All right.
Well, it was on the 25th of April, 1638, the Sabbath,
that a party of newly arrived pilgrims
gathered beneath the spreading boughs of a giant oak,
a spot which would later become the corner of College and George Street.
No doubt you know it here in New Haven.
Well, they blessed their God for his great mercies upon them hitherto
and entreated his sustaining aid in the realizing of their great errand,
as they called it.
There were two ministers on board in their company.
The first was John Davenport.
There he is, a fellow in the black with a collar.
However, he held forth in the morning upon the text,
Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness.
The second was Peter Pruden.
His charge was the afternoon charge.
And he held forth from the verse,
the voice of one crying in the wilderness.
Clearly, they were in agreement as to where they were.
This was the wilderness for them.
So, who were these first pilgrim settlers to New Haven?
And what was their errand in the wilderness?
What dreams were in their breasts
which drove them to leave hearth and home,
kith and kin,
in their beloved old England,
and endure the perils of the sea,
the privations of a wilderness,
from bitter winters and wild beasts
to the potential hostility of the natives?
Well, our first forefathers and mothers,
for there were many brave women among them,
who gathered under the shelter of that oak
that Sabbath in 1638,
in the beginnings of New Haven,
were Puritans.
And to understand their passions and their hopes,
we must go back to old England
and the period of Reformation
in which they were bred.
So, who were the Puritans?
Well, in Europe,
at the time of the Reformation,
sovereigns of state
were profoundly involved
in the religions of their land.
Indeed, without exception,
religious beliefs and practice
were governed and established
by king, prince, and parliament.
So, the story of the Reformation in England
is not simply, what was that,
not simply a tale of the spread of gospel.
Would help me to have a little bit more...
Is that all right?
Just so I can see these notes.
It's completely...
But I could make this stuff up,
but it'll have a better ring
if I bother to read.
So, the story of the Reformation in England
is, thank you,
is not simply a tale of the spread
of gospel conviction
as the scriptures,
freshly translated by William Tyndale,
made its impact among the people.
It's also the story
of kings and queens
shaping creed and worship
by means of law
and edict
that were police-enforced,
in fact.
So, here we go.
Oh, there was John Davenport.
There's another picture of him.
Let me see if I...
Nah, here we go.
King Hal.
And really,
in that regard,
the story begins
with the much-married
Henry VIII
who first broke with Rome
rejecting leadership
of the Church of England,
rejecting Rome's leadership
of the Church of England,
and substituting
his own royal self
as head of the Church.
But in contrast to Luther,
King Henry VIII
had very little quibble
with the teachings
of Roman Catholicism.
Indeed, he was awarded
the title
from the Pope himself,
Fide Defensor,
or Defender of the Faith,
for his writings against Luther.
And indeed,
Fide Defensor
still remains
on the English coinage today.
So, under King Henry VIII,
the Church remained Catholic.
It simply ceased
to be Roman Catholic
in that sense,
as Thomas Hooker,
later that Puritan
of Connecticut,
would put it.
Henry's mistake
was that he cut off
the head of potpourri,
but he left the body of it
within his realm.
Okay.
So, during the brief reign
of Henry's son,
Edward VI,
England moved closer
to the Reformation churches
on the continent.
Archbishop of Canterbury,
Thomas Cramner,
established contacts
with John Calvin
and Luther's lieutenant,
Philip Melanchthon,
and brought over to England
two of the principal
Reformation leaders,
Peter Martyr Vermilli
and Martin Busser,
to assume chief teaching posts
at Oxford and Cambridge
universities
to train up
the next generation
of ministers
for the Church of England.
And their influence
was profound.
But,
alas,
short-lived
for their Protestant-leaning
royal patron,
died young,
and was succeeded
by his half-sister,
Mary.
There she is.
What an expression.
Now,
Mary was a vehement
Roman Catholic
and determined
to reverse
any Reformation gains
in England.
So,
history would add
to her name
the epithet
bloody,
for in her brief
reign of terror,
1553 to 1558,
she blackened
the skies
with the smoke
from the burning flesh
of unrecanting
Protestants.
There we go.
300
fed
the flames.
800
fled the country
to escape
that fiery fate
and to keep
the cause alive
in exile.
And Fox's
Book of Martyrs
gains much
of its material
from those
crying days.
If
Bloody Mary
was convincingly
cast as
Jezebel
by the godly,
her successor
and half-sister,
Queen Elizabeth
I,
was
hailed
in her
coronation
among the
Protestants
in exile
and in hiding
as the
new Deborah.
Very,
very hopeful.
She restored
the Reformed
faith to the
realm
and staffed
her church
with the
returning
exiles.
But these
returning
exiles
had tasted
the fruit
of the best
of the
Reformation
churches
on the
continent.
Geneva,
Zurich,
Strasbourg,
and Frankfurt.
As one
exile expressed
his enthusiasm
for the
church in
Geneva,
he called
it the
most perfect
school of
Christ since
the day of
the Apostles.
