USA > Massachusetts > Worcester County > Proceedings of the Worcester Society of Antiquity, for the year 1881-1882 > Part 30
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 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38
The portions of Mr. Chaplin's mannscript diary, or "A Sep- timanary," as he is pleased to call it, that have come to my knowledge, are of the dates included between Oct. 18, 1790, and March 19, 1802, with occasional memoranda to Jan. 28, 1805. Some portions are fragmentary, and cover only brief statements of where he went, the people he met, and his personal expenses, while other portions are full of extended argument upon topics affecting his mind at the time, and occasionally he has made entries which are admirable illustrations of his pastoral work. The following, under date of Oct. 20, 1790, illustrates the char- acter of his pastoral work, and of the lay criticisms of which he was the subject :
"Went to David Chase's but he was so busy he could not attend to sit with me at all. Went to widdow Moses Chase's. talked with her of her lonely state with some religious apprecia- tions. Went to Capt. Small's,-talked with him and his wife about professing religion ; they both seemed near ripe to join .* *
* They offered themselves to the church Oct. 29th, the same year.
55
Went to Holbrooks' : talked with him about not coming to meet- ing : he alleged as a reason my preaching against folks getting apples Sabbath Days in my orchard and others'; which things he disapproved of in ye people. but thought it wasn't proper to preach on y Sabbath. I asked what I should preach, if I must not preach against vices of the times? Christ preached so, also the Angels and Prophets, and God commanded the Prophet to ery aloud. I added that others complained of preaching against errors, others of preaching against Frolicks,-queried what I should do? Ile said he liked preaching to raise the Affections. I told him if that was all, his Affections were liable to be moved rong as right, unless his understanding was illuminated to Dis- cerne Truth ; told him that was the case of the stony-ground Hearers, but the good ground. they heard the word and under- stood it and brought forth fruit &c. He complained about my being backward about preaching at Funerals. I gave him my reasons for that. He then said a reason of his leaving our meet- ing was because they rated* him too high. I told him I thought he ought not to leave the congregation for that. He then had considerable to say about minister's salary being too high, and that ministers would stand by one another, which ended the discussion. I then went to Sol. Marble's ; he was not at home. I talked some with his mother, whether she went to meeting, and the state of her mind, and set with Sol's wife a little while ; then went to Jona. Waters' and Home."
This day seems to have been a type of his pastoral labors, and this autumn seems to have been a busy one for him,-visit- ing the sick, praying with some. getting wood and walnuts, · making cider. collecting and sorting apples, getting his lame ox "blooded", etc. In November of this year he made entries of 22 pastoral visits, including four to "widdows."
While Mr. Chaplin was thus ministering to his people a cloud was gathering which was soon to burst upon him and the parish, and cause their estrangement and separation. It was a matter which even now should be mentioned with discretion, and much which he wrote of it in his diary ought not to be reproduced here. but a statement of the leading facts are necessary to the proper understanding of the most interesting period of his his- tory. He had a grown-up daughter, Mary, who had attracted the attention and the love of a gentleman of the town, of whom
* Taxed.
56
neither Mr. Chaplin nor his wife approved. The first entry in the diary, regarding him is Feb. 9, 1791, when he came and ask- ed for her of her parents. Mr. Chaplin says "we wholly denied him in the most discisive and peremptory manner." The sub- ject was continued next day, when "I asserted that I had a right by the Bible to negative any such engagement of my child, and to controul the disposal of her in marriage." It was agreed to take time to consider, the lover meanwhile agreeing to take no steps in strengthening himself in Mary's affections, which agree- ment he broke by writing her a letter which she showed her father. This letter indicates that the matter had already become a matter of gossip, as the lover says he had talked with Dea. Waters who justified him and would assist him, and they would call in Esq. Singletary if needed. Mr. Chaplin seems to have seen the bearing of the case, for he writes that he told the lover
"That he had not treated this matter as a Love Affair ; it now appeared that it was properly a hostile assault ; he had in the first instance when he first told us of it said that the matter was so strong that we could not break it up; therefore we must comply ; and now he was mustering auxilliaries to compel us to surrendry. * * The same day called at Dea. Jacobs' on business, found-(the lover) had been there and introduced the matter to him, but no great what had been said by him ; however this all evidenced that he was seeking to raise a posse to reduce us to a surrendry."
