially
5LT! connection with the Presbytery of Londonderry under the ministry
C)i? the Rev. William Davidson. There was not a strict parish division
j-rl Londonderry, however, for about forty families in the West Parish
w"int to the East Parish church and about an equal number from the
ea-Stern part attended the services in the western parish during the

period when Rev. David McGregore served as pastor of the West Parish.

\

75Parker, p. 141, 142.

76Early Records of the Town of Londonderry, p. 153.

 

 

90

During the first half of the eighteenth century the population

of the province of Maine was increased by a considerable infiltration

of Scotch-Irish. This was a frontier area for the Massachusetts

colony during this period and the authorities of the colony followed

their practice of directing the Scots as much as possible along the

frontier. It is impossible to state definitely how many individual

families out of the five shiploads which arrived in Boston in August,

171 8 found their way there. Part of this group, as we have seen,

went to Worcester, and another section explored northward and east-

ward along the coast, spending the winter in Casco Bay. The following

 

Spring a considerable share of this party then returned southward and

became the settlers of Londonderry, New Hampshire. However, not all

of them left for part of the group disembarked at Falmouth township,
now Portland and a larger number settled at Wiscasset. Thus the

migration of 1718 brought some Scotch—Irish into at least two

Communities in Maine .

The second considerable influx followed the visit of Captain

RObert Temple, an Irishman, to the coast of Maine in 1717. He came 1

to New England in order to examine land that would be suitable for a

Plantation. He was personally escorted by the owners of a tract of

 

1and on the west bank of the Kennebec River in Maine to view their

holdings, but while there his attention was caught by the attractive-

ness of the land on the opposite bank. This land belonged to Colonel

Hutchinson of the Plymouth Company, so he became a partner in that

el'lterprise and then agreed to secure settlers for it. In line with

91

his plan he secured in 1719 and 1720 several hundred families from
Ulster who were settled along the eastern shores of the Kennebec from
zit:ss mouth to Merrymeeting Bay. Many settled in the sections later
ka1<>\dn as Topsham and Bath. The Merrymeeting colony, however, was
turt>l<en up by the Indians in 1722, when many of the inhabitants were
Icisl led or captured and the towns of Brunswick and Georgetown were
teurporarily destroyed. This experience caused many of the survivors
to remove to Pennsylvania, but others remained and afterwards became
{Dalzrt of the p0pulation of Topsham, Brunswick, Boothbay and Pemaquid.
Another important detachment of Scotch-Irish came to Maine
llrlcier the leadership of Colonel Dunbar, a Scotch-Irishman who obtained
61 cusmmission from the Crown to act as governor of Sagadahoc, a tract
(>1? land lying between the Kennebec and the St. Croix Rivers. Fort
Frederick at Pemaquid was the headquarters for his settlement. The
acztual colonization began about 1730 and within two or three years
n“Ore than a hundred and fifty families, chiefly Scottish, came into
1tfie colony at the request of Colonel Dunbar. Among these settlers

was the Rev. Robert Rutherford who served as a preacher in many of
these Scotch-Irish settlements. He will be seen again in connection
with the Presbytery of Londonderry.
About twenty-seven Scotch-Irish families were settled in
1 735 on a tract of land lying between the St. George and the
penobscot Rivers by Samuel Waldo, the owner of the tract. Walso
131‘Ought a second colony from Ireland in 1753 which consisted of about
sixty adults and many children. They were located in the western
part of the Warren township and their settlement was called Stirling.

\

77Ford, p. 350.

T!

 

 

92

Thus during this first half of the eighteenth century there
were Scotch-Irish located in the settlements of Topsham, Brunswick,
Boothbay, Pemaquid, Noblesboro, Warren, Bristol and other localities

in Maine. All of these towns feature more or less in the story of

Presbyterianism in New England. For while they were not able to

support Presbyterian pastors for long periods of time, they were
definitely connected with the Presbyteries of Londonderry and Boston,
the first synod of New England, and the Presbytery at the Eastward.
Frequently the peeple of these towns sought the assistance of the

PreSbytery in settling a pastor among them or in requesting that some

Presbyterian minister be sent to supply them. By the close of the

eighteenth century the Scotch-Irish element had so far changed
their views of that, for the most part, they adOpted the congre-
gational mode.
During this early period in Maine there were some Scotch-

Irish ministers that came into the area and preached in various
Communities. One should keep in mind the fact that the communi-
ties were seldom in the complete control of the Scots for there
were a sufficient number of English Puritans who had moved into
this region either before the Scots came, or along with them, that
they usually had much to say in the calling of a pastor. The fact
was that most of the settlements were unable to support a minister

reg‘UIarly and were not in position to give him a call. Thus the

ministers frequently went from one place to another and preached a few

Weeks or months in each place and then went elsewhere. When the people

)4 '.fl"‘r

 

 

93

of these early settlements could call a minister they often paid him
in produce and foodstuffs, or by getting him wood or assisting him
on his farm.

A few ministers with Presbyterian inclinations appear in the
history of the early days of the settlements in Maine. One of
them, the Rev. Hugh Campbell who had a Master of Arts degree from the
University of Edinburgh, spent the year 1720 at Scarboro, Maine. In
1722 his place was filled by the Rev. Hugh Henry.78 Another Presby-
teriam minister was the Rev. James Woodside who arrived in Maine in

1719 with one of the groups that came from Ulster. The townspeOple

 

Of Brunswick, Maine in 1719 invited him to preach six months on
prob altion.7g Evidently his relations with his parishioners were not
entirely satisfactory to them, for at the expiration of the six months
the town voted to continue his services for six months "provided those
Of us who are Dissatisfied with his Conversation (as afore Said)

Can by Treating with him as becomes Christians receive such satis-
faction from him as that they will Heare him preach for ye Time

Af<>resaid."80

At any rate, he did not improve sufficiently to satisfy
them and so the town voted on September 10, 1719 to dismiss him.

It Seems that not long afterwards he returned to Boston, for in a

 

latter of January 25, 1720 Cotton Mather wrote that "poor Mr. Woodside,

after many and grievous calamities in this uneasy country, is this

—_\

78Ford, p. 353.
T 79Wheeler, G. A. and Wheeler, H. W., History of Brunswick,
Maud Harpswell, Maine (Boston, 1878), p. 824.

80Brunswick Town Records as quoted in Wheeler, gp_. cit., p. 824.

94

taking ship for London."81

As we noted, the Rev. Robert Rutherford, an ordained Pres-
byterian minister who came to New England in 1729, first settled in
Colonel Dunbar's colony. He preached to the Scots of Bristol and
Pemaquid until about the year 1735 when he began to preach in
Brl..niswick;82 here he was considered to be a pious and orthodox
Imitigiuster. Apparently he was never installed as the pastor of the
cliizazrch but rather was the regular supply of the pulpit up until the
Year 1742. From the minutes of the town it appears that arrange-
ments were made for him for his support from year to year. In 1747
he: atppears at Henderson's Fort at Pleasant Point. He died in October,
1756 at Thomaston.

Other Presbyterian ministers who preached in Maine during
t31€3 first half of the eighteenth century were William McClenachan,
James Morton, and Robert Dunlap.

Presbyterianism in Maine did not flourish in this early period.
bkirl)? parishes were nominally organized along Presbyterian lines, but,
Ohfiirlg to their inability to support a regular pastor and to a dearth
0f well qualified ministers, the churches did not have a favorable
Start. Presbyterianism here rose to its greatest height under the

direction of the Presbytery at the Eastward from 1771 to 1793.

 

 

81Ford, op. cit., p. 250.
82Wheeler, p. 355.

95

The conclusions that can be made from this second impulse
toward Presbyterianism from abroad via migrations are quite clear.
Not only was it not too difficult for the New England churches to
accept these new Presbyterians, largely because the New Englanders'
ties to English Presbyterians, but by the end of the Seventeenth

Century they were even able to accept those who were of the Scottish

type of Presbyterianism. It is also significant to note that in the

process there was developing in New England their own "home grown"

variety of Presbyterianism.

 

 

Chapter IV
THE PRESBYTERY OF LONDONDERRY

A careful investigation of the material indicates that the
first presbytery in New England was organized by the Scotch Presbyter-

ians and was called the Presbytery of Londonderry; it was popularly

cal led the "Irish Presbytery."

The sessional records of the Londonderry Church have apparently

been lost since the time (before 1850), when Edward L. Parker wrote

his History of Londonderry. However, Parker had access to them and

frequently made direct quotations from them. Referring to the presby-

tery , he writes:

"Presbyterian churches were so multiplied in New
England, that, as early as 1729, we find in the records
of the Londonderry church session, a notice of a meeting
of presbytery in Bostoné and that an elder was appointed

to attend its session.”
In another place Parker quotes from the session records of 1736
Showing that during that year the names of six men were presented

to the presbytery for its approval as to whether these men were

1The minutes and records of this body have apparently been
1031:, but there is considerable indirect material which has proven
thiit: the presbytery did exist. Some writers of this period seem to
haVe been unaware of this presbytery and have stated that the first
New England Presbytery was founded in Boston in 1745. However, most
of the writers have acknowledged the existence of the Presbytery of
Londonderry: see Loetscher, Presbyterianism in Colonial New England;
Grant, Presbyterianism in New England; Briggs, American Presbyterianism;
Thc’mpson, Presbyterians; Blaikie, Presbyterianism in New England;
Parker, History of Londonderry. The most convincing evidence regarding
the existence of this presbytery has been references to it found in
certain indirect sources. These references are the Proprietory Records

0f Certain towns and individual church records.

2Parker, History of Londonderry, p. 131.

96

97

3
vvcxrthy to be made Elders of the Londonderry church. This indicates
‘tliat there was an active presbytery to which they could appeal for
guidance in the selection of new elders.
Certain direct references to a presbytery are also found in
Iizazrly Records of the Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire; they state:
"At a meeting of the proprietors and free
holders of Londonderry held at their meeting-
house October ye 24th 1730... 21y voted that
they will not send a commisioner to the
next presbytr to be held at Boston.”4
"October 6, 1739--it is voted and a Greed
upon by sd Inhabitants that they will

adhear G a Gree to the Rules of the

presbytr which is to be held at Londonderry
afore sd the 10th Day of this Instant
Currant."

In the parish records of the town of Windham, New Hampshire,
VV€3 find this article on March 8, 1741: voted "that Nathaniel Hemphill
attend the Presbytery at Boston in order to have a supplier to preach
t11e3 gospel to us."6

In the Proprietory records of the Elbow settlement, later the
txovvn.of Palmer, Massachusetts, there are definite references to the
Presbytery of Londonderry. The year 1734 found them making provision
ft>I‘ the entertainment of the Presbytery of Londonderry so that the

Presbytery could meet in their settlement and ordain Mr. John Harvey

3Parker, Ibid., p. 131.

4Early Records of the Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire,
V01, 1, p.118.

sIbid., p. 225.

Records of the Parish of Windham, New Hampshire, as copied in

Morrison, The History of Windham, p. 124.

 

 

98

and install him as their pastor.

It is unnecessary to quote from all the town records and
histories references which pertain to the existence of a presbytery
in New England prior to 1745. As we examine the information we have
been able to gather which shows the various activities of the
presbytery, it will become increasingly obvious that such a presbytery
did exist. The exact date of its organization cannot be ascertained,
but the evidence available indicates that it had probably been

organized sometime prior to 1730.

 

Because of the loss of the records of the presbytery it is 4
inrpossible to name the men who were responsible for its organization. %
In order to discover who may have organized it, we must attempt to
find what Presbyterian pastors were located in New England about 1730.
James MacGregore had been located at the Londonderry settlement since
1719, and it is possible that the Presbytery of Londonderry owed its
beginning Dhis initiative. On the other hand, it must be
remembered that he died on March 5, 1729 so that his work as a
Presbyter was at best not very long.

To replace James MacGregore there came an elderly minister

from Ireland, the Rev. Mathew Clarke. By September, 1729, hewas in

 

act-,1 ve charge of the Londonderry congregation, even though he refused

to become the regularly installed pastor, because of his advanced

. 7The Proprietor's Records of the Elbow settlement are copies
in Temple's History of Palmer, p. 89.

 

99

age. However, as a staunch Presbyterian, it is possible that he
may have been one of the moving spirits behind the erection of the
Presbytery. We know he was undoubtedly active in that organization
until his death on January 25, 1735.

The pastor of the French Presbyterian Church in Boston was
Andrew Le Mercier, who had been active in the field since 1715;
there is strong reason to believe he was one of the first members
of the presbytery.9

Another ordained Presbyterian minister was Rev. Robert
Rutherford; he came to New England in 1729 and, as we noted before,
he went to Colonel Dunbar's settlement in Maine.10 Preaching as
he did to settlements on the northern and eastern frontier it is

hardly likely that he was a regular participant in the presbytery

. 1
me etings .

8Baird, Huguenot Emigration, p. 242.

91bid., p. 242.

10Willis, William, The Scotch-Irish Immigration to Maine
(Portland, 1859), p. 33.

11Andrew Le Mercier in his pamphlet on the Hillhouse contro-
Versy speaks of Rutherford as being a "man of amiable and excellent
diSposition." See subsequent citation, Le Mercier, "Remarks on
the Preface of a pamphlet published by John Presbyter" etc.
if; Mercier mentions he was at a meeting of the Presbytery in
36 .

 

 

100

Another who may have been associated with the Presbytery of

Londonderry was the Rev. Ward Clark.1 He became pastor of the

church at Kingston, New Hampshire, on September 29, 1725. While he

was settled in time to be one of the charter members, there are no

direct references to show that he was a member of the Presbytery

Obviously, there were at least a sufficient

1
of Londonderry. 3
Fm:

numb er of Presbyterian pastors available before 1730 to form a pres-
p

bytery.
During the next few years several additions came to the

 

membership of the newly organized presbytery. John Moorhead, pastor

0f the Presbyterian Church in Boston, was probably the first man

Ordained by the Londonderry Presbytery. His ordination probably

14
tOOk place March 30, 1730. He became one of the most active

members of this presbytery for the few years he was connected with

it-
In October, 1733, the Rev. Thomas Thomson was installed

as the pastor of the Londonderry Church by the Presbytery. Shortly

thereafter he participated in the affairs of that body for we know

that he took part at the Elbow settlement in the ordination of

 

. 12Ward Clark was considered a man of tact and was quite
lufluential in the affairs of the town and church. The church grew

and prospered under his leadership, and it increased his salary regularly
ten Pounds each year. He died on May 6, 1737. See Lawrence, N_e_w_

Mm Churches, pp. 83-84.

13His name appears upon the list of members of the presbytery

grape-red by Blaikie, Presbyterianism, p. 58, and also the list prepared
y Hanna, Charles A., The Scotch-Irish in America," Vol. II (New York,

1902) , P. 97.
14

 

Blaikie, Ibid., p. 64.

101

541'. John Harvey who also became a member of the presbytery. This
ins .shown in the Proprietory Records for the Elbow settlement:

"On the fifth day of June, Anno-Domini
1734, the Rev. Mr. John Harvey was
ordained the first minister of the church
and congregation of the Elbow settlement.
The ordination was performed by the
delegates of the Reverend Presbitery of
Londonderry, upon a scaffold made under
a tree, being a great white oak tree....
within Mr. Harvey's lott. The Rev.

Mr. Thomson of Londonderry preached the
sermon, and the Rev. Mr. Moorhead (of
Boston) gave the charge ....... One other
Presbyterian minister was present, though
what part he took in the service is not
specified. They were all countrymen of
Mr. Harvey's."l

The Rev. John Wilson was hired sometime during the year
13735<1 by the Scotch Presbyterians in the town of Chester, New
Hallmjpshire.16 This action by the Scots to provide a Presbyterian
Pas tor for themselves was the cause of a quarrel with the local
COrlgregationalists who were provoked because the Scots wanted to have
tile:i.r own church and would not contribute to the support of their
minister. Mr. Wilson continued as pastor of this church until 1778.
lie ‘hfas a.quiet man, careful to mind his own affairs, Spending much

tiJDGB in his study and having little to do with the affairs of the

17 . .
tC”VT1- There 15 ev1dence to show that he was a member of the

15"The Proprietor's Records of the Elbow settlement" as
contained in Temple, J. H., History of Palmer, Massachusetts
(Sprlngfield, 1889), p. 89.

16Chase, J. C., History of Old Chester from 1719 to 1869

p. 78.

17
Lawrence, Robert F., New Hampshire Churches (1856), p. 30.

(1856) ’

74’4TT

 

 

102

Presbytery of Londonderry.18
Previous to 1736 the Rev. William Johnston settled with the
Scots in Worcester.19 He remained with them until it became
apparent to him that they were not in a position to carry forward
their plans for a Presbyterian Church, when he removed in 1742 to
Windham, New Hampshire, at the request of the peOple of the town.20
He was installed as pastor there in 1747 by the Londonderry Presbytery
and remained with them until 1752 when he was forced to leave them
because of inadequate support. During his ministry there was no
meeting-house for public worship and their services were held in
barns. As long as he was in New England he was a member of the
Presbytery.21
In 1734 the Rev. William McClenachan came to Maine to serve
arlong with Robert Rutherford. He preached in various towns in Maine,
biit chiefly at Cape Elizabeth and Georgetown. He was called to
Blandford, Massachusetts, in 1744 and remained there until 1747

when he was dismissed by the Presbytery.22 He then moved south

 

18Blaikie, Presbyterianism, p. 58; Wheeler, G. A., History of
Ll‘mlswick (Boston, 1878), p. $58-59.

 

1
9Lincoln, History of Worcester (Worcester, 1837), p. 164.

 

Morrison, Leonard A., The History of Windham, in New Hampshire,

432:1;§2;:l£fl£1 (Boston, 1883), pp. 123-24. He quotes from the parish
re<3<>I‘ds.

 

21Blaikie, Presbyterianism, p. 58, 84, 89.

 

t01_ - 22The relation of McClenachan with the Blandford Church is
so ‘1 .Jan Keep's Historical Discourse, p. 16 and S. G. Wood, Ulster
WBlandford Scouts (1926), pp. 213, 223, 225, 344 ff.""""'

 

 

T

 

winnrm“

103

and became an Episcopal minister.
When one considers the manner in which the Scots were scattered

along the frontier, and the struggling nature of most of their
ecclesiastical organizations it appears remarkable that this

presbytery could have had so many additions to its membership in the
From an initial membership of

first five years of its existence.
three or four, it had within five years grown to the point where it
had at least eight Presbyterian ministers upon its roll, Andrew

Le Mercier, Robert Rutherford, Ward Clark, Thomas Thomson, John Harvey,

John Wilson, William Johnston, John Moorhead.

The first major point of dissension which arose in the

Presbytery of Londonderry was in connection with the admission of
Rev. James Hillhouse, a Presbyterian minister from Ireland, who

laecame in 1722 the pastor of the North Parish Congregational Church
Apparently conditions

<>f'New London (now Montville), Connecticut.
were peaceful in his small congregation until about 1730 when disputes

began to develop between him and some members of his congregation.
The cause and nature of the contention is uncertain. It may have

5 tarted from a dispute which Hillhouse had with one of his neighbors
Or it may have been due

<>\Ie:r the exact boundary of his property.
indirectly to the fact that the small congregation was in arrears in

't}1<3 jpayment of the Rev. Hillhouse's salary; one of the points at

 

\_
23Le Mercier, Andrew, Remarks on the Preface of a Pamphlet

(308 ton, 1737), p. 12.
24Caulkins, Frances M., History of New London, Connecticut

(Hartford, 1866), pp. 452-34.

4 1

 

 

104

issue certainly was a matter of finances. On one occasion Mr. Hill-
house had made an extended trip of several months duration to Ireland,
and yet on his return he insisted that the congregation pay him for
the entire time he was away. Due to these differences the majority
of his members came to oppose his remaining as pastor and they appealed
to a council of Congregational Churches which in 1735, after a care-
ful study of the matter, ordered the Rev. Hillhouse to resign. He
refused to do this and continued to preach and demand his salary.2

In order to protect himself ecclesiastically he applied to the Pres-
bytery of Londonderry for admission.26 He presented his credentials
as a member in good standing of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland,
contending that he was really a Presbyterian and that he should only
be judged by a Presbyterian body. However, certain members of the
presbytery were discriminating enough to see that if they accepted
Mr. Hillhouse to their body and then proceeded to consider his case
it would be a means of directly antagonizing their Congregational
brethren. They saw that in reversing the decision of the council,

the presbytery would be indirectly denying the power and efficacy of

 

25Baker, Henry A., History of Montville, Connecticut (Hartford,
1896), pp. 636-50. Baker gives a good, detailed account of the
troubles in the parish, but he apparently was unaware of the appeal of
Mr. Hillhouse to the Londonderry Presbytery.

26Our most authoritative discussion of the Hillhouse case in
relation to the presbytery has been given by Rev. Andrew Le Mercier,
pastor of the French Presbyterian Church in Boston and an active member
of the presbytery. He wrote a pamphlet entitled, "Remarks on the Pre-
face of a Pamphlet published by John Presbyter in order to vindicate
Mr. James Hillhouse." (A copy of this is to be found in the Library
of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Small quarto, 17 pages. A
photostatic copy of this is now in the Presbyterian Historical Society
at Philadelphia.) See p. 13.

 

105

the Congregational Councils. The correspondence between Presbyterian
and Congregational ministers over this matter became heated. Realizing
the dangerous implications of the situation, a majority of the members
of the presbytery refused to accept Mr. Hillhouse into their member-
ship. However, at a meeting of the presbytery in 1736 when but five
ministers were present, and by the aid of the votes of the ruling
elders, Rev. Moorhead and Rev. Harvey succeeded in voting Mr. Hillhouse
into the membership of the presbytery by a majority of one vote.

This, of course, deeply incensed the other three ministers present

and they entered a protest. It was unfortunate that there was no
synod nearer than Ireland to which they could appeal for guidance

and supervision in this matter.

This action on the part of the presbytery did not heal the
cdifficulties between Hillhouse and his congregation. 7 Also his
Ianleasant bearing made his relationship with the presbytery of short
ciuration.28

Furthermore, the controversy had disasterous effects on the

Iblsesbytery, for it resulted in a division which did not heal.

8417. Le Mercier felt that the action of a congregational council
Should be recognized as being valid, while Mr. Moorhead maintained
that even if a Presbyterian minister were hired by a Congregational

SOCiety, since he was not ordained by a council, he was, therefore

 

 

. 27Caulkins, New London, p. 434. His church continued to be
‘11 Vi ded until his death, December 15, 1740.

28Blaikie, Presbyterianism, p. 56.

 

106

not amenable or subject to them. The dispute became more than an
academic discussion of policy for each side began to employ the
press and the pulpit to hurl vindictive remarks at the other. During
this period Mr. Moorhead preached to the presbytery using as his text,
"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth
your hearts."29 Naturally such a sermon did not help to re—establish
good relations. Finally the controversy rose to such a pitch that
in October, 1736, the presbytery suspended Mr. Harvey, and after
rebuking Mr. Moorhead twice it also suspended him from the
ministry.

The Hillhouse controversy was not the only grievance which
the majority had against Moorhead and Harvey. Le Mercier has given
us an account of an additional cause of irritation:

"In the Presbytery held in Boston in October
1736, when the Names of the several
Members were called among the rest

was the Name of Mr. David McGregore

of Nutfield or New-Londonderry: As

he had never sat before as a Member

of the Presbytery, Mr. Rutherford de-
sired to know how he came to be a Member
of the Presbytery, who ordained him, and
who gave the Ordainers Power to do it.

He and the major Part of the Presbytery
desir'd to be satisfied about those
Things, before they admitted Mr. McGregore
to vote as a Minister or a Member of the
Presbytery. Mr. John Moorhead, who was
then Moderator, and had been one of the
Ordainers, not giving a satisfactory
Answer, the major Part of the Presbytery

29Luke 16:15.

107

persisted in denying Mr. McGregore's

Admission into it. After much Debate

and some fruitless Proposals Messieurs

Moorhead and Harvey declared, that they

would not sit in Presbytery with the rest

of the Members, except Mr. McGregore was

admitted to vote. For that time indeed

they were as good as their Word; for the

Moderatore left the Chair and the Meeting

House, and Messieurs Harvey and McGregore

follow'd him. Several Messengers were

sent after them to desire them to come

in again, but all in vain; and they

refus'd to do it."30
From this it appears that David McGregore had been ordained at a
previous meeting of the presbytery when but a few were present. It
was not that the majority had anything against the popular young
David McGregore, but they resented not having a voice in the action,
especially since it was taken at the time when the presbytery was
disturbed over the Hillhouse matter. Coming as it did added more fuel
to the fire of the controversy, and became the immediate factor in
the division of the presbytery.

When Moorhead, Harvey, and McGregore walked out of the presbytery
it was the beginning of a permanent cleavage. Nine years later Moor-
head and McGregore were instrumental in forming the Presbytery of
Boston which held itself aloof from the Londonderry PreSbytery.

I:Irom this point onward the forces of Presbyterianism in colonial
New England were definitely divided.

30Le Mercier, Remarks, p. 25.