Thus,
the Reformed
churches on
the continent
shaped their
hopes for
the Church
of England.
But,
these bright
and blessed
hopes were
soon blighted.
For headstrong
Elizabeth,
did not
shy from
exercising
her role
as head
of the
church,
and determined
that a
via media,
a middle
way,
would be the
path the
Church of
England would
tread,
and tread
in lock
step,
in utter
and uncompromising
conformity.
Such was
the Elizabethan
settlement,
and it
proved exceedingly
unsettling to
many a
Protestant,
committed to
thorough
biblical
reformation of
the Church.
For Elizabeth's
efforts to
accommodate,
remember she
lived in a
realm in
which there
were many
Protestants
and many
Catholics,
it involved
a strange
hybrid
compromise
of
Protestant
doctrine.
That's what
the Protestants
are going to
really care about,
they're going to
really care about
doctrines,
let's give
them the
doctrine,
but we'll
give the
Catholics the
ritual,
needs to
appear like
it used to
be for
them,
so that's
how we'll
do this.
So you
combine in
the Church
of England
services,
Catholic
ritual with
Protestant
doctrine.
Well,
in the
minds of
many of
the
Reformation
folk,
this royally
sanctioned
Church of
England
represented a
very unhappy
compound,
a potpourri,
if you will,
of potpourri
and gospel.
Sorry.
And as
such,
woefully
inadequate for
their
consciences,
were very
ill-disposed
to half
measures in
God's
causes.
How can
we have
half measures
in God's
causes?
As one
wrote to
the Queen,
the spelling
is certainly
unorthodox
here, I'll
try to read
it well,
your majesty
hath so
insufficiently
heard,
believed,
and taken
to heart
what God
hath commanded
you,
and so
weakly and
coldly obeyed
and followed
the same,
that but
halfly by
your majesty
hath God
been honored,
his church
reformed and
established,
the people
taught and
comforted,
his enemies
rejected and
subdued,
and his
lawbreakers
punished.
So what
were some
of these,
what they
called
popish
remnants
that indeed
needed to be
purged in
the minds
of the
Puritans?
Well, they
did not
like the
vestments,
the clothing,
the apparel
that ministers
were required
to wear,
for these
carried over
from Roman
Catholic
conviction,
which modeled
the attire
of the
priests on
the Levitical
priesthood.
As appropriate,
it was thought
and it was
urged for a
priestly caste
as they
continued,
like their
Levitical
forebearers,
to offer
sacrifice,
that is,
the sacrifice
of the
body of
Christ in
the mass.
So you
see how
the apparel
matched this
doctrine that
they had of
the mass being
a sacrifice
of the body
of Christ.
And the
Puritans
thought,
why reinforce
in costume
a doctrine
we disbelieve?
Yea,
find abhorrent.
Why would
we do this?
Then there
were such
vestiges as
the observance
of saint
days,
so many
holidays or
holy days,
singing,
signing the
cross in
baptism and
addressing
questions to
the infant.
Well,
thought the
Puritans,
this was
simply
superstition
at best
and perhaps
incompatible
with scriptural
worship,
at least not
according to
scripture.
As John
Field wrote
of the
Book of
Common Prayer,
that was the
required text and
rubric for
worship,
it be an
imperfect book
called and
picked out of
the popish
dunghill,
the mass
book,
full of all
abominations,
for some of
the contents
therein be
such as are
against the
very word
of God.
puritan.
So it was
this passion
to purify
the worship
of the
church that
gained the
reforming party,
the epithet,
for it was
originally spoken
in derision by
their opponents,
Puritan,
would roll off
the tongue in
contempt,
Puritan,
you're trying to
purify the
church.
And indeed
they were,
as Bishop
John Jewell
wrote,
Now that the
full light of
the gospel
has shone
upon us,
the very
vestiges of
error must,
as far as
possible,
be removed.
Now notice,
as far as
possible.
For the
sovereign still
dictated in
the matter,
as it was a
national church.
So appeal
had to be
directed to
the sovereign
her royal
self,
or efforts
made through
the parliament
to change
what you were
going to do
in the church.
And the
agonizing
question for
Protestants,
especially the
ministers in
the Church of
England at the
time,
was how much
compromise
they could
live with
in good
conscience.
And this
was very
agonizing for
them.
When their
pleas for
change were
unavailing,
what do
you do?
Must the,
as they
called the
popish dung,
be removed
completely,
as opposed to
according to
the sovereign's
good pleasure
and good
measure?
And must it
be removed
immediately,
and not simply
at the
sovereign's
leisure?
These were
the grand
issues.
This burning
question was
answered variously
among the
godly.
Some urged
reformation,
without
tarrying for
any,
without waiting
for anyone.
They gave
up on the
magistrate in
the state
church,
separating
themselves from
them.
These were
called the
separatists,
or Robert
Brown was of
this view,
so sometimes
the separatists
were called
Brownists.
The separatists
denied that the
Church of
England was a
true church
at all.
It was
apostate.
And they
gathered their
own congregations.
