of a troublesome competitor, and one which has not yet been entirely
abandoned, was to accuse him of heresy, and it was a very poor use of
favorable circumstances that failed to convict, and thus dispose of
the difficulty. The points which Mr. Lenthal was called to answer, and
upon which he was supposed to differ, were, the constituents of the
real church, and justification by faith. The churches of New England
at that time very tenaciously held to the necessity of a covenant for
giving “essential being” to the church, while Mr. Lenthal believed that
baptism and not the covenant constituted this “essential being,” as
it was termed. He also objected to reordination after a new election.
The real point of difference seems to have been the relative merits
of the church and parish systems, perhaps, as at present illustrated
in the settlement of ministers by ordination or installation, or
in their employment as “stated supply;” settling or only hiring; a
matter of purely church polity. The churches believed strongly in the
antecedence of election to ordination of church officers. The second
point was justification by faith, as held by these churches against
the construction put upon it by Mrs. Hutchinson and her adherents; a
difference rather metaphysical than doctrinal, as it would appear to
us. Both of these questions were satisfactorily settled, as far as the
session of the council was concerned; Mr. Lenthal being sincere enough,
or politic enough, not to differ too strongly from his judges.
The facts brought out were, that Mr. Lenthal had previously been a
minister in good repute in England; that in the preceding years several
of his people had come to America and were settled at Weymouth, and
he expected more to follow. Mr. Jenner was now at Weymouth; Mr. Hull
had not yet preached his farewell sermon, and there was not absolute
harmony among the people. Upon Mr. Lenthal’s appearance in New England,
his former people who had settled in Weymouth, with probably some
others, enough to form quite a strong party, urged him to come to that
place and be their minister, to which he willingly consented.
In attempting, however, to carry out this arrangement, Mr. Jenner
being in possession, and having a strong official support, trouble
ensued, so great that the salary of Mr. Jenner failed to be paid;
hence the conference, although the plea was unsoundness in doctrine,
on the part of Mr. Lenthal. Mr. Jenner and Mr. Newman, as previously
stated, were both members of this council, the former to be a judge
in his own case, and the latter a party in interest, as we find him,
almost immediately, upon the ground, and within a short time in full
possession of the field; Mr. Hull preaching his farewell sermon the
same year; Mr. Jenner a resident of Saco, within two years; while Mr.
Lenthal goes to that refuge for the persecuted, Rhode Island, where
he was admitted as freeman, 6 August, 1640, and employed by the town
of Newport in teaching a public school. It is said that he returned to
England in 1641 or 1642. The trouble seems to have been that Weymouth
was considered a public manor upon which any minister had a right
to poach, and the difficulties that ensued in consequence, although
satisfactorily settled, would not stay settled, but were continually
breaking out afresh.
In this connection, J. Hammond Trumbull, in his notes upon the Stiles
paper, published in the Congregational Quarterly for April, 1877,
from which the report of the council of 1639 was taken, quotes from
Winthrop as follows: “It is observable this church and that of Lynn
could not hold together, nor could have any elders join or hold with
them. The reason appeared to be because they did not begin according
to the rule of the gospel.” Was this a church formed by Mr. Hull, or
was it an attempt to form a second? The vigorous repressive measures
of the General Court seem to have prepared the way for a permanent
settlement of the difficulties, the prominent actors in the Lenthal
faction being quite summarily dealt with. John Smith was fined £20
and committed during the pleasure of the court; Richard Silvester was
fined £2 and disfranchised, for “disturbing the peace by combining with
others to hinder the orderly gathering of a church in Weymouth, and to
set up another there,--and for undue procuring the hands of many to a
blank for that purpose.” Mr. Ambrose Martin, “for calling the church
covenant a stinking carrion and a human invention, etc., was fined £10
and ordered to go to Mr. Mather to be instructed by him.” Mr. Thomas
Makepeace, “because of his novile disposition was informed that we
are weary of him, unless he reform;” and James Britton, “for his not
appearing was committed, and for his gross lying, dissimulation and
contempt of ministers, churches and covenant was openly whipt.” Thus
promptly was heresy and insubordination crushed by our fathers, and
freedom of speech, action and conscience protected,--in their way.
