Some online family trees list “Marietta Pomeroy” as a daughter of William and Rachel (Edwards) Pomeroy, with a birth date of 1805 in Williamsburg, Massachusetts, and death 11 September 1882, place unknown. There is no documentation attached to any of these trees for this information except other trees. There are other online trees that do not include her. Marietta is not noted in the town records with the list of all their daughters, (see previous post, Sibling Saturday: Cynthia Maria Pomeroy and Her Sisters), so we need to determine whether or not she is truly related.
It must be noted that there were a LOT of Pomeroys- and Pomroys, Pumerys, etc. in New England during this time period.
If Marietta was a daughter of William and Rachel Pomeroy, it seems her birth would have most likely been recorded sometime in Williamsburg, but such an entry has not been found despite additional searches from 1805 to 1810; the first of the Pomeroy daughters was listed in the record book in 1811. The record book reviewed may have been a transcription from long ago, so possibly research is needed in even earlier town records, with the births alone. Her birth just might not have been recorded, but they did keep very good records in New England towns as early as 1800, so that is less likely, but possible. Then there is that sticky problem of Marietta’s birth supposedly in 1805, but no marriage record for her parents until 1809. Before adding her officially to the family tree, there obviously needs to be more research.
Of course, topics that need research tend to nag at a family historian, so more time on Ancestry.com and Google in the wee hours is generally what comes next, and it did in this case as well. Family trees can be clues- and should always be taken that way, with the information then verified. So Marietta was added to my private Ancestry tree, as that is a great way to get hints about possible records, or to do searches and verify facts. Having the family linked helps to find more records than just doing a search for a person with just a bit of data added. Additionally, the tree is private so people who just click and add to their trees don’t take ‘in progress’ work as facts. Also, a ‘Custom Event’ called ‘Research Notes’ was added and completed to ensure that the information on her page was not considered completely factual and proved.
Looking at censuses, in 1880 (see above image), a Franklin Clark was a boarder in a home along with Marietta Clark, he 77, she 74. They did not have jobs, and the head of household was a clergyman named Samuel Austin, age 53. His wife was Susan, who was 45; a daughter named J. Maude, age 19 and a ‘scholar,’ was living in the household as well. Was Rev. Austin just a kind soul to let the Clarks live with him? Since he was a minister, the likelihood of the Clarks being legally married to each other, or possibly siblings, was high. Sometimes aging parents are listed as boarders; other times, more helpful census takers would list their relationship, such as father-in-law, but that was not noted on this 1880 census.
More research indicated that Franklin Clark and Marietta Pomeroy were, indeed, married. There was an Intention to Marry filed 21 May 1831, and they were also recorded as being married on that date.
Marriage Intention of Franklin Clarke and Miss Mariette Pomeroy, 21 May 1831. (Click to enlarge.)
One of the best clues, however, came from a Google search. The Congregational Year Book for 1900 included a necrology (a bio written after someone dies) of Samuel John Austin, who married Jennie S. Clark, the “daughter of Franklin and Marietta (Pomeroy) Clark, of Lancaster, Mass.” The Clarks did live in Lancaster, and this information explained the 1880 census household with Samuel Austin- he was the son-in-law of Franklin and Marietta, and he and Jennie took them in as they aged.
A minister’s necrology will state all the places he served, and Samuel’s included being in Chicopee Falls from 5 Dec 1877 until 12 Mar 1884. That location fit perfectly with the 1880 census from Chicopee.
One problem with this assumption was that the name of the Clark’s daughter was Jennie- not Susan as listed in the 1880 census. Perhaps Jennie’s middle initial “S” was for Susan, and she used her middle name? Maybe…
Massachusetts death records for 1862 next appeared in searches and included Jennie Austin, so that told us she could not possibly be the wife in the 1880 census. A closer reading of the necrology was in order. (It was getting late, so I could have missed something.) It stated that after Jennie died on 15 November 1862, Samuel remarried, to Susan Maira Miller, on 8 Dec 1863. Now we knew who the wife was in the 1880 census.
The necrology also stated that Rev. Austin had a daughter with Jennie, and with Susan he had a son who died young. (Neither are named.) A closer reading of the death record for Jennie (remember, it is now the wee hours in this quest) made more information click- the daughter in the household, J. Maude, could not be the daughter of Susan, since she was 19 in the 1880 census, making her born about 1861 or so. Hmmm, that is not that far off from when Jennie died, so back to her death record. She died of disease of the liver- and premature labor was written on the line below. Jennie S. (Clark) Austin was sadly another victim of the high mortality rate of childbirth, and their daughter would have been born sometime around 15 Nov 1862, when Jennie died.