108

Following the withdrawal of Moorhead, Harvey, and McGregore,
the Presbytery of Londonderry continued to carry on with reduced
strength for several years. There is less material for the later
period as compared with the earlier one. Owing to the lack of direct
material it is impossible to determine how active this presbytery
was in supervising the affairs of the pastors and churches under its
care. There is, however, some information about the men who composed
the presbytery in some of the town histories. Following the division
in 1736 when the presbytery was reduced to about five or six active
members, there were still further losses. Ward Clark of Kingston
died on May 6, 1737. Thomas Thomson, the young pastor of the London-
derry Church died September 22, 1738. James Hillhouse did not fit in
well with the presbytery owing to his overbearing manner and did not
really become an active participant in it. He died in 1740.

From all evidence the presbytery never fully recovered from the
extensive losses which it suffered during the latter part of the
first decade of its existence. To be sure, there were some additions
to its membership which helped to rejuvenate it, but on the whole it
seems to have become a rather weak, and ineffective body.

The most prominent man connected with the Presbytery during the
.1ater stage of its existence was the Rev. William Davidson,31

IDastor of the first or East Parish Church at Londonderry, New Hampshire.

31Davidson was born in Ireland about 1714 and was educated in
S(:otland, graduating in 1733 from one of the Scotish Universities.

109

In 1739 he was called to be the successor of Thomas Thomson, and was

ordained and installed by the Londonderry Presbytery early in 1740.32

He remained as the pastor of the church until his death on February 15,
1791. Parker, in his History of Londonderry gives a somewhat prejudiced
account of Davidson owing to the fact that he did not participate in

the Great Awakening. He says:

"Mr. Davidson and his church stood aloof from
all participation in the work and rather
deprecated its approach. Mr. Davidson
dissented from such evangelical views,
Opposed the religious movements of his day,
and as the consequence, shared not in
refreshing influences which descended
c0piously upon sister churches and
congregations.

Although he and those in the Presbyterian
connection who sympathized with him,
adhered to the Confession of faith, and had in
constant use the Assembly's Larger and
Shorter Catechism in their families,
schools, and congregations; yet in their
preaching they left out, as has been
justly said, the distinctive doctrines
of the Calvinistic system; dwelt chiefly
on moral and practical duties; were not
zealous for the conversion of sinners, and
in their preaching and devotional services
lacked that action and fervor which
distinguished the advocates, promoters,
and subjects of the great revival. The
result was that vital godliness greatly
declined in this church, few were added
by profession, discipline was much
neglected, and the distinctive lines
between the church and the world nearly
obliterated."33

32Early Records of Londonderry, pp. 225, 226.

 

33Parker, Londonderry, pp. 150-51.

 

110

For Mr. Parker to say that "vital godliness declined in Mr.
Davidson's church owing to the fact that he did not participate in
the so-called revivals of religion which occurred during the period
is an injustice to Davidson. It is obvious that the sympathies of
Parker are definitely with the revivalists and in his mind they
represent the true movement of religion.

Davidson approached his work in a mild, friendly way. It was
said of him that he was not particularly distinguished for the
brilliance of his talents but that he was loved and respected for the
qualities of his heart and the virtues of his life.34 Frequently
throughout his long pastorate he was known to remit to individual
parishioners their tax for his support when he knew that it was too
great a hardship upon them to pay it. He studied constantly to
maintain the peace and harmony of his society. Many elders were added
to his church session during the more than fifty years that he was
pastor. Undoubtedly he was an active member of the Londonderry
Presbytery throughout the years during which it existed.

There were other ministers beside Davidson who turned to this
presbytery after 1740. In August or September, 1747 the presbytery
ordained Robert Dunlap at the French Presbyterian church in Brunswick,
Pdaine. The Brunswick town records show that the presbyters who

. . . . . 35
I>artic1pated were Le Merc1er, Morton, Dav1dson, Wilson, and Lothlius.

34Parker, Ibid., p. 159.

35Wheeler, History of Brunswick, p. 339.

 

111

Dunlap was dismissed from his pastorate in 1760. It is hardly likely
that he was a very regular attendant at the meetings of the presbytery
owing to his location.36

The name of Morton appears in connection with the ordination
of Dunlap. From other sources we know that James Morton was installed
at Blandford, Massachusetts, in 1748 and continued there until 1767
when he became involved in certain disputes with his pe0ple and was
dismissed.37 He spent the remainder of his life farming. He was
probably associated with the presbytery from 1747 to 1767.

The Londonderry Presbytery also installed John Kinkead as
pastor of the church in Windham, New Hampshire in 1750.38 Within
five years he was dismissed for conduct unbecoming a minister and
his successor in Windham, Simon Williams was ordained and settled by
the Presbytery of Boston.

The Londonderry Presbytery is generally thought to have gone
out of existence sometime between 1765 and 1781. A survey of the
presbyterial strength for the year 1765 reveals that two of the men
who were active in 1740 had died, Rutherford in 1756 and Le Mercier in

1764. Other members had been dismissed from their charges--McC1enachan

 

36The name of Lothlius appears among those who ordained Dunlap.

There appears to be no reference to him in any other account so we do
not know anything more about his connection with the Londonderry Presbytery.

37Keep, Historical Discourse, p. 17.

 

. 8Lawrence, New Hampshire Churches, p. 144. See also Morrison,
History of Windham, p. 52.

 

 

112

from Blandford in 1747, Robert Dunlap from Brunswick in 1760,
and John Kinkead from Windham in 1765. This survey reveals that there
were only three active members after 1765 of whom we have any record.
James Morton remained as pastor at Blandford until 1767, John Wilson
was pastor of the Presbyterian church in Chester until 1778 and William
Davidson was pastor at Londonderry East Parish until 1791.

The fact that Simon Williams, the successor of John Kinkead
at Windham, was ordained and installed by the Presbytery of Boston
in 1765 is suggestive regarding the condition of the Londonderry
presbytery. It may indicate that the Windham church had changed its
presbyterial affiliation owing to the fact that the first presbytery
was no longer functioning. However that may be, there is no definite
record of any actions of the Londonderry Presbytery after this period.
This, of course, does not mean that the few remaining members did not
keep it going in a feeble sort of way for several years. We are,
however, certain that some time previous to 1781 the Londonderry
Presbytery had been dissolved. This we know from the fact that on
October 23, 1781, William Davidson, together with a commissioner from
his congregation, applied to the Presbytery at the Eastward requesting
that they be admitted to that body inasmuch as the Presbytery of
Londonderry was no longer in existence owing to the death and
removal of its members. On the weight of this testimony they were

39
received into the membership of the Presbytery at the Eastward.

39Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward October 23, 1781. A
typed copy of these minutes is in the possession of the Presbyterian
Hlstorical Society in Philadelphia.

Chapter V

THE PRESBYTERY OF BOSTON

In 1745 three Presbyterian ministers, John Moorhead, David
McGregore, and Robert Abercrombie, who were unaffiliated with any
presbytery felt a need for some type of organization to supervise
the program of their respective churches. They gained the support
of their individual congregations for their undertaking and set aside
the third Wednesday of March, 1745, as a day of fasting and humiliation
to ask the counsel of God in this matter.1 Following this day of
preparation they met at Londonderry on April 16, 1745, together
with their respective elders, and "being satisfied as to the divine
warrent, with dependence upon God for Counsel and Assistance by
prayer they constituted themselves into a presbytery, to act so far
as their present circumstances would permit them according to the Word
of God and the Constitution of the Presbyterian church of Scotland,
agreeing with that perfect rule."2 This organization was known as the
Presbytery of Boston. Robert Abercrombie was chosen the first clerk
and John Moorhead the first moderator.

As previously noted Moorhead and McGregore had been associated
with the Presbytery of Londonderry until they dropped from the roll

in 1736.3 These two men had remained without any presbyterial

1Minutes of the Presbytery of Boston. The minutes of this
Presbytery have beengreserved, and this author has had available a
typed cOpy of them through the courtesy of the Department of History of
the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

 

2

Ibid., Minutes for April 16, 1745.
3

See Chapter 4, p.

113

114

affiliation until they were joined by a young man who had been licensed
to preach before leaving Scotland, Mr. Robert Abercrombie. He arrived
in New England in 1740 and was ordained and installed at Pelham,
Massachusetts in 1744. He had preached among the Presbyterians of
Boston and Worcester before settling at Pelham. It was while at
Worcester that he met the group which later moved out to settle the
town of Pelham. He had been ordained there on August 30, 1744, by a
council consisting of Moorhead and McGregore and four congregational
pastors.

John Moorhead, another of the charter members, has previously
appeared in connection with the establishment of the Presbyterian
church at Long Lane, Boston, and also a member of the London-
derry Presbytery. He was a vigorous champion of Presbyterian principles
and his participation in this presbytery continued more than thirty
years.

The third charter member, David McGregore, pastor of the West
Parish Church of Londonderry, New Hampshire was the son of James
MacGregore who was the first pastor of the Londonderry Church.

David McGregore studied theology under the Rev. Matthew Clarke, the
elderly minister who took charge of the Londonderry Church following
the death of James MacGregore. With this training he was called in
1739 to be the pastor of the newly formed West Parish in Londonderry.4

David McGregore was particularly acceptable to the orthodox Scots, for

4On the formation of the West Parish see Chapter III, pp.

115

while not having the privilege of a university education he was
capable and interesting preacher. Many people from the surrounding
communities came to hear him. Indeed, his ability became so widely
known that he was given a call in 1755 by the Presbyterian Church in
the city of New York, but he declined it and remained with his con-
gregation in Londonderry until his death on May 30, 1777.5 He was
particularly faithful in the pastoral supervision of his pe0ple; he
visited them regularly, catechizing the children, and checking on
the religious practices of the adults. His concern for the Presbyterian
cause did not confine itself to his own congregation, for he was one
of the most active and aggressive members of the Boston Presbytery
throughout its entire existence. He endeavored to draw the small
churches on the frontier into a vital connection with the presbytery,
and he himself often went to preach at these vacant churches. He also
realized the need for training young men in the work of the ministry
and he took it upon himself, as was the custom in that day, to train
several young men.6

Unlike other presbyteries, the Presbytery of Boston was one
presbytery in eighteenth century New England that did not die out for

want of a sufficient number of members to carry it on. There was a steady

5Alexander, S. D., The Presbytery of New York 1738 to 1888
(New York, 1888), p. 17.

6It is definitely known that he trained Samuel McClintock,
later the pastor of the Congregational Church at Greenland, New
Hampshire; and also John Houston, later pastor of the Presbyterian
Ccnlgregation at Bedford.

 

116

increase in its membership throughout the thirty years which it
existed. By 1775 the membership had grown to the point that they felt
that they were in position to go ahead with the organization of a Synod.
During the first stage of growth (1745-1755) two ordained
ministers and their congregations joined the presbytery. On October 4,
1748, the Rev. Jonathan Parsons and his Newburyport congregation were
received into the membership of the Presbytery. Jonathan Parsons had
come to this church from the Congregational Church at Lyme, Connecticut,

where he had been ordained in 1731.7

He was an active participant in

the affairs of the presbytery for more than twenty-five years. When
Jonathan Parsons accepted the call of the Newburyport church on March 19,
1746, it did not look like a very promising field. The church was
composed of nineteen peOple who had left the First Congregational

Church and of thirty-eight who had withdrawn three years before from

the Third Church.8 The excitement of the Great Awakening had been
largely responsible for the division in the other two churches. George
Whitefield had shared actively in this and he was responsible for

inviting Jonathan Parsons to come and take over this new church.

Jonathan Parsons came to the church and was installed in a very simple

7Additional material on Jonathan Parsons may be found in
Coffin's History of Newbury, American Quarterly Register, Vol. XIV,
Stearn's and Vermilye's Historical Discourses and Sprague Annals of
_Ehe American Pulpit, Vol. III, and Dexter, Yale Graduates.

8

 

 

 

 

Coffin, Sketch of the History of Newbury, p. 216.

 

117

manner, without the assistance of any Council. He simply stood before
the congregation, and with uplifted hand said: "In the presence of God
and these witnesses, I take this people to be my peOple," and the
Congregation arose and clerk said in their behalf: "In the presence of
God and these witnesses we take this man to be our minister."9 Thus
was begun a relationship which continued until the death of Parsons
July 19, 1776. Shortly after the installation of Parsons the church
considered the matter of affiliating with some presbytery. With this
in mind they elected six ruling elders to constitute the church session.
They did not join the Presbytery of Boston without taking time for
careful consideration. They investigated the manner in which it had
come off from the first presbytery, they made sure that the presbytery
would not object to their custom of electing their elders annually

and that they would not be bound to any particular form in the
administration of the sacraments, and they proved to their own satis-
faction that the presbytery was loyal to "the great doctrines of Grace,
as contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms."10
After this careful investigation Parsons and his congregation applied

to the Presbytery and were accepted October 4, 1748.

9Hovey, Origin and Annals of the First Presbyterian Church,
Eeyburyport (Boston, 1896), p. 28.

10
Hovey, Ibid., pp. 30, 31.

 

 

118

The second combination of pastor and peOple that turned to the
presbytery during this period was the Rev. Solomon Prentice,11 and
his church at Easton, Massachusetts. His church did not represent the
whole community but only that portion of it that were loyal to Prentice
after years of haggling over the location of the meeting house. The
majority of the church members adhered to Prentice, but the majority
of the parish turned against him. His supporters built their own
meeting house on November 2, 1752, and decided to change their form of
ecclesiastical government to conform to the Presbyterian Form. They
declared in favor of the discipline and order of the "ancient and
renowned" church of Scotland. The minutes of the presbytery do not
show the exact date when this Easton congregation was received into
that body but it was probably in the latter part of the year 1752, for
at the meeting of the presbytery in August, 1753, Solomon Prentice and
his congregation are listed on the roll of the Presbytery.

During the first ten years three men were ordained to the

ministry and settled in parishes by the Presbytery. On June 14, 1748,

Alexander Boyd was licensed to preach by the Presbytery. He was sent

 

1Solomon Prentice was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts
May 11, 1705 and graduated from Harvard University in 1727. He was
ordained and settled first at Grafton, Massachusetts December 29, 1731.
During his ministry he became such a fervant supporter of George White-
field, and came to adOpt so many of the prculiarities of the "new light"
preachers, and had so many of the itinerant evangelists in his pulpit that
his congregation became alienated against him and he was compelled to re-
quest his dismission in 1747. He was then called to Easton and was installed
there November 18, 1747. For a detailed discussion of the troubles which
IfHIt the Easton Church during the pastorate of Prentice see, Chaffin,
Widlliam F., History of the Town of Easton, Massachusetts (Cambridge, 1886),
PP- 105-40.

1
2Minutes of the Presbytery of Boston, August 19, 1753.

119

out to supply among the vacant churches which looked to the presbytery
for preaching, and as a result he received calls from the churches at
Kingstown, Georgetown, Sheepscote, Rousick, none of which he accepted.
In 1754 he accepted a call from New Castle, Maine and was ordained
by the presbytery at Newburyport, Massachusetts on September 19 of
that year.1

Mr. Alexander McDowell was licensed to preach by the Presbytery
March 18, 1752. The next year he was given a call by the town of
Colerain, Massachusetts, which he accepted. On the last Tuesday of
September, 1753, he was ordained and installed pastor at Colerain.14

On August 19, 1753, Mr. Robert Burns was licensed to preach by
the Presbytery, and the following month the congregation and District
of Palmer united in extending a pastoral call to him. The Presbytery
met at Palmer on November 14th and proceeded with his ordination and
installation.1

By the end of the first ten years the Presbytery also had three
men under its care who had beailicensed to preach but who had not been
ordained. They were John Houston, Samuel McClintock and Daniel Mitchell.

A survey of the first ten years reveals that beside the three
charter members five other ordained ministers had been added to the

presbytery. However, the net gain in membership was only three, for

13Minutes of the Presbytery of Boston, September 18, 19, 1754.

4 .

1 Minutes of Presbytery of Boston, September 1753, on the last
Tuesday.

151616., November 14, 1753.

120

two of the ministers had been dropped from the roll of the Presbytery
during this Period. Solomon Prentice was dismissed in 1754 and

Robert Abercrombie was suspended in 1755. The presbytery not only had
more pastors and more candidates for the ministry than when it was
organized, but it also had more vacant churches which looked to it

for support and aid in obtaining ministerial services. The Presbytery
of Boston had grown considerably during its first ten years.

The minutes of the presbytery had been lost for the second
period (1755-1770) of the presbytery's development. We would be
unable to follow the progress of the presbytery through this time if
it were not for the fact that the minutes begin again in 1770 and a
list of the ministers and churches is given at the beginning of the
minutes. With this information it is possible to piece together the
development of the presbytery during this fifteen years by using
biographical and historical material from other sources. The roll
is given by the clerk of the presbytery for the year 1770 on the title
page which reads as follows:

"This Book begins Octob. 24th 1770

A True and Correct Copy of the
Minutes

of the Revd Presbytery now called

of Presby of Boston
consisting of Twelve Congregas whose

Ministers
are as followeth
John Moorhead.. ......... Boston
David McGregore ......... Londonderry

Jonathan Parsons........Newburyport

Danl Mitchell...........Pembrook

John Huston..... ..... ...Bedford

Moses Baldwin...........Kingston

*Richd Graham............Pelham

Saml Perley.............Seabrook

Thoms Pierce............(His place ye Scribe
knos not)

Simon Williams ...... ....Windham

John Strickland ......... Oakham

121

*Since deceased"16
Apparently the scribe who drew up this list deliberately refused to
mention the name of John Morrison of Peterborough who had been located
there in 1766 and certainly was a member of the presbytery but was
under a cloud owing to his questionable conduct. Thomas Pierce was
located at Scarboro, Maine and Moses Baldwin may have been at Palmer,
Massachusetts instead of Kingston, New Hampshire. In other respects
this list of the members of the presbytery for the year 1770 appears
to be accurate. The first question which naturally arises is in
regard to the men, who were connected with the presbytery in 1755 but
who do not now appear on its roll. Alexander Boyd is one of these.
He had been settled at New Castle, Maine in spite of a minority protest
in 1754. This minority was chiefly composed of Congregationalists and
they continued their agitation against him after his installation.
At the annual meeting in 1756 the town decided to inquire into the
reasons why the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had not been administered
by Mr. Boyd since his ordination. The town further voted that the
conduct of Boyd was a grievance to them and they sent a man to pres-
bytery to give an account of the matter. Before the end of the year
1758, the town had succeeded in getting the presbytery to remove Mr. Boyd

. 1
from his pastorate. 7

 

16At the beginning of the Minutes of the Presbytery of Boston

for October 24, 1770.

17Greenleaf, Jonathan, Ecclesiastical History of Maine (Ports-
mouth, 1821), pp. 101, 102. The subsequent history of Boyd is not known.

 

122

Robert Burns, who had been settled at Palmer in 1753, had a
brief and troublous pastorate. The Session records hint at one cause
of the dissatisfaction: "At the quarterly session held June 3, 1756,
the Elders then present unanimously refused to assist Mr. Burns in the
administrating of the Lord's Supper unless he would perform ministerial
visits, and catechize yearly the several quarters of the parish;
likewise unless he would preach the Saturday before and the Monday
after the Sacrament."18 Charges of immorality were also brought
against him and he ceased to perform the duties of pastor early in the
year 1757.19 The exact date when his relation with his congregation
was severed by the Presbytery is not known owing to the loss of the
presbyterial records.

Alexander McDowell, who had been settled in Coleraine, Massachu—
setts in 1753 continued in this pastorate for about eight years when
he was dismissed owing to his intemperate habits.20

On analyzing theroll of the Presbytery in 1770 it becomes
obvious that John Houston, one of the three licentiates in 1755, had
been ordained sometime during that interval and settled at Bedford,

New Hampshire. From the Bedford town records it appears that he was
ordained to the work of the ministry of September 28, 1757, and

settled as the first minister of the town.

 

18The Session Records of the Palmer Church as quoted in Temple,
History of Palmer, p. 143.

19
Ibid., p. 143. Temple says that Burns afterwards moved to
Pennsylvania and spent the rest of his life on a farm.

McClellan, Charles F., Early Setlers of Coleraine, Massachusetts,
(Greenfield, 1885), p. 38.

21History¥of Bedford, New Hampshire (1891), p. 140.

 

123

Daniel Mitchell, another of the preachers licensed before 1755,
appears in 1770 as the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Pembroke,
New Hampshire. A good share of that town were Scots and they were
not satisfied with a Congregational minister, so in 1760, when they
were strong enough to support a pastor of their own faith, they called
Daniel Mitchell.22 He was ordained and settled as pastor of this
church December 3, 1760.23

Samuel McClintock, the third man who had been licensed by
the Presbytery in 1755, does not appear on the roll in 1770. This
was due to the fact that he had been called to the Congregational
Church in Greenland, New Hampshire, and had been ordained and settled
there November 3, 1756.24 Since he changed denominations, he
evidently gave up his affiliation with the Presbytery.

The number of men on the roll of the Presbytery in 1770
indicates that several men had joined the Presbytery during the
intervening fifteen years. These were Simon Williams, Thomas Pierce,
Moses Baldwin, Samuel Perley, Richard Graham, John Strickland and
John Morrison.

Simon Williams came to New England from Pennsylvania at the
request of Jonathan Parsons and settled in Windham, New Hampshire,

. 25
in December, 1766. He was ordained and installed by the Boston

 

22Carter, N. F., and T. L. Fowler, History of Pembroke, New

Hampshire (Concord, 1895), pp. 257-59.

23
Lawrence, Robert F., New Hampshire Churches (1856), p. 402.

 

 

Ibid., p. 58. For additional material on Samuel McClintock see
_Piary of David McClure, p. 2; Spragues Annals, Vol. I, p. 525-28; and
Brewster, Rambles about Portsmouth, Vol. 11: 160-66.

 

 

SLawrence, New Hampshire Churches, pp. 144, 145; Morrison,

 

Elstory of Windham.

124

Presbytery. He was proficient as a classical scholar and soon after
his ordination opened a private academy which he conducted during most
of his ministry. Under his tuition many young men were given a
classical education, for he sometimes had forty or fifty scholars in
his academy. Simon Williams carried this work in addition to his
regular duties as the pastor of the Windham church. Many of the past-
ors during this period took it upon themselves to train the young
men, since there was a great scarcity of secondary and higher
institutions of learning.

Thomas Pierce, whose location is not mentioned, was listed by
the scribe as a member of the Presbytery. From another source we
find that he was located at Scarborough, Maine.26 He had been invited
by the town to settle as their pastor in September, 1762. Since he
favored the Presbyterian polity the ordination was performed by the
Presbytery of Boston in the Presbyterian meeting house in Newburyport
within a few months after the town extended him their call. The
church at Scarborough continued Presbyterian only throughout the
pastorate of Pierce which ended with his death January 26, 1775.

Moses Baldwin was the pastor of the church in Kingston or
Palmer, Massachusetts. He had been installed by the Boston Presbytery
on June 17, 1761.27 He remained with them until 1811. He is said to

have been patient and longsuffering, remaining with his people in

Greenleaf, Ecclesiastical History of Maine, p. 48.

 

27
Temple, History of Palmer, pp. 217-221.

 

125

spite of a very meager income.

Samuel Perley on January 31, 1765 became the first pastor of the
newly organized Presbyterian church in Seabrook, New Hampshire.29 He
may have had something to do with the gathering of the church as he
probably lived in the town prior to his seuiement. He remained an
active member of the Presbytery of Salem, which was a descendant of
the Presbytery of Boston, until it ceased to function in 1791.

Richard Graham appears on the roll of the Boston Presbytery
in 1770 as the pastor at Pelham, Massachusetts. From the records
of the town of Pelham we discovered that he had been ordained and
installed in 1763 by the Boston Presbytery. He continued there until
his premature death February 25, 1771, at thirty-two years of age.30

John Strickland appears in 1770 as the pastor at Oakham,
Massachusetts. The town called him in August, 1766, at a salary of
sixty-six pounds per annum. Within a year he had gathered a church
with about thirty members, and since the church was organized
along Presbyterian lines, he was ordained and installed by the Presby-
tery of Boston as pastor of the church in April, 1768. It was not

long, however, before the congregationalists of the town began to

8Town Records as quoted in Temple, History of Palmer, p. 218:
His salary part of the time was paid in food products, wheat at five
Shillings per bushel, rye at three and four pence per bushel and good
grass fed beef at twenty shillings per hundred.

 

Lawrence, New Hampshire Churches, p. 133.

