USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Groton > Collection of facts and documents relating to ecclesiastical affairs in Groton, Mass > Part 3
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
This was the last church meeting holden by the seceders, at which any one of the others attended. At this meeting two dea- cons were chosen ; and it being customary, that the junior deacon by age, should have the care and possession of the church uten- sils, the younger one then chosen immediately repaired to deacon Sawtell, and demanded the utensils, which he refused to deliver.
At a town meeting holden, June 19, 1826, it was voted, 142 to 87, ' that the committee heretofore chosen to provide preach- ing in the town or parish, be authorised and directed to employ such preacher as they may judge will be most acceptable to said town or parish, as a candidate for settlement in said town or parish.' 'The committee accordingly engaged Mr Robinson,
21
who, from this time, and not as mentioned in the Result of Coun- cil,* from January 7, preached on probation.
July 2d, a church meeting was notified in the usual manner in the meetinghouse, and holden after divine service, at which a committee was chosen, whose duty will be seen by their report made at the adjourned meeting, July 23d, when the church unan- imously elected the Rev. Charles Robinson to be their pastor.
' The subscribers, a committee chosen by the church of Christ in Groton, July 2d, 1826, to prepare regulations for the future gov- ernment of this church, have attended to the duty assigned them, and ask leave to report :
' That, as a number of church members have of late withdrawn themselves from public worship and the administration of the word and ordinances of the gospel with us in this place, and have associ- ated themselves with sundry other persons in worshipping at a dif- ferent place, and in preparing for the erection and establishment of another house for public worship, thereby manifesting an evident intention of a permanent separation ; and, as those members have also, as we learn, held sundry meetings as a church separate from us, who have continued to attend on the ordinances at this place ; passed resolves, and adopted restrictive regulations, not practised or known heretofore in the church in this place, relating to the disci- pline thereof and the admission of members; your committee are of opinion, that all meetings thus holden by such seceding members, and all resolves, votes, rules, and regulations by them passed and adopted, are irregular, and void, as respects us, and that we are under no obligation as Christians and as members of this church, to follow or observe them ; and that although the records and other writ- ten documents rightfully belonging to us as the regular church, are in the possession of those who have thus separated themselves from us, yet it is neither necessary nor expedient, at present, to use com- pulsory measures to obtain them ; but that, together with all such customs, rules, and ordinances of ecclesiastical discipline, as are common to all christian churches of the Congregational order, the following particular regulations be adopted by this church, as substi- tutes for those out of our possession as aforesaid ; viz.
' I. The sacrament of the Lord's supper shall be administered on the first sabbaths of April, June, August, October, and December, in each year, and a preparatory lecture preached on the Thursday next preceding each day of such communion.
' II. Any persons, desirous of becoming members of this church, who have heretofore been members of other christian churches, and produce evidence of that fact, as well as of their regular christian character, by certificates from the pastors of such churches, or oth- erwise, in a manner satisfactory to this church, may be admitted by vote of the church, at any regular meeting thereof.
* See the Introduction above, p. 5, note.
ยข
22
' III. When any person shall be desirous of becoming a member of this church, on original profession, such desire shall be made public in the usual manner, two weeks, at least, before admission. If, dur- ing that time, no objection be offered, the candidate may be adniit- ted. The profession and covenant shall be proposed to the candidate in the following manner :
'" In the presence of God and before these witnesses, you offer yourself for admission to this christian church. You regard this transaction as a profession of your belief in the one only living and true God ; a testimony of your faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Saviour of the world, and an acknowledgment of the sacred scriptures as containing a revelation of God to inan and a perfect rule of faith and obedience. You design to commemorate the author and finisher of our faith, in the way which he has ap- pointed, resolving, by the help of divine grace, to live in obedience to his commandments, and hoping, through the mercy of God, to obtain everlasting life.
'" In a humble and grateful reliance upon God for the pardon of sin, and for assistance in duty, you now solemnly take upon yourself the engagements of the christian profession. You promise to walk with this church, while you have opportunity, in a regular attend- ance upon christian ordinances, in the exercise of christian affection, and in a submission to the discipline of this church, so far as shall appear to be your duty.
