USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge > Lectures on the history of the First Church in Cambridge > Part 19
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
In 1660, at a meeting of the inhabitants of the town, there was a grant to the church in Dedham, and to the use thereof forever, of certain common rights and cow rights, for the use and accommodation of a teaching church officer. There were several other grants from the proprietors to the church in Dedham and their successors in office.
These lands had been sold, and the proceeds invested in bonds and other securities.
The question was, who was the owner of these bonds and securities and certain records and documents, all of which were admitted to be the property of the first church in Dedham.
It was admitted that the first parish and first church in Dedham continued and associated together, in the support and maintenance of public worship, until November, 1818,
273
APPENDIX.
when the Rev. Alvan Lamson was settled and ordained as the minister of the first parish, that a majority of the church did not concur with the majority of the parish in giving a call to Mr. Lamson, or in his settlement and or- dination.
It appeared from the records of the church, that in 1792 the church directed the trustees of the church fund to appropriate one year's interest thereof to the payment of the then minister's salary, and in 1819 the parish requested the church to pay and allow the sum of $600, towards Mr. Lamson's salary. At another meeting of the parish, the same year, it was voted to unite with the church to obtain the property of the church, to indemnify the deacons there- in, and to put Mr. Lamson in possession of the parsonage house.
Those members of the ancient church who adhered to Mr. Lamson after his ordination, had continued associated and connected with the first parish, and had continued to act as a church, and to have the ordinances of the gospel administered to them by Mr. Lamson.
The defendant was a deacon of the church previously to Mr. Lamson's settlement ; after which settlement he was removed, and the plaintiffs were elected to .that office by the church who united with the parish in the settlement of Mr. Lamson.
The defendants contended that the majority of the mem- bers of the church, who objected to the settlement of Mr. Lamson, must be considered as the successors of the ancient church in Dedham ; and proved that, after the settlement of Mr. Lamson, the majority of the members of the church, with the defendant, then one of the deacons of said church, met and worshipped with some of the parish at another house, and did not after that time attend public worship at the meeting-house. But the Christian ordi- nances were administered to them, and they held church
18
274
APPENDIX.
meetings, and claimed to be the successors of the first church in Dedham.
They did not attend worship at Mr. Lamson's meeting- house when the meeting was notified from the pulpit at which the plaintiffs were chosen Deacons ; and this was known when the meeting was notified.
The church in Dedham had always had exclusive control and management of the property and the funds raised from the sales of land before mentioned.
The members of the church who united with the parish in the settlement of Mr. Lamson never formed or were gathered into a new church.
The court said : If the plaintiffs are not the deacons of the first church in Dedham, they are not entitled to the pos- session of the property ; if they are such deacons, then, as the articles are agreed to belong for certain purposes to the proper representatives of that church, the plaintiff's are con- stituted by law the proper persons to sue for and have the custody of them.
The court premised that all the securities in question arose from the sales of land granted to the church in Ded- ham, and that the records and documents in question re- lated to that property and the proceedings of that church. The right to the securities must depend upon the construc- tion to be given to the grants of land of which the se- curities are the proceeds.
Upon these facts the court held, -
That, as to all the grants, the church, however com- posed at the time, was intended by the grantors to be the mere trustees, to hold the grants for the purpose of sup- porting out of the proceeds a pastor or minister.
That when the donation is to the church, ro trust or use being expressed, and no other implied from the nature of the property, the parish must be the cestui que trust, or the party for whose benefit the trust is made.
275
APPENDIX.
That the grants of land to the church in Dedham were intended to vest the property in that body for the purpose of the public worship of God; and that the members of the church acquired no legal estate or personal interest therein.
That the grants of the old proprietors gave an equitable fee simple to whosoever shall be found to be the cestui que trusts, and the want of a grantee in trust has been supplied by the statute of 1754, which constitutes the deacons of the churches the trustees in all such cases.