Among those
separatist
congregations would
be the first
Plymouth colony,
1620.
They were a
separatist
congregation.
So others,
while eye to
eye with the
separatists in
terms of virtually
all matters of
doctrine, they
agreed on all
of that, they
agreed that the
English church
was contaminated
and in need of
reform, but
thought, well,
it's still a
true church.
It's just a
corrupted one.
So that was the
difference between
the separatists.
No, no, no,
it's not even a
true church.
It's so
compromised.
Versus many of
the Puritans
that said, well,
it's corrupted,
but they still
count as the
people of God.
A church in
which one
could remain
laboring hopefully
for reform.
This boat might
be going down,
but let's still
try to bale
water and make
it as good as
possible.
And of this
latter persuasion
that the church
is just corrupted,
not hopeless,
of this latter
persuasion was a
gifted and rising
minister in
London.
There he is.
John Davenport.
Church of St.
Stephen's there
in London.
1597 to 1670.
He was a
stirring and
scriptural preacher,
well beloved in
his growing
congregation to
whom he bravely
ministered through
the terrible plague
of 1625 when
35,000 in
London were
carried off by
the pestilence.
He stayed at
his post,
didn't head up
to Scotland
where it was
so cold that
not even insects
can live.
So his great
compassion also
came to the
fore in his
leadership in
raising a
collection for
the relief of
refugees.
This was very
close to his
heart.
The persecuted
Protestant
brethren of the
Palatinate who
were displaced and
distressed through
religious wars.
There.
His zeal for
further reform of
the English
church prompted
an effort to
raise funds also
to buy up
pulpits and
lectureships.
So what you
could do is you
could buy the
right from the
bishop to decide
who the minister
was going to be.
So you could buy
up the pulpit.
And they would
just raise money
to do this.
It was called
the Fia Feast.
So you could
fill the pulpits
with godly
reformed preaching.
Well both of
these enterprises
ran foul of
William Laud.
This is where
Raul you're
supposed to
hiss.
There we go.
Okay.
There we go.
The bane of
Puritans who
became Archbishop
of Canterbury in
an English church
which under
James I and
then Charles I
was self-consciously
moving farther and
farther from
Puritan hopes.
Indeed self-consciously
anti-reformation.
Now to this
point Davenport
was still able
to claim
conformity to
the Church of
England requirements
as distasteful as
they were to
him.
He still wore
the costume.
He still made
the sign of the
cross and
baptism.
He still knelt
at the communion
rail to the
host and these
things that he
disliked greatly.
He considered
these matters
relatively
unimportant,
relatively minor,
irksome
gravamina they
called it,
at least relative
to the preaching
of the gospel
that we can do
which conformity
allowed them to
continue to do
and from in his
case a prominent
London hope.
So that was a
paradox.
Can you feel this?
If we just conform
on some of these
things we'll still
be able to keep
preaching and people
are coming to
Christ.
So how much can
we bend our
consciences on this?
And this is where
we're going to
do it.
But all the
while Davenport
is turning these
matters over in
his mind and
keeping hundreds
of pages of
notes which
reflect the
evolution of
his convictions
under the
heading,
the grounds
whereupon the
safety of
conformity is
built together
with the
sandiness of
them.
The sandiness
of them.
His conviction
about conformity
was slowly
shifting.
But the
decisive turning
point for
Davenport came
in a crucial
meeting.
Two of the
great lights
among the
Puritan party
were John
Cotton,
the first,
John Cotton,
and Thomas
Hooker.
They had
weighed up
matters and
concluded that
the state and
prospects of the
church in England
were too dire
and resolved to
start afresh in
New England.
Well, before
they embarked,
Hooker and
Cotton,
Davenport,
distraught that
such champions
of the truth be
lost to the
gospel cause in
England, he
hoped to
reclaim these
esteemed
brethren, so
met for them to
plead with them
to stay.
But by their
conference, he
did not persuade
Cotton and
Hooker to
remain, it
rather shook
Davenport's
conviction about
conforming, and
soon he would
follow them into
their errand
across the sea.
So what was it
that Cotton told
Davenport that
persuaded him to
follow in this
pilgrimage?
Well, we have a
letter of John
Cotton in which he
gives the reasons
for his and Mr.
Hooker's removal
to New England.
And he writes,
this is Cotton,
John Cotton,
it hath been no
small inducement
to us to
choose rather to
remove hither,
this to New
England, rather
than to stay
there, Old
England, that we
might enjoy the
liberty not of
some ordinances
of God, but of
all, and all
in purity.
Sure, in
England,
congregations enjoy
the means of
salvation, and
may it be
continued and
enlarged to
you, yet, I
go on quoting
Cotton, seeing
Christ hath
instituted no
ordinance in
vain, but all
to the offering
of the body of
Christ, the
people of God,
and we know
that our souls
stand in need
of all of
these ordinances
to the utmost.
