The Excommunication of Nathaniel Clark
From the Ashfield archives
In the late summer and fall of 1834, after their failed attempt to discipline Samuel Ranney, the Ashfield Congregational minister, Mason Grosvenor, and his committee of busybodies continued in their efforts to direct public opinion and censor or censure dissent. Another large section of Grosvenor’s handwritten account of his work in Ashfield covered the case of another old farmer, Nathaniel Clark, who was an outspoken supporter of the town’s physician, Dr. Charles Knowlton. It began with a complaint against Clark:
Brother Nehemiah Hathaway appeared before the committee of this church and made the following report of his dissatisfaction with the conduct of brother Nathaniel Clark and of his efforts to reclaim him. [He said ] Mr. Sanford Boice a member of the Baptist church, in conversation with me, informed me that he was surprised at the remarks of Mr. Nathaniel Clark concerning the preaching of Mr. Grosvenor. Mr. Boice said that he was at Mr. Williams’ tavern and he and Mr. Williams had held a conversation concerning Dr. Knowlton’s lecture in the town hall—against the being of God—and Mr. Boice expressed his disapprobation of the lecture saying that it was a low, vulgar discourse and calculated to do infamy. In reply to these remarks Mr. Clark who had first come up said that there never was a more dirty nasty vulgar discourse than was preached in our pulpit at our meeting house by Mr. Grosvenor last Sabbath. I felt that such remarks were injurious to the course of religion, and I soon saw brother Clark and conversed with him about his remarks. And he at first was rather disposed to to deny it, and said you must prove it; but he finally admitted that he said nearly the same words and then told me that he thought so still, that it was a vulgar nasty discourse, was not fit for his children to hear, and he did not wish to have them hear it. At this interview I did not say to brother Clark that I had come to converse with him in the way of Discipline. In the course of a short time I called upon brother Clark again and then I told him that I had come to converse with him according to the rules of Discipline. He then admitted the remarks and said nearly the same things as before. I afterward went to see him with brother Eli Eldridge. I then told him that I had come to talk with him in the way of Discipline. He was considerably excited and said that it was a nasty piece of business for the church to take notice of this matter. He then denied that he said what it was said he did, but I will tell you says he what I did say: that it was my opinion that it was a dirty nasty vulgar discourse & I say so now. Brother Clark manifested no disposition to acknowledge that he had done wrong.
I have therefore felt it my duty to lay the case before this committee for their disposal. My duty as an individual is done, I leave it with the church. Augt 19th 1834
Apparently farmer Clark’s opinion was obnoxious enough to the church authorities that they were still gathering evidence him a couple of months later. The committee appointed representatives to follow up with witnesses and confront Clark.
Oct 23d 1834. Brother Joseph Fuller reported this day that he had conversed with Mr. Sanford Boice according to directions respecting what he heard brother Clark say. Mr. Boice stated that he was at Mr. John Williams’ tavern and while he was conversing with Mr. Williams about Dr. Knowlton’s lecture and saying that it was a vulgar injurious lecture, Mr. Clark came up and replied that there never was a more vulgar, nasty & dirty discourse than one he heard from our pulpit by Mr. Grosvenor last Sabbath. He did not know whether there were any others present to hear Mr Clark’s remarks.
This day brother Elisha Wing reported a conversation with brother Clark. He said that brother Clark admitted that he had said these words concerning the sermons but justified himself by saying that it was very little and it was a time of great excitement and others had said and done things that ought to be taken notice of as much as this. Brother Wing said furthermore that brother Clark told him he believed on the same day that the sermons were preached that they were dirty sermons.
Pastor Grosvenor recorded more conversations, a couple of weeks later:
Nov 5th 1834. At a meeting of the committee brother Wing made the following report of a second conversation with brother Clark. Brother Clark still admitted that he said as has been reported, but he declared that he done nothing criminal & nothing wrong. [Wing said] I asked him if he ought not to have softened his language. He replied that his language expressed his meaning. Mr Wing afterward saw him a third time and found him the same on this subject as before.
