History of the town of Milford, Worcester county, Massachusetts, from its first settlement to 1881, Part 7

Author: Ballou, Adin, 1803-1890
Publication date: 1882
Publisher: Boston : Rand, Avery, & co.
Number of Pages: 1328

USA > Massachusetts > Worcester County > Milford > History of the town of Milford, Worcester county, Massachusetts, from its first settlement to 1881 > Part 7

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).

Were they a down-hearted, cheerless, discontented sort of folks? Not at all ; any thing but that. They were healthy, robust, and hopeful. They were bound to subdue the wilderness, to master the

HISTORY OF MILFORD.

wild beasts, to achieve a victory over all difficulties. Gigantic trees fell before them, and well-burnt fields grew green with grain and grass from year to year, as they advanced. They looked westward, and saw Mendon pushing to the Great River ; northward, and Hopkinton was filling up ; eastward, and the ambitious adventurers of Sherborn were encroaching on their favorite meadows ; whilst the frontier-men of Medfield and Dedham saluted them from their outposts, and their own brethren to the southward of them slacked not their kindred march. Meantime fresh immigrants were prospecting their closely- adjacent wild lands, and daily assuring them of new neighbors soon to arrive. Thus they were expectant, resolute, and cheerful. If we imagine that their hardships, privations, and toils made them miserable, we probably mistake their mental condition. We may safely guess that they uttered fewer groans under their real wants than we do under our artificial and un-real ones. Doubtless they extracted health, content, and merriment from their scanty resources, quite as successfully as we do from the plethora of our luxuries. We will not lament for them, nor overdraw the picture of their peculiar enjoyments. They had their frailties, faults, and woes ; but pity would be wasted on their lot. It was one rather to be envied and admired. We can but honor them as heroic pioneers, and bless their memories for the heritage they transmitted to us. Successive gener- ations have reaped and will reap the harvests they sowed with mingled tears and buoyant gladness. The heavy forests were steadily dimin- ished by their stalwart industry. They thinned off direful beasts and venomous reptiles. The rugged earth grew fruitful under their labors, and civilized habitations, though humble, superseded the transient wigwams of savageism. Domestic flocks and herds grazed peaceably on hilltops and plains but recently wrested from the occupancy of ferocious bears, wolves, and panthers. Meadows, orchards, and gardens yielded fragrance and fruitage where a little while before an unbroken wilderness bred only dreariness and terror. Thus com- menced the settlement of our now populous, enterprising, and pros- perous municipal domain. We will not forget " the rock whence we were hewn, and the hole of the pit whence we were digged," nor " despise the day of small things." Our fathers came to stay, and they possessed a goodly land for themselves and posterity. Let us appreciate their achievements, improve our inheritance, and deserve well the benedictions they distil upon us from the mansions of immortality.

ORIGIN OF THE PRECINCT.

CHAPTER IV.

A GENERATION OF PROGRESS DOWN TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRECINCT.

Increase of Population, and Origin of the Precinct. - Causes of Alienation and Separation from Old Mendon. - Began in 1727, with the Project of building a New Meeting-House for the Town, soon after the Incorporation of Uxbridge. - The Long Series of Towu-Meetings, Agitations, and Contentions about that Meeting-House .- The Mill-River "Aggrieved Party; " their Protests and Efforts to get set off as a Town or Precinct. - Secession of the "Aggrieved " Mem- bers from the First Church and Pastor Dorr .- Growth and Success of the Separation Movement. - Copy of their Petition to General Court.

Incorporation and Organization of the Second or Easterly Precinct. - The Act of

Incorporation, its Terms and Provisos. - Comments on its Peculiarities. - Legal Formal Organization. - Proceedings for the Erection of a Meeting-House. - Disagreements respecting its Location. - Referred to au Outside Committee to state the Spot. - Delays, and Judgment of the Committee. - Troubles in getting the Edifice (40 x 35) begun. - The Frame at length covered, etc. - Diffi- culties about Funds, Disaffected Parishioners, etc. - Fasting and Prayer of the Church seeking a Pastor. - How Preaching was sustained. - Mr. John Bass called, but declines. - Mr. Amariah Frost called, and accepts. - Meeting-House as to the Outside. - Reconciliation with the First Church and Parson Dorr. - Ordination of Mr. Frost, and its Incidents.

INCREASE OF POPULATION, AND ORIGIN OF THE PRECINCT.

