 |
First Congregational Church, |
I am writing an article on a couple who had their first child in Marlborough, Middlesex, Massachusetts Bay Colony. The town clerk recorded the birth in October of 1745, with both parents named––clearly a married couple. Why wasn't the child baptized within a few months of her birth, as was the practice? A full nine months elapsed between the birth and baptism, too short a time to be a second child by the same name. Her baptism names the child and a date, but provides no parents. Neither the town clerk nor the church holds a marriage record. A reasonably exhaustive search of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island did not turn up a marriage for the couple.
A page-by-page reading of both the baptisms, marriages and deaths, along with the proceedings of the church council shed light on the situation. The parents were on the outs with the church! The couple were "restored to the church’s Christian Charity and Communion," i.e. reinstated as full members of the church, in April 1746, six months after baby's birth. Three months later the father "renewed the covenant," and on that same day the baby was finally baptized. Particulars about this family will be provided in the article, but here I am investigating church doctrine and how it affects the information we pull from church records.
Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were not only subject to the laws of the colony, they also were required to comply with the practices and dictates of the Congregational Church. They followed a strict moral code of behavior, requiring regular church attendance, and baptism and marriage within the church. There were always those who did not comply, which accounts for the absence of some from the records. (1) The church dealt with them in a variety of ways, depending on the type of infraction, but usually either by counseling, or in severe cases, expulsion.
A Congregational church was not defined as the meeting house or building of worship, rather the church was the congregation itself, as bound together by their covenant. The covenant was a mutual agreement by which members pledged to follow “the Congregational Way,” supporting one another and fulfilling their duties to God. (2) John Cotton said in 1639, “It is [the people’s] mutual covenant with one another that gives first being to a church.” (3) Renewing or owning the covenant (used interchangeably) was done for a variety of reasons. A renewal does not mean that the covenant has expired, rather, it reaffirms what has already been promised at the child’s baptism. Whether done to mark the transition to full adult membership, to confirm beliefs or to atone for a transgression, renewing the covenant included a public confession made before the entire church body, along with a signed profession of faith. (4) Later, some were worked out in private with the minister, or submitted in written form.
 |
| Created with ChatGPT |
Can we know why this couple had to be reinstated? What had they done? The most common reasons for renewing the covenant were:
1. Upon converting or first joining the church
Despite the apparent meaning of the word renewal, even brand new church members were sometimes asked to renew the covenant. Donna Campbell of Washington State University notes: “Solomon Stoddard, grandfather of Jonathan Edwards, extended the practice of renewal of covenant to those who had never been there.”(5) The father's origins are unknown, so it could be he had not belonged to a church previously.
2. Upon transferring to a new church
Those transferring were required to obtain an official letter of dismission from their previous church and apply for admission to the new one. Once accepted they might renew the covenant to affirm their status as full members in their new congregation, though it was not required, as long as their standing was in good order in their previous church. (6) Again, not knowing whether the baby's father was from, it is plausible that he had transferred in from another church, however he does not appear on any lists of admissions.
3. To comply with Church Doctrine
Since the congregation is bound together by the covenant, all members had to make a confession of their faith. This was called owning the covenant, and was somewhat akin to today's confirmation. Members who were baptized but had not yet made their confession of faith were considered unregenerate, or halfway members, not officially entitled to the privileges of full membership in the church. “These baptized but unconverted members were not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper or vote on church business (such as choosing ministers or disciplining other members) until they had professed conversion.” (7) Most important to genealogists, unregenerate members were not permitted to have their children baptized. (8)
The Halfway Covenant: As the seventeenth century wore on churches experienced an ever-increasing fall in membership numbers. Fewer people were willing to stand up and make a public profession of faith. They then were not allowed to baptized their children, and church membership began a steep decline. In order to stop the alarming decline in membership some churches began allowing unregenerate members to baptize their children. After years of controversy a compromise was finally hammered out in 1662: churches adopting the Halfway Covenant, allowed “adult, non-scandalous, unconverted children of full church members to have their children baptized.”