The way having been thus prepared, Rev. Samuel Newman came to Weymouth
in 1639, where he remained for four or five years, but the seeds of
former troubles had not yet ceased to sprout; the difficulty was
not wholly overcome; the spirit of unrest that had for some years
so possessed the people would not so soon be quieted. He found his
position anything but a bed of roses, and he was glad to emigrate to
escape the labor of so hard a field; therefore, in 1644, he, with some
40 families, sought refuge in Seekonk, which, in memory of the occasion
and its cause, he called Rehoboth, “The Lord hath made room for us.”
Not because Weymouth had become too narrow in territory for them, for
probably not a quarter of its acres had been taken up, but for the
same reason that separated Abraham and Lot. The pressure was on the
spirit and not upon the body; and so, rather than continue the quarrel,
they sought a new home further in the wilderness. Common tradition,
which most of the historians have followed, says that he took with him
a majority of his congregation, but with the facts relative to the
population that we have already before us, it will be easy to prove
that this could not have been correct, for we have seen that at the
date of the first meeting held by the original planters of Seekonk,
which by the way was held in Weymouth, 24 October, 1643, the latter
town had at least 130 families, probably a good many more, while of
these only 23 names are found in the list of the original proprietors
of Seekonk, four of whom certainly remained in Weymouth, leaving but
19 out of which to manufacture a majority of 130. This emigration was
indeed a serious loss, but its general effect was hardly perceptible,
and the business of the town apparently went on as though nothing
important had happened.
Rev. Mr. Newman was born in Banbury, England, in 1600; graduated at
Oxford, in 1620; came to Dorchester, Mass., in 1636, and to Weymouth,
in 1639; whence he removed to Rehoboth, where he died 5 July, 1663.
“He was a hard student, an animated preacher, and an excellent man,
ardently beloved and long lamented by his people. He compiled by the
light of pine knots, a concordance of the Bible, the third at that time
in the English language, and the best. While living he was defrauded of
the pecuniary profits of his work, and when dead, he was robbed also of
the name, the work being afterwards known as ‘Cruden’s Concordance.’”
With the withdrawal of Mr. Newman, and the settlement of Mr. Thomas
Thacher, who was ordained 2 January, 1644, the perplexing trouble of
the Weymouth church came to an end, and an era of extended prosperity
dawned upon it. From this time forward the history of the church can be
traced quite fully and accurately, although it has no records of its
own previous to the time of Rev. William Smith, those for the first
hundred years of its existence being missing.
So much for our brief record of facts. Some of them, however, and those
among the more important, need to be accounted for or explained, in
order to make the narrative consistent and satisfactory. The intense
difficulties of the eight years from the arrival of Mr. Hull in 1635,
to the departure of Mr. Newman in 1644, must have had an origin that
is not revealed to us in the records at our command. What were the
causes that produced them and contributed to keep them alive during
this period? Why is it that contemporaneous writers have so little to
say about this settlement and its events during its first twenty years?
Perhaps a closer look at the facts we have may throw some light upon
the subject.
Rev. Mr. Morrell, it is admitted, came to this town in the Episcopal
interest. He was a clergyman of the Established Church, clothed with
extraordinary powers to form, govern and perpetuate churches of that
communion. Whatever influence he exerted was in favor of the extension
and strengthening of that organization. His people were in sympathy
with him in this matter, and if he founded a church here it was of
that denomination; if he did not, he left influences behind him that
would naturally work towards the accomplishment of that purpose, and
these influences would as naturally continue to operate while these
settlers formed an important element in that community; they would
of necessity oppose the ecclesiastical systems of the Plymouth and
Bay colonies, then or soon to become their near neighbors. While the
settlement was one, before the arrival of Gov. Winthrop and the rapid
increase of settlements around the Bay, there was nothing to call up
this feeling of opposition, for the few emigrants who came from time
to time, even if their sympathies were at variance with the previous
settlers, had enough to do to look after their own affairs; besides,
the colony was not strong enough to quarrel. The arrival of Gov.