We durst not so
far be lacking
to the grace of
Christ as to
the necessity of
our own, and to
the necessity of
our own souls as
to set down
somewhere else,
New England,
under the shadow
of some ordinances
in Old England,
when by two
months travail,
we might come to
enjoy liberty of
all.
Okay.
Did you catch
that?
For here is the
essence of the
matter.
He was saying,
it's not enough,
Davenport would
agree, it is not
enough that we
enjoy the blessing
of God merely in
some of what God
has given us in
his directives for
our worship.
He has given
us, God has
given us no
directives pointlessly.
We have to
follow all of
them, and
follow all of
them very
carefully.
Our souls
stand in need
of, and
you remember,
you heard the
phrase, all to
the utmost.
All to the
utmost.
This is
Puritanism.
All that God
has given us is
our obligation and
our blessing.
Let us not let
one of his
commandments, even
the supposed
least, fall to
the ground.
Let us give all
diligence to
follow fully, all
to the utmost.
All to the
utmost.
Well, this was the
vision that made
the pilgrims, or
Puritans, pilgrims,
go on pilgrimage,
go on pilgrim
wayfair, that
burned in the
breast of John
Davenport and his
little band of
settlers who
gathered under
that oak, that
first Sabbath in
1638.
The first letter
we have from
Davenport's pen
perfectly echoes
the language of
cotton and
hooker.
Davenport writes,
the Lord our God
hath here bestowed
upon us the
greatest outward
privilege under
the sun, to
have and enjoy
all his
ordinances
purely dispensed
in a church
gathered and
constituted according
to God's own
mind in all
things.
So that was
their ambition.
But their ambition
was not merely to
gather and to
constitute a church
according to God's
mind in all
things.
Every aspect of
society was to
reflect the mind
of God as
revealed in
scriptures.
The design of
this plantation
is religion,
openly proclaimed
Davenport as he
arrived.
And none of
his followers,
fellow settlers,
dissented on this
matter.
There was utter
agreement.
At the close of
the first day,
a day of fasting
and prayer,
they all solemnly
subscribed to a
plantation covenant.
So this is the
beginning of New
Haven,
plantation covenant.
Quote,
that in matters
that concern the
gathering and
ordering of a
church,
so likewise in
all public
offices which
concern the
civic order,
we would all
of us be
ordered by those
rules which the
scriptures hold
forth to us.
It's incredibly
comprehensive.
Indeed, none
but what the
scriptures directed.
Quote,
the word of God
shall be the
only rule to
be attended
unto in the
ordering of the
affairs of the
government of this
plantation.
So we don't want
to just look
through a book of
aphorisms or
Bartlett's quotes
of wisdom.
No, just the
Bible.
That's it.
That's all we're
going to look on.
We'll do this.
Davenport was
convinced that
what they
established right
at the beginning
would be critical.
For in his sad
experience in
England and from
wider observations,
he maintained that
once Reformation
is brought about,
it is rarely
afterwards carried
on even one
step further
than the first
Reformers achieved
in their first
endeavors.
As he put it,
quote,
as easily might
the Ark,
Noah's Ark,
as easily might
the Ark have
been removed from
the mountain of
Ararat,
where it first
grounded as a
people get any
ground in
Reformation after
and beyond the
first remove of
the Reformers.
So, if their
first shot had to
count, they
would make it
count.
And accordingly,
and again in
Davenport's word,
we must drive
things in their
first essay, or
first attempt, as
near to the
precept and
pattern of
Scripture as
they can be
driven.
That's what we
want to do.
They would
endeavor in the
words of Cotton
Mather, quote,
a yet stricter
conformity to
the word of
God in
settling of
all matters,
both civil and
sacred, than
had yet been
seen exemplified
in any other
part of the
world.
It's remarkable,
remarkable
distinctive here
of New Haven,
New Haven
Colony.
Even the
layout, the
nine squares,
you'll kind of
recognize that.
This is the
original, even
the layout of
the town,
drew upon
scriptural
models.
How do we
plan this
thing?
Well, what
sort of
biblical
directives do
we have?
Well, how
about the
way the
tribes of
Israel went
through the
wilderness,
gathered around
the central
tabernacle?
So the
meeting house
will be right
in the center,
and we'll put
everything around
that.
Oh, good.
Well, where
will we put
Theophilus
Eaton's house?
Where will we
build his
house?
Well, where
was Moses'
tent in
relation to
the tabernacle?
Well, it was
on the east
side of the
tabernacle.
We'll build
Theophilus Eaton
the governor's
house there.
How about
John Davenport,
the minister?
Well, where
did Aaron
have his
tent?
We'll build
Davenport's
house there.
You see?
I mean, they're
really working
this thing.
They are really
working it.
The meeting
house, of
course, in
the center.
What was
it like?
Well, for
one thing, it
was cold.
They spent a
lot of time in
that meeting
house.
Church was
the people,
as you know,
the meeting
house.
Really cold.
The women
would bring
no heating
at all.
The women
would bring
in warming
pans.
It was kind
of like an
old-fashioned
iron where
you put
coals in
it and you
slip it
under your
feet.