 

30
Parmenter, History of Pelham, pp. 116-18, 123, 261.

 

126

object to the Presbyterian procedure. By 1772 the majority of the
inhabitants were Congregationalists and they voted to change the
polity of the church and requested the dismission of Strickland who
left Oakham on June 2, 1773. This did not mean that his contact with
the Presbytery of Boston was broken, however, for he was installed on
July 13, 1774 as the pastor of the Presbyterian church in the town-
ship of Nottingham-West, later Hudson, New Hampshire. He remained
there until 1782.31

As we have noted, the Presbytery of Boston in 1770 consisted
of at least eleven ministers and their respective congregations.
During the remaining five years of the presbytery's existence and its
third stage (1770-1775) there were still further additions to its
membership. Joseph Patrick was ordained and installed by the
presbytery as the pastor of the church at Blandford, Massachusetts on
the last Tuesday of June, 1772.32 On the second Wednesday of July,
1773, Alexander McLean, a native of Scotland and a physician as well
as a minister, was installed by the Boston Presbytery as the pastor
at Bristol, Maine.33 He remained there as the active pastor until
1795. At this same meeting of the presbytery George Gilmore was

ordained without a charge. Nathaniel Whittaker, D.D., together with

his congregation at Salem, Massachusetts, joined the Presbytery of

31Dexter, Graduates of Yale College, Vol. II, pp. 716-18.

3 .
2Minutes of the Presbytery of Boston, May 13, 1772.

33 .
Ibld., Second Wednesday of July 1773, cf. Greenleaf,

ffiflilgsiastical History of Maine, p. 148.

 

127

34 Also at this time two other ordained ministers

Boston May 25, 1774.
joined the presbytery, Nathaniel Merrill, and Aaron Hutchinson. John
Urquhart, a Presbyterian who had been licensed to preach by the
Presbytery of Allon in North Britain, was taken under the care of the
Presbytery of Boston September 13, 1774, and the next year he was
ordained and installed as the pastor at Warren, Maine. Thus during

the last five years seven additional ministers were affiliated with

the Presbytery.

There were, however, certain losses for this period which must
be considered in evaluating the growth of the Presbytery. Joseph
Patrick was dismissed in 1774 from the pastorate of Blandford owing
to his pronounced intemperance.35 John Morrison of Peterborough was
in bad repute and therefore was not considered to be an active member
of the presbytery. There had been three losses by death. Richard
Graham, the pastor at Pelham, died February 25, 1771, and John Moorhead,
of Boston, died in December, 1773 and Thomas Pierce of Scarborough,
Maine, died January 26, 1775. After the death of Moorhead part of the

Boston congregation withdrew from the Boston Presbytery and joined the

Presbytery at the Eastward. In 1775 Jonathan Parsons and his Newburyport

 

34 . .
Nathaniel Whittaker, D.D., was born February 22, 1732
at Long Island, New York. Graduated from Princeton 1752, settled
in Salem July 28, 1769. Resigned Salem February 24, 1784, died

January 21, 1795. See Joseph B. Felt, Annals of Salem (Boston, 1855),
Vol. II, p. 626.

 

35Keep, John, Historical Discourse (Ware, 1886), p. 19.

128

congregation withdrew in an irregular manner from the Boston Presbytery
and also joined the Presbytery at the Eastward.

Nevertheless, in spite of the losses by death and removal
the Boston Presbytery appears in 1775 to be in a strong position for a
presbytery in New England. It has grown from a little group of three
pastors and their churches to more than a dozen pastors and even more
congregations. This, of course, is not to imply that all the churches
were strong. Many of the vacant Presbyterian congregations were only
small groups of ten, fifteen or twenty families which could do little
more than support an occasional supply preacher. These Scots did,
however, make heroic efforts to settle a regular Presbyterian pastor
in their communities. They frequently struggled for years with their
Congregational neighbors in an effort to make the church of the town
Presbyterian. This naturally meant that the Presbyterian Church and
pastor were frequently in a precarious position, for on occasions more
Congregationalists would move into the town and uproot the Presbyterian
order. In spite of such difficulties the Scottish element which had
spread out into many towns in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts
were making a serious effort to support the church in Presbyterian
manner.

The growth of the Presbytery had been such through the thirty
Years since its organization that it is not remarkable to find the
nunnbers optimistic for the future and making plans for a Synod. It
now’looked at last as if Presbyterianism were going to get a strong
focrthold in New England, for ministers and churches were turning to it.
FTCUD the standpoint of the members of the Presbytery of Boston it was

a hopeful day for Presbyterianism.

Chapter VI

THE SYNOD OF NEW ENGLAND

The synod of New England was essentially a continuation of the
Presbytery of Boston. Ever since 1770 the members of the Boston
Presbytery had been planning to organize a Synod. As has been pointed
out before, a Synod is a higher ecclesiastical court than a presbytery
and is»essentially a court of appeal from the decisions of the lower
;hniicatures. A Synod covers the territory of several presbyteries.
The: aim of the Boston presbyters was to establish a Synod. For
reasons which will be explained later there were no other pres-
bytxeries in position to join with them in their Synodical enterprise.
Thirs in spite of the fact that they were faced with great obstacles
anti liad only a slight hope of success, thirteen members of the Boston
Presbytery met at Seabrook, New Hampshire on May 31, 1775 and pro-
ceeded with their plans to divide their one presbytery into three
snuilfller ones so that they would be technically in position to organize
a Synod.1 The churches in the eastern part were grouped together
1in tflie Presbytery of Salem, which was composed of the following
"fiJtisters and their congregations: National Whittaker of Salem,
Samuel Perley of Seabrook, Alexander McLean of Bristol, Maine, and
3611:] amin Blach. John Urquhart of Warren, Maine was also probably a

Inember of this presbytery. The churches in the central area, chiefly

 

1Minutes of the Presbytery of Boston, May 31, 1775.

129

130

in the vicinity of Londonderry, New Hampshire, were formed into the
Presbytery of Londonderry which consisted of: David McGregore 0f
Londonderry, Daniel Mitchell of Pembroke, Simon Williams of Windham,
John Strickland of Nottingham, and some congregations without pastors
such as Peterborough and others. The western territory, mainly in
Massachusetts, was called the Presbytery of Palmer and consisted of:
John Houston of Bedford, New Hampshire, Moses Baldwin of Palmer,
Nathaniel Merril of Pelham, Aaron Hutchinson, George Gilmore, and
Joseph Patrick and congregations at Blandford, and Coleraine. The
Presbytery of Boston had now become three separate bodies. This
move appeared to be highly reasonable, for it was easier then for the
various churches to take their problems to the presbytery and it was
also easier for the presbytery to meet in the town where the difficulty
existed. The weakness was that the new presbyteries were so small
that it would be difficult for them to consider their problems Objectively.
Unfortunately for our study these presbyteries either were careless
about their records or else they were lost; consequently the inde-
pendent actions of these presbyteries is not available for our study.
Two days later on June 2, 1775, these three presbyteries
officially united together in forming the Synod of New England.2
With typical Scottish thoroughness they drew up their terms of

organization with great care. They had previously made out a model

2Minutes of the Synod of New England, June 2, 1775.

131

for a Synod which they now adopted as the Synodical Platform. As
revealed by the minutes, this model contained seventeen specific
items:

(1) Each presbytery is to meet at least once a year.

(2) Session books are to be examined by the presbytery and the
presbytery books are to be examined by the Synod.

(3) Appeals from the Session are to be first to the Presbytery and
then to the Synod, and no step in this order is to be omitted, except
that a body may act §§_officio.

(4) No one is to Speak on any question until the Bill is read

by the clerk and the case Opened by the moderator. After that each
member shall be allowed reasonable liberty in his turn.

(5) No member is to have any precedency over another, except that
members are to be called upon according to their seniority in office.
(6) A minister or church may shift to another Presbytery with the
consent of the Synod or mutual consent of the presbyteries.

(7) Direction that the papers of the Boston Presbytery be delivered
to Simon Williams, the stated clerk of the Synod.

(8) The Synod adopts the Westminster Confession of Faith,3 Catechisms
and the standing rules of the Church of Scotland.

(9) Each Presbytery is to be subject to the Synod in the same manner

as the members of the Presbyteries are sUbject to their respective bodies.

3
You will recall this Confession was also adOpted by the
Congregational Churches in New England.

132

(10) The Synod is to meet at least once a year and elect a clerk

and moderator who will continue in office until the next regular
meeting.

(11) All members of the Presbyteries are to meet in the Synod unless
by Special arrangement on account of distance, in which case a
Presbytery may be allowed to send delegates.

(12) Members of the Synod hope to maintain friendly correspondence
with the Synod of New York and Philadelphia.

(13) They will hold communion with Christians of other denominations
of Protestants, provided they hold the Doctrines of Grace agreeable
to the Westminster Confession of Faith, although they may differ as

to the mode of Church Government.

(14) Since this Synod is the highest judicature of the Presbyterian
Churches in New England, its decisions are final, but parties who are
not satisfied with its decisions may enter their protest with their
reasons in the Synod's books.

(15) The present "regulations" may be altered from time to time as
God shall give light.

(16) They assert their right to decide "ecclesiastical" cases as a
church court, independent of the power and authority of civil princes.
In all civil matters they own their subjection to civil authority.
(17) Every Presbytery belonging to the Synod is to keep a book of
records of their doing and they are to place a c0py of the Synod's

covenant in the beginning of this book.

133

The above described terms of organization were accepted by the
solemn signing of the following covenant by the ministers and elders
of the churches:

"We ..... do solemnly covenant one with another

that by the help of divine Grace we will con-
scientiously Observe and adhere to the foregoing
regulations of the Synod now formed by the Cove-
nant and that we will as we have Ability and oppor-
tunity endeavour to promote the Union and Peace,
maintain the lawful Authority and future Prosper-
ity and good order of the Synod now named the
Synod of New England, agreeable to the foregoing
Articles and looking to the great King and Head
of the church for his presence with and blessing
on this Synod and all its Presbyteries and Chur-
ches and fOr his gracious guidance into all such
Measures as may issue in the Exaltation of Christ
to his Throne, kingly authority, and Rule in these
churches.

"In testimony of this our Covenant, consent and

solemn Engagement, we do in the Fear of God

herewith subscribe our Names this 2d day of June,

1775."4

On the surface the prospects for this Synod in New England

looked hopeful. It had about fifteen ordained ministers connected
with it and a larger number of churches, and could be compared
favorably with the Presbyterian organizations in New York and Pennsyl-
vania. However, the strength of this Synod was more apparent than
real. AS one examines the facts one is impressed by the absence Of

certain important ministers and churches. Jonathan Parsons and his

strong church at Newburyport were not connected with the Synod, for

 

4Quoted from the Minutes.

134

as has been shown, he and his church had joined the Presbytery at
the Eastward. After the split in the Boston Congregation only a
meager remnant was left to participate in the Synod, and as events
worked out this fragment never really became active.

Unfortunately the Synod of New England did not, therefore,
include all Presbyterian Churches nor all the presbyteries in New
England. A growing Presbytery known as the Presbytery at the Eastward
had been organized in Maine and New Hampshire in 1771.5 It was
largely the product of the initiative of the Rev. John Murray, the
pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Boothbay, Maine, and largely
represented Presbyterianism in Maine. AS will be seen in a later
chapter, the Presbytery of Boston and Synod of New England held a-
loof from this body because they did not consider it to be a legitimate
presbytery owing to the fact that it allowed John Murray to be a member
in good standing when he was under censure by the Presbytery of
Philadelphia and the Synod of Ulster, in Ireland.6 Consequently
while the Presbytery was located so that it could have participated in
the functions of the Synod and while it would have made a substantial
increase to the Synodical strength it was nevertheless ostracized

by the Synod of New England. This seriously limited the power of the

Synod.

 

SA fuller account of the presbytery will be fOund in Chapter VIII.

The Case of JOhn Murray and its bearing on the relations
between the New England presbyteries is given in detail in Chapter IV.

135

There was Still another Presbytery which had been organized by
1775 in the vicinity of Hanover, New Hampshire, which was called the
Presbytery Of Grafton.7 The men Of the Synod were friendly toward
this organization and made repeated effOrts by communication to induce
the Grafton Presbytery to associate with their Synod. There are no
records to indicate any willingness on the part of the Grafton men to
share in the Synod, and the Grafton Presbytery remained independent
from all other Presbyterian organizations throughout the period of
its existence. Thus the Synod of New England was in the peculiar
position Of not accepting one presbytery into its organization and
at the same time not being accepted by another. Essentially this
first Synod did not represent all the Presbyterian churches in New
England but only that portion which had previously joined the Presby-
tery Of Boston.

The prospects for the success of the Synod were also darkened
by the rising political turmoil of 1775. In order to appreciate the
difficulty which these men faced in the formation of their synod at
this particular hour in American history, we need to keep in mind the
events which were taking place in the political arena. For several
years the emotions of the colonists had been boiling because of the
failing of the British parliament and the English King to understand
their viewpoint. The government's stupid blundering as a consequence

of its policy to extract revenue from the colonists and to control their

7A fuller account of the Presbytery Of Grafton will be found in
Chapter X.

136

trade only added fuel to the fire. The Stamp Act of 1765 had almost
produced Open revolt and a boycott of British goods ensued. In 1768
the quartering of British troops in Boston further aroused the
patriots. From this time until the actual outbreak of hostilities the
British made a series of unfortunate moves which increasingly stirred
up the colonists. The famous Boston Tea Party and actual hostilities
were but the flaming out Of a long smoldering bitterness.

The Presbyterians of New England could scarcely have selected
a more difficult time to establish their Synod than the year 1775.

The people's attention was directed toward the possibilities of the
coming strife, and they were busy preparing for it. The leading men

of the communities were occupied in directing the affairs of the towns
and getting supportfbr the conflict. When actual hostilities developed,
many of the men went away to the army. As the war progressed, there
deve10ped disastrous fluctuations in the currency; it became more and
more inflated until it was almost impossible for the ministers and
their people to get the bare necessities of life.

The brief life of this Synod was almost coextensive with the
struggle of the colonies for independence. It met successively for
seven years from 1775 to 1782, having a total of eight regular meetings
and one special. The number of ministers in attendance at these annual
meetings of elders represented the churches, all of which indicates

that many Of the churches were seldom represented.

137

From the records which we possess it appears that the Synod
devoted its time to details of administration and the consideration
of cases similar to those which it had taken up as the presbytery of
Boston. One is impressed by the absence of a forward reaching
program.

As has been pointed out, the Synod was Operating in a
difficult period. The towns were having a difficult time to
support their pastors and meet all the extra demands made upon them
during the war with England. To add to their difficulties the
currency was not dependable, and in some towns, the ministers were
paid what appeared to be a fabulous salary, such as two or three
thousand pounds a year, but this was depreciated currency and it meant
that five or six pounds were not worth one dollar of hard money.
During this time some congregations were not careful to see that the
minister received his proportionate increase on account of the inflation.
The synod records Show that John Strickland, while pastor at Nottingham-
West was one of the civtims. He appealed to the Synod in September,
1778 for assistance in getting his congregation to pay up his salary
saying that he "can't subsist his family thro' the extravagant Price
of the Necessaries of Life on account of the Smallness of his Salary
8 the neglect of the people to pay up his arears."8 The Synod then
recommended that the Society at Nottingham pay up his arrears and

make an addition to his salary in order to compensate fOr the rise

 

8Minutes of the Synod Of New England September 30, 1778.

138

in price on the necessities of life. The Synod then proceeded to

make a general appeal to all the churches under its jurisdiction to

see that the pastors were adequately cared for, since many Of them

are reduced to the "greatest Straights 8 indegence." The Synod

advised the respective presbyteries under its charge to be especially
watchfbl in this regard and assist the pastors in obtaining

occasional supply preaching in vacant churches if their own congregations
were not in a position to pay them adequately.

Having thus considered this immediate problem of the pastors
under its care the Synod took time to examine the cause Of the hard—
ships and troubles which were then so much in evidence. The statement
of the Synod on this matter is very illuminating and shows its inter-
pretation of the situation.

The Synod enquiring into the Cause of God's Contro-
versy with this Land are of Opinion that among

many Causes the following are the principal 1—-

the great 8 general Declinsion of Religion,

occasioned by too general a Neglect of the Duties

of public 6 family Worship -- by the Neglect of
Church Government which has opened a Door for

the spread of Error 8 increase of erroneous Teachers in
the Churches, for the neglect of Family Government

8 Religion 8 for the Neglect of civil Government -
hence arises the dreadful increase Of vice 8
immorality -- unjustice -- oppression -- defrauding 8
injuring -- a Neglect of the Ministry 6 their Support.

This statement comes as near to a social pronouncement as

we find anywhere in the minutes Of these early Presbyterian bodies

in New England.

 

9Minutes of the Synod, September 30, 1778.

139

Another problem which confronted the Synod was the political
views of John Houston of Bedford and the resulting conflict with his
congregation. The main cause of his trouble was not that he had
committed any personal indiscretions, but that he was not an ardent
supporter of the colonies in their struggle for independence. In
fact, being a rather outspoken advocate of the continuance of English
control, he was certain to get in trouble with the vast majority of
his congregation and fellow presbyters who were ardently and ag-
gressively supporting the colonies. As a consequence the members
of his congregation refused to renew his contract to
preach and the town voted his dismissal on June 15, 1775.

The following incidents Show that before his dismissal he
suffered personal indignities because of his political views. One
night he was taken from his home and ridiculed and insulted. At
another time a Congregational minister stopped at his home to have
dinner with him. When he found, however that Houston's sympathies
were pro-British and that he served tea with his dinner his guest
refused to eat with him.

The position of Houston naturally came before the Synod. At
its meeting September 4, 1776, it interrogated him concerning his
attitude toward the "States of America" and it required him to bring
evidence at their next meeting that he had satisfied the civil
authorities on the matter of his loyalty. For a couple of years he

could not satisfy his fellow presbyters on this score and he was

140

denied a seat in the Synod. In 1778 the Synod concluded that he

could no longer be useful to the congregation at Bedford and by the

consent of both parties his pastoral relation was dissolved. However,

at the meeting of the Synod September 15, 1779, he presented a

satisfactory statement from the civil authorities of New Hampshire

regarding his political views and the Synod restored him to his former

good standing in that body but not to his church.10
Besides dealing with cases which arose from the peculiar

circumstances of the period, the Synod was called upon to consider

the usual matters relating to sexual irregularities and intemperance.

In one case of bigamy11 where both parties had remarried the Synod

judged that the man might lawfully live with his second wife, and

that the children by his second marriage could have the privilege of

baptism if he made proper public manifestation of repentance. One

of the ministers, Nathaniel Merrill of Pelham, came to have a bad

reputation because of certain indiscretions in his behavior toward

some members of the Opposite sex. Of his own volition he made a

statement to the Synod in which he spoke of his sorrow for the dishonor

which he had brought upon the cause of God because of his actions

which, he admitted, were of a character unbecoming a minister. He

further stated that he had not indulged in any gross acts. Apparently

 

10The account of John Houston's partorate and trOUbles at
Bedford are told in the History of Bedford, pp. 140-151.

 

1Since the minutes read that his "first wife is dead in Law to
him even if yet alive" it may be that a divorce was Obtained, but the
implication is that he lived with his second wife unlawfully for a
period. See Minutes of the Synod for September 3, 1777.

141

he regretted exceedingly his conduct for he stated his determination
to be, with the help of the Lord, more cautious in the future. The
Synod admonished him to walk with greater circumspection relying on
divine grace through meek and earnest Prayers for strength.12 In
reviewing the case of Richard Cutler the Synod sustained the Session
of Nottingham Church for condemning him for intemperance, and he was
required to submit to the sentence imposed upon him or else to remain
without his church privileges.

It should be remembered that only a few of the disciplinary
cases tried by the individual Sessions ever found their way to the
floor of the Synod -- The records of local Sessions abound in
various types of disciplinary cases.

When the Synod was organized in 1775 it consisted Of three
small presbyteries which were a division of the original Boston
Presbytery. During the seven years that the Synod was functioning
it sustained several losses, as an examination of the membership of
the three presbyteries will reveal.

A study of the western Presbytery of Palmer in 1782 reveals
the fact that John Houston had been dismissed from Bedford and had
joined the Presbytery of Londonderry. The Bedford congregation, as
will be seen shortly, shared in the declinature of Simon Williams and
withdrew from the Synod in 1782. Moses Baldwin was still the pastor
at Palmer, Massachusetts. Nathaniel Merrill had been accused of

immorality and as a result had ceased to serve the church in

 

12Minutes of the Synod for May 15, 1782.

142

Pelham about the year 1780. Theoretically he still remained on the
role of the Presbytery, but not as the pastor at Pelham. George
Gilmore and Aaron Hutchinson, while listed as being on the role of
the Presbytery in 1775, in reality never took an active part. It is
highly probable that Aaron Hutchinson had transferred to the Grafton
Presbytery.13 Joseph Patrick had been dropped by the Presbytery.
There had been one addition to the Palmer Presbytery in the person
of Samuel Taggart who was ordained and installed at Coleraine,
Massachusetts in February, 1777. This indicates that the Presbytery
of Palmer was not in a very healthy condition with only two or
three settled pastors left on its roll.

By 1782 the middle Presbytery of Londonderry was even in
worse condition than the Presbytery of Palmer. The most severe loss
was the death on May 30, 1777 Of David McGregore, pastor West Parish
Church, Londonderry. In 1782 this churCh was still without a regular
pastor and the next year, as will be shown later, the Londonderry
congregation joined the Associate Reformed Presbytery of Londonderry.14
Simon Williams and the Windham Church withdrew and declined the authority
of the Synod at its meeting September 11, 1782. Simon Williams was
an eccentric character.15 According to the description of him in the

records of the Synod he had frequently conducted himself in a disorderly

 

3
Aaron Hutthinson's name appears on the roll of that body.
14For a more complete account of the Associate Reformed
Presbytery, see Chapter XI.

15Lawrence, New Hampshire Churches, p. 145.

 

143

manner, Often threatening the Synod that if matters did not please
him he would withdraw. At other times he had even insulted and mocked
his fellow presbyters and had given way to sudden outbursts or
anger. The items which Williams listed in his declinature were such
that they could easily have been solved by mutual conference but
it appears that he had no intention of trying to resolve these matters,
and really used them as an excuse to withdraw. He took with him the
elders from two vacant churches, Benjamin Smith the elder from Bedford
and James Robertson the Elder from Pembroke. For this and other
previous actions he was suspended by the Synod. Daniel Mitchell, the
pastor at Pembroke, died December 16, 1776, and no one had taken his
place in 1782. As we have seen the Elder from Pembroke was one of
those who declined the authority Of the Synod along with Simon Williams.16
John Strickland of Nottingham-West transferred his membership
to the Presbytery of Salem in 1781.17 The congregation at Peter-
borough was vacant in 1775 and was attached to the Londonderry
Presbytery. In 1778 it called the Rev. David Annan, a member of the
Associate Presbytery of New York and at his request with drew from the
Synod of New England and joined his Presbytery. As nearly as can be
ascertained John Houston was the only addition to the roll Of the

Londonderry Presbytery. He transferred his membership after he was

put out of his congregation in Bedford. The result Of this investigation

 

16Minutes of the Synod, September 11, 1782.

17 '
Ibid., Second Wednesday of September, 1781.

144

shows that in 1782 except for John Houston, who was not a settled
pastor, there were no other ministers connected with the London-
derry Presbytery and therefore it was impossible for it to continue
to carry on.

The eastern Presbytery of Salem had fared the best of the three.
Nathaniel Whittaker, Samuel Perley, Alexander McLean, and John
Urquhart were all still on its roll and in addition John Strickland
had united with it.

Thus having Observed the practical collapse of two Of the
three presbyteries composing the Synod it is possible to understand the
action Of the Synod on September 12, 1782: "This Synod taking into
consideration the broken circumstances to which the Providence of God
hath brought us, by the Death of several of our members, 8 otherwise,
therefore we judge it necessary to dissolve this Synod for the present
and form a Presbytery of the whole, by the name of the Presbytery of
Salem--Voted".18 When this Synod dissolved "for the Present"
they little suspected that it would be 130 years before another

Presbyterian Synod would be established in New England.

 

18Minutes of the Synod, September 12, 1782.

Chapter VII

THE PRESBYTERY OF SALEM

The Synod Of New England had not prospered. Its meetings
had been poorly attended and it had steadily lost in membership.
The few remaining members decided to consolidate into one presbytery.
This they did at Londonderry September 12, 1782, in the home of
Elder Fisher. The new body was called the Presbytery of Salem. It
is obvious that this presbytery did not have a fresh start but that
it carried over into it many of the prOblems which had been so bother-
some to the Synod.

The non-participation Of many Of the so-called members of
this presbytery is an index of its weakness and ineffectiveness.
Six ministers--Whittaker, Houston, Strickland, Perley, Merrill,
Taggart—~were present when the presbytery was organized in 1782;
‘but it nominally had on its roll six more ministers, some of whom
had churches. They were Urquhart, Baldwin, Williams, McLean, Balch
and Gilmore. This meant that supposedly there were twelve ministers
and perhaps that many churches still connected with the presbytery.
Such a large figure is greatly misleading, however, When one discovers
that four of the ministers, Balch, Baldwin, Gilmore, and Williams,
never attended a single meeting of the presbytery. It is apparent
that these four men had given up their position in the presbytery,
and while their churches may have functioned along Presbyterian
lines they were no longer of this family of Presbyterian churches.
As we know from other sources, Williams of Windham had in 1782

declined the authority of the Synod and had withdrawn, but even so

145

146

the Presbytery of Salem apparently considered him to be a member of
their organization. Baldwin's ChurCh at Palmer became Congregational
after he ceased to be pastor and may have done so before that time.
In the records of the Presbytery of Salem there is a reference to
Gilmore in which they state that they did not know where he was and
therefOre he was dropped from the roll in 1789. In reality he was
never a participant in the presbytery. There is nothing definitely
known about Benjamin Balch except that he never was active in the
presbytery.

