PART ONE: FORMATION [1680 to 1780] A. SETTLEMENT [1680] Pioneers found homes and materials for life on the upper Atlantic coastline. Settlements grew along the rivers of Connecticut, the bays of Massachusetts, and the shores of Long Island. Along these communities was one established by Congregational Puritans in Connecticut. Roger Ludlow, having first server for four years as assistant governor of Massachusetts (1630-1634), came to Connecticut in 1635 with seven other men. With a commission from the Massachusetts Court, he set out to plant and govern a new colony. War with the Pequot Indians kept him from following up on his 1639 purchase of a large tract of land. But his associates remained to found Fairfield. By 1644, an ordained minister, Rev. John Jones, an Oxford graduate, was leading Congregational worship there. (1) These were sturdy pioneers. “They bargained with the red skinned denizens of the forest. They acquired honorable title to these acres. They reared rude huts in which to shelter their families. They began the onerous tasks of soil subjugation. The territory was roughly mapped, the streets were outlined, the green was indicated, the site of God’s house chosen.” (2) The difficulties encountered by these brave souls can scarcely be imagined by those living today on lands so totally tamed. The excitement of new opportunities would have soon worn thin. The challenge of building a Christian community apart from state interference by the established forms of religions would have shortly become a secondary task to mere survival. “The glamour of pioneer life has been dispelled. Harassment of bears and wolves and panthers becomes wearisome, excessive. The perils of agriculture are so great that the farmers build their homes in the village and spread their farms through the adjacent land. But is it the treacherous Indian that gives the people the largest peril and dire trouble. Guards are placed throughout the neighborhood. Their call to arms is frequent. Men carry firearms with them as they toil in the fields, as they walk their way to this sacred place of worship. Watchmen are compelled to stand by the doorways of the sanctuary while Pastor Jones preaches his long sermons, lest the people be surprised and massacred. Now one family, and now another is made to deplore the loss of property or the sacrifice of human life.” (3) It was settlers from this area who, in the mid-seventeenth century, migrated to south Jersey. The reasons for this move have not been preserved. Speculation focuses on two possibilities. One is suggested by the above quotation. With such difficulties as these mentioned, it would not be surprising that men would look for a more hospitable environment. With Indian attacks such a constant fear, the reputation of the Leni Lenape tribe of south Jersey would have been most appealing. They belonged to the great Algonquin stock, one of the largest in North America. These were woodland Indians, skilled in hunting and fishing techniques. William Penn reported that they were quite friendly with white men and lived in a peaceful life-style with generally very happy dispositions. (4) If these details were known by the people of Connecticut, the New Jersey migration may have been a popular move. The combination of mild climate, fertile riverlands, and peaceful Indians would have meant a great deal to those people. A second possible reason for the migration is suggested by records of an official settlement commissioned by the colony of New Haven. One report indicates that in 1640, New Haven purchased a large tract of land spanning both sides of the Delaware Bay. Fifty families were relocated in the area. When a 1669 petition for expansion was denied the New Haven merchants, the project was abandoned. The settlers on the Jersey side, having come from Fairfield, chose to remain. (5) Perhaps commercial enterprise accounts for the decision to expand into this area of the middle colonies. This would also be in accord with increasingly prevalent trends through the latter part of the seventeenth century. Whatever the reason, the fact that it was New England Congregational Puritans from Fairfield, Connecticut who first settled here seems beyond dispute. It is very frequently reported. (6) No other possibilities are offered. The New Haven settlement was not a very prosperous one. Whether it was an effort to achieve gain through agriculture or hunting and trapping (deer and muskrat still populate the woods and marshes), investors were disappointed. Those that remained found farming to e suitable, at least for their survival. Of probably several settlements, the only one whose location has remained clearly marked is that known by them as New England Towne. It was here that they erected their Meeting House for worship and buried their dead. (7) The site is located on flat terrain, overlooking the tidal marsh of the Cohansey River (which flows into the Delaware) where it makes a ninety-degree turn toward the present city of Bridgeton. A wharf was very likely built just beyond the church to facilitate trade for residents of the new community. Such a wharf was certainly built at Greenwich, eight miles downriver, a community being settled at about the same time, having been purchased from the Indians about 1677. (8) Details of the organization of a congregation here are not available. The exact date, the number present, the location, the first minister, and the doctrinal covenant which bound them are particulars not known today. They may have been included in early sessions minutes, but all official church records made prior to 1755 were lost that year in a fire which destroyed the manse. The covenant used to bind themselves into a Congregational fellowship may well have been like the one used in the mother church in Fairfield, Connecticut. If so, I bound them to a Trinitarian confession, and the obligations of a walk in holiness enforced by discipline within the body of believers. (9) The exact date of their establishment as a congregation is a most elusive detail. It appears that settlers were living here, perhaps as early as 1640. A date in the 1660s would seem more likely. Devout Puritans would never have considered forsaking public worship simply because no church yet existed in the community. Gathering of the people and erection of a Meeting House would have been one of the first goals of such people. There is no record of church activity until 1692, but it seems impossible to believe that such activity would have been delayed until such a late date. No early document identifies 1680 as the year of organization. Such references do not occur until the late nineteenth century, near the time of the 1880 centennial celebration of the erection of the Old Stone Church. One may assume, then, that 1680 was selected as a convenient date, marking one hundred years before the building of the Old Stone Church. But such a date is entirely reasonable, if only a convenient guess. If anything, organization may have occurred even before that time. To continue speaking of the Fairfield Presbyterian Church as dating from 1680, though not entirely accurate, is certainly permissible. And now that 1680 has been assumed as the founding date for so many anniversary celebrations, along with the absence of any serious challenge by another more preferred date, its continued use seems entirely in order. B. FROM CONGREGATIONALISM TO PRESBYTERIANISM [1680 to 1710] Puritanism in Colonial America was not nearly as homogenous as common impressions today would suggest. Within the Anglican Church, Puritans fought for renewed personal holiness. They adhered to Calvinistic dogma but felt no compulsion to abandon the episcopal structure of ecclesiastical government. Others were not so broad minded. Puritan doctrine was shared by Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and more strict Separatists, none of whom would permit the existence of a true church under a bishop’s control. But neither could they agree on which form of church government was most Biblical. High views of Scripture, combined with strongly opinionated minds, kept them apart on this question. (10) The Connecticut settlements, like most in New England, were populated by Congregationalists. Strongly Calvinistic in doctrine, they organized themselves into churches which submitted to no external authority apart from Christ and the Scriptures. Each body of believers was self-contained and independent of any official relation with any other fellowship of saints. This being the case, it may certainly be presumed that the church established in New Jersey bore their brand of church doctrine and government. These Puritans were Congregational Calvinists. (11) Tradition has passed on the name they gave to their fellowship. It was included on the memorial erected on the site of the “New England Towne Crossroads,” where the church met for a century. On the “Cohansey Monument” placed at the spot in 1909 by West Jersey Presbytery is inscribed the fact that here worshipped “The Church of Christ in Fairfield.” Though no clear records remain of a pastor serving the church prior to 1695, the possibility of one or more men occupying that position cannot be dismissed. Anniversary bulletins of the church in the 1920s and 1930s list an M. Bradnor as pastor from 1680 to 1695. This was likely the result of research by the pastor at the time, Rev. Clinton Cook. The source of his information was not noted, but may have been a reference to a Mr. Bradnor by an unidentified editor to the session minutes in 1813. There it is recorded that “the first minister of whom we have any information was Mr. Bradnor from New England.” The editor attributed his information to an account drawn up by Ephraim Harris in May, 1794.