The story of the quarrel goes on, to the exclusion of nearly all else from the diary. Feb. 18th he writes :
"Went to Dea. Jacobs', carried Mrs. Chaplin with me ; we heard some of-s nasty tricks in trading, and with Mrs. Green and Sally Jacobs, and of his declaring what was in my daughter's letters ; and that it was in contemplation to muster the old un- easiness of last Fall and threaten me with a dismission, to bring me to a surrendry." .
It was. finally agreed, Feb. 22d, that the young people should break off the engagement and return each other's letters the next day, but although the lover came to the house he did not surren- der the letters, other visitors interrupting the "conferance." As an antidote the father soon took the daughter to see a woman who knew something derogatory to her lover's character, which the father writes was "most scandalously mean and inhumane."
57
There was an occasional gleam of sunshine for the girl, for Fcb. 24th "went to Worcester with Molley and Salley, bought their gownds at Dixie's ; and got their homespun gownds at Stowel's." Whether the "gownds" had a subduing effect upon Molley or not is uncertain, but under date of the next day her father "talked with Molley,-she signed a paper certifying that she would not marry clandestinely."
The extent of the sympathy of the parish with the youg peo- ple appears in an entry of Feb. 27th :
Sabbath evening I heard that the Parish were generally against us about our daughter ; that Dea. Waters and John said that I had blown up - and they hoped the Parish would blow me up ; that it was talked of in the Parish to take her by force and carry her away ; that Mr. Baley and his wife said we were too rigid in the affair ; that David Bancroft of Ward was very high against ns, yet that he was anxious about his son's living with last summer, because was a man of no principle ; how inconsistent ; how unchristian all this ; The Lord judge between us and them, and plead our cause against those that rise up against us."
In a "conferance" with - the next day, the diary says :
"The talk was of sneh a desultory nature that I can't recollect much of it, saving that he pretended to adduce the case of Samp- son and the daughter of Zelophehad to operate against my op- posing him or controuling the matches of my children, but I told him that of Sampson so far bore a resemblance of the case as that Sampson went to get his wife where he did to seek occasion against her relations, and so he, -, appeared to be seeking occasion against us."
On March 3d there is a record that,
"I told Mrs. Pierce that I knew, as certain as the nature of things admitted of, according to the connection of cause and effect, that if Molley had - it would be her undoing, that she would be miserable in this world and that to come. Therefore I was constrained by all the Bonds of a Parent, and I hoped I felt some sense of duty to God, to oppose their proceeding as I must oppose it if all the parish were against me, and even if all the world were against me."
He felt as he expresses it March 28th, that - was "tramp- ling upon me, and attempting to obtain her by conquest." On April 20 he "heard that the parish wanted to give - a horse and help him take Molley by force ; also proposed to arrest me
58
on a state warrant for false imprisonment." Under the date of "Doomsday, 1791," he enters a quaint indication of popular feel- ing,-"young Jere. Richardson, when he see a load of my flax go along wished it afire, and that I went off in the smoke ; his father laughed very heartily at the expression." He had con- tinued discussions with his parishoners, explaining and defend- ing his conduct, and exposing what he was certain was the bad character of -, but to one the painful controversy soon ended.
An aged lady, born and reared in the vicinity, and recently deceased, informed me that Molly married another man but soon after died. The diary makes no mention of such a mar- riage, nor directly of her death, but that she died in the summer of 1791 is settled by two entries in the diary : Ang. "29, Dr. Jacobs told me of a Sturbridge man who said it was the general talk there that we were the cause of killing our child," and Aug. 31,-"At Nathan'l Stone's, Nathan Holman present, Holman told that the people had it fixed in their minds that she set by him to the last because I refused him seeing her."