' " This you profess and promise."
' On the candidate's assent to the foregoing, the admission and covenant on the part of the church, shall be pronounced as follows :
' " I, then, in the name of Jesus Christ, and in behalf of this chris- tian church, declare you a member of the same and in full commun- ion with ourselves. We welcome you to our christian love and fellowship; we wish upon you grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ. We promise to watch over you for your good, to counsel and assist you, whenever there shall be occasion, and to regard you with all that tenderness and affection, which your relation to us now justifies and enjoins. We will endeavour to be faithful to each other, and to our common Master ; to be helpers of each other's spiritual joy, promoters of each other's spiritual welfare, striving together for that eternal weight of glory, which is promised in the gospel as the reward of a patient continuance in well doing; to walk worthy of our high vocation, and to adorn the doctrine of God, our Savionr ; and when death shall dissolve these interesting ties, which now unite us as a church, may we be found prepared to join the general assembly and church of the first born, which are written in heaven."
' In conclusion, your committee would remark, that by adopting these rules and regulations, remarkable, we think, for their christian liberality and evangelical simplicity, and by strictly and watchfully conforming to and governing ourselves by them in the true spirit of mcekness and charity, we may entertain the humble hope that the
23
cause of truth may be advanced, that others seeing our good works, will glorify our Father who is in heaven, and that numbers of those who shall be saved, will be added to the church.
' Submitted by
' CALEB BUTLER,
' Groton, July 22d, 1826.' ' AMOS BANCROFT, Committee.'
' ELNATHAN SAWTELL,
July 17th, the Ecclesiastical Council convened at Dr Chap- lin's. Of this the worshippers in the meetinghouse had no notice.
July 18th, the chairman of the selectmen received the follow- ing note.
' Tuesday Morning, July 18, 1826. ' CALEB BUTLER ESQ.
' SIR,-I have appointed a lecture to be preached at the meeting- house this afternoon at three o'clock.
' I will thank you to be so good as to give orders to have the bell rung at two o'clock, and then again at three o'clock.
' Respectfully yours, DANIEL CHAPLIN.'
To this was returned the answer below.
'Tuesday, 1 o'clock, P. M. July 18, 1826.
'REV. SIR,-I have no authority, individually or officially, alone, to act on the subject of your note of this morning. You will there- fore be good enough to excuse me from any interference on the sub- ject. Very respectfully yours, &c. CALEB BUTLER.'
' REV. DANIEL CHAPLIN, D. D.'
July 25th, two days after the election by the church of Rev. C. Robinson to be their pastor, William Nutting Esq. a seceding church member, complained to Caleb Butler, in conformity, as he said, with the advice of the Ecclesiastical Council, for his having held a separate communion, violated his church obliga- tions, &c. Similar charges were brought by other seceders, at the same time, and, a little afterwards, against all the male mem- bers who partook of the communion, June 4th.
July 28th, the complaint was in the presence of two others, renewed, and Caleb Butler replied as follows :
' William Nutting Esq. claiming to be a member of the church of Christ in Groton, of which the Rev. Dr Chaplin is pastor, complains against Caleb Butler, who, he says, is a member of the same church, in the words following ; viz.
'" For having held a separate communion against the express vote of this church, and the remonstrance of our Pastor; and for having thus violated your covenant obligations to be in subjection to the church ; and for arrogating to yourselves its immunities and rights."
' As the supposed offences could not be committed by an individual alone, and as the plural number is used in stating them, I shall use the
24
plural in the defence, meaning with myself to include those church members who have continued to worship and attend on the adminis- tration of the word and ordinances, and held church meetings at the meetinghouse for the last six months; for if I am guilty, they are guilty also; saving however to them the right to make any other or different defence which they may see fit, as I have not consulted them on the defence proper to be made.
' We claim to be the regular, independent church, associated with the assembly worshipping in the meetinghouse in Groton, being the town or first parish.