Some churches took decades to decide whether or not to adopt the Halfway Covenant. At a meeting on 2 September 1701, the First Church of Marlborough voted in the affirmative:
“After a very deliberate and friendly Debate it was unanimously and Joyntly concurred in and agreed to tt all such Persons as shal offer thmselves or thr children to this Church for the Seal of Baptism shal be riceived, provided thy are not scandalous in conversation & are Orthodox in religion, and wil submitt to the Discipline of Christ in this Church.” (9)
In addition to individual cases, churches would periodically round up members and encourage them to renew the covenant. They often appear in lists of 50 or so people all renewing about the same time. Anyone who had not yet made a public confession of faith, including young adults could be included. (10)
If a couple were “non-scandalous, unconverted children of full church members” a church adhering to the Halfway Covenant would have allowed the them to baptize their child. If not, they would need to be “restored to the church’s charity and communion” after undergoing counseling sessions. Once re-admitted to the church they were well placed to own the covenant.
4. As an affirmation of faith during the Great Awakening.
One hundred years after the Pilgrims’ arrival Puritan spiritual vitality was starting to flag. Many saw the Halfway Covenant as a further loosening of values, leading to lower standards within the church. The Great Awakening was a religious revival, “a reaction against the increasing secularization of society and against the corporate and materialistic nature of the principal churches of American society… making conversion the initial step on the road to salvation." (11) Congregants were urged to renew their covenant with one another and with God,” taking them back to stricter times. (12)
Rev. Aaron Smith, minister of the Marlborough church in 1727, “had little sympathy with the Great Awakening,” and the church is said to have experienced very little of that fervor. (13) Records of the Marlborough Association of Ministers indicate that most members stood in opposition to the Great Awakening. (14) This left the Halfway Covenant in place so religious zeal is probably not the reason for a Marlborough citizen to own the covenant.
5. To be readmitted after having been expelled for committing a transgression.
The most common infractions were theological disagreements and breaking the law (primarily pre- or extra-marital sex). (15) Offending members would be called in for conversation and counseling. If no resolution could be made they would be publicly chastised or even expelled. In order to be readmitted as full church members (“restored to the church’s charity and communion”) they would have to make a public confession. Only then would they have been allowed to own the covenant. Theological differences were worked out in private discussions but the same procedures would be followed.
If no marriage can be found it is possible one or both had strayed outside the strict dictates of the church. They may have simply been receiving instruction and counseling before being able to join the church. By far the most common offense would be fornication (unlawful sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons). (16) A birth seven months or fewer after marriage would instigate fornication charges. Records of both the Marlborough Church and the Marlborough Association of Ministers describe few proceedings against couples, but records are hardly complete for this period. (17) Genealogists should search for a reference to restoring one or both parties to the church’s charity and communion.
.png) |
| "Sept. 1795 ––Here I cease to record & perpetuate the [dissuse?] of those who violate the seventh command, untill I am convinced that the other commands in the dialogue are less [?] than this –––––" |
Sometimes they were dealt with informally, as in this 1728 case brought before the Marlborough Association of Ministers by the church clerk, “wherein He desir'd the Advice of the Association -- whether a Child born though but Three Dayes under Seven Solar months after Marriage might be baptized… It was advised to Baptize the Child.” (18) This would still require counseling for the couple and a subsequent renewal of the covenant. Rev. Ebenezer Parkman’s diary notes another case: “John Rogers and his wife restor’d to Charity, and his wife Baptized. O that God would keep alive the Impressions made this Day; and might they be Saving!” (19)
Sexual infractions were frequently pursued in the courts in the early eighteenth century, initially heard by a Justice of the Peace. (20) A case this minor would probably not have gone to court at all because there would be no costs to the town for damages or upbringing. (21) No fines were assessed against them by the town. Since they were married they did not need to charge the father with support of the child. (22) Further, as the century drew on civil prosecution of fornication dwindled and cases involving married couples were treated less harshly in the courts. (23) Appeals went before the Court of Common Pleas (civil), or the Court of General Sessions of the Peace (criminal). (24) Offenses other than promiscuity included cursing, breaking the Sabbath, drunkenness, gambling, disturbing the peace, not attending worship, and failure to support aged parents. (25) Thorough research in the Middlesex County court is worth the time. (26)
The church would never baptize the child of an unmarried couple, so if a baptism is found for a child but no marriage for them was recorded, it is likely they ran into trouble with church authorities over behavior. In this case I am fairly certain they just had baby girl a bit too early.