The men
thought this
was beneath
them.
We don't
need warming
pans.
So what
they would
do so
their feet
wouldn't
freeze is
they would
bring in
their hunting
dogs and
they would
train them
to sit
down at
their feet
to just
warm them
with all
the fluff.
In
consequence,
it's
hilarious,
do you
realize one
of the
actual
official
diaconal
posts in
the first
church there
in New
Haven was
called the
dog whipper.
They actually
had a deacon
devoted to
taking care of
all the
dogs that
were in
the
sanctuary
because dogs
were welcome
in the
church,
in the
meeting
house.
How else
were you
going to
warm your
feet if
you were
a man
other than
hunting dogs?
So,
yeah,
the dog
whipper.
Though my
favorite
diaconal
post was
one was
designated
the wielder
of the
tickle
wand.
A tickle
wand?
Just to
make sure
that no
one missed
a potential
edification if
they started
to doze
off.
There was
someone that
had basically
a long
pool cue.
It had
mercifully a
feather at
one end,
but less
so a
thorn at
the other
end.
So you
would first
try to
tickle them
in the
earlobe,
and if
they
couldn't
wake
them up,
you'd
pick that
and get
them.
Make sure
they didn't
miss
edification.
It seemed
that they
liked
edification.
I remember
reading through
these
manuscripts of
some of
the first
sermons
that were
preached
there,
and I
see this
little
notation.
At the
end of
the thing,
someone
had written
it and
said,
they begged
for another
glass.
I thought,
what does
that mean?
Just really
good refreshments?
Is it good
ale?
I need
another glass
of ale?
And then I
went to
this old
Puritan
meeting house,
and at the
lectern,
there was a
big iron
arm,
and I
discovered
it had
held
originally,
they would
have hour
glasses.
So when
the preacher
would come,
Davenport
would turn
over the
hour glass,
and he
would preach
to them
for an
hour.
And if
particularly
the spirit
was moving
and people
were feeling
that the
gospel was
evangelizing
their hearts
and changing
them,
they would
beg for
another glass.
In other
words,
turn that
thing over
and keep
preaching to
us.
The spirit
is afoot
here.
That's
mixing
metaphors.
The spirit
is at work
here.
So they
would beg
for another
glass.
So that's
the church.
Civil
code.
Oh,
another
fun thing.
all the
children
had to
sit in
the back
row
interleaved
with the
young men
in full
arms.
They thought
in case
there would
be a
Native
American
raid,
so you
would always
attend,
if you
were a
young man,
you would
have to
attend
church
in your
full
arms,
sword and
everything.
And they
thought,
oh,
this is
handy.
We'll
have the
little
uproarious
kids sit
between
fully
armed
people to
make sure
that they
stayed
quiet.
So,
there's
another
provision
that they
had.
The
civil
code.
Well,
they
determined
that they
would adopt
the laws
of Moses.
Despite
the fact
that they
were
English,
they did
not bring
over English
common
law.
Sometimes
when I
mention this
to groups
a little bit
less sympathetic
perhaps than
this one,
I hear this
audible shriek,
how barbaric,
the laws
of the
Bible.
And so
I quickly
then ask,
remind them
that the
period
alternative
would have
been English
common
law.
And English
common
law prescribed
over 150
offenses that
were capital
offenses.
You pick up
sticks on the
Lord's land
and they'll
kill you.
And then I
say,
well,
how many
capital
offenses do
you think
the Mosaic
law has?
Thousands!
No,
11.
So really
this was the
height of
legal progressivism
to take over
the Old
Testament
laws.
Well,
how did
this practically
work out?
Well,
when someone
did something
wrong,
the appointed
governor,
in the first
instance it was
Theophilus
Eaton,
he'd call
him over
and they
would open
their Bibles
together
and look
in the Bible
and he
would admonish
the offender
from the
scriptures
and then
if there
needed to
be a
repentance
or if there
was a
punishment,
he would
prescribe that
from the
scriptures.
And if he,
the governor,
Theophilus Eaton,
had any hesitation,
he would
consult
Greg,
Matt,
or Nick.
Well,
in this case,
Davenport,
consult Davenport
as to how to
read the scriptures
on these matters
and then they
would settle
the matter.
Modern studies
have been
extremely
impressed
at how
hospitable
this court
was,
particularly
to women.
Their
testimony
was credited
in
sexual abuse
charges
every time.
Very
impressive,
very impressive.
The image
that we
often have
of
over-criminalizing,
an over-criminalizing
law,
images of
stalks or
whippings or
that sort of
thing,
it just doesn't
bear out.
In the
first decade,
and we have
complete records,
in the first
decade,
there were
six cases
of fornication.
Then
seven
in the
second
decade,
three of
bestiality
in the second
decade,
only two
convictions,
three cases,
no cases
of adultery.
That was
criminal.
No cases
of adultery.
Very little
crime.
Very little
crime.
That's
right.
Who
was
entrusted
with running
of the
state?
