USA > Massachusetts > The Diocese of Western Massachusetts, 1901-1951 > Part 1
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.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
I
GEN
ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 1833 01853 0383
GC 974.4 AL262D
THE RT. REV. WILLIAM LAWRENCE Bishop of Massachusetts, 1893-1927
The DIOCESE of
WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS 1901-1951
by THE REVEREND DONALD NELSON ALEXANDER Rector Emeritus of Saint John's Church, Worcester, and Honorary Canon of Christ Church Cathedral, Springfield
IRRegAssAGRUSATTS
SIDEDY
SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
Printed at the COMMONWEALTH PRESS, Worcester, Massachusetts
FOREWORD
FIFTY YEARS is a comparatively short time in measuring history, but probably in no similar length of time have we seen such tremendous changes in the habits, actions, and attitudes of men, as in the past fifty years, during which the Diocese of Western Massachusetts has come into being and started on its way. It therefore seemed important that a record of these years be written, while men who had lived through them and with them were still alive.
To write this record, we turned first to Arch- deacon Mott, who not only was a member of the first Diocesan Convention at which this Diocese was set apart and organized, but who also played perhaps the largest and most significant part of anyone in its development, even including the Bishops, under all three of whom he served. He started the record, but died before he was able to fulfill the task.
We then turned to Canon Alexander, who, hav- ing recently retired, was giving his free time to the work of the Diocesan Offices. With his rare gifts of writing, his friendly and personal interest, and sense of humor, he has given us a most entertaining and interesting account of the life and work of the Diocese as a whole. He has not attempted to tell the story of such organizations as the Woman's Auxiliary, because the women have a worth-while
story of their own to tell; nor has he been able to include matters of parochial and personal historical interest, or even to name all the personalities who have had a part and place in the development of the work. We are all richly indebted to him for this labor of love.
Canon Kendrick has also greatly increased the attractiveness of the book by gathering pictures of all the parishes and missions of the Diocese-no small task in itself-and adding brief historical information concerning them.
The usefulness of this record will depend upon two factors: first, its wide reading, in which we ask your cooperation so that the people of the present may be the more deeply sensible of and grateful for the labor and sacrifice of the people of the past who have so generously provided materially and richly endowed spiritually, the life of this Diocese; and second, that in the reading of this record, we may be brought to a deeper and wider recognition of the very great responsibility which rests upon each and every one of us, to hand on to future genera- tions yet unborn the "good news" of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.
W. Appleton Lawrence
THE UNDIVIDED DIOCESE
THE rapid growth of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Massachusetts during the latter part of the nineteenth century brought much satisfaction to the membership of the Church. Heretofore Massachusetts had proved rather barren soil for the spread of this American successor to the Church of England; but, by the end of the first century after the War of the Revolution, old animosities had faded away, and the Episcopal Church was accepted as a regular, if somewhat peculiar, member of the group of Christian Churches.
One immediate result of this restored respectability was an increasing interest in the teaching and the ritual of the Episcopal Church. The narrow Congregationalism of earlier years had already been liberalized by the earnest and effective preaching of such men as William Ellery Channing in Boston and Ralph Waldo Emerson in Concord. The times were ripe for any church with a broad interpretation of Christianity to reap a harvest of no mean pro- portion among the many who could no longer
1
accept the harshness of the old Puritan tradi- tions and yet found no satisfaction in their too liberal successors.
It was fortunate for the Episcopal Church that, during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, so many of its more prominent pulpits were occupied by men of ability and spiritual leadership. The Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge, founded in 1867, was just begin- ning to have a leavening effect, as more and more of its graduates were settled in the parishes of Massachusetts. As the century drew to its close, the Episcopal Church grew in membership and importance.
This growth had certain disadvantages: the Diocese was rapidly becoming too large for efficient administration under a single Bishop. In 1891 the Convention Journal reported two hundred and two clergymen in the Diocese of Massachusetts, not all, of course, in active serv- ice. There were one hundred and twenty parishes, about half of them, in urban com- munities, strong and self-supporting; the re- mainder, in rural sections, partly dependent upon the Board of Missions for their support. Only the Dioceses of New York and Pennsyl- vania had a greater number of clergy and parishes, and both these Dioceses covered a far smaller area than Massachusetts.
