History of Northampton, Massachusetts, from its settlement in 1654;

238 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1753.
ing in the cliiircli is apparent from tlie following
passed at a meeting in February, 1753 —
:
vote,
"Then after some Conference The Question was piit whether the
Precinct would use any means to procure a Candidate for the work of
the Gospell Ministry in s'd Precinct before the church in s'd precinct
had Endeavored to accommodate and settle the Difficulties subsisting
therein with those who call themselves the aggrieved Brethren, and It
passed in the Negative." It was also voted that the moderator of the
church be desired to warn a meeting "to take y" papers, called the
church's remonstrance, of the Clerk of the church, and give y Aggrieved
Brethren (if they desire it) an opportunity to take a copy of
part or y'' whole thereof, under the inspection of s*! Committee."
Nothing more is known of this document, neither is
there positive evidence of the cause of disagreement.^
That it was an outcome of the late trouble can not be
doubted. This was without doubt, the contention to which
Mr. Edwards alludes in the heretofore quoted letter.
Major Hawiey Turns During the remainder of the year, after
Jones out of the the decliuatiou of Mr. Farrand, about
^ ^' '
whom Mr. Edwards says that there was
much contention, no person seems to have appeared here as
a candidate, and the treasurer's books contain no account
of any money paid for the pulpit supply. It was during
this period that Sunday services were conducted as stated
by Mr. Edwards, by "travellers and transient persons."
Tradition asserts that Major Hawley on one occasion became
so disgusted with the preacher, that he went into the
1 The " aggrieved brethren " may have been disturbed on account of the attitude
of the precinct, whicli seems to have taken the initiative in ecclesiastical affairs
throughout the controversy with Mr. Edwards. In almost every movement during
that time the church appears to have acted at the dictation of the parish. Indeed
the records show that heretofore all action in rfference to church matters originated
in town-meetings ; at least there is nothing to prove that the two organizations were
in the habit of acting in concert. In the absence of any other information it may be
inferred that at last certain members of the church, who were undoubtedly the
friends of Mr. Edwards, objected to any further continuance of this method, and desired
that in matters relating to the calling of a minister, the church should have an
equal voice with the parish. Mr. Edwards dwelt especially ui)ou this point in his
arguments against the precinct votes. It will be noted that but twenty votes were
cast in the church meeting in favor of retaining the pastor, when decisive action was
taken at the desire of the council. When Mr. Farrand was invited by the precinct,
eighteen votes were given against him, and it is legitimate to conclude that they
were cast by the same persons. After this, when it is presumed that the "aggrieved
brethren'" had been appeased, it will be seen that the votes in the precinct relative
to calling a minister are in "concurrence with the church." Nothing points abso-
lutely to such a solution of the difticulty, but in the absence of certainty this one is
at least plausible.