It is a sad, almost a tragic story, and one can hardly read these brown and blotted pages, with their evidences of love for his child, an honest desire for her best good, and his struggles to defend himself from the troubles which had grown up in the parish, without a deep sympathy for him. And at the same time the affection between the young people causes the reader to regret the blight which separated them. This episode in the diary is a quaint and interesting picture of domestic life and discipline of a century ago. But Molly's death seems not to have checked the troubles which were gathering about the afflicted pastor. He writes, Aug. 27, 1791, that "Dr. Freeland was warned by the parish people because he attended Chaplin's family while several members were violently sick." On Sept. 26th he enters a note referring to a church meeting about the troubles and the calling of a council, and he seems to be prepar- ing a defence, for he writes, Sept. 30: "Mrs. White said Na- than Taylor told her that Molley told his women-folks that she had liked -, but she did not now, and did not want to have him," Also "Mr. Bailey's people told that Mr. Fairbanks (who rode to Worcester with Molley, ) talked with her,-she said she
59
liked her lover, or she should have been a fool to let the matter get so far as it had, but she did not now like him or wish to have him or suppose she ever should." On Oct. 17th there was a second church meeting, with "many complaints entered of not visiting, and my lack of pastoral duties." We can easily see, by the feeling of the parish above recorded, that pastoral calls in in the second parish of Sutton, just at this time, must have been lacking in pleasure to either party. A third church meeting is mentioned Oct. 31st. We have seen that the story of these troubles had spread as far west as Sturbridge, and we find under date of Oct. 24, that "Dr. Freeland said Capt. Lyon of Shrews- bury said it was reported there that we locked Molley up till she died, or for a long time together." That he had suspicions of foul play on the part of the lover in gaining her affections is apparent from several entries.
The several church meetings culminated Nov. 17, 1791, in a visit from a church committee, to whom he writes that he re- newed his offer of Oct. 31st, for a neutral council to consider the differences between himself and the parish. His terms were to agree on a chairman and each party to name one half the council. He writes, "The Committee and the church seem not to desire a mutual council." This is explained by the fact that the neighboring ministers were in sympathy with Mr. Chaplin, as appears by frequent entries. We can not blame Mr. Chaplin for asking a mutual council, for common right would give him an equal share in its composition, but we get a glimpse of his consciousness of innocense and his confidence in' his Christian brethren when he writes under date of Dec. 4th, that at a church meeting he consented to a council, all the members of which were to be selected by the church. With the light thrown by his diary upon the feeling in the parish, we can not see how he could have expected justice from such a tribunal. It should be here stated that the church records covering this period are lost. We get a glimpse of the excited state of public feeling, and of the extreme measures which marked the contest, in an entry in the diary of Dec. 15, 1791, in which he says, "Learned of a most shocking conference last night. - and seven oth- ers pecking on Dea. Jacobs till he signed a paper confessing
1
60
to - and promising not to say anything more about the- affair unless obliged by law ; -- and friends attempted to en- force secrecy but two refused to be bound." One day later, Dec. 16, he writes, "Yesterday morning Dea. Jacobs had a strange fit, speechless for some time and then distracted ; now unwell and in great trouble of mind about the embarrassments he was put under the night before last ; says a certain person brought him some sling in a glass, saw him put one hand over the glass while bringing it; felt strangely after drinking and did not know what he did."
After Mr. Chaplin had decided to consent to an ex parte coun- cil, he writes, on Nov. 30th, that he "went to Mr. Fish's ; called at -- s ; he asked about our affairs ; I told him the church's offer of a Council ; he observed that they did not use me so well as they did old Thief Cook when he stole Nat. Stockwell's pock- et-book ; they allowed him to choose one man and the company the other." He preached at his own house on the succeeding Sunday evening, from which it appears that he was not welcome at the church. As an illustration of the style of criticism to which he was at this time subjected, we find on Monday Dec. 12th that "Dea. Jacobs came here and told how Phelps com- plained that I told him how to carry on his farm, and about making cider, but nothing about religion." He adds,-"most invidnous representation, I never told him anything about those things unless he asked me." Further he says "the Deacon told me that John Waters had told him where their great strength lay, viz ; in the Constitution where it speaks of their conscien- cionsly attending public worship ; that they intended to go on and vote the dismission and then sign that they could not con- scientiously attend, and cite me before the court to show cause if any I have why I should not be dismissed. A new way ! ! ! "
The ex parte council convened Dec. 20th : on the 21st and 22d his entries are "Council on business ;" on the 23d "the ------ affair was called on ;" on the 24th " -- told over his story ;" 25th, Sabbath. "Mr. Sanford preached ; sacrament administer- ed ;" 27th, "The Council by themselves ;" 28th, "Result read."