Perhaps the premature babe was named for her mother, and was Jennie Maude?
The pursuit of the story took hold, and the planned 30 minutes of research had become five plus hours. It was now established that there was a Marietta Pomeroy married to Franklin Clark(e), and they had children together. This was some digression from the original question- was Marietta the daughter of Rachel Edwards and Franklin Clark?- but when information comes to a historian, it must be recorded. Analysis of any data found might provide a small clue within to help answer the original question.
(The original question?- to be continued…)
Notes, Sources, and References:
1880 US Federal Census for Franklin and Marietta Clark, Chicopee, Hampden County, Massachusetts, page 4, E.D. 287, taken 02 June 1880.
Marriage record of Marietta Pomeroy and Franklin Clarke, Springfield, Massachusetts, in Massachusetts Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988, Ancestry.com.
Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.
We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.
Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.
It must have been one of those days, or I had been researching waaaaay too long (probably the latter). Seeing this ad while I was searching page by page for Springsteen ancestors in the 1857 Brooklyn City Directory, it just hit me funny. A ‘mangle’??
Even though I read old books and history and love archaic terms, I had never heard of a mangle before. This certainly looked like one could get a hand or long hair ‘mangled’ in it, and I knew that was true because my grandmother had a wringer washer and we kids played with it when she wasn’t looking. I had long hair and, well, we won’t go there…
I had never seen a wringer with a table attached though, nor one so large, so time for some research.
Wikipedia to the rescue, which is hard for me to say, but I have found it is more accurate than I used to give it credit. Wikipedia says the machines are called ‘mangles’ in the UK, but ‘wringers’ here in the US. Looks like they were called ‘mangles’ here for some time too- the British influence on our country was strong.
The earliest and most simple mangle was a cylinder that was wrapped with a wet cloth that had just been laundered, like a tablecloth or sheet, and rolled with a flat board pressed along the top to get the excess water out before line drying, or to remove wrinkles. (Our colonial ancestors probably used one.) The wringer for a washer was invented in the 1840s, , which would have saved women a lot of time. A wringer would have really helped in the winter, too, when clothing and household items had to be hung indoors because of inclement weather- getting most of the water out before hanging meant your head would not be dripped on while eating dinner, sewing, etc.
Heat was later added to the cylinders to help dry and press cloth. My mother and grandmother both had mangles, though we called them ‘ironers.’ They are large machines that put off a lot of steam and heat. A foot pedal or knee lift raised or lowered one of the rollers so that you could put a piece of cloth in, then lower the cylinder and iron away. My mother was SO good at using hers- she could iron a man’s shirt or pants with it! Really fast, too.
Mangles are not really used anymore except in commercial applications, such as hotels that dry and press their long tablecloths on them. Smaller mangles, such as those of my mother and grandmother, can be seen today in smaller laundries like the neighborhood dry cleaners.
Sure seems like the above mangle would have taken up a lot of room, even the smaller one. The table likely folded up, but that would still be a lot of space required. I wonder if Jefferson and Anna (Connor) Springsteen had a ‘mangle’ in their house in 1850s Brooklyn?
Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.
We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.
Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.
Download Icon, via Wikipedia: “Crystal Clear app download manager” by Everaldo Coelho and YellowIcon.
download it.
Save it to your hard disk.
and maybe Use a personal genealogy program.
Randy Seaver has recently posted on his blog, Genea-Musings, about Ancestry.com and 567 databases that are no longer available to subscribers. (See his two excellent posts for details.) He did finally get an answer from Ancestry that is not very satisfactory to those serious genealogists who pay up to $300 per year for access to Ancestry’s databases. Ancestry says the databases were old and similar to newer databases, but won’t divulge which databases were removed. Good genealogists know that similar databases may be indexed differently, presented differently, and may actually contain some unique elements, helping someone to find that elusive ancestor or record. This loss from Ancestry also really messes up those who have sources cited for these old databases- where is that same information in the new? More junk genealogy… so who needs accurate citations anyway??
Find important sources for your ancestors? Want to be able to access it at a later date? If so, then:
1. Download it.
2. Save it to your hard drive, and buy an external drive if you need more space, or for a backup.
3. Maintain your data in a personal genealogy program that is backed up in multiple places. You could, even in this digital age, make one of your copies paper. What a concept- what’s old is new again.