F ROM 1710 onward, there was a steady increase of population on our territory, though slow in comparison with the rush of our Western settlements in recent times. The grandchildren of the old Mendon proprietors possessed the heritage of their fathers, cleared up new farms, raised up large families, and multiplied their worldly goods. And they were re-enforced from all quarters by fresh immi- grants, seeking better homes on hopeful soil. Thus the common lands were gradually absorbed into private ownership, more commodious buildings erected, the ugly cart-paths turned into passable roads, many convenient public ways laid out in various directions, water- privileges occupied with saw and grist mills, and manifold progress made in the substantial interests of the community. It might be entertaining to go into details somewhat, and specify persons, families, localities, enterprises, and improvements of various kinds ; but per- haps these may as well be brought out incidentally, or in Part II. of this volume, the Genealogical Register, in which they will be more appropriate. I therefore waive them for the present, and enter

HISTORY OF MILFORD.

at once on the story of those causes which led to the establishment of a precinct here separate from the mother-parish in Mendon.

Why was there a separation? There are always reasons enough, good, bad, or indifferent, for such movements. Doubtless our Milford seceders might have worshipped in the old sanctuary in Mendon town several years longer without very great inconvenience, so far as numbers were concerned. But probably they had grown ambitious for what they deemed wholesome changes. Soon after Uxbridge was incorporated, in 1727, the project of a new meeting-house for the standing part of the town (then including what is now Mendon, Mil- ford, and Blackstone) was agitated. A serious unpleasantness soon arose among the population east of Neck Hill, and toward Charles River. They began to dream of a new town and a new religious centre. Mendon hill seemed too far away for public worship, and even for municipal centralization. The location and erection of a new meeting-house became a bone of contention. It must be for the accommodation of the whole town, - a town whose extent and popu- lation rendered it a tough problem to solve. The territory extended from Hopkinton on the north to Rhode Island on the south, with a population spreading out every year from the parent central-seat, in all directions. It was a foregone conclusion with the metropolitan majority, that the new sanctuary must stand somewhere on their hill, and not very far distant from the old one. But the northerners and southerners insisted, that if they must help pay for a new edifice, which they deemed a hardship at best, it should be located as near them, respectively, as they could manage to get it, - even if only a few rods were gained. Parties and factions arose, who for years mutually buffeted and counter-checked each other. The Mendon records show, that between Aug. 28, 1727, and Aug. 30, 1731, no less than fifteen town-meetings were held on this general subject, either by original warrant or special adjournment. At all these meet- ings the main question, or some of its incidentals, developed hot dis- cussions, contests, and protests. The nature and succession of votes passed will appear from the following abstract.

Ang. 28, 1727, " after considerable discourse concerning building a new Meeting House, the vote passed in the negative." Nov. 29, next following, " after considerable debate, etc., voted to dismiss the Article until a new summons." Feb. 19, 1728, " Voted to build a new Meeting House," and to set it " within seventy rods of the place where the Meeting House now stands." Vote scrupled, and proved by dividing the house and counting the polls. Protest by Thomas Sanford, then resident on the Amariah Taft place, against the vote

MEETING-HOUSE DEBATES.

locating the site. Another protest by James Keith, then resident on the Quisset Luke Aldrich estate, against " the whole management of the above-said meeting." Aug. 30, same year, by adjournment from March 25, " Voted again to build, and to set the new House within twenty rods of the place where the House now stands." Dec. 10, 1729, voted again to build, but to refer its location " to a Committee of indifferent men : " adjourned to the 15th of December, when " Dea. John Tyler, Ebenezer Taft, Samuel Torrey, and Daniel Hill entered their protest against choosing " the said committee. But the meeting proceeded to choose " Mr. Ebenezer Stone of Newton, Jona. Ware, Esq., of Wrentham, Wm. Hunt, Esq., of Southborough, Capt. Edward Clark, of Medway, and Capt. Nathan Brigham, of Marlborough," as their referees ; also, four men to meet with the referees, and lay the case before them. Then voted, "very fully," to "stand to and abide the judgment of the Committee." Feb. 16, 1730, voted "to build a meeting-house fifty feet long, forty-five feet wide, and twenty- four feet stud, and to be built a studded house." Committee of superintendence chosen, and funds raised for proper consummation of the undertaking. " At said meeting, voted, on a petition of sundry of the Inhabitants on the east side of the Mill River, that, provided the lands and inhabitants [there], or any part thereof, be set off as a particular Town within the space of ten years next ensuing the present date, that the Town reimburse to the petitioners so much money as shall . . . be assessed on them . . . towards building the present Meeting House for the Town." This indicates plainly what was brewing. At said meeting, John Tyler and others requested a vote taken on a proposition "to repair the old Meeting House till the Town should build two Meeting Houses, or the Town be divided." Decided in the negative. Thereupon twenty-eight townsmen, Mill- river meu and their sympathizers nearer the town-seat, entered their protest against building the new house on the site designated by the referees, " and against raising any money to build the same." Thus the confusion increased.