This means that there were really only eight men who at one
time or another shared in the activities of the presbytery. Even
this becomes less impressive when we realize that Samuel Taggart
of Coleraine was present at the organization meeting in 1782, but
never bothered to attend after that. In 1785, he and his congregation
joined the Associate Reformed Presbytery of New England. John Houston,
the former pastor of Bedford, only attended the meetings for two
years when he was dismissed and given a letter of recommendation as
a minister in good standing. John Urquhart of Warren and Union River,
Maine, only attended the presbytery meetings until 1785. Alexander
McLean of Bristol only attended the meeting of the presbytery on
June 9, 1784 at which time the presbytery dismissed.him from.their
membership and gave him a letter stating he was a Presbyterian minister
in good standing. Nathaniel Merrill only attended two meetings of the

presbytery one in 1782 and another in 1784.

147

The record indicates that after 1785 only three ministers,
Whittaker, Strickland, and Perley ever attended the meetings of this
body. These three men carried the presbytery on for six more years.

The men who actively participated in the Presbytery of Salem
Spent the most Of their time trying to solve the difficulties in which
its members were at one time or another involved. The cases of Simon
Williams and Nathaniel Merrill which were considered by the preSbytery
were really carryovers from the days of the Synod. As we observed,
at the last meeting of the Synod Simon Williams of Windham declined
the authority of that body and withdrew; for this action he was
suspended” The Presbytery of Salem reconsidered his case and
continued his suspension from year to year. As clerk of the Synod
he had all its records which he refused to turn over to anyone else
in spite of the repeated efforts Of the Presbytery Of Salem to secure
them. There is no record to Show that they were ever successful in
getting them. The presbytery finally lost patience with Williams and
excommunicated him at their meeting on October 1, 1789.

Nathaniel Merrill had been suspected of immoral conduct before
the Synod dissolved and his case was reviewed by it. The Synod had
accepted his penitential statements but the reports of evil doing
continued and the Presbytery of Salem found it necessary to reconsider
his case. The presbytery endeavored to get data concerning his
behavior by instructing the members to gather all the infOrmation they
could through private investigation, but they did not locate muCh
that was definite. Their effort to be absolutely fair is revealed in

the fOllowing quotation from the minutes of their meeting in Groton

148

June 9, 1784:

"After the most thorough enquiry 8 search after

evidence against him, respecting the various

evil reports spreading about the world

concerning him, they find none which can be

sustained by this Judicature as at all sufficient

to support a censure, they being all without

Proof, or at most second hand evidence; and

some of them proven to be false."1
The presbytery then took the attitude that until positive evidence to
the contrary was submitted to them Merrill was to be considered a
member in good standing. Since they were Of the Opinion that the
evil reports probably were due to some imprudent action on Mr.
Merrill's part they instructed the Moderator to eXhort Mr. Merrill
to greater watchfulness in the future.

Until the meeting June 11, 1784, Merrill apparently was
considered in good standing with the presbytery in spite of many
evil reports. He attended that meeting and read a paper in which he
expressed the Opinion that the voice of the people is the voice of
God and that no minister's Character ought to be supported against
whom a popular clamor has been raised. He stated that this was a
matter of conscience with him. Hearing his views the presbytery
determined that he could not continue to preaCh the gospel any longer

as he was under general reproach according to his own principles.

This action by the presbytery evidently was more than he expected, and

 

1Minutes of the Presbytery of Salem, June 9, 1784.

149

before he gave a c0py of his paper to the clerk he changed certain
words with the design of altering the meaning. However, the
presbyters discovered the changes by noting that he had used different
ink in the interlineations. He denied making these substitutions, and,
for his obvious falsehood coupled with the many scandalous stories
circulated about him, the Presbytery judged it necessary to suSpend
him from the work of the ministry until the next meeting of the
Presbytery. He never attended the Presbytery again and each year
they renewed his suspension until their meeting October 1, 1789,

when they deposed him from the ministry for conduct unbecoming a
minister.

Another type of problem the Presbytery frequently had to deal
with was that of smoothing out the strained relations between
ministers and their congregations. One Of the most difficult to handle
was that of JOhn Urquhart and his congregations at Warren and later
at Union River, Maine. His second marriage was the chief cause
of the difficulties. He had been married while in Scotland and had
had one daughter, but when he came to America in 1774 he left them
in the Old country. Since he did not know where he would be located
he neglected to give them any mailing address. As we noted before,
he was settled as pastor of Warren, Maine, about 1775 and was regularly
accepted and settled by the Presbytery of Boston. After his settle-
ment in Warren he began to take a friendly interest in the young
women of the community and particularly one young lady. About this

time he supposedly received a letter with a black seal which he showed

150

to a few people but which he lost soon after. He went into mourning
as a husband who had lost a wife and he even Offered public prayers
with his sorrow in mind. It was not many weeks later, however, that
his sorrow was changed to joy by the prospect of his second marriage.
Not long after he was married to the young lady of his choice, but the
people of the community were divided in their opinion regarding
Urquhart's actions. Some retained implicit faith in Uquhart and were
convinced that he had actually received a letter informing him of

the death of his first wife. Others were exceedingly skeptical and
thought that he may have forged the letter. His case was brought
before the presbytery and after hearing his statement of the case he
was upheld. It was not long afterwards that a letter was received

by Alexander McLean, the pastor at Bristol, whiCh definitely proved
that the first wife was not dead and that she was coming to America.
However, the presbytery still sustained Urquhart since they were of
the opinion that he was the victim Of a forged letter, but believing
that his usefulness at Warren was at an end they recommended that he
accept a call which he had from the peOple of the neighboring section
of Union River. This he did and he was installed as pastor in September,
1785. Soon his reputation followed him to Union River and he again
was the center of violent controversy. This time the trouble was
augmented by the arrival of his first wife who came into his home

and abused him with the most bitter and Offensive language She could
command. She arrogantly took possession of the home and ordered the
second wife around like a servant. By her tempestuous behavior she

disrupted the life of the parish and forced Urquhart to resign. He

151

gave up his pastorate in the early part of the year 1790 and spent
the remainder Of his life in retirement. Such an involved issue as
this naturally took much of the presbytery's time.2

From all accounts probably the most distinguished member of the
Presbytery of Salem was Dr. Nathaniel Whittaker, pastor Third church
in Salem. He was a man Of such impressive bearing that he was selected
by Eleazar Wheelock to go to England and Scotland to raise money for
Dartmouth College. He had an attractive personal appearance and the
reputation for being an excellent pulpit orator. That his interests
were wide is indicated by the fact that he mixed in the political
agitations Of his day and even engaged in trade, but these activities
were not always helpful to his position as a pastor. Whatever his
good points were he had other qualities which caused him to become
the center of controversy wherever he was. He came to Salem in 1769
and before his installation he was careful to explain that he was a
Presbyterian and that the church was to be organized on Presbyterian
lines.4 This appeared agreeable to the church for they voted to adOpt
"his form of church government".

Evidently the decision was not clear to the entire membership

for in April, 1772 some forty or fifty families withdrew because the

church was being organized along Presbyterian lines with a regular

 

2The case of John Urquhart appears in the Minutes of the
Presbytery of Salem and in Cyrus Eaton, Annals of the Town of Warren
(1877), pp. 166-168, 184-187, 198-212.

3Richardson, Leon Burr, History of Dartmouth College (Hanover,

1932), p. 51.

4Phillips, James Duncan, Salem in the Eighteenth Century_(Boston,
1937), p. 342.

 

 

 

152

session; the society never fully recovered from this loss. On
November 27, 1773, a majority of the church requested the pastor to
join with them in applying to the Boston presbytery "to take the
church under their watch and care". This action was taken in accor-
dance with the conditions of Dr. Whittaker's settlement. As we saw
in a previous chapter the church was received by the presbytery in
1774. These various transitions were not accomplished smoothly, for
the group that withdrew in 1772 unsuccessfully claimed that they
were the real church and that its property belonged to them.

Nor were things peaceful in the relations of Whittaker and
the group that had remained with him. He was such an ardent patriot
during the Revolution that he antagonized certain members of his
church. The fact that after the struggle was over he Strongly urged
that Tories should not be allowed to return to their homes added to
his unpopularity. The dissatisfaction in Whittaker's church in Salem
reached such a proportion that on January 7, 1784, about twenty of
his members held a meeting and declared that they would no longer be
subject to the Presbyterian Government. After investigation into
this act the Presbytery declared them to be unworthy Of the Communion
of Saints until they manifest proper repentance. This group had also
called in a Congregational Council to consider the matter a procedure
which the presbytery considered to be highly disorderly since they had

5
previously covenanted to be Presbyterians; the society never fully

 

5Minutes of the Presbytery of Salem, June 11, 1784.

153

recovered from this loss. The presbytery wrote a long Statement of
its views and a defense of Dr. Whittaker, but it also recognized the
depth of the rupture in the Third Church Salem and his pastoral
relationship was dissolved. The Salem church voted February 11, 1784
to reassume the Congregational mode of church government.6 At their
meeting on September 8, 1784, when a call was presented to Whittaker
from Canaan in Maine, they advised him to accept it, which he did.

In less than five years the presbytery was called upon to investigate
the difficulties of Whittaker at Canaan, and decided to call a council
of neighboring ministers to consider the nature of the trouble.

The Presbytery of Salem came to an end at Gray, Maine, on
September 14, 1791, for the obvious reason that its membership was so
reduced that it could not carry on. As we have seen, the active
participants in the presbytery had dropped to three ministers after
1785. In 1791 the ranks of these three were reduced by the dismissal
of Samuel Perley from his pastorate at Gray, Maine. His parish had
been divided by an act of the General Court of the Commonwealth and
therefore he considered it advisable for him to give up his pastorate.
He was reluctantly dismissed by his fellow presbyters, Whittaker and
Strickland, for he had been a regular attendant at all the meetings of
that body. Whittaker and Strickland were scarcely in a position to

carry on the presbytery for they were both having serious difficulties

 

6Osgood, Charles S. and Batchelder, H. M., An HistoriCal Sketch
of Salem, 1626-1879 (Salem, 1879), pp. 89-90.

 

 

7
Minutes of the Presbytery of Salem, January 15, 1789.

154

with their own congregations. Thus the presbytery adjourned without
setting a definite date for a subsequent meeting and from the records
we have no evidence that the presbytery ever met again.

The end of the Presbytery of Salem is significant in the
history of Presbyterianism in New England, for it represents the
failure of what appeared at one time to be a promising line of
Presbyterian churches and presbyteries. It had started in 1745 with
the Presbytery of Boston, and that body had grown until at its
highest point it had sixteen or seventeen ministers and at least that
many churches connected with it. In 1775 the Presbytery of Boston
had hopefully proceeded to divide into three presbyteries and then to
erect a Synod. However, shortly before the organization of the
Synod it had really begun its decline and this continued so sharply
under the Synod that it was compelled to retrench after it had been
operating only seven years and combine into the Presbytery of Salem
which ended in 1791.

When the Presbytery of Salem finished its course in 1791
it was not the end of all the Presbyterian churches which had been at
one time or another connected with the Presbytery of Boston and its
descendant organizations. It is true that several of the congre-
gations had swung away from the Presbyterian procedure but others
liad just transferred their connection to another presbytery. When
the Presbytery at the Eastward was organized in 1771 there was an
opportunity for the churches connected with the Boston body to change
their'membership if they were so inclined. Thus the Newburyport

(Jnrrch and the major part of the Boston congregation found it

155

desirable to join the Presbytery at the Eastward. By 1791 the Associate
Reformed Presbytery of Londonderry, which had been Operating in New
England since 1782, had attracted the congregations of Coleraine,
Peterborough, Londonderry and the remnant of Boston. Thus the
Presbyterian churches which had been at one time or another connected
with the Boston Presbytery were not all defunct nor had they all

turned to Congregational procedure, but many had merely changed their

presbyterian affliation.

Chapter VIII

THE PRESBYTERY AT THE EASTWARD

On June 27, 1771, four elders from the churches of Boothbay,
Brunswick, Bristol, and TOpsham, all in the province of Maine together
with three ministers, Joseph Prince of North Parish, Pownalboro,

John Miller of Brunswick, and John Murray of Boothbay met in the
meeting-house in Boothbay and organized themselves into the Presbytery
at the Eastward. The manner in which this presbytery came to be
established is revealed in its constitution: "It having Pleased
Almighty God in his adorable providence by a Series of wonderful Steps
to bring and fix one minister of Presbyterian Principles, and to
Convince and bring over thereto two others of the Congregational way,
seemed to be a Special and very particular Call to them to associate
themselves into a Presbytery."1 The Presbyterian minister referred

to in this account was John Murray and this clearly indicates that

he was the prime mover in the establishment of the presbytery. He
convinced two Congregational ministers that the Presbyterian fOrm

of church government was the scriptural and superior way of conducting
the affairs of the church, and they, in turn, persuaded their
congregafions to accept the new policy and join in the formation Of

a presbytery.

 

1From the Constitution of the Presbytery at the Eastward,
a copy of which is attached to the front of its minute book. The
Constitution of the presbytery is illuminating as regards the
procedure, and doctrinal views of the presbytery.

156

157

The Presbytery at the Eastward having organized, then
encountered Opposition from the other Presbyterian organization in
New England as a result of its acknowledgement of John Murray as a
Presbyterian minister in good standing. It is impossible to under-
stand the peculiar position Of this presbytery apart from a thorough
knowledge of the abilities and difficulties Of John Murray.

John Murray was born in the County of Antrim in Ireland May 22,
1742. He studied for the ministry at the University Of Edinburgh,
where he received his Master of Arts degree at the age of eighteen.
He came to America in 1763 and within two years had three calls for
his pastoral services: Boothbay in Maine, New York City, and the
Second Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. He accepted the latter
and thus became the successor of Gilbert Tennent. He was the regular
pastor there from the spring Of 1765 to the spring of the following
year when at his own request, his pastoral relation was dissolved by the
Presbytery of Philadelphia. In July, 1766, he became pastor of the
Presbyterian church at Boothbay, Maine, where he remained actively
engaged in the work of the ministry until after the outbreak of the
Revolution, when to protect himself from the British he was forced to
reside in Newburyport. While there the Old South Presbyterian
Church, which had been without a minister since the death of Jonathan
Parsons in 1776, extended him a call. The church at Boothbay
strenuously Opposed a permanent change, therefore the presbytery did
not transfer him until June 1781. Under his leadership the Newburyport
church became one of the largest in New England. He died there March 13,

1793.

158

It is clear from all accounts that John Murray was one of the
most eloquent and effective preachers in colonial times. Some of his
contemporaries described him as the equal of George Whitfield, and
Jonathan Parsons at Newburyport said he had not been surpassed since
the days of the apostles. His popularity as a preacher is well attested
by the fact that shortly after his arrival in America three churches
extended him calls, and each was insistent in its demands for his
services. The local histories of Boothbay and Newburyport abound
with stories of the manner in which the people were held under the
spell of Murray's preaching for an hour or two.2 It is told that when
some of the men of Newburyport unsuccessfully attempted to enlist a
company of men in the cause of the colonies they called upon Murray
to help them; he delivered such a striking appeal that after he had
finished Speaking there was a full company of volunteers. Whenever
he went to preach at neighboring churches it is a known fact that
peOple would come from far and near to hear him, and that some of the
meeting-houses had to be reinforced to meet the strain made upon the
building by the crowd which came to hear John Murray. It is also
related how one member of the church in Newburyport who wanted to
test Murray's ability as a preacher handed him a text just befOre he
went into the pulpit, and Murray used this text to such good

advantage that everyone was well pleased.

 

2Green, Francis B., History of Boothbay (Portland, 1906),
p. 81; History of Newburyport (Boston, 1854), p. 17.

 

 

159

John Murray did not rest content with a presentation of his
message through sermons, for he was assiduous in his personal
visitations and endeavored to guide the spiritual welfare of his
people by private counselling and catechizing. As pastor at Boothbay,
John Murray began a course of pastoral visitations in which he went
to the homes of all the inhabitants, catechizing old and young
separately, conversing with everyone individually concerning the state
of his soul, and concluding each visit with prayer.3 An account of
each day's visit, with the names of all the persons in each family
and the observations made regarding them was entered in his personal
record book of which we fortunately have several excerpts. Near the
close of the year 1766 after a day Spent in visiting he wrote:

"0! pour out thy spirit on these poor families

that they may not fOrget the promises this day

made in they sight, that they worship Shall be

daily, morning, and evening maintained in their
houses, and that they will never rest until they

have received the Christ into all their hearts...eight
unbaptized--all prayerless. Alas! Alas!"

"September 25th: Now this week's visits are
finished; what have I done? Have I been faithful?
....I trust the great things of religion have, in

my poor way been pressed upon them: Some appear
really resolved for God, all were more or less affected
....1 fear some have professed what they know not;
all have promised family worship, etc. regularly,
morning and evening: all have promised to be in
earnest about salvation. O LORD, I commit the whole
to Thee: breathe on my poor feeble attempts; grant
the success, 'tis of thee...Show them thy salvation."

 

3From the Sessional Records of Boothbay.

160

"November ll...here I have a sad view of ignorance
and carelessness in every house...they acknowledge
everything, assent to all that is said; yet
conscience sits in a corner inaccessible. It gives
me some comfort that I have found one prayerful
family...Lord,...increase the number!"

AS the above excerpts indicate, John Murray was faithful and
thorough in his visitation of the homes of his parishioners. His
procedure when calling was as follows:

"lst: Salute the house

2nd: Compare list with the family-~mark them who can
read--catechisables--convenanters--church members

3d: Address--l. Children to engage in early religion.
2. Young ones to reading, secret prayer, the

sabbath, public worship, ordinances, good company,

good houses, good tongues, love and concord, fidelity,
conversion

4: Address parents--l. about their Spiritual state

2. secret devotion, 3. family worship, government,
catechising, 4. sabbath, public worship, sacrements; If
church members see what profit-if not remove objections--
if in error or vice, convince, reclaim; if in divisions,
heal, if poor help. 5

Lastly: exhortation to all-pray."

In his pastoral activities John Murray not only visited his
parishioners individually but he also conducted catechising classes
in the various quarters of the town. He divided the inhabitants
into three classes according to their ages; all under 14 years into
one class, all unmarried persons from that upwards in another, and all
heads of families into the third. Each class was catechized by

itself. The method was to propose questions in the order of the

 

4Excerpts of his diary are to be found in Greenleaf, Ecclesiastical

 

Sketches, pp. 134-36.

SExcerpts, Ibid., p. 133.

161

the catechism, and to have each person give his answer; there after

he would make his comments and see that the question was understood by
all. Such a service concluded with a sermon, prayer, and singing.
Since he catechized once every month in each quarter of the town and
every person once every three months, he thus finished the catechism
with each class once each year.

As an outgrowth of his fervent and evangelistic preaching and
persistent pastoral visitation, a revival developed in the winter and
spring of 1767.6 This revival was so memorable that the Session
described it at length in their records. "It had been very observable
that through the whole Of the Winter a very unusual seriousness and
solemnity appeared amongst the generality of the people here,
accompanied with an insatiable desire after the word, and several
persons awakened to an anxious concern fOr their souls....religion
became the conversation of all companies....the Pastor's lodging's
were then daily crowded with poor souls, that knew not what to do;
with whom he often found sweet employment day and night, sometimes
till three o'clock in the morning, Often till midnight, one company
after the other."7 John Murray always showed himself to be inde-
fatigable in making personal contacts with his members for the sake of

considering with them the place of religion in their lives. Not only

 

6Sessional Records of Boothbay Church.

7

Sessional Records of the Boothbay Church. An account of the
history of the church is given as an introduction to the Sessional
Records.

162

was he instrumental in starting a revival in his own town, but he
was equally effective in many of the neighboring places where he
visited and preached.

As stated earlier the presbytery began in 1771 with a member—
ship of three pastors, Murray, Miller, and Prince, together with their
congregations, and some other vacant churches. The membership of the
presbytery grew steadily. The records who that on May 31, 1774
the Rev. Nathaniel Ewer and his congregation at New Market, New
Hampshire, were admitted into the presbytery. Jonathan Parsons and
his Newburyport congregation foresook the Presbytery of Boston, and
on May 8, 1776, were made a part of the Presbytery at the Eastward. It
was only two months later, June 19, 1776, that the Newburyport
church suffered the loss of its pastor by death. On October 23,

1781, the Rev. William Davidson, the pastor of the East Parish Church
in Londonderry, who had been formerly connected with the original
Presbytery of Londonderry which had now become defunct, applied, to-
gether with his church, to the Presbytery at the Eastward for admission
and they were received. Thus after ten years the presbytery had grown
to the point where it had five ministers on its roll and numerous
churches.

The presbytery had further additions during the remaining twelve
years. The Rev. Simon Williams of Windham, New Hampshire, an active
member of the Synod of New England until he declined its authority
on September 13, 1782, approached the Presbytery at the Eastward
shortly after and presented his causes for grievance against the Synod.

After showing the Declinature which had been written by him and

163

stating that he had withdrawn from them he expressed a desire to be
received into the Presbytery at the Eastward. The presbytery, on
October 1, 1782, weighed the matter and decided to enroll him.

On May 29, 1783, the Rev. Solomon Moore and his congregation
at New Boston, New Hampshire, were received into the presbytery.
During that same year, November 12th the Rev. Thomas Hibbert and his
Congregation at Amesbury, Massachusetts, were taken into the presbytery.
During its latter stages the presbytery sustained three losses.

Thomas Hibbert was dismissed from his pastorate on November 6, 1788.
William Davidson, the venerable pastor at East Derry, died early in
1791 and John Murray died March 13, 1793. As will be noted later the
remaining members coalesced with the Associate Reformed Presbytery
of New England in 1793.

The Presbytery at the Eastward was an active body during the
twenty-two years it existed. It met two, three, and sometimes four
times a year, and these meetings were particularly well attended by
both minister and elders. The interests and work of the presbytery
were varied. This body, like all other regular presbyteries of the
time, was occupied with the consideration of certain disciplinary
cases which came before it by way of review from the actions of
the church sessions. The method of the presbytery in the consideration
of these judical matters is worth pointing out. First, they informed
themselves of the exact charge which was being made against the accused.
Then the presbytery proceeded to hear all the witnesses on both sides

of the case and to examine them carefully; after that it usually

164

examined the defendent with due care. Having heard all the witnesses
it would privately examine all documents presented, weigh the evidence,
and render its decision. In this manner the presbytery reviewed
charges of drunkeness and fornication which had been made against
individual members Of the churches.

As one reads the records of the Session of the church in Booth-
bay and then compares it with the records of the presbytery, it
becomes apparent that only a fraction of the disciplinary cases
considered by the local session were ever brought before the presbytery
for review. Thus in the Boothbay minutes we find that the session
considered several cases of fornication and drunkeness during the first
eleven years, but only one case of each of the above mentioned were
brought before the presbytery. It is apparent, then, that most of the
church members were willing to Submit to the decision of the session
and did not appeal their cases to the presbytery.

Observing carefully the behavior of its ministers, the Presby-
tery did not hesitate to take drastic action against any who acted
in what the Presbytery considered unsatisfactorly. The first case
involved a licentiate of the presbytery, Samuel Wheeler. He was
licensed November 19, 1772, and was sent to supply the churCh at
Topsham, Maine. In less than two years reports of "gross immorality"
were circulated about him. The presbytery after due examination
concluded that his license to preach should not be renewed. At a
later meeting when it was discovered that he was still preaching and

that his "immoralities" were worse than ever the Presbytery rendered

165

this verdict: "Hereby do, solemnly, & in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, DEPOSE HIM, the said Samuel Wheeler from the character Of a
preacher of the Gospel and declare him until repentence and reformation

has been evidenced to this body....utterly unworthy to [be] received

countenanced or employed by the Church of Christ on earth...."7

There is no later evidence to show that he ever repented or was
reinstated by the presbytery.

The only other minister whose conduct was questioned by the
Presbytery was Thomas Hibbert, pastor of the church at Amesbury,
Massachusetts. He was charged by certain members of his church with
drunkeness. The presbytery called a long list Of witnesses and came
to this decision, which is so illuminating regarding the attitude and
proceedure of the presbytery that we quote in full:

"Resolve unanimously that on a comparison of the
several parts of the whole evidence laid before us
this P.b.y. are in conscience obliged to believe
that the sd Thos Hibbert was really intoxicated wt
strong drink on the sd 9th day of February - G
that the complaint in that part is fully proved -

2nd That on the 19th of October last he did
behave in an indecent G unchristian manner in the
house 8 at the time of publick worship on the Lord's
day as it was represented in the complaint of Thos
BO ardman -

3rd1y That in his defence before the P.b.u.
he was uttered several things which did not appear
consistent wt truth, or wt one another.

