USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > Annals of King's Chapel from the Puritan age of New England to the present day > Part 11
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
Mr. Price likewise directed that the sermons should be on the following subjects: I. (Ash Wednesday.) The duty, useful- ness, and propriety of fasting or abstinence, or upon Repentance, or Faith, or Hope, or Charity, or Christian Morality; 2. Against Atheism or Infidelity, or in defence of the Divinity, or Mir-
quite clear, therefore, that there was no vested remainder, in this case, in the said rector and wardens of the King's Chapel." As this was one of the nicest points in- volved in the later litigation on this sub-
ject, and was neither pronounced upon by the court at that time nor later, the editor would seem in this instance to have assumed a judicial authority quite beyond his proper function.
426
ANNALS OF KING'S CHAPEL.
acles, of our blessed Saviour; 3. The Catholic Church, or the Excellency of the Christian Religion; 4. A Vindication of the Church of England as to Government, Doctrine, or Discipline, or Against Heresy or Schism, Enthusiasm or Hypocrisy, or On the Duty of Obedience to Kings and lawful authority, from all persons professing Christianity ; 5. Against Error and Supersti- tion, particularly those of the Church of Rome; 6. On Detrac- tion or Restitution, or on Contentment and Resignation, or on Preparation for Death ; 7. On Baptism, or Confession, or Abso- lution, or on the Duty of Public Worship; 8. (Good Friday.) On the Passion and Death of Christ, or, Of the nature, necessity, and advantages of the Holy Communion. In this admirable list of topics prescribed, one is struck by the liberality of the founder. He uniformly allows alternative subjects. In the list of between thirty and forty subjects, only those relating to a Vindication of the Church of England and the Duty of Obedience to Kings would be objected to to-day.
The first Lecture was given on Ash Wednesday, 1814.
At the present day, when it is not uncommon to see churches frequented for religious lectures on week days, it is difficult for us to understand how repugnant the idea was in the early part of this century. Sunday-schools, evening and week-day ser- vices (except Thursday Lecture, Thanksgivings, and Fasts) were equally unknown in the Boston of that day; and it was morally certain that the fulfilment of Mr. Price's will in this regard would be a purely formal service. Dr. Freeman shared, to the full, the almost universal feeling in the community of dislike of such services; and he was too sincere a person to wish to enact an empty form. He wrote to Colonel May, accordingly, saying that "he had a very strong dislike to introducing lectures in the church," and proposing to resign his office, with character- istic tenaciousness of his convictions. The matter proceeded so far that a meeting of the Proprietors was called for Feb. 27, 1814, at which resolutions urging him, in the most affectionate terms, to withdraw his resignation would have been passed ; but he yielded in advance to persuasions, and reconsidered his ac- tion. The resolutions, prepared by Mr. Lowell, were these: -
At a meeting of the wardens, vestry, and proprietors of King's Chapel in Boston on Sunday, the 27th of February, 1814 : -
Whereas, the Revd James Freeman, D.D., the beloved and venerated Rector of this church, has addressed a letter to the Wardens and Vestry of the said church, signifying, for certain reasons therein assigned, his determination to resign his said office of Rector ; and whereas, the War-
427
THE PRICE FUND.
dens, Vestry, and Proprietors of the said church cannot but view with great emotion and deep regret the dissolution of a connection which has en- dured for so many years with such unexampled harmony between them and their respected Pastor, - a connection upon which they look back with the most tender and delightful recollections, and to which they hope and believe they have been indebted for many virtuous and religious feelings in times past, and for many blessings in the present and future life ; while they recollect also that to the zeal, the piety, the learning, and affection- ate and disinterested labours of their Rector, this church is under God principally indebted for its present stability, harmony, and respectability ; while they reflect upon their children who have been brought up under his paternal care and ministry to love God, to cherish truth, and to main- tain the principles of religious and rational liberty, - they cannot consent to a dissolution of this tender connection between them and their pastor without most earnestly intreating him again to review the reasons which have induced him to make the said resolution, and to endeavour, if it be possible, to gratify them and promote the interest of this church by re- taining his said office.
Therefore, Voted, that this Church does not accept of the resignation of their beloved and venerated Rector, but most earnestly requests him to continue to exercise his said office.