From 1891 to 1901 there were repeated
2
efforts on the part of the Convention to devise a method whereby the Bishop might be relieved of some of his many responsibilities. One of the more popular plans was the creation of several archdeaconries and the apportionment among the archdeacons of some of the duties of the Bishop. There was already an archdea- conry of Boston, which was doing good work in the missionary field. It was felt that the crea- tion of several archdeaconries might relieve the Bishop of a considerable burden.
Another plan, the election of a Coadjutor Bishop, was open to the objection that many years might pass before the Coadjutor could succeed to the position of Bishop of the Diocese. The Convention would need more than the wisdom of Solomon to know for certain that the man chosen as Coadjutor would be equally acceptable to the Diocese some twenty years later. The General Convention had, at this time, made no provision for the election of Suffragan Bishops.
The most practical plan was that of a divi- sion of the Diocese. Against it was the strong feeling that the activities of the Church, as well as those of the State, centered in Boston. A division of the Diocese was no more pleasant to contemplate than would have been a division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Many of the Convention delegates favored the idea of
3
division, but it soon appeared that their ap- proval was conditional on not being themselves separated from that part of the old Diocese which would contain the city of Boston within its boundaries. Delegates from the western part of the state, from which it seemed probable that the new Diocese would have to be created, were equally disturbed by the idea of any divi- sion that would separate them from their be- loved Boston. After ten years of proposals and counterproposals, it began to look as though the Diocese never could be divided.
What finally brought the Convention to a clearer understanding of the situation was the death, in rapid succession, of two of the Bishops of Massachusetts. The Rt. Rev. Benjamin H. Paddock died on March 9, 1891, at the age of sixty-three. He had served the Diocese as its Ordinary for fourteen years. His successor, the Rt. Rev. Phillips Brooks died on January 23, 1893, after a brief episcopate of fifteen months. He was fifty-seven years old. Within a period of two years, the Diocese of Massachusetts had suffered the loss of two Bishops, both of whom might reasonably have expected many more years of active service. The Diocese of Massa- chusetts was shocked into a serious considera- tion of what could be done to reduce the pres- sure upon its Bishop and a committee of five clergymen and four laymen was nominated and
4
confirmed by the Convention of 1893 to con- sider ways for securing this relief.
The report of the Committee of Nine to the Convention of 1894 was not in favor of any division of the Diocese. In somewhat confused language the Committee stated that in its opin- ion "the division of the Diocese is feasible if it should be deemed expedient, many as might be the delicate questions involved requiring special considerations, your Committee sees no reason to doubt, but, after a full and patient consideration of the subject in all its aspects, they are of the opinion that division is not ex- pedient or advisable at the present time." The Committee was not unaware of the need of relief for the Bishop and suggested that, instead of dividing the Diocese into two separate Dio- ceses under two Bishops, it should be divided into five archdeaconries under one Bishop. The five archdeacons were expected to relieve the Bishop of such "work that another could do as well as he," thus leaving the Bishop free for such work as he alone could do. The report was supplemented by two Canons for the establishment of the five archdeaconries and was adopted by the Convention. It was signed by seven of its nine members, four of whom came from parishes west of Worcester. It would seem that the western part of Massachu- setts was not much in favor of a division.
5
Possibly the eastern part of the state was more in favor of division than the west, for, immediately after the report of the Committee of Nine, the Rev. Frederick Palmer, of Christ Church, Andover, offered the following resolu- tion: "Resolved, that the division of the Diocese is expedient at the present time." The resolu- tion was later amended by striking out the words "at the present time" and adding "that a special committee of seven clergymen and eight laymen be appointed to take the whole subject- matter into consideration, and to report to the next meeting of the Convention a plan for a suitable division of the Diocese into two Dio- ceses." Thus, for the first time, the question of a division of the Diocese was submitted to a committee without leaving a loophole for avoid- ing the main issue.