4th That from all these things the P.b.y. are
bound by scripture by the standing publick plat-
form of P.b.n. government 8 by their own consciences

 

7Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward October 12, 1774.

166

to proceed to the exercise of that discipline which
is requisite in such cases for maint.g the honor of
Christ, the credit of religion 8 the purrity 8 peace
of the Christian Chh 8 therefore the said P.b.y.

did 8 hereby do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
ye only king 8 head of the church 5 by virtue of ye
power 8 authority committed by Christ to the Offiers
G jusicatories of his Church, actually depose

the sd Thos Hibbert from the Office of the Holy
ministry, prohibitg him from G discharging him to exer-
cise the same or any part thereof any where in all
time coming on pain of the highest censures of the
church; 8 all persons a religious Societies in Commn wt
us are hereby forbidden to employ or attend on him

in any such act untill the reformation of his

life shall have given such evidence of his real
reputation as to induce this P.b.y. free from

this sentence. That all Stipend promis'd him by

his late charge cease from the time he ceased to
serve them - That the pulpit of sd Congregation be
held 8 declared vacant - 8 the said Society is ex-
hort'd to proceed to the Settlement of another min—
ister in his room. And finally that he appear be-
fore the sd Ch.h as a private brother 8 be dealt

wt in due from in order to his recov'ry to their
Christian charity - or his final excommunication

8 that they lay their proceedg. before us as far

as they have proceeded in the case in our next meet-
ing. This Sentence was pronounced from the Chair 8 8
the P.b.y. adjourn'd was before Concluded wt prayer.

It was in this manner that the presbytery endeavored to guard the re-
putation of the Church of Christ and the honor of religion. The
presbytery was careful to see that the position of the church
was not defamed by permitting scandals to exist within it.

The Presbytery took a genuine interest in the progress and
growth of the churches under its care. Thus one year it ordered

that the ministers of the presbytery perform a pastoral visitation

 

8Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward November 6, 1788.

167

9
of families in their respective charges. It watched over the vacant

congregations and made a serious effort to see that they were furnished
with supply preachers; it also arranged for the regular pastors to
visit these churches and baptise the children and conduct the
Lord's Supper.

The presbytery revived the practice of investigating the
Operation of the local congregations by a systematic visitation
of all the churches in the presbytery. This visitation meant that
the presbytery held one of its regular meetings in the church to be
examined. In the course of the day the members of the session were
called before the presbytery, and they were extensively interrogated
concerning the conduct of their pastor whether it was befitting his
solemn office as a minister of the Gospel. After this the session
withdrew and the pastor was called and several questions were asked
of him relating to the conduct of the session, especially regarding
its diligence and care in the discharge of its functions. Then the
deacons were examined in the same manner, and last of all the
representatives of the church. The presbytery made its recommendations
to each group and approved or disapproved of its conduct.10 In this
way the presbytery endeavored to keep in touch with the progress of

each Of its congregations.

 

9Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward, October 14, 1773.

10An account of the examination of the Newburyport Church is
given in the Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward, OctOber 13, 1791.

168

A period of decline for the churches of New England occurred
during the last quarter of the eighteenth century. The Revolutionary
struggle upset the quiet, orderly development Of many communities;
their youth had been scattered abroad and returned home with a
diversity of religious ideas. It was also at this time that some
ministers and laymen were beginning to rebel openly against the
preaching of the torments Of hell for those who were not of the
elect. This reaction expressed itself in the advocacy of the doctrine
of universal salvation. Strangely enough one of the great proponents
of this view was another John Murray who was located in Boston during
this period. His followers called him "Salvation Murray" to distin-
guish him from the John Murray because he was not averse to por-
traying vividly the horrors Of the damned. Dhe Presbytery at the
Eastward, in order to safeguard its churches from what it considered
to be the grave errors of the doctrine of Universalism, decided to
exclude any of their church members from the privileges of Christians
who "are not free to profess their belief of the future Eternity of
Hell Torments."ll

Endeavoring to counteract what it considered to be the serious
decline of religion, the Presbytery published in 1783 a volume
entitled "Bath-kol, a Voice from the Wilderness. Being a humble

attempt to support the sinking truths of God against some of the

 

11Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward, September 14,
1785.

169

of the principal errors raging at this time. Or, a joint testimony

to the churches under their care by the Presbytery of the'Eastward."12
In this work the presbytery pointed out that the root of most of the
sickedness of the time was traceable to the prevalence of Deism and
Origenism. They further elaborated upon the noticeable disregard
for religion as a result of the eight years of war. They considered
that the public worship of God was more neglected than it ever had
been in New England, and believed that towns closed up their churches
simply because they begrudged the expenses of keeping a settled
minister. They claimed that some churches had forsaken a "learned,
godly ministry for ignorant, fanatical intruders” who were wining

to preach without salary, and, furthermore, that in places where
ministers preached, the majority of the population seldom attended;
and that, of those who did attend, many spent their time "sauntering,
gazing, dozing and sneering." They pointed out also that family
worship had.been given up in thousands of homes and people profaned
the Sabbath on wharves and in coffee-houses. They stated that the pious
youth from the country learned to disregard religion while on privateers
and in the camps, and that intemperance was destroying multitudes

of men and some women each year. They bewailed the fact that
ante-nuptial Offences were almost forgotten to be a crime; that

adultery was on the increase; that vile books were being printed and

 

12A COpy of this volume is in the Connecticut State Library.

170

read with avidity; and that extortion, theft, fraud and lying were
becoming more prevalent. The presbytery felt constrained to deliver
their testimony against these evils and to Oppose the doctrines
which they thought were at the root Of thetrouble; therefOre they
published Bath-kol.

An interest in the education of theological students was
expressed by the Presbytery by "defraying the eXpenses of educating

poor and pious youth for the gospel ministry."13

Money toward a

burse was raised by taking a collection in the various congregations

of the presbytery after the pastors had preached a charity sermon.

The presbytery carefully selected those who were to receive the

benefit of the burse, examining them to see if they were qualified to

do college work and if their personal lives were unblemished. If a young
man proved acceptable he was permitted to draw upon the fund while
pursuing his studies at a recognized institution. Because the

Trustees at Dartmouth College made special provision for these students,
they were not required to pay any fees or tuition.14 This fact the
presbytery greatly appreciated, and thereafter it instructed all their
bursars to attend Dartmouth College. These students were also required
to repay with interest the money given them if they changed their de-

nominational affiliation. Thus the two sons of Simon Williams were

required to repay what they had received through the burse, because

 

13A letter of President John Wheelock stating this provision is
mentioned in the Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward, September 13, 1785.

14Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward, October 28, 1789.

171

they entered the Congregational ministry instead of taking one of the
Presbyterian churches under the presbytery.ls
The members of this presbytery along with the other Presbyterians
in New England ardently supported the cause of the colonies in the
Revolutionary War. Perhaps the person most actively engaged in this
work was John Murray. He was a delegate to the Provincial Congress
in Watertown in 1775, and he also gave a large share of his time at
the early part of the insurrection to organizing Committees of
Safety in the towns of Maine and New Hampshire and urging men to
enlist in the army. So great was the contribution which he rendered
to the defense of this area and to the morale of those who opposed
the British that the English-commander offered a reward of five
hundred pounds sterling for his capture,16 an amount equal to that
placed on Samuel Adams. Owing to the fact that the British had a
military post near Boothbay, it became necessary for Murray to leave
his home and move to Newburyport in order to escape being taken by
the English.
Later when George Washington made his first presidential tour
of New England, the Presbytery at the Eastward wrote him a letter
praising him highly and acknowledging their support of the new

government. George Washington sent an appreciative reply to their

17
letter.

 

15Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward, October 28, 1789.

16Minutes of the PreSbytery at the Eastward, OctOber 21, 1777.

17A cOpy of both of these letters is contained in the minutes
of the Presbytery, Ibid., October 28, 1789.

172

As we have seen, the Presbytery at the Eastward bore some of
the stigma which was attached to John Murray and therefore it was not
recognized as a legitimate presbytery by the Presbytery of Boston.
Even though the Presbytery at the Eastward Offered to join with the
Boston body in the formation of a Synod it was rebuffed.

This did not prevent the members of the Presbytery at the
Eastward from attempting to establish friendly relations with the
Grafton Presbytery. The exact Status of this relationship is uncertain
for we do not have enough of the minutes of the Grafton body to show
what their attitude toward the Presbytery at the Eastward was but it
must have been more friendly than that of the Boston group. The
viewpoint of the men of the Eastward is shown in their minutes:

"It being reported to the P.b.y. that a
number of Ministers of regular standing 8
sound principles in the back part of

this state, have formed themselves into

a P.b.y. by the name of Grafton 8 that
the work of the Lord has eminently
prospered in their hands: - This P.b.y.
considering the low-state of the P.b.n.
interest in New England at the present
day 8 the greater danger of our numerous
vacancies for want of Candidates to carry
the Gospel among them: felt it to be
their indispensible duty to do whatin
them lies to strengthen the things yt
remain; 8 therefore; Resolved, to enter
into a Correspondence wt said P.b.y. of
Grafton to the end that a greater degree
of visable strength or union may appear
to subsist among P.b.n.s. in this Country
- as a great degree of P.b.n. strength

8 beauty emninently consists therein.”18

 

18Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward, September 14,
1785.

173

Having taken this action, the presbytery then appointed two
of their members to act as a committee to draft a fraternal letter of
"friendship and Charity" to the Presbytery of Grafton. Unfortunately
the reply to this letter is not recorded.

One of the most important steps taken toward unifying the
Presbyterian forces in New England occurred in 1792. At this
date the presbyteries which were still active were the Presbytery
at the Eastward, the Grafton Presbytery and the Associate Reformed
Presbytery of New England. It appears from the minutes of the
Presbytery at the Eastward that these three bodies held a convention
at Dartmouth College with the hope of establishing a Synod. The
Presbytery at the Eastward ”ordered that the Rev. Mrss. Solomon Moore,
Simon Williams, and John Murray be commissioned the Clerk as the
delegates to attend a Synodical convention at Dartmouth College, on
the 23 of August next, for the purpose of uniting the Several pres-
byteries, into one Synod, and the Presbyteries engage to ratify
as their own act whatever may be done therein, by their Said dele-
gates or any number of them, who may attend at that meeting."19
This convention met at Dartmouth College as planned but the decisions
it arrived at are unknown owing to the fact that we have been unable to
find minutes of that meeting.

The convention which met at Dartmouth College had adjourned

to meet at Pembroke, New Hampshire. The Grafton body did not attend

 

19Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward, June 13, 1792.

174

this meeting and showed no further interest,20 but the representatives
of the Eastward and Associate Presbyteries were there and outlined
further their plans for uniting the two bodies. The last Convention
held at Londonderry, New Hampshire, October 25, 1793, took the final
steps toward union. The Minutes of the Convention show that the
Westminister Confession and Catechisms, and directory for worship and
form of government, were to be the standards of the united presbytery,
and that the new presbytery was to be called the Presbytery of

21
Londonderry.

 

20Blaikie, Presbyterianism, p. 274.

 

21The Minutes of the Convention of October 25, 1793 are quoted
in Blaikie, Ibid., pp. 276-77.

Chapter IX

THE ASSOCIATE REFORMED PRESBYTERY

Before we can understand clearly the name by which this next
Presbytery in New England was designated, it is necessary to review
briefly the events which led to its adoption. The Scotch Presby-
terians who came to America in the colonial period had not all been
under the same Synod in Scotland or Ireland; while the great majority
of them favored the same form of church polity they did not all
agree as to the fine points of doctrine, discipline, and the power
of the civil magistrate, especially the British sovereign. This
meant that there were numerous divisions in the ranks of Presbyterian-
ism in Scotland. When the members of these various groups moved to
America they continued to emphasize their former distinctive
principles and to set up their separate organization. The two
groups which are the subject of our immediate consideration were the
Associate Presbyterians the Reformed PreSbyterians or Covenantors.
They were Presbyterians who were closely akin in their views in general
but differed on the question of the position of the British sovereign.
By the Opening of the Revolutionary War their were two Associate
Presbyteries in the colonies and one RefOrmed Presbytery. When
the colonies declared their independence from the control Of the
British Crown the real point of difference no longer existed between

them and they began courting each other with a view to union.

 

lLathan, Robert, History of the Associate‘Reformed‘Ch'urch of
the South (Harrisburg, 1882), p. 171.

 

175

176

Several conferences were held between the Associate Presbyteries and
the Reformed Presbytery in an effort to work out a basis of union.

By 1780 their basis of union had been drawn up and presented to the
three presbyteries for adoption. In the spring of 1780 the Associate
Presbytery of New York animously accepted the basis of union, as did
the Reformed Presbytery in December, 1781, and last of all, the
Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania accepted it on June 13, 1782.
The formal consumation of the union took place in Philadelphia on
November 1, 1782, when the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania, the
Associate Presbytery of New York, and the Reformed Presbytery formally
united in the organization of the Associate Reformed Synod.

If we are to understand how this affected New England Presbyter-
ianism it will be necessary to trace briefly the relation of the
Associate Presbytery Of New York with the Presbyterian churches in
New England prior to this union in 1782. This presbytery, when it
was organized in 1776, included not only New York but the territories
to the east. It was not long before it began to attract some of the
Presbyterian churches of New England. In 1778 the church at
Peterborough, New Hampshire, withdrew from the Synod Of New England
and came under the care of this presbytery. In 1782 the Presbyterian
congregations in Boston affiliated with this presbytery. Thus the
congregations at Peterborough and Boston were part of the Associate

Presbytery of New York when it joined in the formation of the Associate

 

2
Ibid., p. 178.

177

Reformed Synod. Henceforth it was known as the Associate Reformed
Presbytery of New York but in reality its territory and membership
were not changed. The next year the presbytery met in Londonderry,
New Hampshire, and admitted the West Parish church of Londonderry

into its membership. In 1785 Samuel Taggart and his church in
Coleraine were regularly dismissed from the Presbytery of Salem, and
they immediately united with this presbytery. By 1786 the Associate
Reformed Presbytery of New York had four settled pastors in New
England churches-- David Annan at Peterborough, Samuel Taggart at
Coleraine, William Morrison at Londonderry, and Robert Annan at
Boston--and several other vacant congregations in New England which
looked to it for supervision. At the meeting of the Associate Reformed
Synod on June 2, 1786, the large number of churches in New England was
observed and it was decided to form a new presbytery which would
include only New England; thus it formed the Associate Reformed
Presbytery of Londonderry.

The fact that the name of this presbytery was changed twice
while it was connected with the Synod has made for some confusion.
Until 1791 the presbytery was called the Associate RefOrmed Presbytery
of Londonderry, but in that year the Synod changed its name to the
Associate Reformed Presbytery of New England. This was the official
title of the presbytery until October 25, 1793, when it united with
the Presbytery at the Eastward and they took for themselves, without
the advice of the Synod, the name of the Presbytery of Londonderry.
This name was retained by this presbytery throughout its existence in

the nineteenth century.

178

It should be kept in mind about this presbytery that while it
appeared to be a new organization it was in reality only a realignment
Of the churches which had been the backbone of New England Presbyterian-
ism prior to the Revolution. The churches which composed this presby-
tery had been affiliated previously with the presbyteries of Boston,
Londonderry, Salem, and the Eastward. At this period the Associate
Reformed Presbytery was more attractive for some reason to the Presby-
terian churches in New England than the remnants of their former
presbyteries.

To analyze the Associate Reformed Presbytery a brief sketch
of the churches and pastors must be given.

The first to leave the Synod of New England and turn to the
Associate Presbytery of New York was the church at Peterborough,

New Hampshire. The church was dismissed by the Synod to this presbytery
on October 1, 1778, in order that it might receive Ihvid Annan, a
member of the Associate Presbytery of New York as its pastor. The
Peterborough church was unfortunate in the type of ministers which it
obtained. It was first served by John Morrison who became immoral

and intemperate, and who deserted to the British during the Revol-
ution. From all available accounts David Annan, their next pastor,

was no better. During the fourteen years he remained with them he
became notorious for his vulgar Speech and intemperate habits, as

well as for the abusive manner in which he treated his wife and children.
In a fit of anger he once fOrced his wife and children to Spend the
night in the woods. Because of his repeated mistreatment, his wife

finally had to divorce him. The town historian quotes an elaborate

179

complaint that was made against him by the town and presnted to the
presbytery in 1788.3 The town charged him with indecent speech,
drunkeness, and neglect in the preparation of his sermons. The
presbytery did not see fit to suspend him from his office because of
these charges. However, four years later his situation became so
uncomfortable that he requested his dismissal from his pastorate and
the presbytery granted his request. He remained a member of the pres-
bytery until 1800 when his conduct appeared so unsuitable to the
character of a minister that he was deposed. It was unfortunate
for the Presbyterian cause in Peterborough that its first two
pastors were men of such unworthy character, for their behavior
brought an odium upon Presbyterianism and a prejudice against orthodox
Calvinism in the mind of the townspeople. Consequently after the
dismissal of Annan the churdh, in 1799, called a Congregational
minister and adopted the Congregational practice.4

The West Parish of Londonderry, which during the long pastorate
of David McGregore had been one of the most prominent churChes connected
with the Presbytery of Boston, changed its presbyterial affiliation on
February 13, 1783 at the time of the installation of William Morrison,
who was a licentiate of the Associate Reformed Presbytery of

S
New York. Morrison was a worthy successor to David McGregore. By

 

3Smith, Albert, History of Peterborough, (Boston, 1876), pp. 87—90.

 

4 ,
Lawrence, New Hampshire Churches, pp. 240-41.

 

5
Scouller, J. B., A Manual of the United Presbyterian ChurCh
of North America (Harrisburg, 1881), p. 48.

 

180

his faithful pastoral endeavors and his effective preaching he held
the congregation together and trained them in the Presbyterian
principles.6 Because the church at Londonderry was exceptionally
fortunate in the quality and length of its first two pastorates, it
had a solid foundation which enabled it to remain loyal to the
principles of the Presbyterian church. Morrison remained as the
much loved pastor of the Londonderry church until his death in 1818.
Besides his own church work he was also active in promoting the
Presbyterian cause in New England among the vacant churches that
looked for help to the presbytery. He went about conducting communion
in these churches and preaching fOr them, even though in later years
it was a great drain upon his strength.

In 1785 Samuel Taggart, the pastor of the church at Coleraine,
Massachusetts, was given a general letter of recommendation and
dismissal by the Presbytery of Salem, and.he immediately transferred
to the Associate Reformed Presbytery of New York.7 Taggart had been
ordained and installed pastor of Coleraine on February 19, 1777, by
the Presbytery of Palmer and remained in that pastorate until 1818.
According to a contemporary, he was given to preaching long and

didactic sermons in a style which lacked animation, and he did little

 

6Parker, Londonderry, pp. 163-67.

 

7
Minutes of the Presbytery of Salem, June 2, 1785.

For additional material on Samuel Taggart seeMcClelan, Charles
H., The Early Settlers of Coleraine, Massachusetts (Greenfield, 1885),
pp. 41-45 and Parker, Londonderry, pp. 246:47, and Sprague, Annals
of American Pulpit, Vol. III, p. 377 ff.

 

 

 

181

pastoral calling. He was greatly respected, not only by his parishioners,
but by the people in that region. From 1803 to 1817 he was a member
of the United States Congress. He was probably most famous for his
unusually retentive memory, especially his ability to remember the
names of people, their ages, and the number and age Of their Children.
He was equally famous for his absent-mindedness, for the accounts
which have been written about him abound with stories of this character-
istic. During his pastorate the church at Coleraine functioned along
Presbyterian lines.

The successor of John Moorhead in Boston was Robert Annan,
brother of David Annan. After the death of Moorhead in 1773 the
Boston church spent nineteen months trying to persuade John Murray
and the Presbytery at the Eastward that he should become their minister.
In order to better their chances of securing him, the majority of the
members of this church withdrew from the Presbytery of Boston and
nominally placed themselves under the Presbytery at the Eastward.
Even with this move they were still unable to secure Murray, and their
pulpit remained vacant until September 25, 1783, when Robert Annan was
installed pastor.9 The period of vacancy and the withdrawal from the
presbytery depleted and divided the congregation. After this long

vacancy the Boston congregation was divided and discouraged. Under the

 

9The best account of Robert Annan's pastorate at Boston is
given by Blaikie, Presbyterianism, pp. 252-66.

 

circums
rather '
antagon:
a small
well to
of repen
heinous
tothis p
because 1
Statemen‘
learned 1
not possi
in the ch
better if
be seen i
the news
away on a
were at s
asked the
"Yes, You
did not c.
in his pa
Church he

t1‘ans fe 1.1.

 

182

circumstances Annan was not the type of man for the church. He was
rather uncouth, tactless and outspoken and, on various accounts, he
antagonized several members of the church. He had formerly served in
a small settlement in Wallkill, New York, and did not adjust very
well to the life of Boston. He insisted on public acknowledgement

of repentance before the congregation by those to committed some
heinous sin or were involved in a scandal. His parishioners Objected
tathis practice and some of the wealthier ones withdrew from the Church
because he either rebuked them too sharply or insisted upon a public
statement. Some of the younger members of the congregation had
learned to enjoy dancing but from the pastor's viewpoint they could
not possibly indulge in this practice and yet remain in good standing
in the church. Even with these ideas he might have gotten along
better if he had had more tact. His deficiency in this regard may

be seen in the following illustration. He was requested to break

the news to the wife of a sea captain that her husband had died while
away on a voyage. Annan came to her home while she and her daughters
were at supper and she suspected that he might have some news. She
asked the question, ”Is there any news?" and he bluntly replied,
"Yes, you are a widow." The fact that he was an interesting preacher
did not compensate sufficiently fbr his inability to adapt himself

in his pastoral relationships. Realizing that he was unsuited to the
church he accepted a call in 1786 from a church in Philadelphia and so

transferred his membership to another presbytery. The important fact

in this cc

church, ft

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   

church pol

 

gati onal

in Penbro
with the
Pembroke
functione
each reta
Submitted
C°1bY and
these two
off from
remained

Se
Andrew 01

183

in this connection is that the majority of the members of the Boston
church, following his dismissal, forsook the Presbyterian form of
church polity and voted on August 4, 1786, to "embrace the Congre-
gational mode of government."10 During the next year the Rev.
Jeremy Belknapp was settled there according to the usual manner of
the Congregational churches.

The Rev. Zaccheus Colby, pastor of the Congregational Church
in Pembroke, applied to the presbytery in 1790 for admission along
with the Presbyterian society of that town. The two churdhes in
Pembroke had worked out a plan of co-operation by which both churches
functioned together in the support of Colby while at the same time
eaCh retained its own ecclesiastical organization. This plan was
submitted to and approved by the presbytery which then received
Colby and the Presbyterian church into its membership.11 In 1798
these two churches were united, but the Presbyterian element broke
off from this united church in 1800 and eventually died out. Colby
remained as pastor in Pembroke until 1803.12

September 11, 1793, the presbytery Ordained and installed
Andrew Oliver as the pastor of a new church at West Pelham, MassaChusetts.

Oliver was still pastor of the church at the beginning of the nineteenth

century.

 

0Blaikie, Presbyterianism, p. 263.

11Ibid., p. 271.

 

Lawrence, Londonderry, p. 403.

 

184

The church at Hampton, New Hampshire, became Presbyterian under
peculiar circumstances. The majority of the townspeople disagreed
with the church members as to who should be called as pastor, and
there was an open rupture between these two groups. According to
Congregational procedure the town could not settle a minister without
the consent of the church; to surmount this difficulty the townspeOple
voted to make the church Presbyterian and accordingly applied to
the Presbytery of Londonderry for admission. The presbytery received
them and ordained and installed their pastor-elect, William Pidgin
on January 27, 1796. 3 Pidgin had previously been a candidate under
the Presbytery at the Eastward and was one of the young men who had
been assisted through Dartmouth College by that Presbytery.l4 He
remained as pastor in Hampton until July, 1807.

The members of the presbytery cherished the hope of uniting
the various New England presbyteries at least five years before
their desire was partially fulfilled. At their meeting on October 1,
1788, they approved the following motion:

"This Presbytery taking into serious consideration
the broken state of the Presbyterian interest in

New England, and the importance of doing something
to unite the various bodies of Presbyterians.

Voted, that letters be written--one t) the Presbytery

at the Eastward, relating to the expediency of some
proposals of a coalescence of the several Presbyteries."

 

13
Lawrence, Ibid., p. 72.

14Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward, June 13, 1792.

15Minutes of the Associate RefOrmed Presbytery for October 1,
1788 as quoted in Blaikie, Presbyterianism, p. 269.