The church committee was not only building a case against Clark, but felt free to try to intervene in social and business affairs in Ashfield. In December, they not only questioned Mr. Williams on the Clark discussion, but admonished him for not attending the church and for keeping a tavern:
Dec. 4th 1834. Brethren Sanderson and Fuller this day report that they have called on brother Williams. We conversed with him respecting his not attending meetings here with the church of which he is a member. He replied that he attended the meeting at Hawley as he is a member there and he expected to attend there.
We next conversed with him respecting his keeping a disorderly house. He admitted that there had been repeated balls at his house, and that they had been there sometimes late at night, but he always told them that they must conduct well. And he sees nothing wrong in young people having balls. That he kept his house orderly. We also conversed with him respecting selling ardent spirits and that too a violation of his pledge to the temperance society. He thought he must sell it, if he kept a tavern. In respect to the running of the stage, he still thought that he could not well avoid it, if he could he should be glad. But he thought that it was necessary.
The church committee continued to pursue Clark and try to get him to recant his criticism of minister Grosvenor’s preaching. Clark reiterated that “Mr. Grosvenor had taken a course in relation to infidelity which was contrary to the scriptures & that he had a right to say this for it was true.” Clark described the preaching as persecuting and said he refused to sit there and listen to it or allow his children to listen. Grosvenor’s records show, however, that Clark was not the only member who had been unhappy with the direction of his sermons:
Feby 4th 1835. This day was devoted by this church to fasting and prayer with special reference to our peculiar and trying circumstances. Convened at 1/2 past 10 of clock and spent two hours in prayer and conversation. Several brethren having been disaffected on account of the preaching of the Pastor and the doings of the church in relation to infidelity and licentiousness among us and having extensively misrepresented (though it is believed through a misunderstanding) some remarks of the Pastor made at the house of brother Elisha Wing, the Pastor felt himself called upon to make a public explanation of these remarks in order to correct said misrepresentations. He accordingly did do. In the afternoon the Rev. M. G. Wheeler preached a solemn and appropriate discourse.
Attest Mason Grosvenor Pastor
After about half a year of “investigation”, the committee of busybodies announced their charges against Clark to the rest of the congregation:
To the Church of Christ in Ashfield
Brethren,
Whereas, Brother Nathaniel Clark having solemnly promised to regulate his conduct by the Rules of Faith and practice given in the sacred scriptures, and having united himself to this church as a man of Christ and covenanted to seek its “edification, purity, and peace” and to walk with its members in Christian love, faithfulness, circumspection, sobriety, and meekness and whereas said brother Clark has, in the estimation of the committee of this church, conducted contrary to the directions of the Holy Scriptures and broken his covenant obligations, and having been repeatedly visited affectionately warned and admonished in respect to this conduct, according to the instructions of our Lord in the 18th Chapter of Matthew, and still continues to fortify himself and refuses to make any satisfactory confessions and amends, -- the committee feeling obligated by the commands of Jesus Christ the great Head of the Church do now, with painful emotions, lay before you for careful examination and decision the following charge.
Injurious Misrepresentations of the preaching and efforts of our Pastor, consisting in his declaring openly at, in, or about the tavern kept by Mr. John Williams in this place and to several individuals other times and places, concerning certain sermons preached by our Pastor in relation to infidelity and licentiousness, sometime in the months of June and July last, that they were “dirty,” “nasty,” “filthy,” and “vulgar,” or words to that effect; in saying to diverse individuals that these sermons “were not fit for his children to hear;” and in declaring that the Rev. Mr. Grosvenor in his efforts to counteract infidelity and licentiousness “had pursued a course that was contrary to the Scriptures,” or words to that effect, and others of similar import.
All which statements greatly tend to diminish and to destroy the influence of his ministry in this place, to bring the Church of Christ into contempt, to wound the feelings of its members, to distract and to divide them, and to support the cause of infidelity and licentiousness.
Ashfield Feby 10th 1835.