The Committee of Fifteen did report to the Convention of 1895 and placed before it four plans for a division of the Diocese, together with suggestions for a proportional division of the existing funds of the Diocese of Massachu- setts as a foundation for the support of the new Diocese. The real problem was not money but area. Should the Diocese of Massachusetts be divided into two equal territorial parts, or should the parishes and clergy be divided equally? If the former, then the dividing line would be, roughly, the eastern boundary of
6
Worcester county. If the latter, the Diocese of Massachusetts would consist of metropolitan Boston and all the rest of the state would lie in the new Diocese. One of the four plans called for a division of the Diocese along the tracks of the Boston and Albany Railroad, one Diocese to the south of the tracks, the other to the north. Another plan limited the Diocese of Massachu- setts to the City of Boston and those counties lying immediately to its north. Neither of these plans would have been any improvement upon the existing situation, and the Committee may not have been overly anxious to present a report that the Convention could accept.
The Convention finally did accept a propos- al to make the dividing line the eastern bound- ary of Worcester county, not including the town of Southborough. At the urgent request of St. Mark's Church and St. Mark's School in South- borough, both of which drew heavily upon metropolitan Boston for educational and finan- cial support, this town remained in the eastern Diocese. The plan divided the area equitably but left three-fourths of the clergy and parishes in the Boston end of the Diocese. The western Diocese has come to recognize that the inequal- ity was inevitable. Any other arrangement would have made the new Diocese as difficult for Episcopal supervision as was the old.
For the financial support of the new Dio-
7
cese, the Committee of Fifteen proposed that $100,000.00 be given it from the Episcopal Fund of the Diocese of Massachusetts and that all other charitable and missionary funds, where the trust permitted the division, be divided proportionally to the number of clergy canoni- cally resident in each Diocese. The Episcopal Fund had only recently reached a total of $140,000.00 and the proposed gift was a very generous provision on the part of the Diocese of Massachusetts.
It would appear that the Committee of Fifteen was dismayed by the territorial and financial problems that any division of the Dio- cese would entail. At all events, it made an- other and successful attempt to prevent action by closing its report to the Convention of 1895 with the following alternative resolution: "Re- solved, that it is inexpedient to make at the present time a division of the Diocese." All efforts to separate the conflicting resolutions failed, and the Committee's report was finally accepted as a whole.
For five years nothing more was done about division. Bishop Lawrence, who had never expressed himself for or against the proposed division, announced in his Convention address of 1897 that, in his opinion, the time was not yet ripe for further action in the matter. Three years later, in 1900, the Bishop had come to the
8
conclusion that a division of the Diocese was not only necessary but imperative for the best welfare of the Church in Massachusetts. By vote of the Convention the Bishop appointed a committee of twelve clergymen and twelve lay- men to report to the Convention of 1901 a definite and practical plan for division.
When the Committee of Twenty-four made its report to the Convention of 1901, it was evi- dent that the members could come to no agree- ment among themselves. A majority of the committee reported a resolution in favor of the election of a Coadjutor Bishop, which was not what it had been asked to do. A sub-committee brought in a report which suggested five plans for the division of the Diocese, including a plan for its separation into three Dioceses. Yet an- other plan was offered by two dissenting mem- bers of the committee. No recommendations were made concerning funds for the support of the new Diocese. There were as many conflict- ing opinions in the Convention as there were in the committee, and motions, amendments, and amendments to amendments, were voted down or tabled in quick succession. The Convention was fast getting nowhere at all. It did, how- ever, vote to ask the General Convention, which was to meet in San Francisco in September, for permission to divide the Diocese of Massachu- setts according to the requirements of the
9
Canon Law. The Convention also voted that a committee of four clergymen and five laymen be appointed to report to an adjourned meeting of this Convention a full and detailed plan for the division of the Diocese. This was the fourth committee to be appointed for the same pur- pose. For the past ten years the division had been under discussion in the Convention and, as yet, that body had come to no definite deci- sion. It began to look as though the very last thing that the clergy and laity wanted was a division of the Diocese of Massachusetts.
