Some Phases of Sexual Morality and Church Discipline in Colonial New England

“January 26, 1723/4 Lord’s-day. In the afternoon, after a sermon on 1 Cor. 5.5.7 James Penniman persisting in a course of Idleness, Drunkenness, and in a neglect of the Public Worship, &c. had the fearfull sentence of excommunication pronounced upon him.

“February 2, 1723/4. Lord’s Day. After the public service the Church being desired to stay voted – that Benjamin Neal, David Bass and Joseph Neal jun. members in full communion have discovered such a perverse spirit and been guilty of such disorderly behaviour in the House and Worship of God that they deserve to be suspended from communion with us at the Lord’s table.

“February 9. Lord’s Day evening. David Bass acknowledging his offensive behavior and promising to be more watchfull for time to come, the brethren signified their consent that he be restored to full communion with them.

“March 1. This day (being Sacrament day) Benjamin Neal and Joseph Neal, confessing their offensive behavior in presence of the Brethren, were restored to the liberty of full communion.”

The above are all the record entries relating to matters of discipline during the Marsh pastorate, which ended March 8, 1726. They cover a period of sixteen years. On the 2d of November following the Rev. John Hancock was ordained, and the following entries are in his handwriting: —

“January 21, 1728. Joseph P – and Lydia his wife made a confession before the Church which was well accepted for the sin of Fornication committed with each other before marriage.

“August 12, 1728. The Church met again at the house of Mrs. Marsh to examine into the grounds of some scandalous reports of the conduct of Brother David Bass on May the 29th who was vehemently suspected of being confederate with one Roger Wilson in killing a lamb belonging to Mr. Edward Adams of Milton. The witnesses, viz. Capt. John Billings, Mr. Edward and Samuel Capons of Dorchester, being present, the Church had a full hearing of the case, who unanimously agreed that brother Bass, though he denied the fact of having an hand in killing the lamb, yet was guilty of manifest prevaricating in the matter, and could not be restored to their communion without giving them satisfaction, and desired the matter might be suspended.

“[Nov. 11, 1728.] On Monday November the 11, 1728 we had another church meeting to hear and consider Brother David Bass’s confession, which (after some debate) was accepted; and it was unanimously voted by the Church that it should be read before the whole Congregation, with which brother Bass would by no means comply, and so the matter was left at this meeting.

“But on December the 15 following David Bass’s confession was read publicly before the Church and Congregation, which he owned publicly, and was accepted by the brethren by a manual vote.

“November 17, 1728. Mehetabel the wife of John B – Junr made a confession before the Church and Congregation for the sin of fornication, which was well accepted.

“September 28, 1729. Elizabeth M – made a confession before the whole congregation for the sin of fornication, which was accepted by the Church.

“July 2, 1732. Abigail, wife of Joseph C – , made a confession of the sin of fornication, which was well accepted by the Church, though she was ill and absent.

“August 6, 1732. Ebenezer H – and wife made their confession of the sin of fornication.

“July 1, 1733. Tabitha, a servant of Judge Quincy, and a member of this Church, made her confession for stealing a 3 pound bill from her Master, which was accepted.

“August 11, 1734. Nathan S – and wife made their confession of the sin of fornication which was well accepted by the church.

“September 28, 1735. Elizabeth P – , widow, made her confession of the sin of fornication and was accepted.

“[Sept. 8, 1735.] At a meeting of the First Church of Christ in Braintree at the house of the Pastor, September the 8th 1735, after prayer – Voted, That it is the duty of this Church to examine the proofs of an unhappy quarrel between Benjamin Owen and Joseph Owen, members in full communion with this Church on May 30th 1735, whereby God has been dishonored and religion reproached.

“After some examination thereof it was unanimously voted by the brethren – That the Pastor should ask Benjamin Owen whether he would make satisfaction to the Church for his late offensive behaviour, which he refused to do in a public manner, unless the charge could be more fully proved upon him. Whereupon there arose several debates upon the sufficiency of the proof to demand a publick confession of him; and there appearing different apprehensions among the brethren about it, it was moved by several that the meeting should be adjourned for further consideration of the whole affair.