That upon the ground that, at the time the grants were made, there was a body of men in Dedham known by the name of the Dedham Church; distinct from the society of Christians usually worshipping together in that town; the church was intended to take nothing in the lands granted but estates in trust ; and that as the particular trusts in- tended must have been the providing for the public worship of God in Dedham, the inhabitants at large of that town, as parishioners or members of the religious society, were the proper cestui que trusts.
That the land granted was for the beneficial use of the assembly of Christians in Dedham, which was no other than the inhabitants of that town who constituted the re- ligious society, within which the church was established, and therefore these inhabitants were the cestui que trusts, and the equitable title was vested in them, as long as they continued to constitute the assembly denominated the church in the grants.
That, though since the grants were made parishes have been set off in the town, and other churches have been established within these parishes, a residuum has always been left, which, by the statutes of the government and the decisions of the courts, have thus become the first parish, and have lawfully succeeded to all the rights vested in the inhabitants of the town, of a parochial nature, which have. not been parted with in some legal form.
276
APPENDIX.
That in 1754, the legislature, having found much prop- erty had been given to churches, with the intention that the same should be held in perpetual succession, constituted the deacons a corporation with the power of holding the property for the purpose of executing therewith the will of the donors.
We are now brought, says the court, to the question whether the plaintiffs have proved themselves to be the deacons of the same church to which the grants were origi- nally made, for the trusts before mentioned ?
Having stated the facts as follows, viz. : -
Until the invitation given to Mr. Lamson, the present offi- ciating minister in the first parish in Dedham, the church and congregation appear to have acted in unison, and the funds held by the church, arising from the grants of land which have been considered, have been from time to time applied, as needed, to the support of the minister, and to defray other charges relating to public worship. On the dis- mission of Rev. Mr. Bates from the pastoral charge of the church and congregation in Dedham, at his own request, the unhappy dissension arose which has terminated in a dismem- berment of the society and a litigation about the property. Mr. Lamson was elected by the parish, at a regular parish meeting, to be the successor of Mr. Bates. The church re- fused to concur in the choice, a majority of this body disap- proving of his religious tenets, or for other causes. The parish, with the minority of the church, invited a respectable council, consisting of the ministers of several churches and delegates, who advised to the ordination of Mr. Lamson over the parish, and who accordingly ordained him, notwith- standing the remonstrance of a majority of the church, who finally seceded from the parish, and never since the ordination of Mr. Lamson have attended public worship there, but have in another place, within the territorial limits of the parish, attended public worship, and had the ordinances administered to them as a church.
277
APPENDIX.
:
After the ordination of Mr. Lamson, a church meeting was called, at which the members who acted with the parish attended, and they voted to remove from office the former deacons, who seceded with the majority of the old church, and elected the plaintiffs in their stead.
The members who seceded claimed still to be the first church in Dedham, and the successors of the church to which the property was given in trust ; the defendant claimed to be the deacon of that church, and as such claimed a right to hold the property.
The court held, -
That, in whatever light ecclesiastical councils or persons might consider the question, the body which is to be con- sidered the first church in Dedham must be the church of the first parish in that town, as to all questions of prop- erty which depend upon that relation.
That if a church may subsist unconnected with any congregational society, it has no legal qualities, and more especially cannot exercise any control over property which it may have held in trust for the society with which it had been formerly connected.
That, as to all civil purposes, the secession of a whole church from the parish would be an extinction of the church ; and it is competent to the members of the parish to institute a new church, or to engraft one upon the old stock, if any of it should remain; and this new church would succeed to all the rights of the old, in relation to the parish.
That the only circumstance which gives a church any legal character is its connection with some regularly consti- tuted society ; and those who withdraw from the society cease to be members of that particular church, and the remaining members continue to be the identical church.
That where members enough of a church connected with a parish are left to execute the objects for which a church
278
APPENDIX.
is gathered, choose deacons, etc., no legal change has taken place, the body remains, and the secession of a majority of the members would have no other effect than a temporary absence would have upon a meeting which has been regu- larly summoned.