Winthrop, the establishment of the colonial government, and the large
tide of emigration that set in immediately after, had its effect upon
the little plantation of Wessaguscus. The favorable situation, and the
already established community, drew in many new settlers from other
points, and the influence of the government, and the religious system
it supported, soon made itself felt, and with the assistance derived
from these sources, became at length predominant. Still the old
feeling of loyalty to the Church of England and to the Gorges company,
was powerful enough to form a strong party.
Such was the position of affairs, when, in the summer of 1635, the
arrival of Mr. Hull and his score of families introduced a new element
of discord into the already divided community. The new comers, not in
full sympathy with either faction, deemed themselves strong enough
and of sufficient importance to have at least an equal voice in the
councils of the town, and as there was no minister at their coming, and
as they brought one ready-made at their hands, what better could they
do than accept him for all? This at once aroused the opposition of the
older settlers, and measures were immediately taken to prevent such a
result. The friends of the government seem to have been the strongest
and most energetic. They select Mr. Thomas Jenner, a recent emigrant
to Dorchester, and invite him to take the field in opposition, which
he was very ready to do, for we find him here in the year following.
Success appears to have followed the movement, for Mr. Hull virtually
retires from the contest, as the records show him in 1636 and 1637 as a
candidate for the ministerial position in other places, and soon, with
a sufficiently permanent location in the neighboring town of Hingham,
to become its deputy to the General Court. Still he does not appear to
have wholly relinquished his claim upon the Weymouth pulpit, for it was
not until 1639 that his farewell sermon was preached.
The jealousy of the original settlers of any authority below the crown,
outside of their own patent, may have prevented as close an intimacy
with the neighboring plantations as would otherwise have existed;
and this would furnish a reason why it is so seldom mentioned by
them in connection with their own affairs. However this may be, the
authority of the colonial government was gradually extended over the
settlement, and the people submitted with the best grace they could,
but not without an occasional exhibition of the old spirit by way of
protest. The town was reorganized, its name changed, and the privilege
of a deputy to the General Court granted to it in the summer and fall
of 1635. At once the three opposing elements show themselves, and the
little town chooses three deputies, instead of the one to which it was
entitled. Capt. John Bursley represents the original settlers, Mr. Wm.
Reade those who favor the colonial government, while Mr. John Upham is
the selection of the Hull emigrants, and, as has been sometimes the
case in later days, the patronage of the ruling power proves the most
powerful, and Mr. Reade retains his seat, while his two competitors
quietly retire.
This of course did not tend to soothe the troubles, for, as we have
already seen, they grew so rapidly, developing mainly in the church,
the civil powers being too powerful for open resistance, that in 1637,
the General Court deemed it necessary to interfere and ordered a
council of prominent officers and ministers to settle the differences.
This was followed by a second, neither party being willing to submit to
an adverse decision. And, as if this difficulty were not enough, about
the same time, 1637, appeared another discordant element in the person
of Rev. Robert Lenthal, who had already some partizans in the divided
parish. He needed but little solicitation to join in the fray, and we
have seen the result of his interference, as far as the public records
show. And now, in 1638, Mr. Samuel Newman becomes a fourth aspirant
for the Weymouth pulpit. Truly there must have been a wonderfully
attractiveness in this place for people to draw so many illustrious
teachers thither at the imminent risk of woeful discomfiture. Yet
nothing can be more certain than that about the year 1638-9, there
were no less than four ministers urging their claims to the pastorate
of the Weymouth church, and that each of them had a strong following;
nor can it be doubted that the causes that produced this state of
affairs were deep-seated and some of them of long standing.
The question of the existence of the church through all of these
eventful years cannot be definitely settled with the evidence we
now have. We have proved a permanent and comparatively prosperous
settlement during the whole of this period, and this fact argues a
strong probability of a church organization, for in those days it was
hardly reputable for a community to be without one. We are certain of
Mr. Morrell, and we have important testimony in favor of Mr. Barnard,
previous to 1635,--another argument in favor of the existence of a
church, for ministers without churches were not so common in those
days as at the present time. The coming of Rev. Joseph Hull in 1635, a
regularly ordained minister, and of three others in the three following
years, without any record of tradition of the formation of a church
during that period, while there are many references to a church already
existing, furnish perhaps the strongest argument in favor of a prior
organization.