“Before the meeting was adjourned Benjamin Web acquainted the brethren with some scandalous reports he had heard of Elizabeth Morse, a member of this Church, when it was unanimously voted to be the duty of this Church to choose a Committee to examine into the truth of them and make report to the Church. And Mr. Benjamin Web, Mr. Moses Belcher Junr and Mr. Joseph Neal, Tert. were chose for the committee.

“Then the meeting was adjourned to the 29th Inst. at 2 oclock P. M.

“The brethren met upon the adjournment, and after humble supplication to God for direction, examined more fully the proofs of the late quarrel between Benj. Owen and Joseph Owen but passed no vote upon them.

“[Oct. 22, 1735.] At a meeting of the 1st Church in Braintree at the house of the Pastor, Oct. 22, 1735 – after prayer, Benj. Owen offered to the brethren a confession of his late offensive behavior which was not accepted.

“Then it was voted by the brethren that he should make confession of his offence in the following words, viz: Whereas I have been left to fall into a sinful strife and quarrel with my brother Joseph Owen, I acknowledge I am greatly to blame that I met my brother in anger and strove with him, to the dishonor of God, and thereby also have offended my Christian brethren. I desire to be humbled before God, and to ask God’s forgiveness; I desire to be at peace with my brother, and to be restored to the charity of this Church, and your prayers to God for me.

“To which he consented, as also to make it in public.

“At the desire of the brethren the meeting was adjourned to Friday the 24 Inst. at 4 o’clock P. M. that they might satisfy themselves concerning the conduct of Joseph Owen in the late sinful strife between him and his brother. And the Pastor was desired to send to him to be present at the adjournment.

“The brethren met accordingly, and after a long consideration of the proof had against Joseph Owen, it was proposed to the brethren whether they would defer the further consideration of Joseph Owen’s affair to another opportunity. It was voted in the negative.

“Whereupon a vote was proposed in the following words viz: Whether it appears to the brethren of this Church that the proofs they have had against Joseph Owen in the late unhappy strife between him and his brother be sufficient for them to demand satisfaction from him. Voted in the affirmative.

“And the satisfaction the brethren voted he should make for his offence was in the following words: – I am sensible that in the late unhappy and sinful strife between me and my brother Benj. Owen, I am blameworthy, and I ask forgiveness of God and this Church, and I desire to be at peace with my brother and ask your prayers to God for me.

“Then it was proposed to the brethren whether they would accept this confession, if Joseph Owen would make it before them at the present meeting – Voted in the negative.

“Whereupon it was voted that he should make this satisfaction for his offence before the Church upon the Lord’s day immediately before the administration of the Lord’s supper. With which he refusing to comply though he consented to make it before the Church at the present meeting, the meeting was dissolved.

“October 26, 1735. Benj’n Owen made a public confession of his offence, and was restored to the charity of the Church.

“Memorandum. At the adjournment of the Church meeting Sept. the 29th 1735, Mr. Moses Belcher and Mr. Joseph Neal, two of the committee chosen Sept. the 8th, made report to the brethren, that they had been with Eliz. Morse, and that she owned to them she had been delivered of two bastard children since she had made confession to the church of the sin of fornication, and she promised them to come and make the Church satisfaction for her great offence the latter end of October.

“[Nov. 10, 1735.] At a church meeting, Nov. 10th, 1735, the case of Elizabeth Morse came under consideration. And she having neglected to come and make satisfaction for her offence according to her promise, though she was in Town at that time, the brethren proceeded and unanimously voted her suspension from the communion of this church. It was likewise unanimously voted that the Pastor should admonish her in the name of the Church in a letter for her great offence.

“Upon a motion made by some of the brethren to reconsider the vote of the church Oct. 24 relating to Joseph Owen, it was voted to reconsider the same. Voted also that his confession be accepted before the brethren at the present meeting, which was accordingly done, and he was restored to their charity.

“December 7, 1735. Lieutenant Joseph Crosbey made confession of the sin of fornication, and was restored to the charity of the church.