Voted, further, that the time and circumstances under which the said resignation is made render it doubly painful to them, inasmuch as it will appear to the world, and even to that part of it whose opinions all good men ought to respect, that the said resignation was produced by a want of harmony or a difference of opinion upon a particular subject, which certainly ought not to sever a connection between a Christian Church and their pastor, - especially a church upon whom the most admirable precepts of Christian charity have been so often and so eloquently en- forced.
Although he thus consented to waive his personal feeling, Dr. Freeman remained averse to taking any further part in the Lectures than was absolutely necessary. As he himself wrote subsequently : -
" When the Price Lectures came into operation at King's Chapel, not having health, or leisure, or inclination to deliver discourses during the cold season of Lent to deaf pillars and insensible walls, I substituted my colleague, M' Cary, a younger and more popular man, and conse- quently one who would attract a congregation, to preach in my turn."
It proved, indeed, practically impossible to carry out Mr. Price's arrangement in all its details, as joint services could not be devised, in which the minister of King's Chapel and those of Trinity Church and Christ Church should unite. A corre- spondence passed between Mr. Cary and Dr. Gardiner : -
428
ANNALS OF KING'S CHAPEL.
Feb 7th, 1814.
DEAR SIR, - As Lent is approaching, during which ye sermons founded by W" Price are to be delivered, will you permit me to ask whether you have concluded to assist us in that service? The idea wh you suggested to me some time ago, that these sermons ought to be free from any sen- timents directly and intentionally hostile to y" religious sentiments of our respective churches, is one in which we perfectly agree with you. And I would take y" liberty to suggest, also, that it would be extremely grati- fying to us, if this same liberal spirit of accommodation would be ex- tended to ye Liturgy as well as y" sermons. There are some passages in y" Service of your church in which, as you know, Sir, we cannot con- scientiously unite, and which some of our people think they cannot con- sistently hear in their church when ye worship is conducted under their control. Would it be agreeable to you that a selection from your ser- vice and from ours, or from any other sources mutually agreed on, and struck off in a pamphlet for ye purpose, should be used on this occasion instead of y" common forms? Or, if you prefer to use your own ser- vice, would there be any objection either with yourself or M. Eaton, that it should be read, omitting, in consideration of our peculiar sentiments, those few passages which we believe to be unscriptural? I am uncertain how far ye canons of your church may permit this proposed use of y" Liturgy in case you should approve it. But perhaps this might be con- sidered as a sort of lecture, an extraordinary occasion to which y" com- mon rules do not apply, and in which y" minister, at his discretion, might use such parts of y" Service as, under existing circumstances, he should judge expedient?
I am, with great respect, your very humble servant,
S. CARY.
Revd D: GARDINER.
February 8th, 1814.
DEAR SIR, - It is not in our power to comply with your wishes. The Episcopal Liturgy is established by the authority of the General Conven- tion, which every Episcopal clergyman is bound to obey. I shall there- fore expect to bring my own clerk and our prayer book to the Chapel when I read prayers there. Here there can be no possible compromise. If we can bear your prayers, surely you may endure ours.
With great respect and esteem your humble servant,
Revd M' CARY.
J. S. J. GARDINER.
It would appear that this was not agreeable to Dr. Freeman on doctrinal grounds. A compromise was, however, made, as was explained thirteen years later, in 1827, when the next legal process in the case was on trial : -
"The Rev. Mr. Eaton being called by the demandants, then testified that he was Rector of Christ's Church, and . in that capacity had taken
429
THE PRICE FUND.
his part in the Price Lectures ; that they were begun in 1814, during which year the course pursued did not differ materially from the course prescribed by the will, except in this, -that the Rev. Dr. Freeman declined taking part in the Lectures, because he could not conscientiously be present at the reading of the Liturgy of the other churches ; they there- fore proposed, in behalf of Dr. Freeman, that the same clergyman who preached in his turn should also perform the rest of the service, using his own Liturgy. Witness objected at first, because it was a deviation from the will of the founder, but finally assented, lest his refusal should create a disturbance between the several societies. After that time, prayers were always read by the clergymen who preached, Dr. Freeman using the Chapel Liturgy, and the other clergymen that of the American Episcopal Church."