April 6, 1730, voted that " five feet be taken from the forty-five in width of the Meeting House, and also two feet from the twenty-four in height." Moved to "alter the situation of the new Meeting House layed out by the Committee : " negatived. At a subsequent meeting, Moved to erect " the new House within twenty rods of the old one : " negatived. Moved " to build two Meeting Houses : " neg- atived. Moved to "repair the old house: " negatived. Moved to " make a regular division of the Town : " negatived. Oct. 22, 1730, moved to " set up the new meeting-house by the heap of stones made

HISTORY OF MILFORD.

by the Committee : " negatived. Moved to "set it within six or eight rods of the same place : " negatived. Moved to " set it up at the west end of the Burying Ground, where the timber lies : " passed in the affirmative. There the house was finally built. Thirteen voters protested on the spot against building the new house "any nearer the Burying Place than within twenty rods " of the old one, "and against allowing any thing, more or less, for raising the same, except it be within " the said twenty rods. Nevertheless, " Voted that money be raised by a rate to defray the charges of raising the new Meeting House." As to the provision part, voted " that the Town provide a Barrel of Rhum." Chose " Capt. Thos. Thayer, Daniel Lovett, and David How to take care to provide victuals and drink, and other materials." Moved that the town "build two Meeting Houses, and give our Minister liberty to preach in which he will :" negatived. Moved that the town "set off part of the north end to Hopkin- ton : " negatived. March 1, 1731, under consideration of a petition from Mill-river inhabitants to be "set off as a particular town," moved to grant the petition: negatived. May 18, ensuing, moved that the town " send to the General Court for a Committee to state a place for our new Meeting House: " negatived. Moved that the Town raise money to finish the new Meeting House where it now stands." Tried by hand-vote, and doubted. House divided, polls counted, and the motion carried. Aug. 30, 1731, by adjournment from June 21, moved "to choose a Committee to finish the new Meeting House." Tried by hand-vote, and the count scrupled, but decided in the affirmative by dividing the house. Chose a committee of three with full power to finish the meeting-house : "viz., Eleazer Daniels, Daniel Lovett, and Benj. Darling." Voted "to raise £100 by vote towards finishing," etc. Moved to choose a committee " to see if they could find out who hath, by cutting, damnified the new Meeting House : " negatived. It appears that soon after the house was raised, some person or persons, in the interest of the protesting minority, went by night and seriously damaged a portion of the frame by partly chopping off one or more of the corner-posts. But probably the majority thought it impolitic to make further inquisition into the matter. So the New Meeting-house party triumphed over their op- ponents in respect to their immediate object. But those opponents had been rendered extremely sore: indeed, they were henceforth irreconcilable.' They considered themselves unjustly overborne, styled themselves " the aggrieved party," and firmly resolved not to rest till they should have obtained a separate corporate existence.

A considerable number of these "aggrieved " persons were mem-

CONTROVERSY CONTINUED.

bers of the First Church, and soon became much alienated from their non-sympathizing brethren, and especially from their pastor. Why they were so seriously disaffected towards him is somewhat mysteri- ous. It can now only be guessed, as they, at a subsequent period, took particular pains to suppress all the papers that specified their. complaints, having resolved to bury all their difficulties with him and the mother church. It is probable that they importuned him to favor their movement against the dominant party, and that he declined to do so. They might have gone so far as to insist on his reproving and disciplining some of the more violent members that opposed them ; but Rev. Joseph Dorr was not only a discreet man to avoid improper interference between two such parties in his pastoral household, he was averse to partisanship and contention in his very constitutional nature. He is said to have been a modest, quiet, peaceable man, all his life long, though not wanting either in talent, intelligence, energy, or firmness, to discharge his duties according to settled convictions. Such a man in such a controversy would be apt to see faults on both sides, and to consider very deliberately whether he was likely to mend matters by sitting in public judgment on the complaints of extremists. Nor is it likely that either his temperament or judgment would dis- pose him to be a stern ecclesiastical disciplinarian. It is therefore quite natural that the aggrieved, if not their opposers, in this case should unjustly censure him.