“December 21, 1735. John Beale made confession of the sin of fornication, and was restored to the charity of the brethren.

“April 18, 1736. Susanna W – made confession of the sin of fornication, and was restored to the charity of the brethren.

“May 1, 1737. Sam P – and wife made public confession of the sin of fornication. Accepted.

“January 22, 1737/8. Charles S – and wife made a public confession of the sin of fornication.

“June 11, 1738. Benj’n Sutton and Naomi his wife, free negroes, made confession of fornication.

“December 17, 1738. Jeffry, my servant, and Flora, his wife, servant of Mr. Moses Belcher, negroes, made confession of the sin of fornication.

“May 20th, 1739. Benjamin C – and wife, of Milton, made confession of fornication.

“Jan’y 20, 1739/40. Joseph W – and wife confessed the sin of fornication.

“October 25, 1741. This Church suspended from their communion Eleazer Vesey for his disorderly unchristian life and neglecting to hear the Church, according to Matt. 18, 17.”

The Hancock pastorate lasted eighteen years, ending with Mr. Hancock’s death on the 7th of May, 1744; and no record of cases of church discipline seems to have been kept by any of his successors in the pulpit of the North Precinct church. In the year 1750 Braintree probably contained some eighteen hundred or two thousand inhabitants, and during the half-century between 1725 and 1775 there is no reason to suppose that any considerable change took place in their condition, whether social, material or religious. It was a period of slow maturing. The absence of a record, therefore, in no way implies change; if it indicates anything at all in this case, it indicates merely that the successors to Mr. Hancock, either because they were indolent or because they saw no advantage in so doing, made no written mention of anything relating to the church’s life or action beyond what was contained in the book regularly kept by the precinct clerk. There are but two exceptions to this, both consisting of brief entries made, the one by the Rev. Lemuel Bryant, the immediate successor of Mr. Hancock, the other by the Rev. Anthony Wibird, who in 1755 followed Mr. Bryant. Both entries are to be found on the second page of the volume from which all the extracts relating to church discipline have been taken. Mr. Bryant was for his time an advanced religious thinker, and, as is invariably the case with such, he failed to carry the whole of his flock along with him. Owing to declining health he resigned his pastorate in October, 1753, having exactly two months before recorded the following case of discipline: —

“August 22, 1753. Ebenezer Adams was Suspended from the Communion of the Church for the false, abusive and scandalous stories that his Unbridled Tongue had spread against the Pastor, and refusing to make a proper Confession of his monstrous wickedness.”

The other of these two records bears date almost exactly twenty years later, and was doubtless made because of the preceding entry. It is very brief, and as follows: —

“November 3, 1773. The Church made choice of Ebenezer Adams for deacon, in the place of deacon Palmer, who resigned the stated exercise of his office.”

After 1741, therefore, the only records of the North Precinct church are those contained in the book kept by the successive precinct clerks, which has often been consulted, but never copied. None of the entries in it relate to cases of discipline or to matters spiritual, they being almost exclusively prudential in character. No record is made of births, baptisms, deaths or marriages, which were still for several years to come noted in the small volume from which I have quoted. Accordingly the Braintree North Precinct records after Mr. Hancock’s ministry are of far inferior interest, though as the volume containing them from 1709 to 1766 distinctly belongs to what are known as “ancient records,” and as such is liable at any time to be lost or destroyed, I have caused a copy of it to be made, and have deposited it for safe keeping in the library of this Society. An examination of this volume only very occasionally brings to light anything which is of more than local interest, or which has a bearing on the social or religious conditions of the last century, though here and there something is found which constitutes an exception to this rule. Such, for instance, is the following entry in the record of the proceedings of a Precinct meeting held on the 19th of July, 1731, to take measures for properly noticing the completion of the new meeting-house then being built: —

“After a considerable debate with respect to the raising of the new meeting-house, &c., the Question was put whether the committee should provide Bred Cheap Sugar Rum Sider and Bear &c. for the Raising of said Meeting House at the Cost of the Precinct. It passed in the affirmative.”

