History of Northampton, Massachusetts, from its settlement in 1654;
History of Northampton, Massachusetts, from its settlement in 1654; History of Northampton, Massachusetts, from its settlement in 1654;
210 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1T49. / present difficulties, with respect to tlie admission of mem- / bers into the chnrch." This was not exactly the subject, at least not as thus stated, that the opponents of the pas- tor desired the church to act upon. A heated discussion followed, and plain talk was indulged in on both sides. Finally the threat was made that if he refused to act as had been suggested, the precinct would warn a church meeting without him. Mr. Edwards denied the right of the precinct to dictate to the church the reasons for calling it together. He argued that it was a bad precedent for the church to submit to the dictation of the precinct, and an unreasonable way of managing church affairs to bring them firvst into a precinct meeting in which the pastor had no right to appear, and when decided upon, order the pastor to carry them out. By such a course, he said, church meetings would become a nullity, and the pastor a " cypher." He considered the proposition to apply to neighboring ministers for advice concerning the course the church should pursue, unreasonable, because all but one of them were opposed to his teachings. Notwithstanding he consented to put to vote as desired by the parish, the question whether there was any dispute between the pastor and the people on the subject at issue. The vote which was largel}^ in the affirmative, must have satisfied him on that point. Then instead of complying with the suggestion of the pre- cinct with reference to seeking advice from neighboringministers, he insisted that a mutual council shouhl be called to consider the general question in controversy and the best method of deciding the difference. A long debate ensued and the meeting adjourned without action for one week, having first chosen a committee of five persons, with Major Seth Pomeroy as chairman, all members of the already existing precinct committee, to confer with tlie pastor. Major Pomeroy At the cousultatiou witli Mr. Edwards, his Swings the arguuieuts SO far prevailed, that the entire committee, with the exception of its chairman, signed a report recommending a mutual council, on the terms proposed by the pastor. This was presented at the adjourned church meeting. Major Pomeroy, however, was strongly opposed to this course. He contended that ^ ^'^ '"^'
1749.] CONTROVERSY WITH REV. JONATHAN EDWARDS. 211 the terms of tlio proposal were too broad, and opened the way for the discussion of topics that they were not yet ready to submit to the decision of a counciL He accused! Mr. Edwards of having more regard for his own welfare than the good of the church, and argued that the church,) ensnared by the general terms of the proposition, would; thus consent to a consideration of the question concerning', the pending admissions. Should a recommendation to^ admit them prevail, Mr. Edwards would gain a victory, and though the advice of the council was not binding "it might lay the church under a disadvantage." Major Pom- eroy's arguments had a decided effect, and the church refused to accept the report. Ten more names were added to the committee and the meeting adjourned for two weeks. The Church Decides So stroug had becouie the feeling against not to Celebrate tjic pastor, that Certain members of the church refused longer to partake of the Lord's Supper under his administration, and censured him for appointing Sacraments. To test the sentiment of the church on this subject, Mr. Edwards put to vote the ques- tion whether that ordinance should be continued, and it was decided in the negative. Composition of the The committces chosen by the church and Committees. prcciuct, wcre composcd, the former of fif- teen and the latter of nineteen persons. And it is worthy of note that fourteen of the fifteen members of the church committee were identical with those who served the precinct in the same capacity. This may have been a coincidence, but in all probability it Avas unavoidable, as the leading men in church and parish were the same. Report of this Com- The enlarged committee, after due delib- ^**^^^- eration, prepared a report which they sub- mitted to Mr. Edwards. They proposed, that previous to any endeavors after separation, an advisory council should be chosen, confined wholly to Hampshire County churches ; suggesting that the definitive council, if decided upon, should also be bound by the same limits. They recommended that if Mr. Edwards continued to ad-
- Page 192 and 193: IGO HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1748.
- Page 194 and 195: 162 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [174& T
- Page 196 and 197: 164 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1748.
- Page 198 and 199: 166 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1704-1
- Page 200 and 201: 168 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1722-1
- Page 202 and 203: 170 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1745-1
- Page 204 and 205: 172 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1T48.
- Page 206 and 207: 174 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. • [17
- Page 208 and 209: 176 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1T48.
- Page 210 and 211: 178 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1748-
- Page 212 and 213: 180 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1748.
- Page 214 and 215: 182 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1'50.
- Page 216 and 217: 184 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.
- Page 218 and 219: 186 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.
- Page 220 and 221: 188 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.
- Page 222 and 223: 190 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749 .
- Page 224 and 225: 192 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.
- Page 226 and 227: 194 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1743.
- Page 228 and 229: 196 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.
- Page 230 and 231: 198 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.
- Page 232 and 233: 200 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1742.