 

185

Thus began between these New England presbyteries a three cornered
correSpondence on the subject of union. The Grafton Presbytery
evidenced some interest in this project and sent a fraternal delegate
to a meeting of the Associate Reformed Presbytery in 1789. The
Presbytery at the Eastward, as we have previously noted, was always
desirous of entering into such a union. The outgrowth of this
correspondence was a definite plan for a Synodical Convention to be
held at Dartmouth College, August 23, 1792. The Associate Reformed
Presbytery appointed William Morrison and David Annan as their
delegates. Annan went so far as to draw up preliminary articles of
union to be submitted to the convention.16 The minutes of this
convention have been lost, but from other sources it can be seen that
the Convention met and then adjourned to meet later at Pembroke,
New Hampshire. The Presbytery of Grafton did not attend the session at
Pembroke and from this point on apparently lost interest in the projected
Synod. As an outgrowth of the meeting at Pembroke the Associate
Reformed Presbytery expressed itself as follows:

"The eXpediency of forming a union with the Eastern

Presbytery was considered and approved. Voted,

agreeably to the proceedings of the convention at

Pembroke, that the delegates be appointed to form

a union." 7

The delegates of the two bodies met on October 24, 1793, and dissolved

 

161bid., p. 273.

17Minutes of the Associate RefOrmed Presbytery of New England
October 9, 1793, as quoted in Blaikie, Ibid., p. 276.

186

the two presbyteries and formed a new one, to be known as the Pres-
bytery of Londonderry.18

The reunion of several Presbyterian churches in New England was
brought about by this action. For example, for the first time since
the split in the first Presbytery of Londonderry in 1736 the churches
in East and West Londonderry were united under the same presbytery.
The union of these two presbyteries in 1793 brought together the
Presbyterian churches of Windham, New Boston, New Market, Peterborough,
and Londonderry in New Hampshire; and Coleraine, Pelham and Newbury-
port in Massachusetts. This action added considerably to the strength
of the Presbyterianism in New England at the close of the eighteenth
century.

In 1793 there were two settled pastors who came with their
congregations into the new Presbytery of Londonderry from the fermer
Presbytery at the Eastward. Solomon Moore, pastor of the New Boston
congregation, became a member of the new presbytery, and was connected
with it until his death in 1803.19 Nathaniel Ewer and his ChurCh at
South New Market, New Hampshire, also joined the new presbytery.
During the later years of his pastorate he was assisted by Samuel
Toombs, who in July, 1794, was settled by the town as a colleague of
Ewer. After the dismissal of Ewer in 1797, Toombs remained as the

20
pastor of the Church until 1799 when he was dismissed.

 

181bid., p. 277.

19
Lawrence, Londonderry, p. 229.

 

2
0Ibid., p. 136.

187

The East Parish in Londonderry had joined the Presbytery at
the Eastward in 1781.21 Since their pastor, William Davidson,
had died in 1791, the church was vacant at the time of the union of
the two presbyteries in 1793, but it became a part of the new
presbytery. In 1795 Jonathan Brown, who was ordained and installed
pastor of the East Parish church by the Londonderry Presbytery.
There was, however, a large minority who Opposed his settlement and
they withdrew and formed a Congregational Church and Society. This
Congregational basis, Jonathan Brown continued his services in London-
derry until September, 1804 when he retired from the ministry.22

On March 13, 1793 John Murray died and therefore the Newburyport
church was also vacant at the time the two presbyteries united;
nevertheless, it became a member of the new body. Daniel Dana, who
was the successor of Murray, was ordained and installed November 19,
1794.2:5 Dana had been born at Ipswich, Massachusetts, and had
graduated from Dartmouth College in 1788. His settlement at New-
buryport had been preceded by a disruption in the congregation for
which he had not been responsible. During the last few years of
Murray's pastorate he had been unable to carry the fu11 load of his

work on account of his poor health, therefore a young man by the name

of Milton had been engaged to supply the pulpit in 1792. By his

 

21Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward, OctOber 29, 1789.

2
Lawrence, Londonderry, p. 41.

 

2
3Coffin, Newbury, p. 372.

188

eloquence and original manner as a preaCher he had won many friends
who wanted to make him a colleague of John Murray, but the majority

of the church members would not agree to this. Therefore, fifteen

of his friends withdrew from the Church and met by themselves until
after Murray's death, when they formed the Independent Calvinistic
ChurCh. After the settlement of Dana there was another split in the
Newburyport church which grew out of the fact that several people
suspected that his orthodoxy was not sound" They were misled in their
opinion by the fact that he clothed his doctrinal views in a more
attractive style, which they confused with heresy. This group of
thirty-three people withdrew in 1795 and were formed by the presbytery
into Second Presbyterian Church in Newburyport. The remainder of

the first church continued happily united under Daniel Dana until

he left them to take up his duties as President of Dartmouth College
in 1820.

The churches which composed the Associate Reformed Presbytery
of New England were not new organizations which had been gathered
together because of their attachment to the principles of the Associate
RefOrmed Presbyterian Church. Rather, they had come into the Synod
largely because it happened that the ministers they wanted were
connected with that body, and, being rather broad-minded about
their presbyterial and synodical relationship, they were willing to
change their affiliation so long as it did not affect the practice

in their churChes.

189

The New England Presbytery never really became an integral
part of the Associate Reformed Synod. Evidence of this is found in
the fact that, during the fifteen years it was connected with the
Synod, thepresbytery sent a representative to only one of its meetings.
In the year 1791 David Annan was in difficulties with his congre-
gation at Peterborough, and the presbytery advised him to take the
case to the Synod fer their examination and judgment. Annan attended,
and at this meeting requested that the name of the Presbygery be
changed to the Associate RefOrmed Presbytery of New England, which
suggestion was adOpted by the Synod. Naturally the Synod was much
disturbed that the presbytery in New England never sent delegates
to their meetings. Eachyear the Synod would inquire whether there
were any men present from New England, and finding none they would
consider what should be done regarding their negligence. The men in
New England pleaded that the distance to Pennsylvania, where most of
the meetings were held, was so great that they could not attend, to
which the Synod pointed out that their*uembers living in the southern
states came from even greater distances. In Spite of all their
correspondence the Synod failed to bring the men in New England into
regular participation in the affairs of the Synod.

An indication of the real gap whiCh existed between the two
bodies was the failure on the part of the presbytery in New England
to attend the meetings of the Synod. The New England men were indepen-
dent and carried out their plans without seeking the advice or opinion
of the Synod. This is very clearly shown in the manner in which the

Associate Reformed Presbytery of New England coalesced with the

190

Presbytery at the Eastward without making even a pretense of asking

the Opinion of the synod in this important matter. They went so

far as to dissolve their own presbytery and form a new one under the
name of the Presbytery of Londonderry. This new body included the
remaining churches from the Presbytery at the Eastward. This step

was taken in 1793 when this presbytery was still technically considered
to be a member of the Associate Reformed Synod. Furthermore their
independence from the Synod is shown by the free and open way in which
the presbytery permitted the churches -nder its care to sing the "Songs
of David Immitated in the Language of the New Testament" by

Issac Watts D.D. The Presbyterian churches in New England had been
gradually foresaking the exclusive use of the Psalms for other
religious songs. These churches were entirely in sympathy with the
action of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia when in May, 1787,

it decided "that Dr. Watt's imitation of David's Psalms, as revised

by Mr. Barlow, be sung in the churches and families under their care."24
However, the presbytery in New England was not connected with the
Synod of New York and Philadelphia but with the Associate Reformed
Synod, and this latter body had as one of the Specific items of

its testimony that it did not approve of the use of anything but the
Psalms in the public worship of God. The attitude of the Synod toward

its insubordinate presbytery in New England is best revealed in two

 

24"Revords of Presbyterian ChurCh in the United States of
America," p. 535.

191

letters which the Synod directs should be written to the New England
presbytery. At the Synod's meeting in 1795 the moderator and the
clerk were ordered to write a letter to the presbytery in New England
and state its views:

"Rev. and Dear Brethren: It gives us no small
uneasiness to hear of some things, which have been
introduced among you, inconsistent with the comely
order to be observed in the house of God. Some of
these are the introduction of Watts' imitations

of the Psalms into the worship of God; holding
unnecessary and improper communion with oter
denominations, and in the regulation of your
congregational affairs, acting repugnantly to the
spirit of Presbygerianism.

Hearing these reports in 1794, we, by letter,
earnestly requested your attendance at this meeting.
We are sorry that you have not responded. Our
members from the Southern States come greater dis-
tances and at greater cost. Your inconvenience
cannot excuse your constant neglect of our Synodical
meetings. You could not but know, that the

use of Watts' imitations in the worship of God,

has always met with our disapprobation. Your
consistency, while you professed a connection

with us, should have prevented this innovation,
especially in view of our Judicial Testimony as

a Synod. etc. etc."25

When this letter failed to bring the desired response the Synod at
their meeting in 1797 directed Robert Annan and John Mason to write
another letter to the Presbytery in New England. Excerpts from this
letter illustrate further the view of the Synod toward their wayward

presbytery.

 

25Letter of John Dunlap and Alexander Dobbin written June 1,
1795, at the request of the Associate Reformed Synod to the Associate
Reformed Presbytery of Londonderry. A copy of this letter is to be
found in Blaikie, Presbyterianism, pp. 299-300.

 

192

"You cannot be ignorant, brethren, that your dis-
carding from public worship the Psalms indited by
the Holy Ghost, and substituting in their room the
composure of men, is highly displeasing to the
Synod and to the body of Christians under their
inspection. Whether the use of such composures in
the public worship of God be in itself lawful or
unlawful, is a question with which, at present,

we have nothing to do. But, whether considering
your relation to the Synod, the edification of the
church of which you are a branch, and your obliga-
tions to support the truth of the gospel, the use
of them was allowable in you, is a question

which demands your solemn regard. You certainly know,
brethren, that the controversy about psalmody was
warmly agitated both and before the formation of
your connection with the Synod .............

But beside this innovation itself, the manner,
brethren, in which it was effected is another cause
or serious dissatisfaction.

If the Synod are rightly informed, the Psalms

of the Bible were laid aside anitheir substitute
introduced by the vote of a town meeting. You are
no less sensible than ourselves that this was not
only prostrating at the feet of the multitude the
Scriptural authority of judicatories, but what is
yet worse, was allowing a civil corporation to
meddle with the interior and Spiritual arrangements
of the church, etc. etc." 6

These letters did not change the views of the men in New England. The
standpoint of the members of the Londonderry Presbytery is well stated
by Wi-liam Morrison in a letter which he sent to the Synod at the
request of the Presbytery in 1796.

"Distance renders personal interviews with our

Southern brethren very inconvenient; we have ten

settled ministers; we consider ourselves competent
as a judiciary; we are best acquainted with the

 

26Letter of Robert Annan and John Mason written January 24,
1797 at the request of the Associate Reformed Synod to the Associate
Reformed Presbytery of Londonderry. Portions of this letter is to
be fOund in Blaikie, Ibid., pp. 302-06.

193

customs, temper and manners of our churChes and
their situation with respect to other denomina-
tions; we have voted to reply to the act of Synod
respecting Psalmody as injurious to the cause of
Presbytery in New England.

Your committee starting your terms would grati-

fy a few and mortally wound others. Common obser-

vation and experience concur with revelation in

teaching us the necessity of governing a people

in a manner best adapted to their circumstances,

for their good and for the honor of religion.

America should have the mgst generous and benevo-

lent system of religion." 7
By the year 1797 the presbytery saw that the gap between their
organization and the Synod was so great that they should consider
dissolving the relationship between them, and they appointed William
Morrison to represent them at the next meeting of the Synod at
Philadelphia to discuss the dissolution with them. However, he was
prevented from attending the meeting of the presbytery and apparently
the matter was droppedl at least there is no further indication that
it showed any interest in the Synod. The letters which the Synod wrote
in 1799 were not answered by the Londonderry body. Considering the
long, continued absence of the presbytery and its insubordination,
the Synod at its meeting in Philadelphia on May 30, 1801, took the
following action as recorded in the minutes:

"The situation of the Presbytery in New England,

called the Presbytery of Londonderry, which

has been from year to year a subject of discussion

in Synod, having been resumed, and it being judged

expedient to come to a final decision thereon,

after serious and mature deliberation the following
resolution was adopted:

 

2
7From a letter by William Morrison written August 26, 1796,

at the request of the Associate Reformed Presbytery of Londonderry to
the Associate Reformed Synod. This excerpt is to be found in Blaikie,
Ibid., pp. 300-01.

194

Whereas the Presbytery of Londonderry has,

for several years, been in a state of virtual se-
paration from this synod, entirely neglecting
attendance thereon, and due subordination there—
to: And whereas the repeated attempts of this
synod to Obtain from said Presbytery information
of its condition and procedure, and a compliance
with the order of Presbyterial Church Government,
as maintained by the Associate-Reformed Church,
have proved abortive: Therefore,

Resolved, that this Synod no longer consider

the said Presbytery of Londonderry as in their
connection, and do hereby disclaim all respon-
sibility for any of its transactions.

Ordered, that a copy of the above resolution
be transmitted to the Presbytery of Londonderry.

As we have seen the Presbytery of Londonderry became inde-
pendent from all Synodical control in 1801. The Presbyterian churches
and presbyteries in New England were now in a similar position to that
in which they had been throughout the greater part of the eighteenth
century -- that is, they were independent of other presbyteries and
Synods in other sections of America, but they were united among
themselves. The Presbyterian churches in New England which had
formerly been scattered in various presbyteries were now united in
one organization.

The Presbytery of Londonderry remained in an independent
position for about eight years after it was thrust out of the
Associate Reformed Synod. During this period the members of the

presbytery studied the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the

 

28Extracts from the Minutes of the Acts and Proceedings of
the Associate Reformed Synod, May 27, 1801.

195

United States of America. By 1809 the presbytery was convinced that
they should unite with this body. Therefore, the Presbytery of
Londonderry applied to the Synod of Albany for admission and was
received in 1809. The first appearance of the Presbytery of Londonderry
in the Minutes of the General Assembly was in 1810, when Daniel Dana

was listed as a delegate.29 From this point on the Presbyterian
churches in New England were part of the Presbyterian ChurCh in the

United States of America.

 

29Minutes of the General Assembly, 1810.

Chapter X

THE PRESBYTERY OF GRAFTON

During the last quarter of the eighteenth century there
existed in the vicinity of Hanover, New Hampshire an ecclesiastical
organization known as the Presbytery of Grafton which was not really
an integral part of the Presbyterian movement in New England. The
churches under its care were not primarily composed of people interested
in Presbyterianism, but of those who were persuaded to adopt this
form of church government because their ministers came to favor
it. From all accounts it appears that the majority of these churches
were really Congregational, and that they were Presbyterian for only a
few years.

Since the original minutes have been lost, the accounts which
we have of this body are very meager; the consensus of most writers
who have searched for the records is that they were destroyed by fire.
While we do not know much about the operation of the Presbytery, the
fact of its existence is proven through several reliable sources.
These are the original records of other bodies which were contemporary
with the Grafton Presbytery and which, as their records reveal, had

dealings with it. One such document is the Minutes of the ChurCh at

 

Hanover, New Hampshire, which were cOpied by the Rev. Eden Burroughs,

 

who was for a time a member of the presbytery. The references to the

 

1The original manuscript of these records of the Hanover
Center Church as copied by Burroughs are now in the Archives of the
Baker Memorial Library in Hanover, New Hampshire.

196

197

presbytery in Burrough's copy of the Minutes are the most frequently
quoted and the most reliable material on the subject. These records
refer definitely to the meetings of the Presbytery of Grafton, give
the names of the ministers and delegates present,:nd.also the date and
place of meeting. Furthermore, some of the original records of the
Hanover Church are still extant and they verify the partial copy which
was made by Eden Burroughs.2 The early records of the ChurCh at
Dartmouth College have likewise been preserved, and in them also are
references to the Grafton Presbytery, showing that that church was a
member of it.3 There are also references to the Grafton Presbytery
in the minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward4 and also in the
records of the Synod of New England.5 It is by the use of these
minutes and by a study of the history of the various towns and churches
that we are able to piece together an account of the presbytery. These
sources are sufficiently authentic to prove beyond question that the
Presbytery of Grafton, sometimes called the Presbytery of the Connecticut
River, did exist; but they do not Show how long it carried on, the
nature of its work, or the complete list of its membership.

Eleazar Wheelock,6 founder and first President of Dartmouth

College, was chiefly responsible for the formation of the Grafton

 

2These fragments are also to be found in the Baker Library.

3These records are available in the arChives of the Baker Memorial
Library.

4Minutes of the Presbytery at the Eastward, September 14, 1785.
5Minutes of the Synod of New England, September 30, 1778.

The life and work of Eleazar Wheelock has been described in many
works, therefore a detailed account of his life will be omitted here
except as he was related to the Grafton Presbytery.

198

Presbytery. He came to Hanover, New Hampshire, after thirty—five
years in the pastorate of the Second Congregational ChurCh of Lebanon,
Connecticut. While Eleazar Wheelock had come from a Congregational
churCh in Connecticut he was not wholly in sympathy with this fOrm
of church polity, even as it was modified by Consociafions in
Connecticut. There is substantial reason for believing that he favored
the Presbyterian procedure although he had not been able to put it into
complete operation in his church. In a letter to Joseph Bellamy
at Bethleham, Connecticut, in 1749, Wheelock expressed himself as
follows:
"I am fully of the opinion it is high time fer
ministers to wake up to a redress of these evils
(antinomianism, worldliness, immorality) 8 I can think
of no way more likely, than for those who are in the
same way 5 of thinking, to join in a Presbytery. Don't
you see Arminian candidates cant settle in ye miny? Dont
you see how they want the patronage of a godly
presbytery who do settle? for want of it, they get
broken bones that will pain them all their days.
Would not such a Presbytery soon have all ye
candidates of worth under them? and consequently,
presently most of ye vacant chhs, Our wild pp. are not
half so much prejudiced against ye Scotish constitution
as against our own. Many chhs in these parts might
easily be brought into it, 6 my soul longs for it."
From this letter it can easily be seen that early in his ministry

he had favored the adoption of an outright Presbyterian system.

Further evidence of this fact is to be fOund in the Diary of Ezra Stiles

 

7Letter of Eleazar Wheelock, Northampton, January 9, 1748/9
to Rev. Joseph Bellamy, Bethlem in Woodbury in the Correspondence
of Joseph Bellamy as copied longhand by Richard Webster, pp. 48-49.

199

in which he relates a conversation which he had with the Rev. Benjamin
Pomeroy, a classmate Of Wheelock at Yale:

"The Rev. JnO. Bliss first Pastor of Hebron

resigned about--—- and Rev. Dr. Pumroy ordained there

16 Dec. 1735. Dr. Wheelock ordained at Lebanon Crank

the June precedg. Both adopted Prest Clap's Idea Of

a chh. Committee fOr Discipline, as near the Kirk model

as the Spt Of these chhs would admit. Dr. Pumroy could

not carry it into Execution; but Dr. Wheelock did for

many years, thO' Opposed by some Congregational

Brethren who came from Cape Cod .......... I had thought

That Dr. W. 6 Dr. P. had borrowed their Ideas Of Chh.

Govt from their Acquainta 5 Connex. with the Jersey

Ministers after 1740, but it was otherwise."
Thus it appears that those who knew Wheelock in Connecticut were
aware that he favored the adoption Of the Presbyterian polity and
went as far as he could toward introducing the equivalant Of the
church session in his own congregation at Lebanon. Therefore, it is
not difficult to understand how, when he came to the new territory
of western New Hampshire he took advantage Of the fact that many
churches were in process Of organization to influence them to adopt
the Presbyterian mode Of church government.

Wheelock personally favored the Presbyterian system; in view

Of the fact that a considerable share Of the money fOr the support
Of his educational work came from Scottish sources, he had reason

to believe that the Scots would have a more sympathetic view Of his

project if he encouraged the adoption Of the Presbyterian polity.

 

8Stiles, Ezra, The Literary Diary Of Ezra Stiles, pp. 536-37.

 

200

In fact, his interest in Presbyterianism was so strong that it
troubled some of the ministers Of the Established Church Of England
and they complained that he was using the college to further the

ends Of Presbyterianism in New England.9 Thus it appears logical to
assume that Wheelock was the moving spirit behind the erection of the
Grafton Presbytery.

It is impossible to set an exact date for the formation Of the
Presbytery of Grafton with the existing records. We know that the
Church of Christ at Dartmouth College was organized along Presbyterian
lines on January 23, 1771,10 but it had no relafion with any other
ecclesiastical body at this time. Also in 1771 the town Of Hanover
organized a church, and in 1772 settled the Rev. Eden Burroughs as
pastor. What evidence we have points to the fact that, since he was
a friend Of Wheelock's, he cooperated with him in the establishment
Of the presbytery. Chase, in his "History of Dartmouth College and
the Town Of Hanover," is of the Opinion that Burroughs was the first
clerk Of the presbytery and Wheelock its first moderator.11

The time Of the organization Of the presbytery may be gleaned

from the fact that the church in Hanover Center on MarCh 3, 1773,

 

9MSS Letter Of John Erskine, Edinburgh, June 12, 1767,
to Nathaniel Whittaker, Glasgow in the Dartmouth College Papers.

10Records Of the Dartmouth College Church, January 23, 1771.

11
Chase, Frederick, History of Dartmouth College and the Town

Of Hanover, (Cambridge, 1891) p. 194.

 

 

201

"voted, unanimously to adopt the word of God as the only perfect
platform for the order Of God's house, understanding it as explained
in the Director for Orders and Discipline by the Church of Scotland."12
The Hanover Church elected four elders in 1774 and five more in the
year fOllowing. It is possible that there is a relation between this
church's becoming Presbyterian, the election of these elders, and the
organization of the presbytery; for the Hanover Church may have
wanted to join with the College Church in forming a presbytery, and
in that event would want regular elders to send to presbytery meetings.
This, Of course, is not conclusive evidence that the presbytery was
organized by the year 1775, although that is the generally accepted
date.

Eleazer Wheelock and Eden Burroughs evidently won some of the
pastors of this area over to the idea Of accepting Presbyterian
polity and establishing a presbytery; this is shown by the record Of
attendance at the meeting Of the presbytery at Hanover, March 2, 1784,
which follows: from New Hampshire were JOhn Richards Of Piermont,
Ebenezer Cleaveland Of Bath, William Conant Of Lymme, John Smith Of
the Dartmouth College ChurCh, Sylvanus Riply, Professor at Dartmouth
College; and from Vermont were Aaron Hutchinson Of Pomfret, Asa Burton

Of Thetford. The names Of other men from New Hampshire who attended

 

12Burrough's copy Of the Records Of the Church at Hanover
Center.

202

the meeting of the presbytery June 8, 1784, were Samuel TOOd of
Orford, and John Searles of Salisbury. From other sources we gather
that Rosewll Shurtleff, Professor of Theology at Dartmouth College
was a member of the presbytery, as was Samuel Collins}:5 pastor of
the Hanover Church after the schism in 1784 under Eden Burroughs.
Nathaniel Merrill of Boscawen, New Hampshire apparently was too for a
few years, for his church voted on June 27, 1778 "to adopt the
Presbyterian form of church order and discipline, and also that it is
the desire of the church to join the Revd. Grafton Presbytery."14
Peter Powers, the pastor of the Church in Newbury,15 and Joseph
Bowman16 of Barnard, both in Vermont, were likewise on the roll.
Elijah Brainerd of Randolph, Vermont is listed as clerk of the pres-
bytery at its meeting in 1789.17 This group Of seventeen ministers
is probably the approximate number of those who were connected with
that body at one time or another. It is doubtful if in all cases the
churches which these men represented were actively connected with the
presbytery. Even while they were Presbyterian, the town frequently
took upon themselves actions which, in a strictly Presbyterian church,
would have been taken up by the session. By the beginning of the
nineteenth century they had practically all re-adopted the Congre-

gational procedure.

 

13Chase, Dartmouth College, p. 211.

 

14
Coffin, C. C., History of Boscawen and Webster, New Hampshire
(Concord, 1878), p. 234.

 

15
Wells, F. P., History of Newbury_(St. Johnsbury, no date),pp. 172-73.

 

16Chase, Dartmouth, p. 212.

1
7Chase, Ibid., p. 211.

203

The presbytery probably started about 1775 and held meetings
at least until 1794. This is the last date for which we have a
definite record.18 There is no way of ascertaining exactly when the
presbytery ceased meeting, but it must have been prior to 1807,
for at that time the Dartmouth College Church applied and was
admitted to the Presbytery of Londonderry.19 It is not likely that
the churCh would have taken this action if the Grafton Presbytery
were still in existence, nor would the Londonderry Presbytery have
accepted them if they had withdrawn from the Grafton body. Therefore,
we may assume that prior to 1807 the Presbytery of Grafton had become
defunct.

To understand the activities of the Grafton Presbytery one
must be aware that the only available records give a very one-sided
account of what went on. The reason fOr this lies in the fact that
the records which are now extant were copied by Eden Burroughs at
the time he was having a serious controversy with the presbytery.

He cOpied only those minutes which related to his situation, and on a
few occasions also listed the members who were in attendance at

the Presbytery meetings. Thus his book of cOpieS is invaluable as a
source book on the Grafton Presbytery, but it gives only a very biased
account of its proceedings. From his notes it would appear that his

case was the main consideration of the presbytery for several years.

 

18Chase, Ibid., p. 211.

19Records of the Church at Dartmouth College, p. 62.

204

Undoubtedly the presbytery considered other issues of equal importance
but they are not recorded; therefOre to confine ourselves to authentic
material we must only present the case of Eden Burroughs.