This council was composed of Rev. David Sanford, (of Med- way) Nathaniel Einmons, Caleb Alexander, Samuel Austin,
61
Timothy Dickinson, Joseph Wheeler, Nathan Wheeler, Aaron Phips, John Richardson, Ezra Forrestal, Jesse Haven, Nathan- iel Rawson and Hanan Metcalf.
He does not record the result of the council, but Jan. 1, 1792, he recieved a visit from a committee of the parishi, composed of Dea. Waters, Lieut. Hazeltine, Lieut. Goodell, Abijah Tain- ter, Josiah Stiles and Capt. Elliot. He says :-
"They proposed to me that they were come to treat with me on terms of separation. I told them they had never asked me for a separation. They said they were come for me to make proposals. I told them it was for them to make proposals and not for me."
He also demanded that all communication between himself and the parish should be in writing, and as soon as the com- mittee were gone he wrote out the interview and had it witnessed by John Severy and James Greenwood. Sunday, Jan. 8th, he "preached at home to a tolerable congregation for the season." What occurred until August 11, 1792, does not appear, as a volume of the diary is missing, but at the latter date it is appar- ent that the quarrel had taken the shape that the parish claimed that he had been dismissed in conformity to the "result" of the council, while he denied the legality of their action. The point appears to have been that the parish understood that Mr. Chap- lin was to ask a dismission at once, while his view was that the parish was to settle with him satisfactorily in money matters, before he was to ask dismission ; he professes to be ready to ask the dismission when the parish had performed its part. Jan. 13th has an entry about a "new result" which indicates that a second session of the council had been held, as it also appears that the parish claimed, before this council, £300 dam- ages from him, and that a conference had been recommended, in which, as at the first council the parish demanded the privi- lege of naming all the members. The diary says, quoting a conversation,
"They have set up that they will dirty a minister all they can and then kick him right out doors and have it go so ; and I was determined to do all I could that it should not; that I would not give up the point for all Sutton, nor for all America."
62
All this time there was correspondence going on, the parish trying, as Mr. Chaplin puts it to "catch" him into making the first step towards a dismission. He speaks of one communica- tion as "demanding a paragorical (sic) answer, which is super- scribed antescribed and subscribed to me, but it does not tell who sent it or that it was ever voted by anybody," and also speaksof a "dismissing vote" having been passed by the parish, but argues like a lawyer against its legality. In an excess of language he writes :-
It appears that I have made the most fair and decided pro- posals to them, but they never have taken any notice of any- thing I sent them, not so much as to try the minds of the parish ; and I have always taken notice of and answered everything they sent to me ; AND WHAT COULD I IIAVE DONE MORE TIIAN I HAVE NOT DONE ?"
Although the parish claimed that he had been dismissed and were looking for a new minister, Mr. Chaplin held to his posi- tion, and called a church meeting at his house, Ang. 21st, 1792, at which only Capt. Greenwood and Dea. Jacobs attended.
Just at this point in the diary appears the real issue which was at stake in this contest. Mr. Chaplin had been settled by a vote of the town, but the dismission was by a parish vote. It was among the early conflicts in this State which resulted in the separation of the Congregational churches from the towns, in the administration of church affairs. He writes Aug. 21st. that the "good ground" upon which his opponents claim to stand is the fact that "people round about in towns were looking and hoping to have this point established, that the power shall be in the people to dismiss their ministers just when they please ; that therefore they would stand a good chance with a jury." The same month he denied his liability to be taxed, on the ground that he was a settled minister. All through this year the diary is full of recorded conversations about the dispute in the parisli, what varions people, ministers, lawyers and laymen said about it, and frequent allusions to the love affair which set all the trouble going. In October he had a council, apparently called by himself, of which his only records are "9th, The council came, viz : all I applied to ; 10th, went into a hearing ; 11th, They resulted and read it off; 12th they went home."