' It is not necessary in our defence to admit or deny, that those church members who have seceded from us, worshipping and hold- ing church meetings at other places, are a regular independent church, but we deny that they, as a church, or any individual of them, has any more right or authority than any neighbouring church or its members, to admonish, censure, or in any way control us in our proceedings, as a church.
' In thus stating our claims, the truth of the charges is in part implied therein, and could be denied, in part, if our defence required it. But, as we deny any jurisdiction, it becomes immaterial.
' To show that our claims are just, legal, and ecclesiastically pro- per, we refer to the Constitution of Massachusetts, Bill of Rights, Article III ; Statutes of the Commonwealth, 1785, Chapter 51; 1799, Chapter 87; 1811, Chapter 6 ; to the various decisions of our highest tribunal of justice, particularly in the cases, Avery vs. Inhab- itants of Tyrringham, Mass. Rep. vol. III. p. 160; Burr rs. Inhabit- ants of the First Parish in Sandwich, Mass. Rep. vol. IX. p. 277 ; Ba- ker et al. es. Fales, Mass. Rep. vol. XVI. p. 488 ; to the Cambridge Platform, Chapter 9, sec. 2, and to the usages of churches under our present Constitution and laws. The churches in Harvard and Ashby, in our immediate vicinity, are examples.
' Upon a careful examination of those authorities, among matter irrelative to the present purpose, there will be found much that is relative, botli to the charges above specified, and other conduct of the supposed offenders; such as the following :
' 1. That a church in the present acceptation of the term, has no legal qualities, except as connected with some town, parish, or body politic.
'2. That a church has no right to interfere in the choice of a minister ; that power resting exclusively in the town or parisli.
'3. That a secession of a part of the members of a church, how- > ever large the proportional number, including all its officers, does not destroy its identity ; the residue, however small, constitutes the identical church, associated with its town or parish; and if the whole church should secede, it would be competent for the parish- ioners to form another, which would be the successor of the ancient church, and take precedence accordingly.
' 4. 'That a pastor of a church, as such, has no very peculiar or essential powers and prerogatives, but to administer the word and" ordinances, statedly and regularly, and to instruct the people of his
25
parish in morality and religion ; and if he unnecessarily refuses, or neglects to do this; or if he changes his religious sentiments and preaches different doctrines, it is a good cause for his removal from office.
' These positions being established, we think a justification of our conduct, as above charged, or of any of our conduct with which in truth we can be charged, is completely made out. But though we thus believe that all charges against us are entirely groundless, we have no desire to doubt the sincerity and purity of the motives of those who have made them, and we ask that the same charity may be extended by them towards us. A perfect coincidence in religious opinions, is not, and cannot be expected. Though we deprecate the baneful effects of a religious separation of the town, interrupting the social intercourse of friends and neighbours, blasting and withering the best affections, exciting and cherishing the vilest passions, and entering with unrelenting bitterness into the most intimate and sacred of all relations,-yet we do not complain of those who have separated themselves from us. The liberal principles of our republican institu- tions, necessary to secure a perfect religious freedom, give them full right so to do.
' We have to regret that the advice of ecclesiastical councils or the discipline of churches, springing, no doubt, from the best motives, should, in any case, run counter to the laws of our country, or ever be exercised when they can have no possible salutary effect ; because we believe it may tend to bring the former into disrespect, and the latter into contempt. But we hope to submit, as the disciples of Christ, the profession we have assumed, to any chastisement which may be administered in conformity to the laws of our country, the modern usages of churches, or the immutable laws of the gospel.
' CALEB BUTLER.'
' Groton, July 29th, 1826.'
August 2d, C. Butler received a letter, signed by Dr Chap- lin. It was as follows :
' Groton, Mass. August 2, 1826.
' CALEB BUTLER EsQ.
'SIR,-At a regular church meeting, held at the house of your pastor, on July 31st, brother William Nutting stated to the church, that he had followed the direction of our Lord, Matthew xviii. 15, 16, 17, in going to you and complaining of your walk, as being un- christian, in the following respects ; viz. " in having held or attended a separate communion against the express vote of the church, and the remonstrance of our pastor ; and for having violated your cove- nant obligations to be in subjection to the church, and for arrogating to yourselves its immunities and rights ;" that receiving no satisfac- tion from you, after a few days, he took with him brothers S. Hart- well and J. Eaton, as witnesses, and receiving no satisfaction, but on the contrary, a justification of your conduct from law books and civil statutes, he now complains to the church.