Five weeks later (June 14, 1901) the Con- vention reassembled and listened to the report of one more committee for the division of the Diocese. Before any discussion of the report, Bishop Lawrence presented and read an ad- dress to the Convention, giving a history of the successive attempts to divide the Diocese and the difficulties which such a division involved. He stated that he believed "the time had come when the spiritual interests of the Church in Massachusetts demanded a division at the earli- est date consistent with justice to the Churches in the west."
Partly because of the Bishop's address and partly because this latest committee offered a plan less confusing than some of its predeces- sors, the report was accepted and acted upon with a minimum of controversy. The dividing
10
line between the two dioceses was set at the eastern border of Worcester county, as provided for in a report to the Convention of 1895. The new Diocese consisted of the five counties in the western part of the state and omitted the town of Southborough. Instead of withdraw- ing $100,000.00 from the all too meager Episco- pal Fund, a committee was appointed to raise the sum of $100,000.00 within the limits of the eastern Diocese and give it to the new Diocese in lieu of all claims upon the present Episcopal Fund of the Diocese of Massachusetts. Other funds held by the undivided Diocese were apportioned at the ratio of sixty per cent to the old Diocese and forty to the new. Still other funds were divided in the ratio of eighty to twenty. The actual division was to take place on the fifteenth day of November, provided that the full amount of $100,000.00 had been secured by October 1, 1901. Thus, after ten years of indecision and conflicting arguments, a division of the Diocese of Massachusetts was finally accomplished. All that remained to be done was to secure the consent of the General Con- vention to the partition and the permission of the Legislature and Courts for a division of the funds.
It must be acknowledged that the western part of the state did not want the Diocese divided. The final decision left the west with
11
fifty clergymen and between forty-five and fifty parishes and missions. The gift of $100,000.00 toward the endowment fund for the support of the new Diocese, though generous, was not sufficient. The first work of the new Diocese must be an attempt to increase its endowments. On the other hand, the eastern Diocese retained two hundred and ten clergymen and from one hundred and sixty to one hundred and seventy parishes and missions, to make no mention of the larger part of the funds which had been raised in both Dioceses. Bishop Lawrence, in his address to the Convention of 1901 said, "We must remember that the east is the chief gainer by division. Division, if it comes, is largely in order that the increasing Churches of the east may have more Episcopal supervision. The west does not ask for it. Some of the clergy and laity of the west wish for it and believe it to be for the good of the western Churches, but the east needs it." A gift of $100,000.00 was, perhaps, not too heavy a price to pay for "more Episcopal supervision" and "in lieu of all claims upon the present Episcopal Fund and other funds and properties held by the Diocese of Massachusetts." The western Diocese had reason to be grateful but no reason to be too grateful.
12
THE PRIMARY CONVENTION
ON Tuesday, November 19, 1901, the day appointed by the Bishop of Massachu- setts for the meeting of the primary convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the west- ern part of the divided Diocese, the clergy and lay delegates assembled in Christ Church, Springfield, to hear an address by the Rt. Rev. William Lawrence, to organize the necessary committees for the transaction of diocesan busi- ness, and to elect a bishop for the new Diocese.
In his address Bishop Lawrence outlined the principles which should govern the Dio- cese. "The purpose of the Diocese," he said, "is to preach the Gospel as this Church has received the same, to bring souls to the Saviour and to build men up into the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. No desire to build up a Church, no spirit of ecclesiasticism, no sectarian loyalty is to overshadow the sim- ple, single mission of preaching the free and simple Gospel of Jesus Christ." The Bishop's words were a prophecy that has been amply fulfilled. Throughout its history the Diocese
13
has been notably free from ecclesiastical wran- glers and noisy self-seekers.
The preliminary steps towards organization were taken by the election of the Rev. Henry M. Morrill as secretary pro-tem and the appointment of a committee on qualifications. This committee reported that fifty-one clergy- men were entitled to seats and votes, of whom thirty-nine were present. The number of par- ishes and missions in union with the Convention was thirty-five, of which thirty-four were repre- sented. Bishop Lawrence declared that the Convention was organized for business and that he would withdraw, since his official con- nection with the Convention was now ended. By a rising vote he was asked to resume the chair.