Of course, there are copyright restrictions related to downloading, so check Terms of Service. Websites like Find A Grave (FAG) are an example. When saving an image from FAG after contacting the person who posted it and getting permission, an extension can be added to the file name, such as “_permission” so that it is obvious that it was legal to download.
Our Broida family learned about saving important information the hard way too. If you have been a long-time Heritage Ramblings reader, you might remember the posts about Sarah Gitel Frank Broida who died in Denver, Colorado, in 1901. Colorado death certificates were online at one point, and the URL was saved. Unfortunately the state of Colorado decided that death certificates, including those that were over 100 years old did not need to be online, or else they wanted more revenue, and the death certificates were removed. We sent them the money and a pedigree of Gitel’s great-great-grandson- even a copy of his driver’s license!- in order to get a copy. They took our $25 (“research fee”) but did not send the certificate, saying that the certificates could only be provided to family within 1-2 generations. (It did not say that online at the time.) So, 114 years after a death, they are expecting children or grandchildren to still be alive- most likely not going to happen. That death certificate will now remain locked in their archives, useless to anyone. In the future they might use ‘non-use’ as an excuse to destroy the old documents, like some facilities have done; that non-use would be because of their own regulations. No family member has a copy that we know of, and never will. Sad.
This Ancestry removal of databases is bad timing too- Ancestry’s change to their “New Ancestry” has caused a lot of flack in the genealogy community, and many are trying to decide if they are going to stop subscribing once the new version which has missing functions, some horrendous location glitches (it changes some locations to wrong places!) and other problems, is forced on us. They have already changed the Canadian version of Ancestry overnight, without warning- maybe they expect Canadians to be too polite to fuss like those in the US. Ancestry is firm in telling US subscribers that the “new Ancestry will soon be the only Ancestry.” So users will need to make a decision as to their subscription, but unless you delete it, they will always have your tree to show to their subscribers.
I must say that I am not one of the Ancestry.com haters. I understand it is very expensive to purchase rights to such materials, maintain the databases, pay programmers, etc. Ancestry has added value to records by indexing them (not always the best but we’ll take it anyway), providing a nice, useable front end (in “Old Ancestry”), and designing ways to link records and people and places and time- pretty complex, really. I have been a long-time subscriber and have found wonderful things that have thrilled my family, and that have allowed me to tell the stories I put up on the blog. I just wish Ancestry would put more thought into projects before releasing them, would implement suggestions from actual users, not just coders, and spend less money on advertising and programming for new, young subscribers to automagically hear all their family stories. That is not how genealogy works, but I suppose their current course does make business sense.
I also hope that organizations that have partnered with Ancestry will carefully review their decisions and restrictions. I have heard that FamilySearch has deleted their free probate records now that they have shared them with Ancestry. Don’t know how to check out that claim, since I did not see those items previously, but it is a concern if true.
Thinking about leaving Ancestry? Sadly, the GEDCOM standard which is used to transfer data between genealogy programs is very old and does not copy over images or many tagged items, puts sources in the wrong place, adds duplicate people, etc. If you have Family Tree Maker, you can sync it to only one of your Ancestry trees, but it is also an Ancestry program that has gotten so much worse over the years, and likely will continue to do so since Ancestry is not very responsive to consumers. (I used their very first version and on up until I could no longer stand the problems, especially when using with a Mac. The Mac version was not fully functional and not good either in my experience.)
Keeping another tree in personal software is very time-consuming, but will help if Ancestry, which is currently for sale, makes more changes that users are not happy with, or even goes away. A new focus is their DNA and health products- another item to be wary of. Will they spend less money and time on family history while promoting these newer products? Many are not happy with their DNA products either. In our family, four DNA tests that have only one connection to a known relative (other than immediate family) is not very useful, especially when I know cousins have also taken the tests. Also, having Ancestry change ethnicity percentages a year later makes one wonder about accuracy. (They told us that the unexpectedly high Scandinavian ethnicity of many very-English users indicates Viking ancestors who settled in England or Scotland. Sorry, Ancestry- autosomal DNA is not that old.) Ancestry also dumped a lot of Y-DNA and mtDNA samples when they decided to get out of that business; they refused to let descendants have the data. So we don’t know what will happen to our Ancestry trees, and all the work that has gone into them. It might be a good plan to download a current GEDCOM of your tree from Ancestry and put it in another program, adding documents and images as you can. Download your raw DNA data as well, as it can be transferred to other companies (for a fee).