- Page 234 and 235: CHAPTER XVI. CONTROVERSY WITH REV.
- Page 236 and 237: 204 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.
- Page 238 and 239: [' which ', practice , admission 20
- Page 240 and 241: 208 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.
- Page 244 and 245: 212 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.
- Page 246 and 247: 214 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.
- Page 248 and 249: 216 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.
- Page 250 and 251: 218 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1750.
- Page 252 and 253: .' another 220 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPT
- Page 254 and 255: 322 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1750.
- Page 256 and 257: 224 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1750.
- Page 258 and 259: 226 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1750.
- Page 260 and 261: 228 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. Ll'51.
- Page 262 and 263: 230 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [ir51.
- Page 264 and 265: 232 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1754.
- Page 266 and 267: 234 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1754.
- Page 268 and 269: 236 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1751.
- Page 270 and 271: 238 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1753.
- Page 272 and 273: 240 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1753.
- Page 274 and 275: 242 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1753.
- Page 276 and 277: 244 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1T54.
- Page 278 and 279: 246 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1754.
- Page 280 and 281: 248 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1754.
- Page 282 and 283: 250 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1755.
- Page 284 and 285: ^02 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON, [1755.
- Page 286 and 287: 254 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. 11755.
- Page 288 and 289: 256 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1T55.
- Page 290 and 291: 258 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1755.
210 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1T49.<br />
/ present difficulties, with respect to tlie admission <strong>of</strong> mem-<br />
/ bers <strong>in</strong>to the chnrch." This was not exactly the subject,<br />
at least not as thus stated, that the opponents <strong>of</strong> the pas-<br />
tor desired the church to act upon. A heated discussion<br />
followed, and pla<strong>in</strong> talk was <strong>in</strong>dulged <strong>in</strong> on both sides.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally the threat was made that if he refused to act as<br />
had been suggested, the prec<strong>in</strong>ct would warn a church<br />
meet<strong>in</strong>g without him. Mr. Edwards denied the right <strong>of</strong><br />
the prec<strong>in</strong>ct to dictate to the church the reasons for call<strong>in</strong>g<br />
it together. He argued that it was a bad precedent for the<br />
church to submit to the dictation <strong>of</strong> the prec<strong>in</strong>ct, and an<br />
unreasonable way <strong>of</strong> manag<strong>in</strong>g church affairs to br<strong>in</strong>g<br />
them firvst <strong>in</strong>to a prec<strong>in</strong>ct meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> which the pastor had<br />
no right to appear, and when decided upon, order the pastor<br />
to carry them out. By such a course, he said, church<br />
meet<strong>in</strong>gs would become a nullity, and the pastor a " cypher."<br />
He considered the proposition to apply to neighbor<strong>in</strong>g m<strong>in</strong>isters<br />
for advice concern<strong>in</strong>g the course the church should<br />
pursue, unreasonable, because all but one <strong>of</strong> them were<br />
opposed to his teach<strong>in</strong>gs. Notwithstand<strong>in</strong>g he consented<br />
to put to vote as desired by the parish, the question<br />
whether there was any dispute between the pastor and the<br />
people on the subject at issue. The vote which was largel}^<br />
<strong>in</strong> the affirmative, must have satisfied him on that po<strong>in</strong>t.<br />
Then <strong>in</strong>stead <strong>of</strong> comply<strong>in</strong>g with the suggestion <strong>of</strong> the pre-<br />
c<strong>in</strong>ct with reference to seek<strong>in</strong>g advice <strong>from</strong> neighbor<strong>in</strong>gm<strong>in</strong>isters,<br />
he <strong>in</strong>sisted that a mutual council shouhl be<br />
called to consider the general question <strong>in</strong> controversy and<br />
the best method <strong>of</strong> decid<strong>in</strong>g the difference. A long debate<br />
ensued and the meet<strong>in</strong>g adjourned without action for one<br />
week, hav<strong>in</strong>g first chosen a committee <strong>of</strong> five persons, with<br />
Major Seth Pomeroy as chairman, all members <strong>of</strong> the<br />
already exist<strong>in</strong>g prec<strong>in</strong>ct committee, to confer with tlie<br />
pastor.<br />
Major Pomeroy At the cousultatiou witli Mr. Edwards, his<br />
Sw<strong>in</strong>gs the arguuieuts SO far prevailed, that the entire<br />
committee, with the exception <strong>of</strong> <strong>its</strong> chairman,<br />
signed a report recommend<strong>in</strong>g a mutual council, on<br />
the terms proposed by the pastor. This was presented at<br />
the adjourned church meet<strong>in</strong>g. Major Pomeroy, however,<br />
was strongly opposed to this course. He contended that<br />
^ ^'^ '"^'