The elections resulted in the choice of the Rev. Henry M. Morrill, St. Paul's Church, Hol- yoke, as secretary and Mr. Charles M. Bent, All Saints Church, Worcester, as treasurer. Those elected to serve on the Standing Committee were the Rev. Alexander H. Vinton, D.D., All Saints Church, Worcester; the Rev. Arthur Lawrence, D.D., St. Paul's Church, Stock- bridge; the Rev. John C. Brooks, Christ Church, Springfield; the Rev. John C. Tebbetts, St. John's Church, North Adams; Mr. Edward L. Davis, All Saints Church, Worcester; Mr. Alvah Crocker, Christ Church, Fitchburg; Mr. Ed-
14
mund P. Kendrick, Christ Church, Springfield; and Mr. William A. Gallup, St. John's Church, North Adams. It is interesting to note that the churches from which these men came have con- tinued to provide leadership throughout the fifty years of our diocesan history.
As yet the new Diocese was without a name. Two Worcester members of the Convention moved that the name should be the Diocese of Worcester. Two members from the western part of the state offered as an amendment the Diocese of Western Massachusetts. The Con- vention voted down both proposals and a com- mittee of five clergymen and five laymen was appointed to report later in the day. The com- mittee reported the same two names and this time the Convention voted in favor of the Dio- cese of Western Massachusetts. It was a hap- py decision, since the name chosen is more de- scriptive of our territorial extent than the name of any single city within the diocesan limits.
An appointed committee was asked to pre- sent nominations for a Board of Missions and the men so nominated were elected by the Convention.
Mr. Charles T. Davis of St. Mark's Church, Worcester, presented a resolution for the crea- tion of a committee of nine laymen under the title of Trustees for the Diocese of Western Massachusetts. These Trustees were to receive,
15
hold, and invest the permanent funds of the Diocese and operate in substantial conformity with the constitution of the Trustees of Dona- tions of the Diocese of Massachusetts. Mr. Davis' motion was accepted and a nominating committee, equally divided between clergy and laity, presented the names of nine trustees; these men were unanimously elected by the Convention. It is well that their names should be held in remembrance.
Mr. Charles T. Davis, St. Mark's Church, Worcester Mr. Henry H. Skinner, Christ Church, Springfield Mr. Edward L. Davis, All Saints Church, Worcester Mr. Frederick N. Deland, St. James' Church,
Great Barrington
Mr. Charles H. Read, St. John's Church, North Adams
Mr. George H. Morgan, Trinity Church, Lenox Mr. Ernest Lovering, St. Paul's Church, Holyoke Mr. Henry N. Bigelow, Church of the Good Shep- herd, Clinton
Mr. William C. Simons, Christ Church, Springfield
Throughout the years the Trustees for the Diocese of Western Massachusetts have played an important part in the growth and in the fi- nancial security of the Diocese. The original members of the Trustees were men of wisdom and foresight as well as men thoroughly versed in the investment of securities. They were care- ful in the handling of diocesan funds. Indeed,
16
one might almost say they were cautious, for they invested the $100,000.00 gift from the Dio- cese of Massachusetts in government bonds having many years to run and yielding but three per cent in a day when the normal return on investments was six per cent and upward. Their successors have been equally wise and careful, for in the course of time many endow- ments and other funds of parishes and missions have been placed in the hands of the Trustees for safe investment. The Diocese, the parishes, and the missions have never suffered loss from bad investments on the part of the Trustees for the Diocese of Western Massachusetts.
In thus selecting a group of laymen to man- age the financial affairs of the Diocese, the Con- vention had followed the example set by the Diocese of Massachusetts and cut itself off from any later interference with the work of the Trustees. Since the Trustees were a self-per- petuating body, the Convention could not elect members to fill such vacancies as might occur. The Trustees were not obliged to make finan- cial reports to the Convention, though they have invariably done so as a matter of courtesy. The strength of this type of organization lies in the free hand which it gives to businessmen to manage the Church's financial affairs without constant question and carping criticism. Its weakness is the loss of any close connection with
17
the missionary and spiritual affairs of the Church whose funds it is conserving. It should be said, however, that the Trustees have always listened to appeals for help on diocesan proj- ects, sometimes even when they were not fully convinced of their need or desirability.
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.