A singular scene once took place in consequence of Dr. Eaton's loyalty to his own prayer-book : -
"Once witness attended when Dr. Freeman was officiating, and made the responses aloud, reading them, however, out of his own prayer-book, so that they sometimes differed from those prescribed by the Chapel Liturgy. Twice when witness was repeating the Doxology, being one of the passages that differed, Dr. Freeman overhearing it, cried out, 'Don't say that !' and after the second time witness desisted from making the responses aloud. After the service was ended, witness addressed Dr. Freeman, and asked whether he meant to deprive members of the other churches of their right to join in worship at the Lectures. Dr. Freeman said that he did not, and that when he spoke he did not know that it was witness whom he heard ; but added that he could not conscientiously be present at the reading of the service used by witness, as he considered it idolatrous ; and that he must look upon the reading of it again, when he was officiating, as intended to drive him away from the Lectures. Witness asked what service he supposed Mr. Price intended should be read at these Lectures. Dr. Freeman said it was no matter ; that he must read his own service if any ; and that the question of their right to the property was open to litigation." I
Such incidents were not agreeable. Still, the lectures were faithfully administered by King's Chapel, being given in that church at the time by the persons and on the subjects provided by the testator, with only the necessary deviation required by the arrangement with the other churches in regard to the read- ing of the prayers. Nor was any complaint made against the fidelity of the church in administering the Trust. In 1824, however, soon after the expiration of the lease which the au-
1 Allowance is to be made for what Eaton is said to have been always vehe- mathematicians call "the personal equa- tion " in considering this testimony. Dr.
ment against Dr. Freeman, on doctrinal grounds ; particularly on this occasion.
430
ANNALS OF KING'S CHAPEL.
thorities of King's Chapel had made of the Price premises on coming into possession in 1813, the dissatisfaction of the other churches on account of the doctrinal and ecclesiastical differ- ences between them and King's Chapel reached the point of definite action. The records of Trinity Church Vestry, June 13, 1824, contain a report of a committee on the Price Will, which suggests : -
". . . It appears that the Estate . . . was in the possession of l'elham, against whom the King's Chapel brought a suit and recovered possession upon the ground of their having a better claim than the Defendant who had none. In the opinion of the Court in this decision, it is stated that " if by any alteration in their doctrines, worship, and discipline this parish has incurred a forfeiture, it is for heirs of the Devisor to avail themselves of it." Your Committee are therefore of opinion that a question may fairly be raised whether the Rector and Wardens of King's Chapel were capable in a legal sense of accepting the bequest at the time when they professed to accept it, and if not, whether the claim to it by Trinity Church cannot be substantiated. They think it a question of great difficulty, turning upon very nice points. The identity of the Corporation of [King's Chapel] ; the validity of the notice of their accept- ance of the Donation at the time when the notice was given ; the effect of the American Revolution both in Church and State upon the ques- tion ; there being now no Minister of the Church of England here ; the alteration of the Liturgy ; the change of doctrine and discipline in [ King's Chapel] ; their departure in many respects from the positive directions of the donor ; the laws in our Statute book relative to religious corporations, and the numerous decisions in the Massachusetts Term Reports concern- ing Ministers, Parishes, Churches, etc., which have a bearing upon these controverted points, and which, although carefully considered by any man of the highest eminence for his learning and skill, might not pro- duce an opinion upon which great confidence would be placed as to the result of a trial at law upon this Church's right to Mr. Price's bequest, and such a trial must be attended with great expense. Under these con- siderations, at the same time governed by a wish that this business may be conducted with all possible delicacy towards the Rector, Wardens, and Proprietors of [King's Chapel]," they suggested the course of action which was afterward pursued.
The first note of a fresh controversy was sounded by the fol- lowing letter : -
9 July, 1824.
To the Revd D! FREEMAN, JOSEPH MAY, Esq!, EBENR OLIVER, Esq'. .