That the members of the church who withdrew from the parish ceased to be the first church in Dedham, and that all the rights and duties of that body, relative to property intrusted to it, devolved upon those members who remained with and adhered to the parish.
The court then takes up the question, whether the plain- tiffs were duly chosen deacons of the church which re- mained with the parish, and so became entitled to the possession of the property, as the trustees under the statute of 1754.
This question was thought to depend upon the validity of the settlement and ordination of Mr. Lamson; and the court held, -
That the parish had the constitutional right to elect and contract with their minister, exclusively of any concurrence or control of the church.
That the nonconcurrence of the church in the choice of the minister, and in the invitation of the ordaining council, in no degree impaired the constitutional right of the parish to choose the minister.
That the council ordained Mr. Lamson over the parish only, but by virtue of that act, founded upon the choice of the people, he became not only the minister of the parish, but of the church still remaining there, notwithstanding the secession of a majority of the members.
That Mr. Lamson thus became the minister of the first parish in Dedham, and of the church subsisting therein, and he had a right to call church meetings, and do all other acts pertaining to a settled and ordained minister of the gospel.
279
APPENDIX.
That the church had a right to choose deacons, and no legal objection is found to exist against their right to main- tain the action.
It is not too much to say that the opinion in Baker vs. Fales has not commended itself to the judgment of the legal profession in its positions or its reasoning, while it is entirely at variance with such ecclesiastical authorities as are recognized by the Congregational churches of this Com- monwealth. Whether the decision would now be made, or will be hereafter adhered to as law, we will not say. A recent opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Watson vs. Jones, reported in the 12 Wallace Reports, p. 679, seems to establish conclusions inconsistent with those in Baker vs. Fales.
In Watson vs. Jones the question litigated was, which of two bodies in Louisville, Ky., each claiming to be the " Third or Walnut Street Presbyterian Church," was such church. The question in Baker vs. Fales was, which of the two bodies, each claiming to be the "First Church in Dedham," was such church. The decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the latter case has been given in the fore- going abstracts.
In the former, the Supreme Court of the United States say : "The questions which have come before the civil courts concerning the right to property held by ecclesiastical bodies, may, so far as we have been able to examine them, be profitably classified under three general heads, which, of course, do not include cases governed by considerations applicable to a church established and supported by law as the religion of the State."
" The second is when the property is held by a religious congregation, which, by the nature of its organization, is strictly independent of other ecclesiastical associations, and,
280
APPENDIX.
so far as church government is concerned, owes no fealty or obligation to any higher authority." - p. 727.
This describes simply a congregational church.
In regard to it the court use the following very sensible and significant language : -
" The second class of cases which we have described has reference to the case of a church of a strictly congrega- tional or independent organization, governed solely within itself, either by a majority of its members, or by such other local organism as it may have instituted for the purpose of ecclesiastical government ; and to property held by such a church, either by way of purchase or donation, with no other specific trust attached to it in the hands of the church than that it is for the use of that congregation as a religious society.
" In such cases, where there is a schism which leads to a separation into distinct and conflicting bodies, the rights of such bodies to the use of the property must be determined by the ordinary principles which govern voluntary associa- tions. If the principle of government in such cases is that the majority rules, then the numerical majority of members must control the right to the use of the property. If there be within the congregation officers in whom are vested the powers of such control, then those who adhere to the ac- knowledged organism by which the body is governed, are entitled to the use of the property. The minority, in choosing to separate themselves into a distinct body, and refusing to recognize the authority of the governing body, can claim no rights in the property from the fact that they had once been members of the church or. congregation. This ruling admits of no inquiry into the existing religious opinions of those who comprise the legal or regular organ- ization ; for if such was permitted, a very small minority, without any officers of the church among them, might be found to be the only faithful supporters of the religious
281
APPENDIX.
dogmas of the founders of the church. There being no such trust imposed upon the property when purchased or given, the court will not imply one for the purpose of expel- ling from its use those who by regular succession and order constitute the church, because they may have changed in some respect their views of religious truth.