Sorry if this post sounds like an anti-Ancestry rant, but really it was more to drive home the point that protecting your work and family history is up to YOU. Don’t let the internet lose it. Don’t let companies have total control over it. So download it, save it, and put it all in another program on your hard drive where you have a bit more control. (Yes, the other program can go out of business, but what else can we do?)
And do backups. regularly, and in multiple places/formats.
Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.
We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.
Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.
They say that folks can only remember the stories of three generations these days- that would be you, your parents, and grandparents; maybe we can leave “you” out and go to great-grandparents, especially if you were lucky enough to actually know them. That may be why the name “Cynthia Maria Pomeroy” is unfamiliar to many McMurrays- she is more than 3 generations back from all of us.
Most of our McMurray readers know who Dr. Edward A. McMurray (1900-1992) was, and their relationship to him. His mother was Lynette (Payne) McMurray, her mother Nanie Maria (Burnell) Payne, and Nanie’s mother was Cynthia Maria (Pomeroy) Burnell, married to Kingsley Abner “K.A.” Burnell. So C. Maria, or Maria, as she was known, was Dr. McMurray’s great-grandmother (3 generations). Add the number of generations you are from the Doctor, and that will tell you how many times to put ‘great’ in front of ‘great-grandmother’ to know your relationship to Maria. Easy to see how her name might be forgotten, and the story of her life, since she was born in February of 1824.
I don’t remember Dr. McMurray ever talking about her, and he definitely would never have met her since she died in 1862. (I do believe he knew her name though and shared that many many years ago to help in our genealogical search.) Sadly he would not have met his maternal grandmother, Nanie M. Burnell Payne either, as she died just two years before he was born.
Maria’s parent were William Pomeroy (1785-1867) and Rachel (Edwards) Pomeroy (1785-1860). The family lived in Williamsburg, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, where William had been born. Rachel was from Chesterfield, Hampshire, Massachusetts, where they were married.
The above record is from the Massachusetts Town and Vital records of Williamsburg. Here is my transcription of the record:
137
Joulian Daught to William and Rachal Pomory
born _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14 June 1811
Nancy Parsons _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 22 April 1813
Elizabeth _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _30 Novmbr 1816
Synthia Maria daughter born Feb. 1824
Adaughter still born _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2nd Nov. 1826
“Jouian” was Julia Ann Pomeroy, daughter to William and Rachel Pomeroy.
“Synthia Maria” was later spelled as “Cynthia Maria”- the ‘S’ was common for this name early on, but was changed to a ‘C’ in later years. (We have a few other ‘Synthia’ relatives who became ‘Cynthia.’)
Both the Pomeroy and Edwards families have very old roots in New England- back to “the Great Migration” of the mid-1600s. We will tell more of their stories in upcoming posts.
Notes, Sources, and References:
Image per caption.
Oral family history, verified with censuses, vital records, etc.
Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.
We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.
Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.
Deep into records and books of the mid- to late-1600s and the “Great Migration” of the English to America, the name ‘Jonathan Edwards’ kept surfacing. The name was already somewhat familiar from readings about later family members, as Jonathan was a British colonial theologian who influenced so many ministers and missionaries who came after him- and we have quite a few of those in the McMurray-Payne-Burnell lines. Additionally, many of our family members lived in the same area at the same time as Jonathan Edwards, and most listened to his sermons every Sunday during the 23 years of his church service in Northampton, Massachusetts. Since October 5 is the anniversary of Rev. Edwards’ birth (312 years ago!), it seemed a good time to learn more about this man.
I also found some Edwards surnames in our family around the same time and place- related? Possibly. People back then came in groups to America, and were often closely related, or else ‘cousins’ in a much looser meaning of the word than we now use. Research has not yet shown a definite connection, but there may still be one- possibly. As an example of the families to sort out, family members and other researchers have listed Mehitebel EDWARDS (?-1716) as the spouse of John BURNELL (1696-1744). The Lynn, Essex, Massachusetts marriage records list them as “John BURNULL” and “Mehitabel EDMONS” married 15 Jan 1716/7 with intention (to marry) filed previously. (Seeing Mehitebel’s possible birthdate, she would likely be a cousin of some degree to Jonathan if actually related.) No other records could be found for a Mehitebel Edwards, but there are records for the Edmons family, although she is not included. We also have a Rachel EDWARDS in the family who married William POMEROY; she was born in 1785 in Chesterfield, Massachusetts, and died in the same county, Hampshire, in Williamsburg, in 1860, so geographically it is possible. We do not yet know her parents, who may be descendants of the great theologian. So more research is definitely needed on the ‘are we related to Jonathan Edwards?’ question.