GENTLEMEN, - M: Price's Donations having been a topic of discus- sion at a late meeting of the Wardens and Proprietors of Trinity Church, who claim the Estate in Cornhill, once the Mansion House, the under- signed respectfully represent to you that at that meeting they were elected
431
THE PRICE FUND.
a Committee upon the subject, with discretionary powers to retain Coun- sel, and take such other measures as they should deem most expedient for the interest of the Church ; and they beg leave to assure you that while in the discharge of the duty imposed on them they shall be gov- erned by a sedulous regard to the rights of their own Church under the Will of that Gentleman, no considerations arising from difference in theo- logical tenets or from polemical antipathies or prejudices will be per- mitted to influence their conduct in urging to a final decision the technical niceties and dry matters of law and fact on which the questions between these parties depend.
It is in the spirit of that urbanity with which they hope the contro- versy will be carried on by both parties if a suit at law is to be com- menced, that they now address you on the subject; and if there be any mode for which you have a preference, by which the rights of the church we represent arising from that Testamentary Instrument can be determined in an amicable manner, a communication of your wishes and views as early as convenient will be received as evidence of the gentle- manly deportment which we believe you will always display in the dis- cussion of the controverted points.
With sentiments of personal respect we remain
Your humble servants, JN'. T. APTHORP, Committee of Pro- GARDE GREENE, prietors of
SAM' D. PARKER, Trinity Church.
On Sept. 17, 1824, shortly after Mr. Greenwood's settlement as Dr. Freeman's colleague, the rector and church wardens of Trinity Church entered on the premises of the Price estate, claiming to hold possession by virtue of Mr. Price's will, but were " on the same day ousted and disseized of the same" by J. Stodder and B. C. Frobisher, the tenants at will under the rector and wardens of King's Chapel. On Sept. 18 they sued out of the clerk's office of the Court of Common Pleas a writ of entry sur disscisin against the tenants. The case was carried up to the Supreme Court, the rector and wardens of King's Chapel being joined with the tenants to answer to the suit.1 The case was argued before the full bench, consisting of Judges Parker, Putnam, Wilde, and Morton, by able counsel on both sides, - Messrs. Hubbard and Gardiner for the demandants, and Messrs. Davis and Prescott for the tenants.2
1 " The Minister and Church Wardens of Trinity Church vs. Jonathan Stodder and Benjamin C. Frobisher." S. J. C. IS28.
2 The counsel retained for Trinity Church were Messrs. Charles Jackson,
Daniel Webster, Benjamin Gorham, and Samuel Hubbard, assisted by Messrs. William D. Sohier, and William II. Gar- diner, of the church. Those for King's Chapel are named on p. 434, 2. 1, post.
432
ANNALS OF KING'S CHAPEL.
The demandants claimed that no proper acceptance of the bequest had ever been made by the rector and wardens of King's Chapel, as required by the Will, inasmuch as there was no evidence that it had been so accepted in Dr. Caner's time ; and that the subsequent acceptances were void because " the present Chapel society " were not the same church nor its law- ful successors. They claimed that " the corporation known as the Rector and Church Wardens of the King's Chapel " was dis- solved; that it was known not as "King's," but as "Stone," Chapel; that Dr. Freeman and the wardens were not the legal successors of Dr. Caner and the wardens with him; and, if the church was not dissolved, it was so changed "by its subsequent secession from the Church of England that its church officers were incapable of executing the trust in good faith, according to the donor's truc intent."
"The tenants, on the other hand, insisted that said Freeman and others were duly elected to their respective offices, and were the lawful successors of said Caner and others; that either of the acceptances of 1809 and 1789 were sufficient in law, and that they did not invalidate each other; and they further con- tended that even if both the said acceptances were void, yet lapse of time and uninterrupted possession, coupled with the loss of the ancient records, would raise a presumption in law that Caner and others previous to the evacuation of Boston had accepted, and duly certified their acceptance, so as to bar the demandants." They brought the evidence of the facts in the history to prove that the church remained the same church notwithstanding its doctrinal change; that Dr. Freeman and his associates were the lawful successors to Dr. Caner and his; that the church had never given up its name of King's Chapel, and was only popularly known as the ' Stone Chapel;' and that the demandants, by their own acts, had recognized ' that said Free- man and the others are the lawful Trustees.' The court de- cided that ' An acceptance by the tenants has been sufficiently proved; but a majority of the court are not of opinion that they were in a condition to make one; but a judgment cannot be rendered in favor of the demandants, for there may have been an acceptance in the time of Dr. Caner. Whether there was an acceptance by him and his wardens has been referred to as a question of law; but the point is, whether from lapse of time, loss of records, etc., a certain act may be presumed to have been done; and this is a question of fact. It must be determined by a jury, therefore, whether there was an accep-
433
THE PRICE FUND.