" Of the cases in which this doctrine is applied, no better representative can be found than that of Shannon vs. Frost, 3 B. Monro, 253, where the principle is ably supported by the learned Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals of Ken- tucky.
" The case of Smith vs. Nelson, 18 Vermont, 511, asserts this doctrine in a case where a legacy was left to the Asso- ciate Congregation of Ryegate, the interest whereof was to be annually paid to their minister forever. In that case, though the Ryegate congregation was one of a number of Presbyterian churches connected with the general Presby- terian body at large, the court held that the only inquiry was whether the society still exists, and whether they have a minister chosen and appointed by the majority, and regu- larly ordained over the society, agreeably to the usage of that denomination. And though we may be of opinion that the doctrine of that case needs modification, so far as it discusses the relation of the Ryegate congregation to the other judicatories of the body to which it belongs, it cer- tainly lays down the principle correctly, if that congregation was to be treated as an independent one."
This decision, or rather its reasoning, restores to the Con- gregational church that independence and autonomy which are its characteristics, and which the decision in Baker vs. Fales entirely destroyed.
It can hardly be doubted which of these decisions is most in harmony with the universally recognized nature and character of Congregational churches, and the better expo- nent of the views and theory of their supporters.
282
APPENDIX.
The decision in Baker vs. Fales allows a church, whose fundamental and distinctive principle is independency of all external control, no existence independent of the control of another and distinct body, to wit, the society, or parish, of which no one of its members is necessarily a mem- ber. An independent Congregational church that has not within itself the power to determine, by its own vote, its own identity and continuance, or which by any sys- tem, justly construed, is so connected with another dis- tinct body as to be incapable by independent action of preserving its own identity and purity, is an anomaly. Such is the only Congregational church under the reason- ing in Baker vs. Fales. Such is not the Congregational church under the reasoning of the later case of Watson vs. Jones, or in the general understanding, determination, or usages of the Congregational churches of Massachusetts for two centuries. And such it is not, we think, will be the decision whenever a case presenting the point shall come up for adjudication in the Federal courts, or those of any State in which the case of Baker vs. Fales is not a binding authority.
In view of the reasoning in Watson vs. Jones, and other cases, it is not, perhaps, too much to hope that the courts of Massachusetts may consider the whole subject open for revision and reconsideration.
A few words in addition to the statements of law.
The decision of the United States Court in the case of Watson vs. Jones establishes the legal completeness of a Congregational church, independent of all connections. Congregationalism recognizes no ecclesiastical authority higher than the church itself. It is supreme in its own affairs. Upon this ground the First Church in Cambridge separated from the parish with which, for certain purposes,
283
APPENDIX.
it had been connected, and with its minister established worship in another house. This action it was competent to take, and it remained the same church it had been since 1636.
Congregationalism has a system of advisory councils. Their decisions are recognized in the courts. In Cambridge, after the church had sundered its connection with the parish, an Ecclesiastical Council was duly called by the ·church. This Council confirmed the action of the church, and encouraged it in maintaining divine worship and the celebration of the ordinances of religion.
The bearing of the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upon our own church case is clear. The highest ecclesiastical tribunals recognized among Congre- gational churches decided the position and rights of the church. And this decision is pronounced binding in law. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts substantially affirmed the same judgment, saving only in the matter of holding property. This exception is not made in the national court.
Let it be remembered, further, what was the intent of the donors of the funds which were taken from this church. The church fund was begun by a gift of £50 by a member of the church, and increased to more than $ 4,000 by the con- tributions of the church at the Lord's Supper.
The desire and purpose of the donors no one can doubt. If the funds were held by the church simply as a trustee for the benefit of the parish, even the majority of the church, worshipping wherever it might be, would be prac- tically as competent to administer the trust as the minority of the church remaining in the old meeting-house. If any doubt were possible concerning the money, the design and expectation of those who gave the Communion and Baptis- mal Service are entirely plain.