How affairs went on between the parties, I will now set forth. At a town-meeting held Dec. 10, 1735 : " Voted to choose a Committee to make answer to the Petition of sundry Inhabitants on the east side of Mill River, with reference to their being set off as a Town. Voted to choose five men for a Committee to prepare an Answer to said Petition in the Town's behalf; and that said Committee depute two men to go to Boston and join with Capt. Daniel Lovett, the Town's Representative, to make answer to the said Petition in Court." This shows that the aggrieved had gone for redress to the Legislature. The committee of five chosen by the Town were " Thomas Sanford, Jacob Aldrich, Eleazer Taft, Jona. Hayward, Jr., and Mr. James Keith." March 8, 1736, by adjonrnment from March 1, the peti- tion of fifteen inhabitants on the easterly side of Mill River, to be set off as a separate town, came up for consideration. It was negatived. May 17 following, a petition came in for a separate precinct, and was voted down. May 21, 1739, the persistent Mill-river people sent in another petition to be set off as a separate town. Again negatived. May 19, 1740, the same operation of petition and nega- tion was repeated. May 18, 1741, the aggrieved, through the Select-

HISTORY OF MILFORD.

men, requested that " the Town support their Minister in a mutual way, or give them leave to go off as a particular Precinct." I sup- pose they meant by the phrase, " a mutual way," voluntary contri- bution. The Town responded in the negative. Thus the petitioners seemed to be headed off, both before the Legislature and the Town ; but they were an indomitable people, and appealed again to the General Court for relief. There the Town met their renewed petition with a fresh remonstrance, and for a time held them at bay; but it began to be suspected that they would ultimately win their cause.

Early in this year, 1741, the disaffected members of the church called an ex-parte ecclesiastical council, or what seemed virtually such, presented their grievances against the pastor, and procured some kind of sanction for their contemplated secession. This moved him to self- defence. To succeed in this he brought the matter before the Town for action. Dne warning was given, and the meeting held March 2, 1741, when " the two following votes were proposed to the town by the Rev. Mr. Dorr : -

"GENTLEMEN, - Inasmuch as an opposing party have obtained a Judg- ment against the Minister of this Town, without a trial, relating to his administration; viz. of a Council chosen by themselves, in so private a man- ner that the Pastor of the Church had no copies of the letters missive until the letters were sent to the Churches: If you judge that the Minister of the Town ought to be defended against such proceedings, and you will defend him, signify it by lifting up your hands. The above written vote passed in the affirmative. " Attest:

WILLIAM RAWSON, Moderator."

Then followed the second proposed vote, which, in substance, was that the Town should choose a committee of three men to confer with a like committee of loyal church-members, who, if thought advisable, might in unison call an ecclesiastical council to rectify the unjust ex-parte judgment. This also passed in the affirmative, and is at- tested on the record in like manner by the Moderator ; but there was a tempest of opposition on the occasion, as appears from the ensuing record. The Moderator called for a vote to adjourn the meeting a fortnight. He declared the vote carried, and left the house. The opposers scrupled it, but no test was applied. "Notwithstanding the Moderator was gone out, those Gentlemen, whose names are entered here, did insist upon it to enter their Protest against the Adjournment of said meeting, and also against the foregoing votes concerning the Rev. Mr. Dorr ; saying [that] the said meeting was not regulated according to law by the Moderator, as their reason. Names given in, &c., Daniel Taft, Esq., Capt. Daniel Lovctt, Ensign Nathan

THE SECEDING CHURCH.

Tyler, Samuel Thayer, Dea. Nathaniel Nelson, Wm. Torrey, Jonathan Hayward, Jr., Josiah Adams, John Chapin, John Rockwood, Saml. Rawson, Benj. Green, Jno. French, Thos. White, Saml. Hayward, Geo. Aldrich, Robt. Aldrich, Ichabod Robinson, David Taft, Josiah Chapin,"-twenty voters of the aggrieved party. This must have been a very unpleasant demonstration and state of things to the ven- erable pastor. However, when the adjourned meeting came round, March 16, 1741, he presented himself, and " proposed to the Town to choose three Gentlemen as a Committee to join the Church Com- mittee in order to choose a Council to Judge of the Result of the late Council, relating to differences in the Church." Accordingly the Town chose for said committee Lieut. Ebenezer Taft, Lieut. Thomas Thayer, and Capt. Robert Taft. But the rapid march of events would seem to have foreclosed the movement for a rectifying council, and two years later the Town quietly laid the matter asleep.