Court records can shed light on the reasons for their alienation. Searches in the church council's procedural records rather than just baptisms and marriages are the key. The records of the church are available online via the Congregational Library (see Note 9). The Marlborough town clerk's records are available at FamilySearch: Marlborough, Massachusetts (Mass.) Bay Colony, Town Clerk,“Massachusetts, Town Clerk and Vital and Town Records, 1626-2001" (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-8979-QXH5) > Middlesex > Marlborough > Births, marriages, deaths 1693-1805.
----------
NOTES
1. For a deep analysis of the doctrine and history of the Congregational Church in Massachusetts see: Cooper and Minkema, “Introduction”, and “The Evolution of Colonial Massachusetts Congregationalism,” The Colonial Church Records of the First Church of Reading (Wakefield) and the First Church of Rumney Marsh (Revere); online transcription, Colonial Society (https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/1426).
2. Covenant: Beyond Confrontational Politics,” web page, Harvard Square Library (https://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/featured-new/covenant-beyond-confrontational-politcs/).
3. “Congregational Polity 101,” web page, Harvard Square Library (https://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/congregational-polity/congregational-polity-101/).
4. Cooper and Minkema, “A Primer of Early New England Congregationalism,” First Churches of Reading and Rumney Marsh, 16.
5. Donna M. Campbell, “Brief Outline Notes on the Great Awakening, 1735-45,” web page, Washington State University (https://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/awakening.htm) > Literary Movements > Timelines > American Authors.
6. Cooper and Minkema, “Church Records and Religious Practice,” First Churches of Reading and Rumney Marsh, 39.
7. “Half-Way Covenant,” webpage, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Way_Covenant).
8. Cooper and Minkema, “The Evolution of Colonial Massachusetts Congregationalism,” First Churches of Reading and Rumney Marsh, 19. For a deeper treatment, see James F. Cooper, Jr., Tenacious of Their Liberties (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), paperback printing 2002.
9. “Records of the First Church of Marlboro’, Mass., from the 20d. 8m., 1704 to May 23d, 1802, as Under the Pastoral Care of Robert Breck, Aaron Smith and Asa Packard, vol. 1,” Baptisms, 13, 1727, Damaris Bush, Hez., 16-10; New England’s Hidden Histories: Colonial Era Church Records, Congregational Library (http://nehh-viewer.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/#/content/Marlborough/viewer/Church20records2C2017041802/1) > “Church records, 1704-1802” > image 23/140; hereinafter cited as First Church of Marlborough. There are significant gaps. Page numbers are cited when possible but there are duplicate and inconsistent numbering systems, making predicting a page number impossible. Further, the records were filmed out of order in mixed up batches. In this case it is better to use image numbers.First Church of Marlborough, p. 9 or 7; (http://nehh-viewer.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/#/content/Marlborough/viewer/Church20records2C2017041802/1) > image 19/140.
10. Ibid. The page has 60 names and includes “The Names of such as offer thr Seed to Baptism,” specifically for those wishing to baptize their children.
11. “Great Awakening,” webpage, Brittanica (https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Awakening).
12. Cooper and Minkema, “Church Records and Religious Practice,” First Churches of Reading and Rumney Marsh, 34-39.
13. Levi A. Field, Historical Sketch of the First Congregational Church in Marlborough, Mass. (Worcester, Mass.: Levi A. Field, 1859), 30, pamplet; Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/historicalsketch00byufiel/page/n35/mode/2up).
14. Rev. Ebenezer Parkman, clerk, “Marlborough Association of Congregational Ministers,” Association Records, 1725-1802; Congregational Library (http://nehh-viewer.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/#/content/MarlboroughAssn/viewer/Association20records2C2017251802/1); hereinafter cited as Marlborough Association of Ministers. The Association was formed in 1725, a group of 6-8 ministers in the area who met to discuss ecclesiastical questions and hear cases laid before them by any member or "by others thought worthy." For a history of the association, see, Joseph Allen, The Worcester Association and its Antecedents: A History of Four Ministerial Associations: the Marlborough, the Worcester (Old), the Lancaster, and the Worcester (New) Associations (Boston: Nichols and Noyes,1868); (https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/605778/). Also, “Records, 1725-1802, Marlborough Association of Congregational Ministers,” finding aid; webpage, ArchiveGrid (https://researchworks.oclc.org/archivegrid/collection/data/214086136).