I have been unable to discover any subsequent detailed statement of expenses incurred and disbursements made under the authority conferred by this vote. Such a document might be interesting. Two years before, when in 1729 the Rev. Mr. Jackson was ordained as pastor of the church of Woburn, among the items of expense were four, aggregating the sum of £23 1s., representing the purchase of “6 Barrels and one half of Cyder, 28 Gallons of Wine, 2 Gallons of Brandy and four of Rum, Loaf Sugar, Lime Juice, and Pipes,” all, it is to be presumed, consumed at the time and on the spot.

It has of course been noticed that a large proportion of the entries I have quoted relate to discipline administered in cases of fornication, in many of which confession is made by husband and wife, and is of acts committed before marriage. The experience of Braintree in this respect was in no way peculiar among the Massachusetts towns of the last century. While examining the Braintree records I incidentally came across a singular and conclusive bit of unpublished documentary evidence on this point in the records of the church of Groton; for, casually mentioning one day in the rooms of the Society the Braintree records to our librarian, Dr. S. A. Green, he informed me that the similar records of the Groton church were in his possession, and he kindly put them at my disposal. Though covering a later period (1765-1803) than the portion of the Braintree church records from which the extracts contained in this paper have been made, the Groton records supplement and explain the Braintree records to a very remarkable degree. In the latter there is no vote or other entry showing the church rule or usage which led to these post-nuptial confessions of ante-marital relations; but in the Groton records I find the following among the preliminary votes passed at the time of signing the church covenant, regulating the admission of members to full communion: —

“June 1, 1765. The church then voted with regard to Baptizing children of persons newly married, That those parents that have not a child till seven yearly months after Marriage are subjects of our Christian Charity, and (if in a judgment of Charity otherwise qualified) shall have the privilege of Baptism for their Infants without being questioned as to their Honesty.”

This rule prevailed in the Groton church for nearly forty years, until in January, 1803, it was brought up again for consideration by an article in the warrant calling a church meeting “to see if the church will reconsider and annul the rule established by former vote and usage of the church requiring an acknowledgment before the congregation of those persons who have had a child within less time than seven yearly months after marriage as a term of their having baptism for their children.”

The compelling cause to the confessions referred to was therefore the parents’ desire to secure baptism for their offspring during a period when baptism was believed to be essential to salvation, with the Calvinistic hell as an alternative. The constant and not infrequently cruel use made by the church and the clergy of the parental fear of infant damnation – the belief “that Millions of Infants are tortured in Hell to all Eternity for a Sin that was committed thousands of Years before they were born” – is matter of common knowledge. Not only did it compel young married men and women to shameful public confessions of the kind which has been described, but it was at times arbitrarily used by some ministers in a way which is at once ludicrous and, now, hard to understand. Certain of them, for instance, refused to baptize infants born on the Sabbath, there being an ancient superstition to the effect that a child born on the Sabbath was also conceived on the Sabbath; a superstition presumably the basis on which was founded the provision of the apocryphal Blue Laws of Connecticut, —

“Whose rule the nuptial kiss restrainsOn Sabbath day, in legal chains”;8

and there is one well-authenticated case of a Massachusetts clergyman whose practice it was thus to refuse to baptize Sabbath-born babes, who in passage of time had twins born to him on a Lord’s day. He publicly confessed his error, and in due time administered the rite to his children.9

With the church refusing baptism on the one side, and with an eternity of torment for unbaptized infants on the other, some definite line had to be drawn. This was effected through what was known as “the seven months’ rule”; and the penalty for its violation, enforced and made effective by the refusal of the rites of baptism, was a public confession. Under the operation of “the seven months’ rule” the records of the Groton church show that out of two hundred persons owning the baptismal covenant in that church during the fourteen years between 1761 and 1775 no less than sixty-six confessed to fornication before marriage.10 The entries recording these cases are very singular. At first the full name of the person, or persons in the case of husband and wife, is written, followed by the words “confessed and restored” in full. Somewhat later, about the year 1763, the record becomes regularly “Confessed Fornication;” which two years later is reduced to “Con. For.;” which is subsequently still further abbreviated into merely “C. F.” During the three years 1789, 1790 and 1791 sixteen couples were admitted to full communion; and of these nine had the letters “C. F.” inscribed after their names in the church records.

