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;

13.08.2013 Views

214 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749. ter with the ministers of the association. The question was long debated and various suggestions were offered by both sides, but the meeting adjourned without action. The next day, after further discussion, the report of the committee was substantially adopted. It was decided that a council from five of the seven nearest churches should be invited, and steps were taken to present the case properly, on behalf of the church. Hon. Ebenezer Pomeroy, Lieut. Noah Wright and Joseph Hawley were chosen agents for that purpose, but Mr. Hawley declined to serve. Again the church refused to observe the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Precinct Meetings. While the church was laboring with the problem, the precinct met from time to time, but transacted no business. On the 18^'' of December, a vote was passed to provide for the '"entertainment of the Council," to pay all the expenses and to engage Major Lyman [Hon Phinehas Lyman] of Suffield, to assist in presenting the case. Major Seth Pomeroy was author- ized to wait on Mr. Lyman^ and "obtain his services at a suitable reward." Meeting of the On the 26*'' the council met. It was comcouncii. posed of Rev. Chester Williams of Hadley, Rev. Timoth}^ Woodbridge of Hatfield, Rev. Edward Billings of Cold Spring (Belchertown), and Rev. Jonathan Judd of Southampton. The church in Sunderland, which had been invited, was not represented. The names of the delegates, with tlie exception of that of Dea. Strong of Southampton, have not been preserved. Mr. Edward-s Argues Mr. Edwards spoke in his own behalf behis Case. fore the council. The main questions he presented were, whether it would "be worth the while to use any endeavors for an accommoda- tion," wdietlier the parties were "now ripe for a separation," " whether it was for any thing blame-worthy and scandalous in the pastor, which rendered him unfit for the ministry, and worthy to be dismissed from it," and whether 1 In Dwighfs Life of Edwards, p. 341, it is stated that Mr. Lyman "declined the proposed service."

1740.] CONTROVKRSY WITH REV. JONATHAN EDWARDS. 215 he slioiild be allowed to go out of the county for members of the final council. He claimed that the clergy in the] county were nearly all opposed to him, and would not therefore be impartial judges; and that his people had never given him a fair hearing, either in public or private, i Declaring his right to preach his principles, he contended' that if he did so the people were obliged to hear him, and requested the council to decide that point in his favor. ! Many of the accusations against him he answered com- pletely, arguing that he had not been treated fairly, attributing it to the fact that his people or the leading men among them, had from the first determined that he must be dismissed. Contention of the No rccord is to be fouud of the arguments Church unre- advanced by the agents of the church. Only from an occasional allusion to them in the remarks of port be obtaiued. Mr. Edwards, can an idea of their pur- After auother lengthy argument in favor of offers to ResiKu jijg position, Mr. Edwards made a second Conditionally. ,... -i n> , i , , conditional otter to resign his pastorate. Mr. Edwards again He proposed that the people should listen to his declaration of principles, defer all further action upon the matter tilli spring, when the traveling would be more comfortable,' not agitating the question in the meantime. Then if they desire a council of churches to settle the controversy, allowing him to choose some members of it from other counties, and the council should be able to " find out no way for a composition or accommodation,"' lie would resign, provided the precinct would free him from rates. Decision and Ad- Tlic couucil decided that there should be a journmentofthe restoration of the sacrament: that pastor and people should converse freely about the points in controversy, but that there should be no public proceedings relative to them. An opinion was also expressed that the opposition of the church committee to Mr. Edwards' preaching upon his principles was one probable occasion of the uneasiness and dissatisfaction which pre- »

214 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1749.<br />

ter with the m<strong>in</strong>isters <strong>of</strong> the association. The question<br />

was long debated and various suggestions were <strong>of</strong>fered by<br />

both sides, but the meet<strong>in</strong>g adjourned without action. The<br />

next day, after further discussion, the report <strong>of</strong> the committee<br />

was substantially adopted. It was decided that a<br />

council <strong>from</strong> five <strong>of</strong> the seven nearest churches should be<br />

<strong>in</strong>vited, and steps were taken to present the case properly,<br />

on behalf <strong>of</strong> the church. Hon. Ebenezer Pomeroy, Lieut.<br />

Noah Wright and Joseph Hawley were chosen agents for<br />

that purpose, but Mr. Hawley decl<strong>in</strong>ed to serve. Aga<strong>in</strong><br />

the church refused to observe the Sacrament <strong>of</strong> the Lord's<br />

Supper.<br />

Prec<strong>in</strong>ct Meet<strong>in</strong>gs. While the church was labor<strong>in</strong>g with the<br />

problem, the prec<strong>in</strong>ct met <strong>from</strong> time to<br />

time, but transacted no bus<strong>in</strong>ess. On the 18^'' <strong>of</strong> December,<br />

a vote was passed to provide for the '"enterta<strong>in</strong>ment<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Council," to pay all the expenses and to engage<br />

Major Lyman [Hon Ph<strong>in</strong>ehas Lyman] <strong>of</strong> Suffield, to assist<br />

<strong>in</strong> present<strong>in</strong>g the case. Major Seth Pomeroy was author-<br />

ized to wait on Mr. Lyman^ and "obta<strong>in</strong> his services at a<br />

suitable reward."<br />

Meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the On the 26*'' the council met. It was comcouncii.<br />

posed <strong>of</strong> Rev. Chester Williams <strong>of</strong> Hadley,<br />

Rev. Timoth}^ Woodbridge <strong>of</strong> Hatfield,<br />

Rev. Edward Bill<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> Cold Spr<strong>in</strong>g (Belchertown), and<br />

Rev. Jonathan Judd <strong>of</strong> Southampton. The church <strong>in</strong><br />

Sunderland, which had been <strong>in</strong>vited, was not represented.<br />

The names <strong>of</strong> the delegates, with tlie exception <strong>of</strong> that <strong>of</strong><br />

Dea. Strong <strong>of</strong> Southampton, have not been preserved.<br />

Mr. Edward-s Argues Mr. Edwards spoke <strong>in</strong> his own behalf behis<br />

Case. fore the council. The ma<strong>in</strong> questions he<br />

presented were, whether it would "be<br />

worth the while to use any endeavors for an accommoda-<br />

tion," wdietlier the parties were "now ripe for a separation,"<br />

" whether it was for any th<strong>in</strong>g blame-worthy and<br />

scandalous <strong>in</strong> the pastor, which rendered him unfit for the<br />

m<strong>in</strong>istry, and worthy to be dismissed <strong>from</strong> it," and whether<br />

1 In Dwighfs Life <strong>of</strong> Edwards, p. 341, it is stated that Mr. Lyman "decl<strong>in</strong>ed the<br />

proposed service."

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!