63
From this point onward he apparently devoted his whole en- ergies to establishing his claim against the parish for his salary, from the time of the vote of dismission. Ile alludes frequently to his "Narrative" which he was writing and to various confer- ences with his friends who had much to tell him of what his opponents said of him. He also records frequent interviews with his legal counsel. It appears that most of the ministers in the neighboring towns espoused his cause, although some of them appear to have had parishoners who opposed him, and the clergy were not entirely without "the fear of man." He records having preached occasionally in the neighboring towns, but in one case, in Leicester, he declined an invitation, having heard that two or three people had threatened to leave the meeting if he did so. The "Brotherly Meeting," a circle of ministers, con- tinued to fellowship with him, and met occasionally at his house. His diary has many interesting entries of opinions, in opposition to each other. On one day he writes that Mr. Lee of Royalston had "looked over all the matters and he said I was dismissed and could get nothing by law from the people." The very next day he writes that Lient. Holman had been to Providence and that "it was the universal voice that I should recover of the people."
This state of disturbance continued until March 25, 1794, when he went to Worcester, dined with the court, talked over matters with his counsel, Esq. Paine, and his writ against the parish for arrears of salary was served on Jedediah Barton on that day. He seems to have had a companion in trouble, Mr. Avery of Wrentham, whom he assisted at a "general church meeting" April 21, 1794, and he says "Col. Hawes had his, and pretended to dismiss, also the town, but 70 protested against their proceedings." He speaks of those who were friendly to him as "orthodox," but his opponents are called "Jacobins." He protested, with all his influence and in a formal address against the proposed ordination of Rev. Joseph Goffe as his suc- cessor in the ministry, and attempted to gather quite a number of ministers at the time set for that ceremony, but none of his friends appeared. This ordination took place Sept. 9, 1794.
He remained on his place, carrying on his domestic affairs, farming, writing wills, and serving as general factotum for those
64
who would employ him. Besides his home-place he seems to to have had another estate, as he made frequent entries of going "to tother place" to do various farm work. There is a break in the diary from Sept. 22, 1794, to Sept. 20, 1796. The first entry under the latter date is of an agreement with Stiles for a continuance of his action in court. A later date, May 1797, shows that the case had been tried in the Court of Common Pleas and went in favor of the town, from which Mr. Chaplin appealed. This continuance was to the Superior Court.
At some time during the hiatus in the diary Mrs. Chaplin died, for there is an entry Nov. 26, 1796, of his paying Esq. Barton $2 for her coffin. In March, 1797, he was severely injured by the wind blowing a heavy door upon him, badly bruising his legs. He was laid up for several weeks and he records the cutting away of portions of flesh to prevent mortification. In the midst of this trouble he enters the fact, March 20, "This day Robert Goddard buried his 3d wife which he has had in 4 years." During his confinement a "Minister's Meeting was held at his house, at which the questions discussed were, "1. What are we to understand by a propensity to sin, previous to sinning? and what evidence have we that there is such a propensity? 2. What ought a minister or a private Christian to do on occasion of an unfavorable report of the offensive conduct of a brother? 3. Is a belief of universal salvation a sufficient reason for excommu- nication ?" On April 10th of this year five inches of snow fell, and people went abont in sleighs ; April 19th another storm left drifts three or four feet deep. His case was reached in the Superior Court Sept. 19, 1797, and occupied three days, result- ing in a verdict for the parish. He devotes a separate volume to a record of the legal steps in the case. The counsel for the parish were Hon. Levi Lincoln and IIon. Edward Bangs ; and Hon. Nathaniel Paine and Hon. Seth Hastings represented Mr. Chaplin. He was taxed $102,88, defendant's costs.
His feeling in the case is well illustrated by the following from an argument which he prepared for the jury of the Supreme Court. He acenses the parish as follows :
"But if on the other hand you give this case in favor of so much unfairness, breach of faith, cozening, quibbling, insidnous
65
intrigue, and insult. you set open the flood-gates of the most licentious perfidy, insiduous (sic) intrigue, abuse and despotism, and bind yourselves and posterity down under the worst of tyranny ; for what can be more intolerable tyranny, than for men to intrigue, insult, and pretend ex parte to dissolve con- tracts, avoid their promises, refuse to refer differences to indif- ferent men ; and when they have referred them to men of their own choosing, refuse to comply with their decision, and even after they have repeatedly promised to comply ; but go on in a series of concealing the truth, shuffling, making promises and breaking them, and lying and cozening."
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.