I also find the following in regard to this church usage in Worthington’s “History of Dedham” (pp. 108, 109), further indicating that the Groton and Braintree records reveal no exceptional condition of affairs: —

“The church had ever in this place required of its members guilty of unlawful cohabitation before marriage, a public confession of that crime, before the whole congregation. The offending female stood in the broad aisle beside the partner of her guilt. If they had been married, the declaration of the man was silently assented to by the woman. This had always been a delicate and difficult subject for church discipline. The public confession, if it operated as a corrective, likewise produced merriment with the profane. I have seen no instance of a public confession of this sort until the ministry of Mr. Dexter (1724-55) and then they were extremely rare. In 1781, the church gave the confessing parties the privilege of making a private confession to the church, in the room of a public confession. In Mr. Haven’s ministry, (1756-1803) the number of cases of unlawful cohabitation, increased to an alarming degree. For twenty-five years before 1781 twenty-five cases had been publicly acknowledged before the congregation, and fourteen cases within the last ten years.”

It will be noticed in the above extract that the writer says he had “seen no instance of a public confession of this sort” prior to 1724, and that until after 1755 “they were extremely rare.” In the case of the Braintree records, also, it will be remembered there was but one case of public confession recorded prior to 1723, and that solitary case occurred in 1683.

The Record Commissioners of the city of Boston in their sixth report (Document 114 – 1880) printed the Rev. John Eliot’s record of church members of Roxbury, which covers the period from the gathering of the church in 1632 to the year 1689, and includes notes of many cases of discipline. Among these I find the following, the earliest of its kind: —

“1678. Month 4 day 16. Hanna Hopkins was censured in the Church with admonition for fornication with her husband before thei were maryed and for flying away from justice, unto Road Iland.” (p. 93.)

During the next eighteen years I find in these records only seven entries of other cases generally similar in character to the above, though the Roxbury records contain a number of entries descriptive of interesting cases of church discipline, besides many memoranda of “strange providences of God” and “dreadful examples of Gods judgment.” It would seem, however, that the instances of church discipline publicly administered on the ground of sexual immorality were infrequent in Roxbury, as in Dedham and Braintree, prior to the year 1725. As will presently be seen, a change either in morals or in discipline, but probably in the latter more than in the former, apparently took place at about that time.

So far as they bear upon the question of sexual morality in Massachusetts during the eighteenth century, what do the foregoing facts and extracts from the records indicate? – what inferences can be legitimately drawn from them? And here I wish to emphasize the fact that this paper makes no pretence of being an exhaustive study. In it, as I stated in the beginning, I have made use merely of such material as chanced to come into my hands in connection with a very limited field of investigation. I have made no search for additional material, nor even inquired what other facts of a similar character to those I have given may be preserved in the records of the two other Braintree precincts. I have not sought to compare the records I have examined with the similar records I know exist of the churches of neighboring towns, – such as those of Dorchester, Hingham, Weymouth, Milton and Dedham. So doing would have involved an amount of labor which the matter under investigation would not justify on my part. I have therefore merely made use of a certain amount of the raw material of history I have chanced upon, bringing to bear on it such other general information of a similar character as I remember from time to time to have come across.

Though the historians of New England, whether of the formal description, like Palfrey and Barry, or of the social and economic order, like Elliott and Weeden, have little if anything to say on the subject, I think it not unsafe to assert that during the eighteenth century the inhabitants of New England did not enjoy a high reputation for sexual morality. Lord Dartmouth, for instance, who, as secretary for the colonies, had charge of American affairs during a portion of the North administration, in one of his conversations with Governor Hutchinson referred to the commonness of illegitimate offspring “among the young people of New England”11 as a thing of accepted notoriety; nor did Hutchinson, than whom no one was better informed on all matters relating to New England, controvert the proposition.