The church was established for other purposes than to be the trustee of property. And these purposes have never
284
APPENDIX.
been changed. Those who have persistently adhered to them surely have the right to declare themselves, in all re- spects, the successors of those who founded the church. The church has never lost or impaired its identity.
The original constitution of the church has not been amended. The same ends are sought by the same means. There is a continuity of principles which should have weight in deciding the questions upon which the church and council and the courts have given their judgment. The views ad- vanced in Lecture VII. seem to be abundantly sustained, both on moral and legal grounds.
The " New York Evening Post," in commenting upon the decision in the United States Court, uses the following lan- guage : "This decision is henceforth established law in the United States. Had it been made a generation ago, the result of a large number of the disputes on church property, which have been settled by arbitration or otherwise, would have been different. But it is likely to be strictly adhered to hereafter by both civil and ecclesiastical tribunals. It is important to have a general rule on the subject, and yet any rule will, of course, seem to work hardship in some cases. The present decision is that to which the courts of this country have steadily tended, and probably could not have been different without making confusion."
INDEX.
Adams, John Quincy, 71. Adams, Nehemiah, Jr., invited to become the colleague of Dr. Holmes, 218; his ordination, 220; names of the Council, 220; divis- ion of Sabbath services between the two pastors, 222; becomes pas- tor of the Essex Street Church and Society in Boston, 224; remarks on Dr. Albro, 231, 235; prayer of dedication, 253.
Albro, John Adams, early life, 226; settles in Chelmsford and Fitch- burg, 227; installed as pastor, 228; visits Europe, 229; twenty-fifth an- niversary of his installation, 229 - 233 ; instruction in the Greek Testament, 234 ; consecration of cemetery, 234; publishes a "Life of Thomas Shepard " and other works, 235 ; his connection with the Mass. Sabbath School So- ciety and with the School Com- mittee, 234, 235; receives the de- gree of D. D. from Bowdoin and Harvard Colleges, 236; his charac- ter and preaching, 237 - 239; his salary, 239; his resignation, 239; changes in the meeting-house and in the membership of the church during his ministry, 239; his fare- well sermon, 240; services ren- dered the church and society after his dismission, 240, 241; his death, 243; his funeral, 243.
Allen, Rev. Mr., publishes a book with Thomas Shepard, 64.
Allston, Washington, 223, 238. Ames, William, 89, 121. Anabaptists, 103.
Antinomians, 53.
Appleton, Nathaniel, his ancestry, 145; his ordination, - additional town tax to defray the expenses of, - is elected a Fellow of the College, - the degree of Doctor of
Divinity conferred upon him, 146; baptisms and admissions to the church during his ministry, 147; measures adopted " to reform the growing disorders," 149; the church lands, 150; the choice of a col- league pastor, 156; his death, 157; his character, 157; his legacies, 158; his publications, 158; anec- dote of, 159; his children, 159.
Autobiography of Thomas Shepard, 12, 208.
Baker and another vs. Fales, 203, 272. Baptism of children, 38, 78, 236; con-
troversy with Henry Dunster, 102- 110.
Bates, Charlotte F., hymn by, 254. Bay Psalm Book, 43.
Belcher, Captain Andrew, 143.
Boradel, Margaret, 70.
Boston Confession, 33, 267.
Brattle, William, graduates at Har- vard in 1680, - is chosen tutor, - his fidelity to the students, - re- ceives the degree of Bachelor of Di- vinity, conferred for the first time, - Fellow of the Corporation and Treasurer of the College, 134; ser- vices at his ordination, 135; his salary, 138; donations, 139; garden- ing and weather record, 139, 140; additions to the church, 140; his charity and humility, 141; his be- quest to the church, 142; Dr. Col- man's testimony concerning him, 142; items from the town records during his ministry, 143; expenses of his funeral defrayed by the town, 144.
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.