Reverend Mr. Palmer

One of the most controversial men to have served in the ministry in Middleborough was the Reverend Thomas Palmer, who served as pastor of the First Congregational Church of Middleborough between 1696 and 1706, and who was, by the standards of today, an alcoholic.

Following the August, 1695, death of the church's first pastor Reverend Samuel Fuller, Isaac Cushman was called to the pastorate, followed by Mr. Clapp and Mr. Cutting. Eventually, in August, 1696, the church settled upon Thomas Palmer, initially engaging him to preach for three months.  In October, 1696, he was voted an annual salary.

Apparently, he was not resident in Middleborough at that time, for the town voted in November, 1698, "that his goods shall be brought from Plymouth at the town's charge." Little is known of Palmer's origins, other than that he is said to have been a native of Plymouth and the brother of William Palmer of that town.

There is believed to have been some initial opposition to Palmer becoming the settled pastor, which may help explain why it was a number of years before he was finally ordained. The 1852 history of the First Church gives the likely date of Palmer's ordination as May 2, 1702, but notes that it could have been one or two years prior.

Palmer's ministry, following his settlement, was a troubled one. He is depicted as having "been a rash, headstrong man," and Thomas Weston, in fact, calls his "the most unfortunate ministry in the history of this church".  Again, there was some opposition on the part of several church members to his ordination, though, once more, the reasons therefore are not explicitly stated though presumably they stem from Palmer's increasing volatility and drinking.

Little has been left on record concerning Palmer's addiction.  Though alcohol was both widely available and widely valued for social and medical reasons in colonial Massachusetts, and public intoxication and over-indulgence certainly were not unknown, Palmer's habitual drunkeness went beyond community accepted norms.  At the time, habtual drunkeness was considered sinful, an attitude which helps explain the later punishment meted out to Reverend Palmer, and the characterization of his affliction as an "immorality". In 1673, the influential Increase Mather of Boston had in two noteworthy sermons (later published as Wo to Drunkards) preached that "drink is in itself a good creature of God, and to be received with thankfulness, but the abuse of drink is from Satan; the wine is from God, but the Drunkard is from the Devil", an attitude which remained prevalent in communities like Middleborough for several generations.

By 1706, there was some thought of deposing Palmer from his ministry due to mounting disaffection and dissatisfaction.  Though Palmer continued to be voted an annual salary, the vote on his pay for the year 1706 added the proviso that "he continue in the work of the ministry the whole year; if removed, to pay him proportionally", an inkling that his removal was at least being contemplated.

Ultimately, charges of "intemperance and excessive drinking" were levied against Palmer in late 1706. To deal with the matter, the church convened a council composed of elders and representatives of churches from neighboring towns which, after hearing the case in November, "judged it proved that he was a man addicted to drinking, etc., and thereupon disapproved of his continuance any longer in the exercise of the Evangelical Ministry there." The town soon after voted "to seek out a man for the supply of the ministry" to replace Palmer.

Palmer, however, "and some of his friends felt aggrieved by the action of the council, and they with the town and church, called a second council." This second council judged that Palmer should continue in his ministry "until the council should meet more fully." Finally, a third council of twelve churches was called in June, 1707, and advised the church to dismiss Palmer.

In accordance with this last advice, the church voted to not only dismiss Palmer from his ministry, but to suspend him from communion "for his scandalous immoralities."

Voted, by the church of Middleborough, that, in pursuance of the advice of twelve churches, in council here convened, which have declared that Mr. Thomas Palmer, the former minister and pastor, ought to be removed from the work of the Gospel ministry, and suspended from communion at the Lord's table for his scandalous immoralities, - therefore, in conformity to said advice of said council, as also upon the advice of a convention of reverend ministers at Boston, the church doth now declare that they now look on Mr. Thomas Palmer as no longer their pastor, but as deposed from the work of the ministry, and also suspended from the table of the Lord; and we withdraw from the said Mr. Palmer, and unite in our endeavors to settle the ordinances of the Gospel among us.

Palmer seems to have stopped (or been stopped from) preaching sometime in 1706, though after bringing suit against the parish, he recovered a judgement for his full salary up until the time of the council's recommendation of his dismissal. During this time, Palmer had preached in his own house which was located on East Main Street, west of the Green, "where he had a few hearers."  Ultimately, the church authorized the Selectmen, December 12, 1707, to engage Reverend Peter Thacher to preach for a quarter of a year. Thacher would ultimately succeed Palmer as the settled pastor.

Following his dismissal, Palmer retired to his homestead and practiced "physick" or medicine, slowly regaining some of the respect he had lost as minister while providing for his large family, including sons Samuel and Job who were later educated for the ministry at Harvard.  An anecdote relating to this period of Palmer's life has been handed down to the present and depicts a less rash and less headstrong Palmer. Following a visit to a patient in Middleborough's West Precinct (now Lakeville), Palmer borrowed the patient's horse in order to return home. Having arrived home, Palmer set the beast on its way back to Lakeville, but, so as the riderless horse would not be impounded on its return journey, Palmer allegedly attached the following lines to the animal's bridle:

Don't take me up, but let me pass
For I'm my master's faithful ass;
He Doctor Palmer lent me,
Who rode me to his house,
And gave me a pottle of oats,
And home again he sent me.