Just after the forementioned action of the Town in defence of Mr. Dorr, the aggrieved (and perhaps aggrieving) church-members took time by the forelock, and set about the formation of a new church. This will be better understood by the following copy of their records. " April ye 1st, 1741, being a Meeting of ye brethren of the Church of Mendon who are styled aggrieved, it was agreed to appoint Wednesday, ye 15th instant, to be a day of fasting and prayer, and renewing their covenant with God and one another, and settling their affairs according to ye order of the Gospel in these Churches. It was agreed to meet on said day at ye house of Eldr. Jones at nine of ye clock on said day. It was also agreed to send to ye Church of Hop- kinton, the Church of Holliston, ye Church of Uxbridge, and ye Church of Upton, to assist in ye business of ye day ; and that the Rev. Mr. Barret, or ye Rev. Mr. Stone, be desired to preach on said day. On said Meeting Dea. Nathaniel Nelson, Jonathan Hayward and William Sheffield were chosen to send letters to the abovesaid Churches, to desire their presence and assistance : and Elder Jones, Elder Adams and Ensign Tyler were chosen to make provision for ye Council on ye day abovesaid.

" April ye 15th, 1741. The brethren of ye church of Mendon, who have been styled aggrieved, met according to appointment ; yn, with the assistance of the Elders and Messengers of ye Church of Hopkin- ton and the Church of Holliston, solemnly framed themselves into a Church state, by signing a Chh. Covenant." [Then follows a long, formal covenant, in accordance with the strict Congregational usages of those days.] "The Names of those who Signed the aforesaid Covenant are as follow. - John Jones, Josiah Adams, William Che-

HISTORY OF MILFORD.

ney, Nathan Tyler, Benjamin Green, Jonathan Hayward, John Cha- pin, William Sheffield, Nathaniel Nelson, William Cheney, Jr., John Binney, Jonathan Whitney, Abraham Jones, Moses Tenney, John French, Thomas Beard, Samuel Warren, Habijah French, William Hayward, Ephraim Daniels, Ebenezer Albee, Joseph Jones, Samuel Hayward, Benjamin Rockwood, Jonathan Thayer, Benjamin Hayward, Jr." [26.]

" And on the same day, April 15, 1741, the Rev. Mr. Barret of Hopkinton preached a sermon to ye new Chh. convened, and to those that were assembled with them; after which he read the abovesaid Covenant publicly before them, with the names of the signers ; to which they publicly consented ; and then were declared to be a Church of Christ, invested with all the privileges of those belonging in Church state, &c." " And then the Church proceeded in making choice of their officers, and elected John Jones and Josiah Adams, Elders, and Nathaniel Nelson, Deacon ; and likewise chose William Sheffield, Scribe, to keep a journal of their proceedings till further order."

Thus promptly was the new church formed, organized, and estab- lished, before pastor Dorr and his friends could convene their contem- plated rectifying council. This was also a very decided step towards an independent precinct. It made the pending separation almost a foregone conclusion. I return, therefore, to that closing process. The following is a copy of the Petition sent in to General Court by the Mill-river people, with the names of the subscribers : -

To his Excellency WILLIAM SHIRLEY, Esq., Capt. General and Governor in Chief in and over his Majesty's Province of the Massachusetts Bay,. &c. ; and to the Honble. the Council and the House of Representatives of said Province in General Court assembled this 25th d. November, 1741.

The petition of sundry Inhabitants of the Town of Mendon in said Province hereunto subscribing Humbly sheweth: That the said Town of Mendon, in answer to a petition of sundry Inhabitants on the Easterly side of Mill River in said Town, did, at their meeting on Sept. the 22, 1741, Vote their consent That the lands in said Township lying on the Easterly side of Mill River to the Country Road by Sheffield's Mill, then bounding on said Road to Bellingham and Bounding on Bellingham, Holliston and Hopkinton, with all the Lands and Inhabitants who dwell on those lands within said lines, be a district and separate Township : - That the lands set off by the Town as aforesaid, with the polls and estates, rateable to the support of the Minis- try, and being within said Boundaries, are not (your petitioners conceive) more than about one-third part of said Town, considered in respect to polls and estates: - That there are five families on the Westerly side of Mill River who choose to congregate with your petitioners and to be laid to them, whose lands also, at least some of them, will be much incommoded by re-

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.

History of the town of Milford, Worcester county, Massachusetts, from its first settlement to 1881, Part 7

Author: Ballou, Adin, 1803-1890 Publication date: 1882 Publisher: Boston : Rand, Avery, & co. Number of Pages: 1328

Author: Ballou, Adin, 1803-1890
Publication date: 1882
Publisher: Boston : Rand, Avery, & co.
Number of Pages: 1328