Joseph Fuller, Thomas Parker, Elisha Wing, Jared Bement, Asa Sanderson (Committee of the Church)
Later in February a petition was presented by a couple of the Williams brothers and their allies, to investigate and question Elisha Wing regarding remarks (mentioned earlier) that the minister had made at a meeting at Wing’s house but had subsequently disavowed. The complaint seemed to be an attempt to remind the community of those remarks in order to question the minister’s judgment or integrity. Grosvenor’s notes recorded, “Voted, That the business contemplated in this petition and the manner of presenting it are irregular and that we do not proceed to act upon it. Adjourned sine die.”
In mid-April the congregation met “and the complaint against brother Nathaniel Clark was read and he called to answer to the same.” Clark protested against the unfairness of a public trial and instead requested a “Mutual Council”. The minister and committee answered that “the church would not probably refuse a council in the proper place: but that it was out of order to call a council to settle difficulties between the church and brother Clark until the church had acted in some manner in relation to him; and that brother Clark had received a full notice of the church to investigate the evidence in his case at this time and that he ought to have been prepared for the investigation.” After this legalistic response, the pastor called for a vote and the church did as he directed. Nathaniel Clark was tried and found guilty. Following the pastor’s direction, the church “Therefore Resolved. That unless a confession be surrendered to this charge satisfactory to them on or before the first day of June next, said brother Clarke be excommunicated from this church by the reading of the doings of this church in his case by the Pastor on the Sabbath.”
Clark wrote a letter to the parish, explaining his request for an impartial council composed of representatives of other churches in the region:
Brethren
Concerning the request of the Church to me, to state, in what respects I meant, that Rev. Mr. Grosvenor’s course was contrary to the Scriptures, I must say, I am unwilling thus to state, and bring evidences of the truth of the statements before the Church, but prefer to do it before a Mutual Council for the following reasons viz.
1. I consider the alleged offense of saying Rev. Mr. Grosvenor’s course in counteracting infidelity and licentiousness was contrary to the scriptures, is not in itself a disciplinable offense.
2. I consider that the extraordinary excitement on this subject and kindred subjects in Ashfield, in this Parish and Church, is such that my statements and evidence would not probably have such weight with the Church, as they would at a time of less excitement.
3. I consider it necessary to have assistance in conducting my defense, such as I could not probably introduce into a Church meeting, but might probably introduce before a Mutual Council.
Ashfield April 20 1835. Nathaniel Clark
In early May the church met again and judged Clark’s request “out of order” unless it was accompanied by a satisfactory confession or wrongdoing. Clark produced a written confession but the church decided it was unacceptable. The church leaders tried to deny Clark’s request for a council but in the end agreed. Over the next several weeks, Clark and the committee argued over the ministers who would make up the council. The pastor and his allies apparently objected to Clark’s nomination of Theophilus Packard, D.D. Packard and his son were both ministers and Packard had been present at Mason Grosvenor’s installation, but he was an unacceptable choice. The council was not convened, since Clark insisted on Packard’s inclusion. Presumably Clark was excommunicated on the first Sunday in June, but this isn’t recorded. In mid-June, Clark wrote to the congregation again:
Ashfield June 18th 1835
To the Revd Mr. Grosvenor—will you please to communicate the following to the church:
To the Church of Christ in Ashfield. I would hereby inform you, that in consequence of your refusing to unite with me in a mutual council for the Settlement of the Difficulties between myself and the Church, that I have called and Exparte Council to investigate the case: to consider whether the conduct of the church in their treatment of me is justifiable, to give their opinion and advice; and if they should see fit to recommend me to the fellowship of the Churches of Christ; the council will convene on the first day of July next, at the Congregational meeting house, at half past ten O’clock forenoon, at which time and place you are invited to be present and lay before the Council such communications as you shall think fit and proper under such limitations and restrictions as the Council may adopt in the case. Nathaniel Clark
A week later the pastor announced his intention to leave Ashfield:
June 23th 1835. This day the church convened according to notice given on the Sabbath. After prayer by the moderator, the business of the meeting was stated by him to be, to act on the request of the Rev. Mason Grosvenor for a dismission from the pastoral relation. His request is on file, and also to act upon a communication from Mr. Nathaniel Clark. After hearing the request of the Rev. Mason Grosvenor it was voted: That this church unite with the Rev. Mr. Grosvenor acceding to his request in calling a mutual council to dissolve the pastoral relation now existing between him and this church.