There is, of course, also a possibility that there is no family relation at all.
Jonathan Edwards was still important to our family, whether or not genetically related, as he was preaching in places they lived. (Genealogy is not just about being related to ‘famous’ people but it is important to learn about them as they often influenced the non-famous folks and impacted their lives even on a daily basis.) Since religion was a part of the government pre- Revolution/Constitution, what Rev. Edwards said and wrote mattered. He is still considered to be one of the greatest thinkers of all time, definitely one of the greatest theologians, and his books and sermons continue to be published and read.
Jonathan Edwards was born in East Windsor, Connecticut, to Timothy Edwards (1668-1759) and Esther Stoddard , daughter of Rev. Solomon Stoddard; she was said to have ‘unusual mental gifts and independence of character.’ Jonathan was their only son, a middle child of 11 children, and education was important in the family- even the daughters were educated. Jonathan enrolled in Yale College just before he attained 13, graduated at 17, and in addition to spiritual matters, he was very interested in the natural world. Throughout his life he prayed and worshiped in the beauty of nature, rather than only inside a church. He also wrote papers on science topics, and felt that the wonders of science and nature were evidence of what was then called the ‘masterful design’ of God, (today called ‘intelligent design’); he felt science and nature therefore proved God’s wisdom and care for humans. Jonathan’s thinking was shaped by the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ (AKA ‘Age of Reason’) and he emphasized the aesthetic beauty of God, scripture, and the world in his writings and sermons.
Although Jonathan Edwards grew up in a Puritan household with strong Calvinist roots, he came to believe that personal religious experience was more important than doctrine and ritual. He served at a Presbyterian Church in New York City for eight months in 1722-3, became a tutor at Yale, and then was ordained as a minister on 15 February 1727 in Northampton, Massachusetts. His maternal grandfather, Rev. Solomon Stoddard, was pastor, and Jonathan became his assistant. Jonathan worked part-time as a pastor, but also studied 13 hours a day. He became a working pastor after the death of his grandfather about 2 years later, and served the Northampton Church for 23 years. Our Parsons, Strong, Edwards, Warner, Phelps, Pomeroy/Pomroy, Kingsley, Allis, Lyman, and other families who lived in Northampton during his tenure would have attended the church and listened to the sermons of Pastor Edwards.
The second and third generation of Puritans whose parents had migrated to the American British colonies as part of “The Great Migration” were not as pious as their elders. Secular influences such as politics and economics, plus the logic and reason espoused by Enlightenment writers, distracted some younger Puritans from religious obligations and a deep commitment to the church. There was also a decline in morals as a belief took hold that it was easier to get into Heaven than originally thought.
To counter this decline, in July of 1732 Edwards preached a sermon in Boston that declared how absolute was the sovereignty of God in deciding who would be saved by grace, and who would not; his sermon was published as, “God Glorified in the Work of Redemption, by the Greatness of Man’s Dependence upon Him, in the Whole of It.” Shortly thereafter, a revival of religion began in Northampton, a town with only about 200 families about this time. By the winter of 1734 and spring of 1735, the intensity and popularity of the revival actually hampered business in the town- in just 6 months over 300 persons had become new church members. (Some scholars estimate the rate of church attendance as 75-80% between 1700 and 1740.)
The revival spread throughout the Connecticut River Vally and as far as New Jersey. The camp meetings were emotional since Edwards spoke to the heart, and emphasized a personal experience with God and religion. Instead of the usual stern Congregational church decorum, at times listeners would moan, groan, and move about in the rapture of the moment in these great outdoor meetings. Some began to wonder, however, if followers were becoming fanatics. To add fuel to this turn of attitude, some members became convinced of their unavoidable damnation, and, it was believed, urged by Satan, they committed suicide, including Rev. Edward’s uncle, Joseph Hawley II. This dark side of the revivals effectively cooled the religious fervor, although, at the same time, the movement’s premises began to be known and appreciated in England and Scotland.
George Whitefield, a Calvinist British evangelist, came to the American colonies in 1740 and preached ideas similar to Edwards’; this time period and religious movement became known as “The Great Awakening.” Whitefield worked with Edwards and preached in Northampton, with Edwards weeping at the emotion of Whitfield’s discourse. Whitefield also travelled around the colonies, including the Middle Colonies and Southern Colonies. He drew great crowds- 30,000 persons came to hear him in Boston alone, significantly increasing the number of persons influenced by “The Great Awakening.”