The difficulties in which Eden Burroughs became enmeshed
arose over the interpretation of the place and function of Church
discipline.20 In 1780 there was an unusual revival in the Hanover
Church, as a result of which many came into the membership Of the
church and ceased their worldliness for lives Of sober seriousness.
However, it was not long befOre many, especially the youth, began
to tire of this overemphasis upon religion, turned back to their
less serious mode of living, and indulged in amusements which were
considered questionable. This apparent decline of religion troubled
several of the ministers in that area who came to the conclusion that
the solution to this condition would be a revival of the former
practices of church discipline in which a person could be called by
another member of the church befOre the session which would then
examine him about his questionable behavior. If found guilty the
session would compel him to make a humble confession of his sins
befOre the congregation. TO accomplish this purpose a general convention
of churches was held January 2, 1781 at Thethrd, Vermont. At this

conference a system of rules for the "revival of the true spirit

 

20For a more detailed account of the case of Eden Burroughs
see Chase, History_of Dartmouth College and the Town of Hanover,
New Hampshire, pp. 195—215; see also the M58 book of copies by Eden
Burroughs entitled Records of the Hanover enter ChurCh in Baker
Memorial Library, Hanover, New Hampshire.

 

 

205

of discipline in the churches" was drawn up and when it was later
presented to the Hanover Church it was adopted with the exception of
the article pertaining to Matthew 18:15. Eden Burroughs was an ardent
supporter of this move and began to see that the discipline of church
members was carried out in his congregation. Unfortunately the matters
for which people were called into question were not the "atrocious
crimes”, but frequently were only "more failings or errors of judgement."
The emphasis on proper discipline was so great that it put a premium
of prying into other people's affairs and revealing any questionable
matter. After a few cases had been censured by the session, the
majority of the members of the Hanover church reacted against this

type of discipline and pointed out that the "weakest and most indiscreet
members of the church became the chief persons in bringing fOrward
prosecutions."21 Burroughs and some members of the session refused to
heed the request Of the majority of the church members and continued
in their course. The quarrel was brought to a climax by a case of
slander in which one member of the church accused a woman of being

a busy-body, of getting into things in which she had no business, and
of nearly breaking up the school. This case was brought by the lady
before the session, and the man who apparently was honest enough to
tell her the truth was censured by the session, but rather than confess

his guilt he appealed to the presbytery. As a result of this case the

 

21
Burroughs MSS cOpy of the records of the Hanover church.

206

majority Of the church members became lined up against Eden Burroughs,
the larger part of the session, and a minority of the church members who
favored the stricter discipline. The group who approved the use
of more lax disciplinary measures proposed as remedies that a
judicious committee be chosen to investigate all matters of grievance
and endeavor to reach a settlement befOre bringing the matter to
trial, and also the additional elders be elected as often as the church
judge necessary, and that a person have the privilege of being tried
by the church at large if he preferred. Burroughs refused to accept
this viewpoint which had been expressed in a petition, and replied in
a long paper which was written in a bitter and arrogant tone. He
not only denounced the petition but further challenged the petitioners
to present their complaint to the presbytery. Thus the whole
conflict about discipline which was agitating the Hanover Church was
brought befOre the preSbytery.

The church members presented their views in a temperate and
dignified manner to the presbytery at its meeting January 30, 1784.
On the other hand, Burroughs evidently had reason to believe that
the presbytery would not be sympathetic to his views, and, therefore,
did more than merely present his side of the case for the impartial
consideration of that body. He took the Offensive against the
presbytery and violently charged it with violating the bonds which
they were under to their common Lord. He mentioned instances in which

the presbytery had not upheld the strict discipline of the churCh.

207

On March 2, 1784, the presbytery examined Burroughs' statements at
their meeting in Hanover and replied that "although sensible, they
hope of their weakness and great imperfection, yet they profess
they have acted on these matters according to the best light they had,
and see no reason to alter".22 The controversy continued for a few
months more between Burroughs and the presbytery until he served
the presbytery with the following notice: "Under a full and painful
apprehension that this presbytery are not governed by a regard to
the world of God as their ultimate rule in these proceedings, we
are constrained, though with much grief and sorrow of heart, to declare
that the reverence which we owe to the authority of God's word does
sacredly bind us to come out from among them, and we accordingly
declare that we are no more of them. . . ."23

The next Sabbath, after Burroughs had presented this declina-
ture to the Presbytery, he read it befOre his congregation in Hanover
and fifty-six members of his church, a minority of the whole member-
ship, withdrew and formed an independent society on their own.
Because of this schism, the presbytery on November 24, 1784 dissolved
the pastoral relations of Burroughs with the Hanover church and

declared that the town was now free to call another pastor. Thus the

town church remained within the presbytery and in July 1788 called

 

22Burroughs MSS copy of the Hanover Church Records.

23mm.

 

208

the Rev. Samuel Collins, who served them until 1796. The breach
between Burroughs and the presbytery was never healed even though some
attempts were made several years later.

When a comparison is made between the churches and ministers
composing the Grafton Presbytery and those of the other presbyteries
in New England, certain distinctions become evident and explain why
it was not really a part of the main stream of New England Presbyterian-
ism. The churches and ministers in the Grafton Presbytery were won
to the Presbyterian way by the efforts of Eleazar Wheelock, who came
from a long line Of English Puritans who had been in New England more
than a hundred years before he had begun preaching in Connecticut.
He had been won to the Presbyterian polity by his professor at Yale
who had convinced him that Presbyterianism was superior even to the
Consociated Congregationalism of Connecticut. Wheelock, therefore,
had persuaded churches which would otherwise have continued along
Congregational lines to turn to Presbyterianism. However, the
Presbytery of Grafton never required the churches under its care to
become completely Presbyterianized. Thus, when these churches found
that the prevailing trend in the territory was back to Congregationalism,
it was easy for them to forsake their adopted polity. On the other
hand, the majority Of the Churches which had composed such presbyteries
as Londonderry and Boston had turned to Presbyterian polity of their
own accord without any outside effort to win them to a new viewpoint.
Through their direct connection with Scotland and Ireland they had a

sincere affection for the Presbyterian polity and were only waiting

209

an opportunity to estahhsh a church in line with it. The strongest
and most enduring Presbyterian churches in New England were those
that could trace back a definite connection with Scottish Presbyterian-
ism and whose ministers often were Scots.

It thus appears that this was the basic reason why the
Grafton Presbytery may not have been willing to cooperate in a Synod
with the Presbytery at the Eastward and the Associate Reformed
Presbytery. The men Of Grafton probably realized that their organi-
zation was to strictly Presbyterian and that they would not be wholly
congenial in connection with a Synod controlled by Scotch-Irish-
Presbyterians. And so the Presbytery Of Grafton and its churches
never formed an essential part of the mainstream of Presbyterianism

in colonial New England.

CONCLUSION

AS mentioned earlier the problem of definition has confronted
us from the start of this paper. One of the common errors of'churCh
historians has been the failure Of most to distinquish between the
Scottish Presbyterians and the English Presbyterians when they discuss
or refer to Presbyterianism in general. Alexander Gordon Observed many
years ago the strange tendency people have to "run off to Edinburgh or
Aberdeen" to find the model of what presbyterian government ought to be.
This is a mistake for there are and always have been several distinct
types of Presbyterianism: Continental, Scottish, and English.1
From the very beginning the English Presbyterians showed indications of
differing sharply from the Scottish. In England muCh greater importance
was attached to the individual congregation, and while there were some
times when the English Presbyterians advocated a hierarchial presby-
terian system with higher courts exercising jurisdiction over the'
churches, they generally insisted that the synod would be primarily con-
sultive and should not interfere with the soverign independence of the
individual congregations. On several occasions the Scots complained
that the English system was not properly Presbyterian.

What has been shown then is that the Churches of New England

exhibited tendencies toward Presbyterianism and this made it easier

 

1The English Presbyterians, p. 20.

210

211

for Presbyterians to get a toehold in New England. In many of the
principles Of the Congregational Churches of New England there were
precedents for Presbyterians. Later, when French Presbyterians and
Scotch-Irish Presbyterians settled in New England, few prOblems were
encountered because of the similarities between the Presbyterianism
of the English and the Congregationalism of the New Englanders. During
‘he 18th century a.more fOrmal presbyterianism was fOrmed because Of
the earlier actions of these two groups.

There were, however, differences, namely the relationship of
pastor to congregation and the test "for saving faith" for admission
to the church. Fortunately, for the newly arrived Presbyterians, these
major differences were still being worked out by the Congregationalists
and by the 1640's seems not to have been universal. Hence, New England
was a fertile field for Presbyterianism, especially after 1660 when
the Restoration in England forced both Congregationalists and Presby-
terian to put aside their differences and confront the common enemy,
the restored Episcopacy. In New England, then, the atmosphere
was such that despite disagreements and feuds, Presbyterianism pushed
inevitably toward its goal of a New England Synod and a fully imple-

mented Presbyterian Church.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings (A.A.S. Proc.)

 

Associate Reformed Synod, Minutes of Acts and Proceedings of
Associate Reformed Synod met at Phil. May 27, 1801. N.YI: JOE J2
Swords, 1801.

 

 

Baillie, Robert. Letters and Journals, 1. II.

 

Baxter, Richard. A Holy Commonwealth. London, 1659.

 

Bellamy, Joseph. Correspondence of Joseph Bellamy. (Copied
long hand by Richard Webster). Phil: Presbyterian Historical Society,
1853-4.

 

Boothbay Church, Sessional Records of the Presbyterian Church
of Boothbay, Maine, 1767-78. Phil.: Dept. Of’Hist., Presbyterian
Historical Society, Vol. 16.

 

 

Bradford, William. Of Plymouth Plantation. New York, 1962.

 

Burroughs, Eden. Excerpts of Minutes of Hanover Center Church
and Minutes of the Presbyteryiof Grafton.

 

 

Burroughes, Jeremiah. Irenicum, to the Lovers Of Truth and
Peace (1646).

 

The Cambridge Platform, Cambridge, 1649.

 

Chauncey, Charles. Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion
in New England. Boston, 1743.

 

 

A Confession Of Faith Owned and Consented to by the Elders and
Messengers of the Churches in the Colony of Connecticut in New England.
New London: Thomas Short, 1710.

 

 

Congregational Church, Boston Synod - 1680 (Unac 18, no. 78)
(film). Boston Synod - 1648 (Unac 18, no. 78)

 

Congregational Church, The Records Of the General Association
Of the Colony of Connecticut, 1738-99. Hartford: Case, Lockwood,
& Brainard, CO., 1888.

 

 

Coleraine, Vital Records of Coleraine to the end Of the year 1849,
Salem, Mass.: Essex Institute, 1934.

 

212

213

Connecticut, Records of the General Court of Connecticut,
Vol. II, V, VI.

 

Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History Of Essex County.
Boston, 1865.

 

Cotton, John. Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven. 1644.

 

Cotton, John. The Way Of Congregational Churches Cleared.
London, 1648.

 

Cooke Collection (located in Berkshire Athenaeum, Pittsfield,
Mass.).

Dana, Daniel. Two Sermons Delivered April 25, 1799, First:
Psalms, 105124. . . "They Despised the Pleasant Lord," Second:
Neh. 4:9.

Dexter, Franklin B. (ed.). The Literary Diary Of Ezra Stiles
2 vols., N.Y.: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1901.

 

Erskine, John. "Letter of John Erskine from Edinburgh, June,
1767 to Nathaniel Whittaker."

Foote, Henry Wilder (ed.). The Cambridge Platform of 1648
Tercentenary Commemoration at Cambridge, Mass., Oct. 27, 1948.
Boston: The Beacon Press a The Pilgrim Press, 1949. Arranged by the
Joint Commission of the Cong. Christian Churches of the U.S. and the
Am. Unitarian Assoc.

 

Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Jeremiah Burroughes,
William Bridge. An Apologetical Narration hunbly submitted to the
Honourable Houses of Parliament. London, 1643.

 

 

Hooker, Thomas. Survey of the Summe of Church Discipline.
London, 1648.

 

King, Rev. David. An Exposition and Defence of the Presbyterian
Form of Church Government. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1853.

 

 

Lechford, Thomas. Plain Dealing, or News from New England
(London, 1642). Boston: J. K. Wiggin G W. P. Lunt, 1867.

Le Mercier, Andrew. "Remarks on the Preface of a Pamphlet
Published by John Presbyter in order to vindicate Mr. James Hillhouse."
Boston: T. Fleet, 1737.

Londonderry, Early Records, Published in Collections of the
Manchester Historic Association Vol. V, VI, VII. Manchester, N.H. 1908.

 

214

Londonderry Church, West Parish Records, 1736-1821, East
Parish Records, 1742-1837.

 

 

MacGregore, David. Sermon - "The Christian Soldier" preached
at the ordination Of Mr. Alexander Boyd at New Castle on Sept. 24,
1754. Printed by B. Edes and J. Gill, at the New Printing Office
in King St. for S. Kneeland in Queen St., 1755.

Mather, Cotton. Diary of Cotton Mather, 1681-1708, in Vol. VII
of Mass. Hist. Collections (7th Series) Boston, Mass. 1911.

 

Mather, Cotton. Ratio Disciplinae Fratrum Nov-Anblicorum
Boston: , 1726.

 

Mather Papers, Mass. Historical Soc.: Collections, 4th Series,
Vol. VIII. 1868.

Cotton Mather, Manuscript diaries in possession of the Massachu-
setts Historical Society, Boston; of the American Antiquarian Society
(Worcester, Mass.); and the Congregational Library, Boston.

Mather, Cotton. Magnalia Christi Americana. Hartford 1855.

 

Mather, Increase. Order of the Gospel.

 

Mather, Increase. Early History of New England, Albany, N.Y.:
J. Munsell, 1864.

 

Mather, Increase. The Order of the Gospel, Professed and Prac—
ticed by the Churches of Christ in New England, Justified.

 

 

Mather, Samuel. Apology for the Liberties of the Churches of
New England.

 

 

McClure, David. Diary of David McClure, (w/notes by Franklin
B. Dexter), N.Y.: The KniCkerbocker Press, 1899.

 

Moorhead, John, Parsons, Jonathan, McGregorie, David. A
Fair Narrative of the Proceedings of the Presbytery of Boston against
the Rev. Mr. Robert Abercrombie, late minister of the GOSpel at
Pelham, together with Some Remarks in a Pamphlet of his in fOrm Of
a Letter to a Friend} Boston, 1756.

 

 

 

Murray, John. Sermons: "The Original of Sin Imputed" (three
sermons), "The Happy Voyage Completed," and the Sure Anchor Cast,
preached Feb. 27, 1785. Reprinted - Newburyport: E. W. Allen, 1806.

Owen, John. "The True Nature of a Gospel Church," (1689), in
his works, Vol. XVI (ed. by William A. Goold. Edinburgh: Johnstone
6 Hunter, 1853 edition).

215

Parson, Jonathan & McGregorie, David. Rejoinder to the Rev.
Mr. Robert Abercrombie's Late Remarks on a Fair Narrative of the
Proceedings of the Presbytery of Boston Against Humself. Wherein his
Mistakes are Detected, the Most Material Grounds of his Argument
Considered, the State of the Case Open'd, and his Evasive and
Shuffling_Conduct Exposed. Boston, 1758.

 

 

 

 

 

Parsons, Jonathan. Sixpy Sermons on Various Subjects 2 vols.
Newburyport: JOhn Mycall, 1780.

 

Philadelphia Church, Minutes of the Congregation of the Second
Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. Vol. 1, Jan. 1749 - Aug. 1772.

 

 

(Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.) Presbytery of Boston, Minutes,
1754-1775.

Presbytery at the Eastward, Bath-K01, A Voice from the Wilderness.
Being a humble attempt to support the Sinking truths of God against
some of the principle errors raging at this time, or, a joint testi-
mony to the churches under their care by the Presbytery Of the Eastward.

Presbytery of the Eastward, Minutes, 1771-1792, 2 vols,
(typed COPY)-

Presbytery of Grafton, Minutes. Old MSS refering to the Presbytery.

General Assembly - Presbyterian Church, Minutes; 1789-1787, Vol.
V. (original manuscript).

Presbytery of Philadelphia, Minutes, 1758-1787, Vol V. (orig.
manuscript.) also found in Records Of the Presbyterian Church USA
Phil: Presby. Board of Publication, 1904.

 

 

Presbytery of Salem, Minutes, 1782-1791. found in Records Of the
Presbyterian Church USA. Phil: Presby. Board Of Publications, 1904.

 

 

 

Prince Society Publications, Boston, 1865-1902.

Records of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

 

Records Of Second Church Of Boston.

 

Robbins, Thomas. Diary of Thomas Robbins, 1796-1854, 2 vols.
ed. by Increase N. Tarbos. Boston: Beacon Press, 1887.

 

Shepard, Thomas. Autobiography, Boston 1832.

 

Stiles, Ezra. The Literary Diary Of Ezra Stiles (no date).

 

Stoddard, Solomon, Appeal tO the Learned.

 

216

Synod Of New England. Minutes, 1775-1782 (typed copy in
Presby. Hist. Soc.)

United Presbyterian Church, Minutes of the Piggy-seventh
General Assembly Of the United Presbyterian Church of North Amer-
ica, Vol. 13 no. 4. Pittsburgh: United Presby. Board of Publica-
E‘Sns , 1915.

 

 

Winthrop Papers, 1498-1649. 5 vols. Boston, 1929-1947, a complete
edition of John Winthrop, Sr's. papers.

 

Winthrop, JOhn. The History Of New England, 1630-1649 (2
vols.) edited by James Savage. Boston: Little, Brown 6 CO., Boston,
1853.

 

Wise, John. Vindication of the Government Of the New England
Churches, Boston, 1717 (1860 edition)

 

Worcester. Early Records Of the Town of Worcester, Book I
in Collections of the ”Worcester Society Of Antiquity, vol. 2"
Worcester, 1881.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SECONDARY SOURCES

Books

Adair, P. A True Narrative Of the Presbyterian Church in
Ireland. Belfast: Edited by W. D. Killen, 1866.

 

Adams, Brooks. The Emancipation of Massachusetts. Boston:
Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1899.

 

Adams, Charles Francis. Three Episodes Of Massachusetts
History. Boston: New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1896.

 

Adams, James Truslow. The Founding of New England. Boston:
The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1921.

 

Adams, James Truslow. New England in the Republic 1776-1850.
Boston, Little, Brown, and Company, 1926.

 

Adams, James Truslow. Revolutionary New England, 1691-1776.
Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1923.

 

Aldrich, L. C., and Holmes, F. R., Editors. History of Windsor
County, Vermont. Syracuse, 1891.

 

 

Alexander, Gross, Scouller, James B., Foster, R.V. and
Johnson, T. C. A History of the Methodist Church, United Presbyterians,
Cumberland Presbyterians, Presbyterians South. The AmericanfiChurCh
History Series, VOl., XI, Scribhers, 1911.

 

 

Alexander, S. D. The Presbytery of New York 1738 to 1888.
New York, Anson D. F. Randloph andfiCOmpany, 1888.

 

Alexander, W. A. A Digest of the Acts Of the General Assembly
of the Presbyterian Churchgin the United States. RiChmond,7PreSbyterian
Committee of Publication, 1888.

 

 

Atkinson, Joseph. The History of NewarK. New Jersey, Newark,

 

1878.

Bacon, Dolores. Old New England Churches. New York, Doubleday
Page, 1906.

 

Bacon, Leonard. The Genesis of the New England Churches. New
York, Harper Brother, 1874.

 

217

218

Bagwell, Richard. Ireland Under the Stuarts and During the
Interregnum. New York, Longmans, Green; and Company, 1909.

 

 

Baird, Charles W. History of the Huguenot Emigration to America.

 

New York, Dodd, Mead and Company, 1885.

Baker, Henry A. History Of Monteville, Connecticut. Hartford:
Connecticut, Case, Lockwood and Brainard Company, 1896.

 

Barry, John Stetson. The History Of Massachusetts, First,
Second and Third Periods. Boston: Phillips, Sampson and Company, 1857.

 

 

Barton, W. E. Congregational Creeds and Covenants. Chicago:
Advance, Publishing CO., 1917.

 

Belknap, Jeremy. History of New Hampshire. 3 VOl. Boston:
Bradform and Read, 1813.

 

Blaikie, Alexander. Presbyterianism in New England. Boston:
Alexander Moore, 1882.

 

Blake, S. LeRoy, Rev. The Early History of the First Church
of Christ, New London, Connecticut. New London: Press Of the Day
Publishing Company, 1896.

 

 

Bolton, Charles Knowles. Scotch Irish Pioneers. Boston: Bacon
and Brown, 1910.

 

Bouton, Nathaniel. Commemorative Discourse delivered at
Boscawen, New Hampshire, Augpst 25, 1859. Concord, 1859.

 

 

Boynton, George M. The Congregational Way. Boston: The
Pilgrim Press, 1903.

 

Bradford, William. Governour Bradford's Letter Book, In
Collections Of Massachusetts Historical Society for the year 1794,
VOL 111.

 

 

Bradford, Wflfliam. History Of Plymouth Plantation. Boston:
Wright and Petter Printing Company, 1898.

 

Breed, Rev. William P. Presbyterianism Three Hundred Years
Ago. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board Of Publication and Sabbath-
School Work, 1872.

 

A Brief Memoir Of Rev. Andrew Le Mercier, Vol. XIII of the
New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1859.

 

Briggs, Charles Augustus. American Presbyterianism, its
origin and early history. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1885.

 

 

219

Burrage, Champlin. The Early English Dissenters (1550-1641).
2 VOlS., Cambridge, 1912.

 

Byington, Ezra Hoyt. The Puritan in England and New England.
Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1897.

 

Carter, N. F., and Fowler, T. L. Histpry of Pembroke, New
Hampshire, 1730-1895. Two Volumes. Concord: New Hampshire, Rumford
Printing Company, 1895.

 

 

Caulkins, Frances Manwaring. History of New London, Connecticut.
Hartford: by author, 1866.

 

Centennial Celebration Of the Town of Oxford, New Hampshire.
Manchester, New Hampshire, 1865.

 

Centennial Pamphlet Containing Addresses Delivered at Chartiers
and North Buffalo in the United Presbyterian Presbytery Of Chartiers,
November 3 and 4, 1875. Pittsburgh: Stevenson and Foster, 1876.

 

 

Centennial Papers Published by Order of the General Conference
of the Congregational Churches of Connecticut. Hartford: Case, Lockwood,
and Brainard’CO., 1877.

 

Chaffin, William L. History Of the Town Of Easton, Massachusetts.
Cambridge: John Wilson 8 Son, UniverSity Press, 1886.

 

Chamberlain, N. H. Rev. Samuel Sewall and The World He Lived In.
Boston: De Wolfe, Fiske 6 Company, 1897.

 

Chase, Benjamin. History Of Old Chester, 1719-1869. Auburn,
New Hampshire: by the author, 1869.

 

Chase, Frederick. A Histpry Of Dartmouth College and The
Town of Hanover. Edited by John K. Lord, Vol. 1. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1891.

 

 

Chase, J. C. History of Chester, New Hampshire, including Auburn.
Derry, 1926.

 

Chauncy, Charles. Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion
in New England. Boston, 1743.

 

 

Child, Hamilton, Comp. Gazeteer Of Grafton County, New Hampshire,
1709-1886. Syracuse, 1886.

 

Child, Hamilton, Comp., Gazeteer Of Orange Co. Vermont, 1762-
1888. Syracuse, 1888.

 

Clark, Joseph S. A Historical Sketch of the Congregational
Churches in Massachusetts. Boston: Congregational Board Of Publication,
1858.

 

 

220

Cleland, William, Rev. History of the Presbyterian Church in
Ireland. Toronto: Hart 6 Company, 1890.

 

Cochrane, W. R. History Of the Town of Antrim, New Hampshire.
Manchester: by town, 1880.

 

Coffin, C. C. History Of Boscamen and Webster, New Hampshire,
1733-1878. Concord, New Hampshire: Republican Press, 1878.

 

Coffin, Joshua. A Sketch of the History of Newbury, Newbury:
port and West Newbury. Boston: Sam. G. Drake, 1845.

 

Cogswell, Elliot C. History Of New Boston, New Hampshire.
Boston, 1864.

 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Suffolk, Supreme
Judicial Court in Equity--John H. Clifford, Esquire, Attorney General
at the "Relation of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Synod Of
New York, and Others, -- Informant, and the Proprietors of the Meeting
House in Federal Street, in the Town of Boston, Defendants,"

Boston, printed by William Elder, 1850.

Congregational Order, The Ancient Platforms of the Congregational
Churches Of New England. Middletown: Baldwin Hunt, 1843.

Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History Of Connecticut,
Prepared under the direction of the General Association. New Haven:
William L. Kingsley, 1861.

COOper, JOhn. An Historical and Statistical SketchcflFCroydon,

 

1852.

Craig, Frank H. Sketches of the Town Of Topshan, Orange CO.,
Vermont. Bradford, Vermont: Green Mountain Press, 1929.