' The church having heard the complaint and the testimony of the witnesses, and also a written justification of your conduct addressed
4
26
to brother Nutting, were unanimously dissatisfied, both with your conduct and your defence. In the latter, you seem to take the fol- lowing points for granted ;-
' 1. That a church, whose covenant you have assented to, has no control over its members ; in other words, that a church whose unity has never been broken, may not govern by a majority.
' 2. That the laws of Jesus Christ are not paramount to all other laws; in other words, you seem to suppose, if a member of the chris- tian church does not violate the laws of the land in which he lives, he is not amenable to the church for any walk, however unchristian. And on this principle, if the laws of the land will permit a brother to betray another brother to death, because he is a Christian, as was the case in Rome, then the church cannot and ought not to disci- pline the betrayer. Or, as is the case in some of our States, if there is no law against laboring on the sabbath, then a member of the church could not be disciplined for so doing! You are not accused, Sir, of breaking the laws of your country, but the laws of Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. To this you have made no reply. When covenant obligations are broken, and the great laws of christian love are trampled on, it is not an appeal to the statutes of the land that will satisfy a wounded church, or the great head of that church.
'I am directed by the church to inform you, that the charges brought against your christian walk, by brother Nutting, are now repeated in the name of the church, with the additional charge of neglecting to give satisfaction to an aggrieved brother. The meet- ing of the church was adjourned to Wednesday, the 9th of August, P. M. 5 o'clock, at the house of your pastor, when and where the church will attend to any defence, or any confessions of your faults, which you may wish to make ; and I am directed to give you this notice as a summons from the church, then and there to meet them. If you do not appear, or if we do not hear from you before that time, we shall take it for granted, that you refuse to make any further communications to the church.
' By order of the church of Christ in Groton.
' DANIEL CHAPLIN, Pastor.'
August 6th, the communion was again celebrated in the meet- inghouse, as in June.
August 9th, Mr Butler returned the following answer to the letter last given above.
. To the Author and Writer of a Letter dated August 2d, 1826, addressed to Caleb Butler Esq. and subscribed by Daniel Chaplin.
'I address this letter to you, I know not whom, because I am too well acquainted with the worthy personage, whose signature your letter bears, I know too well his character for christian candor and prudence, his understanding and literary discernment, to believe that he, even in the present superaunnated state of his faculties, could so misconceive and misrepresent my sentiments and expressions, or
27
have the folly to make such absurd suppositions and conclusions, without premises from which to draw and support them. I have too much veneration for him to address to him such an exposition of those inconsistencies and absurdities, to which he has been induced to put his signature, as I think duty to myself requires.
' Your letter states that " I seem to take the following points for granted.
'"1. That a church whose covenant you have assented to, has no control over its members; in other words, that a church whose unity has never been broken, may not govern by a majority.
'"2. That the laws of Jesus Christ are not paramount to all other laws; in other words, you seem to suppose, if a member of the chris- tian church does not violate the laws of the land in which he lives, he is not amenable to the church for any walk, however unchris- tian."
' I have examined my defence pretty carefully, to find if I had inadvertently used any expressions from which such inferences could fairly, or even by perversion of language, be drawn, but without success.
' When I said, that the secession of a part of the members of a church does not destroy its identity, did you understand me to mean, that a church whose unity had never been broken, could not govern by a majority ?
' When I mentioned the laws of our country, and showed them by references to have been enacted and adopted within half a century ; when I prefixed the epithet modern to the usages of churches, and immutable to the laws of the gospel, is it a logical conclusion, that the laws of Christ are not paramount to all other laws ? But to omit conjecture, and set this matter at perfect rest, if, through want of understanding the legitimate meaning of words or expressions, I have, any where in my defence or otherwise, used any terms, taking the whole in connexion, or a part by itself, which, to any one's ap- prehension, express or imply each or either of the points you state, I do utterly, unequivocally, and solemnly, recant, renounce, retract, and abjure them.