tance by Dr. Caner, and for that purpose a new trial is granted.'" No doubt, however, was expressed by the court respecting the ability of King's Chapel to execute the trusts attached to the donation. "The question whether the respondents did accept the said donation depended upon ancient facts much obscured by lapse of time; and the respondents were informed that much difficulty was found by the court in determining the principles of law applicable thereto, and that there was a division among the members of the court; hereupon a compromise was pro- posed and finally agreed upon."1 It was agreed between the contending parties that judgment should be entered in favor of Trinity Church, whereby that church should take possession of the estate; that thereafter that church should discharge all the trusts under Mr. Price's will; and that, by an indenture be- tween both parties, Trinity Church, after retaining from the income a sum sufficient to pay all sums directed in the will, and the taxes, repairs, etc., should pay over one half of the re- mainder, the rents and income, to King's Chapel.
"And whereas it does not appear," the indenture read, "and the parties of the 3d and 4th parts cannot now make it appear, whether [Dr. Caner accepted, or Dr. Freeman's acceptances were valid]; ... and the respective parties hereto being de- sirous to remove henceforward all doubts in the premises, and to determine amicably the present controversy between the religious societies aforesaid, and to prevent as far as may be the possibility of any future controversy between them and their successors respecting the same, and also to secure as far as present circumstances will permit the due execution of the several trusts created in and by said will, etc., . . . have mu- tually agreed that such verdict and judgment . . . as may be final and conclusive .. shall be rendered in favor of the demandants. . . . "
Thus terminated a long and vexatious controversy, in which each party was probably equally persuaded that justice was wholly on its side; but each was willing, in view of the pro- verbial uncertainties of the law, to accept a part rather than risk losing the whole. Survivors from that time have assured the writer, that after the adoption of this compromise they were credibly informed that if the new trial had been held, the opinion of the majority of the judges would probably have been
1 S. J. C. Suffolk, ss. In Equity. "The Attorney General, Ex Relatione, vs. The Rector and Wardens of Trinity
Church et al." The Answer of the Pro- prictors of King's Chapel. 1862. pp. 10, 11.
VOL. 11 .- 28
434
ANNALS OF KING'S CHAPEL.
given in favor of King's Chapel. However that might have been, the church was the more ready to accept this conclusion of the matter, since in any event Trinity Church had been chosen by Mr. Price as the next heir in case his first choice should fail from any cause.1
The measure of success in maintaining the rights of King's Chapel was largely due to the fact, that when in 1805 the pro- prictors were satisfied that the original records prior to 1776 were irrecoverably lost, they had appointed a committee "to collate from all the documents which could be found a fair record of the votes and proceedings of the Society." The best evidence of the fidelity with which this was done is in the fol- lowing note in the Proprietors' Records: -
This book of Records has been twice tested in the Supreme Judicial Court, and approved, after its history and origin were stated by me in March, 1813, and February, 1825. J. MAY.
The proprietors had signified their appreciation of this labor at the Easter meeting, 1817, by voting " $300 to Colonel May for his services, and $25 per annum so long as he continues to keep the records and attend to Price duties." At Easter, 1827, they further voted their " thanks to Colonel May for the zeal, fidelity, and punctuality with which for a long series of years he has discharged the duties of church warden; for the great service he has rendered them in preserving the records of the church, and keeping them with correctness; and for the devoted in- terest which he has at all times manifested in its concerns; and that the best wishes of the proprietors attend him on the present resignation of his office."
A little later, the church might well have been more tenacious of its legal rights; but at this time only one of the several decisions of the Court, which have established the law of Mas- sachusetts in regard to the right of religious societies to modify their faith without forfeiture of their property, had been pro- nounced. The Unitarian controversy brought this question before legal tribunals, in various forms, to the great hurt of true religion and piety, and with the effect of rousing much ill-feel- ing, but with the uniform result of confirming such a right. The Dedham case, in 1820,2 had decided that the majority of
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.