Jonathan Edwards preached his most famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” first to his own Northampton congregation. (Our ancestors probably heard it on a Sabbath in June, 1741.) He was then invited by a pastor to repeat the sermon on 08 July 1741 in Enfield, Connecticut. The Connecticut congregation had not been much affected by “The Great Awakening”- at least, not until this sermon.
08 July 1741 sermon of Jonathan Edwards: “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” via Wikipedia, public domain.
This most famous of Edwards’ sermons is still studied today. In it, he described in vivid detail the horrors of a very real Hell, and explained that humanity has a chance to rectify their sins and return to Christ, in order to avoid the torment of Satan through eternity. People in the audience interrupted his sermon many times, crying out, “What shall I do to be saved?”
Although seemingly a ‘fire and brimstone’ sermon, Jonathan Edwards did not need to sermonize in such a way- his parishioners were already quite familiar with that aspect of the Bible. Instead, he talked quietly to his audience, but with much emotion although he did not shout. He calmly laid out a series of logical points from which they could easily draw the conclusion he desired- in this case, that humanity was lost without the grace of God.
As might be obvious, the different thinking of Edwards caused a division in the Congregational Church. The actions of followers at revivals that included fainting, crying out, moaning, even convulsive fits led him to defend his evangelical preaching, and he even had to write a second apology. Edwards developed a test for membership in his church, and members old and new balked at taking it. His sermons became unpopular- attended by visitors, but not local church members. (Wonder which of our ancestors followed him?) He then published a list of young people who, he suspected, had been reading ‘improper books,’ (definitely need to check this list for our ancestors) and this incident further distanced him from his congregation. The church council and town meeting voted Jonathan Edwards out of the pulpit, and he preached his last sermon at Northampton Church in October, 1751.
Edwards was still popular in other places, however, and became pastor in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, and a Indian missionary and advocate. Although in ill health, he next accepted the presidency of the College of New Jersey (now known as Princeton University) and was installed on 16 Feb 1758.
With his interest in science, Jonathan Edwards was a supporter of the new smallpox vaccine. It was still experimental, but Edwards became inoculated so that others would be encouraged to get the vaccine and help eliminate one of the great killers of the era. (Mortality rate for smallpox was up to 35%.) Sadly, the health of Jonathan Edwards was not robust enough to recover from the mild fever that most got after the vaccine, or the vaccine may have been contaminated, and he died on 22 March 1758.
In addition to the great changes brought to many versions of Protestantism, Jonathan Edwards influenced society in many other ways, and our family, as well. Our McMurray ancestor Rev. Edward B. Payne (1847-1923) most likely read the works of Edwards, and although schooled in the modified Congregational church inspired by Edwards, he too parted ways with the old tradition. He also embraced Edwards’ conception of the beauty and aesthetic aspects of religious thought. E.B. Payne preached outdoors as well, and many of his sermons also focused on inward discipline to control one’s morals in order to gain Heaven, rather than predestination. A collateral ancestor, Thomas Scott Burnell (1823-1899) was a missionary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, which was heavily influenced by Jonathan Edwards. His brother and our ancestor, Kingsley Abner Burnell (1824-1905), became a lay preacher- a condition made more acceptable by the emphasis Jonathan Edwards gave to personal experience over formal education for preachers. K.A. Burnell also travelled as a foreign missionary. Deacon Moses Kingsley (1743-1829) became the 21st Deacon at Northampton Church, most likely growing up in the church while Edwards was still pastor; Moses Kingsley served there for 9 years.
There is much more to come on these family members, and many more ancestors. Their lives will be put in context by knowing more about Jonathan Edwards- theologian, philosopher, educator, evangelist.
Notes, Sources, and References:
Note in 1741 sermon that an ‘f’ often stands for an ‘s’ in early Colonial writing. Thus “Impreffions” is actually ‘Impressions.’ Also note use of phrase, “…a Time of great Awakenings…”
“Antiquities, Historiais and Graduates of Northampton” by Rev. Solomon Clark, 1882. via Archive.org.
“Edwards on Revivals: Containing a Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God … in Northampton, Massachusetts, A.D. 1735. Also, Thoughts on the Revival of Religion in New England, 1742, and the Way in which it Ought to be Acknowledged and Promoted” by Jonathan Edwards, Dunning & Spalding 1832, via GoogleBooks.com.
The author is far from a scholar of theology, but there is quite a lot of information online about Jonathan Edwards. Here are some links that were useful:
Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.
We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.
Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.