Well,
only the
members of
the church
in good
standing
could hold
official
state
offices.
churches.
It was
thought
that only
they
would have
the
certain
assured
integrity
to perform
that role
blamelessly.
Indeed,
only church
members were
given voting
rights in
matters of
the state.
So,
just to give
you a sense,
the first
decade,
64%
of the
New Haven
men were
church members.
We have
that.
So,
you know,
it would
have been
about two
thirds there.
Now,
this
arrangement
was actually
not a
power grab
of the
elect.
When they
came in
under
Davenport,
they asked
the question
who should
be able to
have offices
and they
voted.
And the
vote was
absolutely
unanimous.
Even those
that were not
church members
at the time
actually voted,
no,
we only
want church
members in
good standing.
To govern
us.
We trust
them.
They have
integrity.
They have
to.
It's a
high bar
to become
a church
member around
here.
I didn't
make it.
So,
yeah,
I want to
have that
there.
There's
integrity
for you.
So,
that's what
they decided.
That's what
they decided.
And who
was admitted
as a church
member?
This,
the purity
of the
church,
was Davenport's
one of his
greatest
concernments,
as he put
it.
The first
church was
gathered
August 22nd,
1639,
right after
they arrived,
twelve men
of heartfelt
faith and
blameless
deportment
were chosen
as the
nucleus,
and they
in turn
would admit
others at
their
scripture-governed
discretion.
So,
to join
the church,
one was
given a
rigorous
doctrinal
examination.
Basically,
had they
grasped the
gospel?
had they
grasped
what
flesh and
blood
could not
reveal?
And then,
in corroboration,
had the
gospel grasped
them?
Was there
indication of
gospel fruit
in their
lives?
Attesting to
a gospel
root in
their hearts?
inheritance.
If this
proved a
credible
account,
that is,
as they
put it,
with
regeneration
visibly
manifested
to the
charitable
discernment
of the
church.
It has
to be some
manifestation
that you
are
regenerated,
charitably
assessed
by the
church,
by the
others,
then they
would be
called upon
to enter
into
covenant,
a church
covenant,
to forswear
all former
pollutions,
to make
Jesus Christ
your only
priest and
atonement,
your only,
these are all
quotes from
thereof,
your only
guide and
king,
and walk
before him
in all
subjection to
all his
holy ordinance
according to
the rule of
the gospel,
and to walk
together with
his church
and the
members
thereof,
in brotherly
and sisterly
love,
and mutual
edification
and succor
according to
God.
So to
this,
covenant
members were
held strictly
accountable.
You went
on to the,
if you signed
on to the
covenant,
you would be
held accountable.
In this
mutual
accountability,
they seem
to have
had no,
to be no
respecter of
persons,
even the
wife of
governor
Theophilus
Eaton,
we have,
one of the
early
censures.
She was
excommunicated.
So that
meant she
had to
sit just
outside the
meeting hall
so you
could hear
the sermon
still because
that would
help you
to grow,
but you
had to
sit outside
the meeting
hall.
Well,
New Haven
Colony
quickly gained
the reputation,
even within
Puritan New
England,
for being
zealous for
the purity
of the
church,
admitting
only genuine
believers,
the regenerate,
and excluding
all of the
faithless.
As
judgment
was fallible,
it needs
to be
charitable,
as Davenport
said,
with due
moderation
and gentleness.
Cotton
Mather
of Boston
wrote of
Davenport
in the
New Haven
Church,
quote,
he used
more than
ordinary
exactness
in trying
those that
were admitted
under communion
of the
church.
Indeed,
so very
thoroughly,
I had
almost said
severely,
strictly,
were the
terms of
his
communion,
and so
much,
I had
well nigh
said,
over much,
were the
golden
snuffers of
the sanctuary
employed by
him in the
exercise of
discipline toward
those that
were admitted,
that he did
all that was
possible to
render the
renowned
church of
New Haven
like the
New Jerusalem.
That was
their aim.
John
Davenport
was hopeful
of a pure
church as he
believed in
what was
called the
Middle
Advent,
a time
before
Christ's
physical
return of
great spirit
outpouring,
enabling a
great measure
of holiness
that anticipated
the heavenly
New Jerusalem.
So this was
their eschatology.
There will be
a great outpouring
of the Holy
Spirit,
so we ought
to really be
able to do
this.
We ought to
be able to
do this
well.
That worked
out for them.
Good point.
How did that
work out for
them?
He was
disappointed
at the end
of his life.
Surprise,
surprise.
This Middle
Advent hope
near the end
of Davenport's
life became
subject to
no small
discouragement.
The next
generation of
churchgoers
across New
England did
not seem to
be widely
exercising the
Spirit's
regenerating
power.
Having been
baptized as
infants in
the majority
of New
England
churches,
including
New Haven,
the hope
was with
maturity under
the preaching
of the
gospel,
these infants
that had
been baptized
would have
come to
saving faith
and own
the covenant,
a covenant
that they had
been made
part of by
birth to
regenerate
parents.