 

Craighead, J. G. Scotch and Irish Seeds in American Soil.
Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board Of Publication, 1878.

 

Cullen, James Bernard. The Story Of the Irish in Boston.
Boston: J. B. Cullen 6 Company, 1889.

 

Cummings, Preston. Dictionary Of Congrpgational Usages and
Principles. Boston: S. K. Whipple and CO., 1852.

 

 

Currier, John J. Auld Newbury - Historical and Biographical
Sketches. Boston: Damrell andCUpsham, 1896.

 

Currier, JOhn J. History Of Newburyport, Massachusetts. 2
Volumes, Newburyport, Massachusetts: by the author, 1906.

 

 

221

Cushman, David Q. Sheepscot and Newcastle, Maine History of
Ancient. Bath: 1882.

 

Daniels, George F. The Huguenots in the Nipmuck Country.
Boston: Estes 8 Lauriat, 1880.

 

Dearborn, J. J. History Of Salisbury, New Hampshire. Manchester:

 

1890.

Dexter, Franklin Bowditch. Biographical Sketches of the Graduates
of Yale College with Annals Of the College_History, 2 volumes.
New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1896. r

 

 

Dexter, Henry Martyn. The Congregationalism of the Last 300
Years as Seen in its Literature. New York: Harper G Brothers, 1880.

 

 

Dexter, Henry Martyn. Congregationalism: What It Is; Whence
It is; How It Works: Why It is Better Than Any Other Form of ChurCh
Government; anngts Consequent Demands. Boston: Lockwood, BrOOkS and
Company, 1876.

 

 

 

 

Drake, Samuel G. The History and Antiquities of Boston, from
its settlement in 1630 tO theyyear 1770. Boston: Luther Stevens, 1856.

 

 

Dunning, Albert E. Congregationalists in America. New York:
J. A. Hill 8 Company, 1894.

 

Dwight, Timothy. Travels: In New England and New York. Vol. 4.
New Haven, 1822.

 

Earle, Alice M. Customs and Fashions in Old New England.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1894. P

 

Earle, Alice Morse. The Sabbath in Puritan New England. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891.

 

Early History of Massachusetts, Lectures delivered in a Course
before the Lowell Institute in Boston. Boston: by the Society, 1869.

 

 

 

 

Eator, Cyrus. Annals of the Town of Warren, in Knox CO. t
Meine, with the early history_of St. Georges. Hallowell: Masters and
Livermore, 1877.

 

 

Ellis, George E. The Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony Of
Messachusetts Bey 1629-1685. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin E Company,
1891.

 

 

Federal Street Church Case. Original Bill, answer, and
Egrition for Review. Boston: S. Chism, Franklin Printing House, 1864.

 

 

Felt, Joseph B. Annals of Salem, Salem, W. G S. B. Ives. Boston:
Congregational Library Association and the Congregational Board of
Publication, 1855.

 

222

Fessenden, T. Remarks on the Doing§_of a Convention Held at
Cornish, New Hampshire, February_20, 1782, Consisting of the Rev.
Grafton Presbyteryi Windsor Association and Others. Westminster:
Judah P. Spooner, 1782.

 

Fiske, John. The Beginning Of New England or the Puritan
Theocracy in Its Relation to Civil and Religious Liberry, Boston:
Houghton, Mifflin 8 Company, 1898.

 

 

 

Flagg, C. A. A Guide to Massachusetts Local History. Salem, 1907.

 

Foote, William H. The Huguenots; or, Reformed French Church.
Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1870.

 

Ford, Henry Jones. The Scotch Irish in America. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1915.

 

Fosdick, Lucian John. The French Blood in America. New York:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1906.

 

Fowler, P. H. Historical Sketch of Presbyterianism Within the
Bounds of the Synod of Central New York. Utica, New York: Curtiss G
Childs, 1877.

 

 

Freeland, Mary de Witt. Records of Oxford, Massachusetts.
Albany, New York: Joel Munsell's Sons, 1894.

 

French, W. R. Turner, History of Portland, 1877.

 

Froude, James Anthony. The English in Ireland in the Eighteenth
Century, Three Volumes. New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Company,
1873.

 

General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, United States of
America, Constitution Of the Presbyterian Church in the United States
of America, Philadelphia, Publication Department Of the Presbyterian
Board of Christian Education, 1930.

Gibbs, William H. An Address delivered before the Literary
Association, Blandford, Massachusetts, September 21, 1850 upon The
History of that Town. Springfield: George W. Wilson, 1850.

 

 

 

Gillett, E. H. Rev. History of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States. Vol. 1, Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication.

 

 

Glasgow, Maude. The Scotch-Irish in Northern Ireland and in
The American Colonies. New York: G. P. Putman's Sons, 1936.

 

 

Goodard, M. E. and Partridge, H. V. A History of Norwich,
Vermont. Hanover, New Hampshire: Dartmouth Press, 1905.

 

223

Godkin, James. The Religious History of Ireland. London:
Henry S. King 8 CO., 1873.

 

Goodwin, John A. The Pilgrim Republic, An Historical Review
of the Colony of New Plymouth. Boston: Ticknor and Company, 1888.

Goring, Jeremy, et. al. The Engiish Presbyterians. Boston, 1968.

 

Green, Samuel Abbott. Groton Historical Series NO. XIV The
Presbyterian Controversy in Groton, Groton, Massachusetts, 1886.

 

Green Samuel Abbott. Three Historical Addresses at Groton,
Massachusetts, Groton, 1908.

Green, Samuel Sweet. The Scotch Irish in America. Worcester:
Published in the Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 1895.

 

Greene, Francis B. History of Boothbay) Southport and Boothbny_
Harbor, Portland, Loring, Short, and Harmon, 1906.

Greene, M. Louise. The Develppment Of Religious Liberty in
Connecticut. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin 6 CO., 1905.

 

Greenleaf, Jonathan. Sketches of the Ecclesiastical Histqry
of the State of Maine. Portmouth: Harrison Gray, 1821.

 

 

Hale, Robert. Early Days of Church and State in Maine. Brunswick:
Bowdoin College, 1910.

Hanbury, Benjamin. Historical Memorials Relating to the Inde—
pendents, or Congregationalists, Vol. I and 11. London: Printed for
the Congregational Union Of England and Wales, Fisher, Son 8 CO., 1839.

Hanna, Charles A. The Scotch Irish, Two Volumes. New York:
G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1902.

 

Hawkins, Rush ChristOpher. A Biograpnical Sketch of the Rev.
Aaron Hutchinson, A.M. of Pomfret, Vermont. New York: Gilliss, Brothers
and Turnure Artage Press, 1888.

 

Hayden, Mary and Moonan, George A. A Short History of the
Irish People. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1922.

 

 

Haynes, George H. The Attempted Suicide Of a Massachusetts
Town. Worcester, 1904.

 

 

Hays, George P. Presbyterians. New York: J. A. Hill and Company,

 

1892.

224

Hazen, H. A. The Congregational and Presbyterian Ministry
and Churches of New Hampshire. Boston: A. Mudge and Son, 1875.

 

 

Hexter, J. H. "The PrOblem of the Presbyterian Independents,”
in Am. Hist. Rev. XLIV - NO. 1, OctOber, 1938.

 

Hill, Hamilton Andrews. History Of the Old South Church Boston.
Two Volumes, Boston, 1890.

 

Hill, William. A History of the Rise, Progress, Genius and
Character of American Presbyterianism. Washington: J. Gideno, Jr., 1839/

 

 

History Of Bedford, New Hampshire. Boston: Alfred Mudge, 1851.

 

___ History of Bedford, New Hampshire from 1737-1900. By Committee
Concord, Rumford Printing CO., 1903.

 

History of the Town of Hingham, Massachusetts. Vol. I, Part 2
Published by the town, 1839.

 

Hodge, Charles. The Consdtutional History_pf the Presbyterian
Church, Part I a 11. Philadelphia: William S. Martien, 1840.

 

Hodge, Charles. Discussions in Church Polity, from the Contri-
butions to the "Princeton Review." New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1878.

 

 

Holland, Josiah G. History of Western Massachusetts. Two
Volumes, Springfield: Samuel Bowles G CO., 1855.

 

Hood, George. A Histbry of Music in New England. Boston:
Wilkins, Carter 8 CO., 1846.

 

Hooker, Thomas. A Survey of the Summe of Church Discipiine
Wherein the Way Of the Churches of New England is Warranted Out Of the
Word etc. London: Printed for A. M. for John Bellamy at the three
Golden Lions in Cornhill, near the Royall Exchange, 1648.

 

 

Hough, Franklin B. Pemaquid Papers. Maine Historical Society
Documentary Series i, Vol. V. Albany, 1857.

 

Hovey, Horace C. Origin and Annals Of "The Old South", First
Presbyterian Church and Parish in Newburyport, Massachusetts,
1746—1896. Boston: Damrell 8 Upham, 1896.

 

 

Howe, Daniel Watt. The Puritan Republic Of Massachusetts Bay
in New Engiand. Indiapolis: Bowen-Merrill CO., 1899.

 

 

Hubbard, William. A General History Of New England Published in
the Collections Of the Massachusetts Historical Sociery, Vol. XV and
XVI. Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, reprinted 1848.

 

 

225

Hurd, D. H., editor. History of Worcester, Massachusetts.
Philadelphia: J. W. Lewis G CO., 1889.

 

Hutchinson, Thomas. The History_of Massachusetts. Boston:
Manning & Loring, 1795.

 

Hutchinson, Thomas. The History Of the Province of Massachusetts
Bay, 1749 to 1774. London: John Murray, 1828.

 

 

Johnston, Alexander. Connecticut, A Stuey of Commonwealth-
Democracy. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin 8 CO., 1888.

 

Johnston, John. A History of the towns of Bristol and Bremen
in the state of Maine. Albany: New York, Joel Munsell, 1873.

 

 

Keep, John. Historical Discourse Delivered at Blandford, Massa-
chusetts. Ware, Massachusetts: Charles W. Eddy, 1886.

 

Killen, William 0001. The Ecclasiastical History Of Ireland,
Two Volumes. London: MacMillan 8 CO., 1875.

 

King, Rev. David. An Exposition and Defence Of the Presbyterian
Form of Church Government. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1853.

 

 

King, Rev. David. The Ruling Eldership Of the Christian Church.
New York: RObert Carter 8 Brothers, 1852.

 

Lathan, RObert. Historyrof the Associate Reformed Synod Of the
South to Which is Prefixedfa History_of the Associate Presbyterian and
Reformed Presbyterian Churches. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: PUblished
for the author, 1882.

 

 

 

Lawrence, Robert F. The New Hampshire Churches Comprising
Histories of the Congregational and Presbyterian Church in the State,
1856.

Lechford, Thomas. Plain Dealing, or News from New Englane.
Boston: J. K. Wiggin E W. P. Lunt, 1867.

 

Lincoln, William. History Of Worcester to 1836. Worcester, 1837.

 

Lodge, Henry Cabot. Historic Towns--Boston. New York: Longmans,
Green, a CO., 1891.

 

Lord, . A History of Dartmouth College, 1815-1909.
Concord, New Hampshire: The Rumford Press, 1913.

 

Lovejoy, Evelyn M. Wood. History of Royalton, Vermont. Published
by town and the Royalton Women's Club, Free Press Printing CO., 1911.

 

226

MacLean, J. P. An Historical Account of the Settlements of
Scotch Highlanders in America. Cleveland: Helman-Taylor CO., 1900.

 

Mack, R. C. Old Nutfield. Concord, 1870.

 

Mather, Cotton. Magnalia Christi Americana or The Ecclesiastical
History Of New England in Seven Books, Two Volumes. Hartford: Silas
Andrus G Son, 1855.

 

Manual Of the Congregational Church in Lyme, New Hampshire.
Hanover, Dartmouth Press, 1879.

Marvin, Abijah J. and others. History of Worcester CO.,
Massachusetts. Boston: C. G. Jewett G CO., 1879.

 

 

Marvin, Abijah P. Rev. The Life and Times Of Cotton Mather,
D.D., F.R.S. Boston: Congregational Sunday SEhOOl anHqublishing
Society, 1892.

 

 

Mather, Increase. Early History of New England. Albany,
New York: J. Munsell, 1864.

 

Matthews, A. G. Calamy Revised.

 

Merrill, J. L., editor. History of Acworth, New Hampshire,
Published by the Town, 1869.

 

McClellan, Charles H. The Early Settlers of Coleraine,
Massachusetts. Greenfield, Massachusetts: W. S. Carson Printer, 1885.

 

 

M'Clure, A. W. The Life of John Cotton. Boston, Massachusetts:
Sabbath School Society, 1846.

 

McClure, David and Elijah Parish. Memoirs Of the Rev. Eleazar
Wheelock, D.D. Newburyport: Edward Lituaand CO., 1811.

 

 

McGee, Thomas D'Arcy. History of the Irish Settlers in North
America. Boston: Patrick Donahoe, 1852.

 

Miller, Edward, and Wells, F. P. History of Ryegate, Vermont.
St. Johnsburry, Vermont. The Caledonian CO., 1913.

 

Moffatt, James. The Presbyterian Churches. London: Methusen
and CO.1J1L, 1928.

 

Moore, William E. The Presbyterian Digest: A Compend of the
Acts and Deliverances of the General Association of Presbyterian
Churches in the U.S.A. Complied by the Order and Authority of the
General Assembly. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board, 1873.

 

 

227

Morgan, Edmund S. Visible Saints. New York, 1963.

 

Morrison, Leonard A. The History of Windham in New Hampshire
1719-1883. Boston: Cupples, Upham G CO., 1883.

 

Murdock, Kennith Ballard. Increase Mather, The Foremost
Americanlhritan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925.

 

 

Nash, Charles Sumner. Congregational Administration. Boston:
The Pilgrim Press, 1909.

 

Newton, William Monroe. History Of Barnard, Vermont, 1761—
1927, Published by the Vermont Historical Society, 1928.

 

Odiorne, James C. A Complete List of the Ministers of Boston
from 1630 to 1842. Arranged in the order Offtheir settlement in the
New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol. I.

 

 

O'Flynn, Thomas F. The Story of Worcester, Boston: Little
Brmnifi CO.,1910.

 

Osgood, Charles Stuart and Batchelder, H. M. An Historical
SketcthFSalem 1626-1879. Salem Essex Institute, 1879.

 

 

Orcutt, Samuel Rev. A History of the Old Town of Stratford
and the City Of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Part 1, Fairfield County
Historical Society, 1886.

 

 

Palfrey, John Gorham. History Of New England. Vol. I and Vol.
11. Boston: Little, Brown 8 CO., 1865.

 

Packard, TheOSOphilus. A History of the Churches and Ministers
of Franklin County. Boston: S. K. Whipple G CO., 1854.

 

 

Parker, E. L. Settlement of Londonderry, New Hampshire.
Old South Leaflets, Vol. IV, NO. 93. Boston, 1898.

 

Parmenter, C. W. History of Pelham, 1738-1898. Amherst,
Massachusetts: Press of Carpenter G Morehouse, 1898.

 

Patterson, Rev. Robert M. American Presbyterianism in its
Develepment and Growth. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board Of PUblication
and Sabbath School Word, 1896.

 

 

Perry, Arthur Latham. Miscellanies. Wifliamstown, Massachusetts:
Published by the Author, 1902.

 

228

Pert, Luther B. Centennial Discourse, Historical Of the
Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire, and Its Presbyterian Church and
Society (Founded April, 1719), Delivered Sabbath, July 2, 1876.
Exeter: News-Letter Press, 1876.

 

Phillips, James Duncan. Salem in the Eighteenth Century.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin CO., 1937.

 

Pike, James. History Of Churches Of Boston, Division I
Baptists and Presbyterians. Boston: Ecclesias Publishing CO., 1883.

 

 

Plumley, Gardiner Spring. The Presbyterian Church Throughout
the World. New York: De Witt C. Lent G CO., 1874.

 

Potter, C. E. The History of Manchester, New Hampshire. Man-
chester: C. E. Potter, 1856.

 

Powers, Rev. Grant. Historical Sketches of the Discovery,
Settlement, and Progress of Events in the C005 Country and Vicinity,
Principally Included Between the Years 1754 and 1785. Haverhill,
New Hampshire: J. F. C. Hayes, 1841.

 

Price, Ebenezer. History Of Boscawen and Webster, New Hampshire,
A Chronological Register OffiBoscawen in Parts. Concord, 1823.

 

 

Prince, Thomas. A Chronological History of New England, Vol.
1. Edinburgh: Privately Printed, 1887.

 

Punchard, George. History Of Congregationalism, Vol. IV-V.
Boston: Congregational Publishing Society, 1880.

 

Reed, Jonas. A History of Rutland, Worcester County, Mass-
achusetts. Worcester: Mirick 8 Bartlett, 1836.

 

Reid, James Seaton. History of the Presbyterian Church in
Ireland. Belfast: William Mullan, 1867, Three Volumes.

 

The Religious History of New England, King Chapel Lectures.
Cadoridge: Harvard University Press, 1917.

 

A Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston,
Containing the Records of Boston Selectmen, 1716-1736. Boston:
Rookwell G ChurChill, 1885.

 

 

Rhys, Ernest, Editor. Chronicles Of the Pilgrim Fathers, In
Everyman's Library. New York: E. P. Dutton 8 CO., 1910.

 

 

Rice, Franklin F., Editor. Worcester, Early Records Of the
Town of Worcester, 1880.

 

 

 

229

Richardson, Leon Burr. History of Dartmouth College. Two

Volumes. Hanover, New Hampshire: Dartmouth College PubliEations,
1932.

 

Savage, Thomas. A Historical Sketch Of Bedford, New Hampshire.
Manchester, New Hampshire: Emerson & Murray, 1841.

 

Schneider, Herbert Wallace. The Puritan Mhnd. New York: Henry
Holt, 1930.

 

Scouller, J. B. A Manual Of the United Presbyterian Church
Of North America. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1881.

 

 

A Short History of American Presbyterianism From Its Foundations
to the Reunion of 1860. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board Of Publi-
cation and Sabbath-School Work, 1903.

 

Sibley, John L. A History of the Town of Union in the County
Of Lincoln, Maine. Boston: B. B. Mussey, 1851.

 

 

Smith, Albert. History of the Town of Peterborough, Hills-
borough County, New Hampshire. Boston: Press Of George HT’Ellis, 1876.

 

 

Smith, E. Vale. History of Newburyport. Boston: Damrell and
Moore, 1854.

 

Smith, Thomas. Journal of the Rev. Thomas Smith Of Falmouth,
Maine. Portland: J. S. Bailey, 1849.

 

 

Snow, Caleb Hopkins. A History of Boston, The Metropolis Of
Massachusetts. Boston: A. Bowen, 1825.

 

 

Sprague, William B. Annals Of the American Pulpit, Volumes III,
1859 and IV, 1859, Presbyterian. New York: RObert Carter 6 Brothers,
1858.

 

Southgate, W. S. History Of Scarboro, Maine from 1633-1783.
Maine Historical Society, Series 1, Volume 3.

 

Stearns, Jonathan French. First Church in NewarK. Newark
Daily Advertiser Office, 1853.

 

Stebbins, Solomon B. Anniversary of Warren, Massachusetts
(1741-1891). Warren, Massachusetts: Charles W. Eddy, 1891.

 

 

Stiles, Henry R. The History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor,
Connecticut, 1635-1891. Hartford, Connecticut: Case, LOCkwood G Barinard
CO., 1891.

 

 

 

 

230

Sutherland, David. Address Delivered to the Inhabitants of Bath
on Evening_of January 23, 1854. Boston: Press of G. C. Rand figAvery,
1855.

 

 

Sweet, W. W. Religion on the American Frontier. New York:
Harper Brothers, 1936.

 

Temple, J. H. History Of North Brookfield, Massachusetts.
Boston: Published by the Town, 1887.

 

Temple, J. H. History of the Town Of Palmer, Massachusetts.
Springfield: Published by Town, 1889.

 

Thompson, Robert Ellis. A History of the Presbyterian Churches
in the United States, The American ChurCh’History Series Vol. VI.
New York: The Christian Literature CO., 1895.

 

 

Tracy, Joseph. The Great Awakening-~A History Of the Revival
of Religion in the Time Of Edwards and Whitfield. Boston: Tappan G
Dennet, 1842.

 

 

Trumbell, Benjamin. A Complete History of Connecticut, Vol. I.
New Haven: Maltby, Goldsmith 8 CO., 1818.

 

Tucker, W. H. History of Hartford, Vermont, Burlington.
Vermont: The Tree Press Association, 1889.

 

Underdown, David. "The Independents Reconsidered," in The
Journal Of British Studies (Vol. 111, NO. 2, May, 1964).

 

Vail, Henry Hobart. Pomfret, Vermont. Two Volumes. Boston:
Cockayne, 1930.

 

Vermilye, A. G. Memoire Of Rev. John Murray, First Minister
Of the Church in Boothbay. Collection of Maine Historical Society,
Vol. VI, Portland, 1859.

 

 

Waddington, John. Congregational History, 1567-1700. London:
Longmans, Green 8 CO., 1880.

 

Walker, G. L. History of the First Church, Hartford, 1633-1883.
Hartford: Brown 8 Gross, 1884.

 

Walker, Williston. The Creeds and Platforms Of Congregationalism.

 

 

 

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1893.

Walker, Williston. Ten New England Leaders. Silver Burdett 8
CO., 1901.

 

231

Webster, Kimball. History of Hudson, New Hampshire. Man-
chester, 1913.

 

Webster, Richard. A History of Presbyterian Church in American
from its Origin to 1760. Philadelphia: J. M. Wilson, 1857.

 

 

Weeden, William B. The Economic and Social History Of New
England 1630-1789. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin G CO.,
1890.

 

 

Weeks, John M. History of Salisbury, Vermont, Middlebury,

 

1860.

Weiss, M. Charles. History of the French Protestant Refugees.
Tow Volumes. New York: Stringer G Townsend, 1854.

 

Wells, Frederick Palmer. History Of Barnet, Vermont, Bur-
lington, 1923.

 

Wells, F. P. History Of Newbury, Vermont, St. Johnsbury,
Vermont.

 

Wendell, Barrett. Cotton Mather. New York: Dodd, Mead 8

 

CO.

Wheeler, Edmund, Croydon, New Hampshire, 1866, Proceedings at
the Centennial Celebration on Wednesday, June 13, 1866. Claremont,
New Hampshire, 1867.

 

 

Wheeler, George Augustus and Wheeler, Henry Warren. History of
Brunswick, Topsham, and Harpswell, Maine. Boston: Alfred Mudge 6
Son, 1878.

 

 

Whitney, Peter. History of Worcester, Massachusetts. Worcester,
Massachusetts: 1. Thomas, 1793.

 

Whiton, John M. History of Antrim, New Hampshire for a Period
of One Century -- 1744-1844. Concord, New Hampshire: McFarland?
Jenks, 1852.

 

 

Willaims, Sam Porter. Historical Account of the First Pres-
byterian and Society in Newburyport. Newburyport, 1826.

 

 

Williamson, Joseph. History of the City of Belfast, Maine.
Portland, Maine: Loring, Short 8 Harmon, 1877.

 

Williamson, Wm. D. History of the State of Maine, 1620-1820,
Two Volumes. Glazier, Masters 6 smithjil839.

 

 

 

232

Willis, William. Scotch-Irish Immigrations to Maine and a
Summary History Of Presbyterianism. (In Collections of the Maine

Historical Society, Vol. VI). Portland: Published for the Society,
1859.

 

Winslow, Edward. Hypocrisie Unmasked, London, Richard Cotes
for Hogn Bellamy, Reprinted by Alexander Young in Chronicles ofithe
Pilgrim Fathers Of the Colony Of Plymouth, Boston, 1841.

Windsor, Justin, Editor. Memorial History of Boston. Boston:
James R. Osgood G CO., 1882.

 

WinthrOp, John. The History_of New England, 1630-1649. Two
Volumes. Edited by James Savage: Little, Brown 8 CO., Boston, 1853.

 

WinthrOp, RObert C. Life and Letters of John Winthrop.
Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1864.

 

Wise, John. A Vindication Of the Government Of New England
Churches. Boston: Congregational Board Of Publication, 1860.

 

Wood, Sumner Gilbert. The Taverns and Turnpikes of Blandford,
1733-1833. Published by the Author, 1908.

 

Wood, Sumner Gilbert. Ulster Scots and Blandford Scots,
West Midway. Published by the Author, 1926.

 

 

Yule, George. "Independents and Revolutionaries," in The
Journal Of British Studies, Vol. VII, NO. 2, May 1968.

 

Newspapers, Pamphlets, and Periodicals:

 

Grant, Perley C. "Presbyterianism in New England”. An Address
Before the Synod Of New England in

Loetscher, Frederick W. Presbyterianism in Colonial New
England -- Journal of Presbyterian Historical Society, June, September,
and December, 1921 .

Marlowe, Alexander. Facts Concerning the Early Londonderry
History, an article published in the Derry News, September 13, 1933.

 

'1'

5.3.2

.-
0"

 

W-Y. - .5)” I

   

"Tililifilflfltllljlflljlflfllll'lflflilfliflilifl