The communication of Mr. Clark was then read. Whereupon it was voted: That our Pastor be a committee to furnish the exparte council called by Mr. Nathaniel Clark, with the records of this church in relation to him; for the purpose of laying before them the appropriate evidence that this church have never refused a mutual council in his case. Further than this we have no communications to make to said council.
The Ex parte council met but the ministers on this council asked the church to try to resolve its dispute with Clark via a mutual council. After more months of back-and-forth legalistic wrangling, the issue remained unresolved. Along the way, Clark revised his confession:
To the church of Christ in Ashfield
Dear Brethren
In view of the offenses alleged against me by this church, I freely confess to you that I committed them. The language used and the place where spoken were quite unsuitable, improper, and inconsistent with the principles of the gospel, and calculated to injure the character and prevent the usefulness of the Pastor, to wound his feelings and the feelings of the brethren, and dishonor the cause of Christ. I now feel sorry for the same and also I feel sorry that I have troubled the church so much in their endeavors to procure a mutual council.
I now do hereby sincerely ask the forgiveness of the Pastor and of my brethren and pray for the forgiveness of God. And feeling desirous of being again restored to the communion and fellowship of the church, I do sincerely promise that I will endeavor to walk in harmony and love with the church.
The pastor and committee decided this was an adequate expression of contrition by Clark. Grosvenor may have been pleased that Clark even implied that the church had been trying to “procure a mutual council”, which was untrue. The church also wrote a “confession” or a narrative of its role in the conflict, which it delivered to Clark the night before a hearing on the evidence. When Clark asked for a postponement because he did not have enough time to read the document, the church denied his request. The Ex parte council ultimately met and the committee informed Clark “that the church were displeased with his conduct in relation to choosing a mutual council, especially that part of it where he publicly in a written communication charged this church with having refused a mutual council. This was considered as a public slander upon the church.”
The wrangling between the Ex parte and the church council continued through the summer. After over a year had passed since the inciting incident, the church at last reached a sort of conclusion:
Oct. 2d The Council met according to adjournment. The council heard a statement from Mr. Clark of those things which he expected to prove provided we went into a full hearing of his case.
Resolved, that this council, considering it inexpedient, under existing circumstances, to go into an Ex parte examination of all the bearings of Mr. Clark’s case & unnecessary in order to give him advice relative to his duty, do therefore, in view of such documents as are before us, recommend to him the adoption & presentation to the Ch in Ashfield, of the following confession, in hope thereby of promoting the honor of religion.
Although it seems to me that the church was clearly retreating rather than facing a defeat, the committee managed to maintain the imperious tone pastor Grosvenor had taken before his resignation. It magnanimously reinstated the chastised “brother” and advised Clark:
The Council in the most friendly manner, wish to impress particularly on the mind of Mr. Clark the impropriety and pernicious tendency of speaking unnecessarily & publishing gratuitously the failings or faults of brethren, whether ministers or others. Every discovered fault may be a proper subject for private admonition and expostulation, & many are proper subjects for discipline. But our Savior has particularly pointed out the way, in which offenses, disciplinable, are to be brought before the public, or before the body of the Church . . . It is to be avoided on account of its pernicious tendency. It is pernicious because tending to destroy confidence, & produce or confirm jealousies among brethren, thus obstructing the way to an easy & quiet settlement of difficulties. Pernicious because, by this means a whole community is liable to become embroiled in difficulties or controversies originating in the Church, & which ought never to go without its walls.
The committee’s desire to keep secret the “controversies originating in the Church” was probably significantly influenced by the growing numbers of people “certificating” themselves out of the congregation, which I’ll discuss in the very near future.