15. Douglas Showalter, emails to Polly Kimmitt, 17-20 May 2023, regarding Congregational doctrine of the mid-17th to mid-18th centuries. Rev. Showalter is a retired UCC minister, and an authority in Congregational Church history. He confirmed this interpretation of the significance of renewing the Covenant, the Great Awakening, the Halfway Covenant, and other doctrine.
16. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 781.
17. First Church of Marlborough,” all 140 pages read. Also, Marlborough Association, Records, 1725-1802, all pages read; New England’s Hidden Histories: Colonial Era Church Records, Congregational Library (https://congregationallibrary.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/marlborough-association-records-1725-1802/22340).
18. Marlborough Association, > images 17-18; (https://congregationallibrary.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/marlborough-association-records-1725-1802/22340).
19. Rev. Ebenezer Parkman, “The Diary of Ebenezer Parkman” online transcription, The Ebenezer Parkman Project (https://diary.ebenezerparkman.org/) > 8 May 1748; hereinafter cited as Rev. Parkman’s Diary. Rev. Ebenezer Parkman was an influential minister in Westborough from 1724-1782. His detailed diary contains over 2,000 pages of entries covering 1719-1782.
20. One known Justice of the Peace was William Ward: Rev. Parkman’s Diary, 27 Sep. 1738; if they exist his records have not been found. Another known Justice of the Peace, Abraham Williams only began in 1750, and left no justice of the peace records, according to Cyrus Felton’s list of Justices of the Peace. That includes Benjamin Woods 1731-1740: “Marlborough (Mass.): Records 1656-1889,” BIB ID 271808, 1 box, 10 octavo volumes, 2 folio volumes, folder #3, Documents, 1741-1867, American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Massachusetts. Records of other justices of the peace include: Nathaniel Harris and Fred E. Crawford, Records of the court of Nathaniel Harris one of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace within and for the County of Middlesex, holden at Watertown from 1734 to 1761 : together with a paper by F. E. Crawford read before the Historical Society of Watertown, November 14, 1893 (Salt Lake City: FamilySearch International, 2011).
21. Cooper and Minkema, “Church Records and Religious Practice,” The Colonial Church Records of the First Church of Reading, 36.
22. Marlborough, Massachusetts, Town Proprietors, “Town Records 1637-1803,” locked database viewable only at FamilySearch or an affiliate library, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007902685?cat=304536), DGS 007902685, page by page reading from 1735-1750.
23. Brendan Kiernan, “Fornication as Crime in 18th Century Massachusetts,” The Beehive; blog post, Massachusetts Historical Society (https://www.masshist.org/beehiveblog/2017/10/fornication-as-crime-in-18th-century-massachusetts/). Also, Melinde Lutz Sanborn, Lost Babes: Fornication Abstracts from Court Records, Essex County, Massachusetts, 1692-1745 (Derry, NH: Melinde Sanborn, 1992), ix.
24. Catherine S. Menand, Research Guide to the Massachusetts Courts and Their Records (Boston, Mass.: Supreme Judicial Court Archives and Records Preservation, 1987), 12-13, 48.
25. Melinde Lutz Sanborn, Lost Babes: Fornication Abstracts from Court Records, Essex County, Massachusetts, 1692-1745 (Derry, NH: Melinde Sanborn 1992), ix-xi.
26. Negative search results at (http://FamilySearch.org) in sessions from March 1745 to 1785 include: Massachusetts, Court of General Sessions of the Peace, Middlesex County, 1686-1748, mf 892252, DGS 7902602; Massachusetts, Court of General Sessions of the Peace, Middlesex County, 1735-1748, mf 143716, DGS 8126254 (from March 1744 to Dec. 1747) (images 481-542/559); Court records 1686-1748 (includes a few records of the Inferior Court of Common Pleas.) DGS 007902602; Massachusetts, Middlesex County, Clerk of Courts, “Colonial county court papers, 1648-1798,” Card index to court papers, W-Z 1636-1785, mf 541440, DGS 007716955; Massachusetts Inferior Court of Common Pleas, Middlesex County, “Court records, 1740-1750,” mf 892258, DGS 8298164.
No comments:
Post a Comment