Negative evidence, or lack of positive statement, should not be forced,
but since it has been employed to prove the formation of a church here
at a given date, perhaps we may be permitted to urge it a little more
strongly in favor of an earlier date for the same event. If there
were, as is admitted, ten other churches in existence on the shores of
the Bay at the arrival of the Hull company in 1635, and that company
proceeded immediately to form the eleventh, in accordance with the
universal custom, several of the preceding ten must have been called
to assist in its organization, in which case we can hardly conceive
it possible that some one at least of the number should not have made
the transaction a matter of record, or that their records should not
in some way allude to it, for the formation of a new church was then a
matter of some importance, but nowhere, in church or state or private
records, do we find the slightest intimation of such an event; whereas,
had there been a church formed at an earlier date, when there was no
other existing on the shores of New England, besides that at Plymouth,
and that not in sympathy, we have a very good reason why we hear
nothing of it.
The material needs of the new settlement and other causes before
alluded to might prevent its own record, while the distractions
afterwards existing, and the consequent jealousies between the
contending parties might easily forbid any subsequent one. The theory
of a regular succession of pastors beginning with Mr. Hull in 1635,
and following down through Mr. Jenner, Mr. Lenthal and Mr. Newman,
until Mr. Thacher is reached, has been a favorite one, but is hardly
admissible in face of the evidence already produced, which would rather
go to show the attempted formation of a second church by some of the
conflicting interests in opposition to one already in existence. We may
hope at some time to discover further testimony with which to settle
this vexed question, but for the present we must be content to allow it
to rest upon no firmer basis than probability, yet with that strongly
in favor of a much earlier organization of the church, reaching back
perhaps to 1623.
FOOTNOTES:
[99] The Old North Church of Weymouth was organized Jan. 30, 1638/9.
The diary of the Rev. Peter Hobart, the minister at Hingham, Mass.,
from 1635 to 1679, reads: “Jan. 30, 1639, [N. S.] A church gathered
at Weymouth.” (From a paper on “The Organization of the Old North
Church of Weymouth,” read before the Weymouth Historical Society, Feb.
24, 1904, by George W. Chamberlain, and published in the _Weymouth
Gazette_, March 18, following.)
WEYMOUTH THIRTY YEARS LATER
A PAPER READ BY
CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS
BEFORE THE WEYMOUTH HISTORICAL SOCIETY, AT THE FOGG OPERA HOUSE, SOUTH
WEYMOUTH, ON THE EVENING OF TUESDAY, THE 23D SEPTEMBER, 1904.
It is already five months since your Society celebrated the completion
of its twenty-fifth year. It may be said to have then attained its
majority. Yet, perhaps, this middle period of September is more
appropriate for your anniversary than a day in April; for towards the
middle of September, 1623, that is, two hundred and eighty-one years
ago at this time,--possibly on what was then the thirteenth of the
month, now the twenty-third,--Captain Robert Gorges, at the head of
a little company of adventurers, sat down at Wessagusset. Thus, as
nearly as can now be ascertained, the permanent settlement of a part
of what has for hard upon two whole centuries and three-quarters of
another been known as Weymouth,--the second permanent settlement in
Massachusetts,--dates from this season, and, possibly, from this day
of September. The Weymouth Historical Society commemorates the event
to-night. It might well commemorate it annually.
But, in the first place, I crave indulgence while I say a single
word personal to myself. I want to explain why I meant to be here
last April, and why I am here now. Towards Weymouth, I confess to a
peculiarly kindly feeling. Not only was Weymouth the birthplace and
maiden home of one whom, among my ancestors, I specially reverence, but
to Weymouth I feel under personal obligation. It is a short story, soon
told; it relates also wholly to myself, but here I feel at liberty to
tell it.