' So then these points, with all your deductions therefrom, may be laid aside as not in the case.
' I am next told by you, that I am " not accused of breaking the laws of my country, but the laws of Jesus Christ." If so, I have almost as much mistaken the charges of esquire Nutting, as you have my defence. Let us examine them.
' 1st. I am charged with " holding a communion," that is, I suppose, joining with others in commemorating the Lord's supper. This is so far from breaking the law of Jesus Christ that it is in strict obe- dience to it ; for when he instituted that rite, he said, "Do this in remembrance of me."
' But esquire Nutting says, a " separate" communion. I know of no limitation as to numbers, below which that rite cannot be cele- brated. Jesus Christ himself said, " where two or three are gathered
28
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Besides, we have separated ourselves from none; we have forbid none to communicate with us ; and we could not compel those whose duty it was to have been with us, to come to that ordinance, without arro- gating to ourselves an unjustifiable authority.
' But, it is said, this was "against the express vote of the church and the remonstrance of its pastor."
'This might be denied. But granting it to be true, is the vote of a church, suppose a regular church, or the remonstrance of its pas- tor, a law of Jesus Christ ? Would not the vote of a church, or the direction of its pastor, to suspend, for an unlimited time, the admin- istration of that ordinance, be in direct opposition to a law of Jesus Christ, and for that reason, if his laws are paramount to all others, void ?
'Next, it is said, that I have " thus violated my covenant obliga- tions to be in subjection to the church." Are the formulas, creeds, and covenants of modern churches, laws of Jesus Christ ? Or are they the result of human speculation and invention ? Did I ever enter into covenant, that if a number of the members of the church, say a majority of it, should absent themselves from the stated and regular public worship of God, and should neglect to celebrate the Lord's supper in the way of his appointment, that I should go astray, and live in a like neglect of duty with them ?
' The remainder of esquire Nutting's accusation is, that I and others "arrogated to ourselves the immunities and rights of the church." Being members of a regular church, as we are, it seems to me that arrogating to ourselves its immunities and rights, is not charging us with a breach of any law of Jesus Christ.
' But perhaps esquire Nutting intended to accuse me of practising, using, or exercising the immunities and rights of a church, though he has not exactly expressed it. If so, it becomes necessary to know what the immunities and rights of a church are. I think they are twofold. First, the privileges of receiving and partaking of the ordinances of the gospel, according to Christ's appointment. These I am not accused of breaking, but of obeying. Second, the particu- lar rules and regulations respecting the times of communion, holding church meetings, and management of any property-which may be held in trust for its use. These may be properly called the bylaws of a church, and they have no more claim to be called the laws of Jesus Christ than the laws of any unincorporated charitable association have. The respective churches in this commonwealth, associated in public worship with towns, parishes, and other bodies politic, (no others,) being religious societies, have all those rights and immuni- ties, which are not repugnant to the Constitution, guarantied to them by law. These, then, are, in a certain sense, laws of our coun- try, which you say I am not accused of breaking.
' I have now passed in review the whole of esquire Nutting's charge, but have not found that he has charged me with the breach of a single law of Jesus Christ. If it has escaped my notice, I beg to be referred to the particular point in the charge, and the chapter
29
and verse of the law, said to be broken. Do not let me be under- stood to say, that I never have broken a law of Jesus Christ. All that I say, is, esquire Nutting has not charged me with a breach of one. Let me here remark, that esquire Nutting seems to ine to have mistaken the directions of our Lord, which he cites for his guidance ; or rather the case in which such directions should be fol- lowed. The direction begins, " Moreover if thy brother shall tres- pass against thee." "Should not a trespass be clearly proved before proceeding to extremities ? It has not yet been made to appear to me, that I have trespassed against his person, or his property ; that I have invaded his rights as a citizen, or his privileges as a member of a christian church; or that I have in the least abridged his liberty of conscience.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.