That's how
they did
this back
in the
day.
But, as
it turned
out, many
of these
baptized
children,
when grown,
did not
experience
regenerating
grace.
Oh, they
faithfully
attended and
lived moral
lives, but
they did not
have the new
birth.
Accordingly,
even though
members of
the church,
they could
not take the
Lord's Supper
because they
had no
evidence in
the judgment
of charity
of regeneration.
Thus, they
were unregenerate
members of
the church of
New Haven.
And these
unregenerate
members of the
church also
married,
naturally,
and had
children
themselves.
The question
then arose,
do we
baptize the
children of
unregenerate
parents like
we do of
regenerate
parents?
we ever
only thought
it appropriate
to baptize
children of
the visible
saints, the
elect, those
who we knew
were regenerate,
thought Davenport.
We only ever
thought it
appropriate to
baptize those
children.
But should we
not also let
this next
generation of
children be
baptized?
Their parents
want them to
be baptized?
baptized?
Wouldn't it
be better to
bring them
into the
church?
Many of the
New England
churches said
yes.
And the
provision was
called the
halfway covenant.
But John
Davenport,
New Haven,
set himself
like Flint
against the
halfway covenant.
In his
mind,
bringing into
the church
church,
those who
were not
even children
of the
godly,
they're not
children of
the godly,
would surely
water down
the purity
of the
church.
Rather than
loosen the
requirements for
membership,
we should
urge people
to repent
and believe
the gospel
and be
converted.
Well,
of course,
John
Davenport
was right
about how
bringing
into the
church the
unregenerate
would compromise
its purity.
but had not
the camel
already gotten
its nose
in the tent
by ever
admitting
the
unregenerate
into membership
which is done
when you
baptize infants
in the first
place.
Whether
children of
the godly
regenerate
or not.
So the
problem was
even
the New
Haven
Church,
zealous
for purity,
had two
ways to
enter the
covenant.
By saving
faith,
new birth,
but also
by natural
birth,
simply being
born to
regenerate
parents or
church members.
Two ways
into the
covenant.
John
Davenport
was worried,
rightly,
that the
halfway
covenant
would widen
the door
for once
born folk
into the
church.
The
connection
to
regeneration
is not
simply
parents now,
but
grandparents.
And perhaps
what?
Ancestors?
Or just
hereditary?
Is that the
way it's
going to
go?
Says
Davenport?
Really?
Are we
going to
do this
in New
England?
But of
course the
door had
already been
opened by
infant
baptism
itself,
which is
membership
in church
by hereditary.
By hereditary.
So these
poor Puritans
had their
knickers all
in a twist,
it seems to
me,
trying to
resolve this
conundrum.
The problem,
of course,
was infant
baptism
itself,
admitting
into the
church by
infant
baptism,
the
unsaved.
what was
the
covenant
status
of these
baptized,
unsaved
members?
What
covenant
were they
in?
Not the
new
covenant,
for one
is in the
new covenant
only by
spiritual
relation to
Christ by
faith.
But what
other covenant
is there in
operation?
it was all
hopelessly
confused.
Ironically,
and delightfully,
supporters of
the halfway
covenant told
John Davenport
that his
arguments against
the halfway
covenant
actually undercut
infant baptism
itself,
and supported,
get ready for
this,
the Baptist
cause.
Oh!
John Davenport
would not
pass laws
against the
Baptists.
He was
tolerant of
them in
New Haven.
I like to
think he was
on his way.
At least we
know he's a
Baptist now.
No, I
didn't say
that.
I didn't say
that.
I didn't say
that.
It was
true.
It was the
unscriptural
practice of
infant baptism
which was the
fatal flaw in
the realization
of John
Davenport's
great concernment
for a pure
church.
It would be
left for the
Baptists to
take up John
Davenport's
scriptural
vision of a
pure church
and show a
more excellent
way.
Well, and so
we part with
this witness,
a polished
shaft in the
hands of
Christ.
Whoops, that
was the end.
So, maybe
one final
lesson.
A life
lived unto
God is
worth any
every
unsettlement.
That's one
of the things
that this
story of the
first colonist
tells me.
If you
were to
respond to
the call
of God
upon your
life,
what
unsettlement
might it
cause?
Any upheaval?
Back in
old England,
they were
urged to
settle down
at ease
in the
Elizabethan
settlement.
But they
felt it
would require
of them
that they
trim the
edges of
a wholehearted
response to
God's call.
And they
were convinced
that in the
call of God
upon their
lives, they
dare not
respond in
any way
less than
in all
things to
the utmost.
And so
theirs was
an unsettled
life in
terms of
outward
matters.
Relatively
trivial matters
of outward
sustenance,
but supremely
settled in
terms of
their deepest
core conviction
that the
pearl of
great price
was worth
any cost
to obtain.
Well, let
me end
there, and
I think we
probably have
five minutes
maybe, in
case there
are some
questions.
Yes?
It sounded
like Davenport
right at the
beginning when
he organized
the church
required evidence
of regeneration.