Just thirty years ago last spring, on a day in April, if my memory
serves me right, your old-time selectman, James Humphrey,--remembered
by you as “Judge” Humphrey,--called at my office, then in Pemberton
Square, Boston. Taking a chair by my desk, he next occasioned wide-eyed
surprise on my part by inviting me, on behalf of a committee of the
town of Weymouth, to deliver an historical address at the coming
250th anniversary of the permanent settlement of the place. Recently
returned to civil life from four years of active military service, and
nominally a lawyer, I was at that time chairman of the State Board
of Railroad Commissioners, and, as such, devoting my attention to
questions connected with the growth and development of transportation.
To independent historical investigation I had never given a thought. As
to Weymouth, I very honestly confess I hardly knew where the town so
called was, much less anything of its story; having a somewhat vague
impression only that my great-grandmother, Parson William Smith’s
daughter, Abigail, had been born there, and there lived her girlhood.
Such was my surprise, I remember, that I suggested to Mr. Humphrey
he must be acting under a misapprehension, intending to invite some
other member of my family, possibly my father. He, however, at once
assured me such was not the case, satisfying me finally that, a man
sober and in his right mind, he knew what he was about, and who he
was talking to. Subsequently, I learned that he did indeed act as the
representative of a committee appointed at the last annual Weymouth
town meeting; for an explanation of the choice appeared,--as “a
great-grandson of Abigail (Smith) Adams, a native of Weymouth,” I had
been selected for the task. Overcoming my surprise, I told Mr. Humphrey
I would take the matter under consideration. Doing so, I finally
concluded to accept. Though I had not the faintest idea of it at the
time, that acceptance marked for me an epoch; I had, in fact, come to
a turning-point in life. That, instinctively, if somewhat unadvisedly
and blindly, I followed the path thus unexpectedly opened has been to
me ever since cause of gratitude to Weymouth. For thirty years it has
led me through pastures green and pleasant places. But at the moment,
so little did I know of the earlier history of Massachusetts, I was
not aware that any settlement had been effected hereabouts immediately
after that at Plymouth, or that the first name of the place was
Wessagusset; nor, finally, that Thomas Morton had at about the same
time, erected the famous May-pole at Merrymount, on the hill opposite
where I dwelt. Thus the field into which I was invited was one wholly
new to me, and unwittingly I entered on it; but, for once, fortune
builded for me better than I knew. I began on a study which has since
lasted continuously.
Weymouth is, therefore, in my mind closely and inseparably associated,
not only with the commencement of what I dare not call a career,
but with a fortuitous incident which led for me to more pleasurable
pursuits than elsewhere it has been given me to follow.
That address of mine, the immediate outcome of the invitation extended
through Mr. Humphrey in 1874, has since been more than once kindly
referred to by investigators here in Weymouth; and, I infer from
my being here to-night, it is even yet not wholly forgotten. I may
add also that it is distinctly the cause of my being here; for, as
six months ago I thought over your invitation to address a Weymouth
audience once more, it seemed to offer what must be a rare opportunity
in any life,--an opportunity to go back, after years of study directed
largely to historical topics, more especially to topics connected with
New England, Massachusetts and the region hereabout, and to review
what I in the beginning said, close to the spot where I said it.
Accordingly, I this evening propose to find my text in what I uttered
on King-oak hill thirty years ago last July; and, in so doing, to pass
judgment upon it.
For a first performance, I will honestly confess it does not seem to
me, as I now look over it, wholly devoid of merit. Curiously enough
also, the best portions of it are distinctly the closing portions, in
which I wrote with a warmth and feeling absent from the earlier part.
Nevertheless, that Weymouth address of 1874, as I now see it, was, as
a whole, wrong in conception and faulty in execution. It was wrong in
conception, because in it I tried to cover too much ground. That it
was defective in execution, is most apparent. Accepting an invitation
to deliver a commemorative address on the 250th anniversary of the
permanent settlement of Weymouth, I attempted an historical sketch
covering the town’s whole existence. I ought to have confined myself
to a close analysis of its first twenty years. That period would have
opened to me, had I known how to use it, a field of investigation at
once ample in extent and curiously rich. Nor is this all; it would have
done a great deal more. Unwittingly, I missed the opportunity of a
life-time. Simply, I was not equal to the occasion. My consolation is
that few would have been equal to it. But of this, more presently.