Yes?
Were there
people who
came, you
know, maybe
you don't, and
said, well, wait
a second, I was
baptized as an
infant, so I
am a member
of the church, so
I don't need
this examination.
No, nobody
brought that
up.
They all
agreed that
in order to
be able to
take communion,
in other words,
to be a
member in
good standing,
to be able to
take communion,
you had to
have evidence
of regeneration.
So that's the
way, so you
have to have
evidence of
regeneration.
In the
judgment of
charity.
In the
judgment of
charity.
Let's give
people the
benefit of the
doubt.
But yes?
Yes, so what
they would see
is, is there
any evidence in
your life that
you follow
Christ, that the
dominant influence
in your life is
Christ?
Do you ever
give up anything
for Christ?
Or do you
live for the
world, the
flesh, and the
devil?
people, is
there any
evidence that
for anything in
your life, I
will reject
this and not
walk down this
path because of
Christ, my
allegiance to
Christ?
So that sort of
thing.
So any of the
fruit of the
spirit would be
evidence of this
sort of thing.
So, yeah.
Who decided?
Well, the
elders.
So there were
twelve at the
time.
The elders in
the judgment.
So the elders
would make a
recommendation, but
the church would
decide that.
The congregation.
They were
congregationals.
So the church
had to actually
vote on that.
Yeah?
I think I heard
you, the statistics
was like 64%
were in good
standing.
So did those
others come all
that way thinking
that I want to
live that way,
I want to live
to this new
country, you
part of his
covenant plantation
and then did he
pass the test?
Yes.
Were they coming
because they're
like, oh yeah,
I can get my
land grabbed,
start business.
I mean, I'm just
curious about that.
So, yeah.
I mean, that's not
much better than
half.
Right.
It was two
thirds.
But yes, many of
them would have
come recognizing
I'm not yet
regenerate.
I hope to be.
And I think my
best prospects of
becoming regenerate,
faith comes by
hearing, hearing by
the word of God.
John Davenport is
a remarkable
preacher.
I will follow him
to the ends of
the earth because
I want to be
regenerate.
I'm not yet.
The spirit of God
has not softened
my heart, but I'm
hopeful.
I'm not regenerate
yet, but I'm
hopeful.
So they could have
been very, very
sincerely hoping to
become regenerate,
desiring it vehemently,
but the penny
hadn't dropped for
them yet.
Hard to search the
hearts.
You know, are there
some?
If I was going
to cross the
ocean in the
1600s, I'd have
been believing
in God, too.
Yeah, exactly.
And I would have
dropped God as
soon as I...
You're right.
Yes.
John, is there
anything in the
writing of the
readers of the
time called
self-doubt or
about whether
they're kind of
close to
division over the
brother and
people?
And this is
very close to
division.
Well, yeah, they
felt like they
were involved in
each other's lives.
They had small
groups.
They had small
groups, kind of
like we do.
People were
involved in each
other's lives.
The women were
very involved.
There was a lot
of lay involvement.
So this was a
big part of your
life.
So people knew
each other well.
So yes, they
thought that they
could be involved
in each other's
lives.
And were.
That's a common
group that you
continue to know
through it.
Yeah, yeah.
And what you
do is if you
got too big,
you'd have another
little church and
you'd be in
Brantford.
Then you'd be in
Guilford.
Then you'd be,
you know, so
you'd have other
churches that were
not so large that
it was impossible.
We're not talking
mega churches here.
So yes.
Yeah, Mike.
Just so I
think you want to
clarify, there was
a whole more
apology or a
whole set way of
how we would
determine whether
a person was
regenerative.
There were steps
they had to
follow.
A lot of them
actually laid it
out.
Yeah.
So it wasn't so
subjective as we
might think it
was.
I don't agree with
that morphology,
but it was very
much put, they all
understood that
there were the
steps they had to
go through with
penance and
so forth and all
that.
And if they didn't
follow them
exactly, usually
the elders said,
well, you've got to
go back and get
the steps right.
That's right.
So they had
thought about this
very carefully.
And one of the
things that you
would experience,
you would give an
account and you'd
say, you experience
the terrors of the
law or the
thunders of Sinai.
I feel myself to be
completely undone, a
sinner, and there's
no hope in myself.
I've come to the end
of myself.
So you would have
to, you couldn't
just say, hey, I'm
just feeling really
comfortable about my
faith.
You know, I just
feel so consoled.
No, you had to
experience the
terrors of Sinai and
the law and your
inability to fulfill
it before you could.
So there was a
morphology, as Mike
says, a whole sequence
that they had
down.
They thought a lot
about this.
That's right.
So it wasn't, they
would have said, this
is not subjective.
This is the biblical
account that we are
following.
So we are looking
for precise things.
So, yeah, it
wasn't just, hey, I
like this guy.
No, no.
Yeah.
Team, we should
probably head up
because it's five
minutes.
Next week, Lord
willing, we'll talk
about the founding
of Yale, the
founding of Yale
College and the
vision there.
Thank you.