Late in life, Palmer is said to have been reconciled to the church which he once served as pastor. He "became sincerely repentent for his former course, and on November 13, 1737, the censure of the Church was taken off and he was restored to his communion by unanimous vote of the church, after full confession of his error."  The implication is that Palmer, by this time, had overcome his affliction.

Thomas Palmer died June 17, 1743, at the age of 78.

Illustration:
Photograph by Alison Curtis, August 5, 2009.  Republished under a Creative Commons license.

First Church History Blog

For those readers who enjoyed yesterday's post and are looking to learn more about the historic Church of the Green, church historian Jim MacDonald has created his own blog, History of the First Church of Middleborough. 

Jim writes that the intent of his new blog is to share the First Church's "extensive history in an effort to provide a reference for those researching, and interested in, the historical significance of this old New England church and the surrounding community of Middleboro.  In time, this site will feature posts of much interesting and useful historical facts, information, pictures and documents related to the church and its history."

Organized in 1694-95, the First Church of Middleborough was Middleborough's earliest church and it not surprisingly has a rich and fascinating past.  This history promises to be well documented and made much more accessible to the modern reader and researcher through this new blog.  (Look for a direct link to History of the First Church of Middleborough in the right sidebar over the next couple of days).

Recollecting Nemasket welcomes this addition to the local history "blogsphere" and wishes it a long and successful history.  Knowing more about our past only further enriches our present.

Church of the Green, 1828

First Church of Middleborough, Plympton Street, Middleborough, MA,

photograph, late 19th century

The view depicts the First Church of Middleborough (1828), better

known as the Church of the Green, and the small vestry building (1829)

behind it.  In the right background are the carriage sheds which once

served church-goers.  The church was constructed on what was known

as the Upper Green at Middleborough.

Daniel Webster once described it as one of the finest churches he had ever seen. The 1828 First Congregational Church of Middleborough, better known as the Church of the Green, has since its construction become a local architectural icon, symbolic of the community’s religious heritage and life, and one much remarked upon for its beauty and setting.

Discussion concerning a new church to replace the meetinghouse structure built in 1745, arose in 1827 if not earlier. The deteriorating condition of the 1745 meetinghouse led the First Precinct at its meeting of April 30, 1827, to consider whether to repair the building “so as to make it … more suitable for a place of public worship” or whether to build a completely new church. The meeting opted for the latter course of an entirely new church, voting “that it is the sense of the Precinct that they ought to have a New Meeting House”. A committee of nine consisting of George Eddy, William Bourne, James Sproat, Abiel Washburn, Cephas Thompson, Levi Tinkham, Thomas Sturtevant and Edward Sparrow was named to draft plans and report on the expense of the project.

The committee reported back on October 11, 1827, estimating the cost of a replacement church at not more than $7,000 and “probably not more than six thousand five hundred dollars”. Two plans were suggested: one with a single gallery at the front of the church for singers and the second with the gallery for singers as well as narrow side galleries. The majority of committee members was in favor of the first plan.

The committee had investigated a number of recently built churches including those at Randolph and North Bridgewater [Brockton] from which preliminary plans were drawn, though with some alterations. “The variation[s] contemplated by the committee are in the width [and] length of the house [and] the length of the pews [and] also the singing galleries to be in front of the pulpit [at the rear of the church] rather than behind it. The committee think the house should be not less than sixty feet in width [and] not less than seventy feet in length, the [box] pews to be about nine feet in length [and] three in breadth.”

Despite the committee’s recommendation that side galleries be omitted, the precinct adopted the opposite course. “The parish voted that “the parish will build a new meeting house on the plan of the above report with Galleries for singers [and] narrow side galleries.”

A committee of eleven was named to put the plan into effect and was comprised of James Sproat, Joshua Eddy Jr., Philander Washburn, Nelson Wood, Samuel Thompson, Gamaliel Rounseville, Edward Sparrow, Horace Tinkham, William Bourne, Cephas Thompson and Thomas Weston. The parish also voted that the chairman of this committee be authorized to act as the contracting agent.

Whether there were second thoughts about constructing a new meetinghouse, or whether the precinct was simply considering the fate of its 1745 predecessor, on December 24, 1827, the precinct agreed by a vote of 62 to 30 not to repair the old meetinghouse.

While preliminary work was being done on the design of the new church, the issue of a suitable site for it was also under consideration. The precinct, in December, 1827, authorized the building committee to act as a siting committee to select a suitable location for the proposed new meetinghouse, and four additional members were added for this purpose: Dr. Thomas Sturtevant, William S. Eddy, Silas Thomas and Eleazer Thomas.

On April 25, 1828, the precinct met once more to finalize plans for its new meetinghouse. The building committee reported that it had met during the winter of 1827-28 and had “agreed that it was expedient to take measures for the building of said Meeting house the present season, so as to have it fully completed before the first frost should be unfavorable to the performance of the mason work; [and] for that purpose advised their chairman to contract for such materials for the building as should be necessary in order to commence and prosecute the work vigorously by the first of May [1828]”

Having disposed of the time frame for construction, the committee next considered the church’s design. As noted previously, the committee had viewed a number of local churches built during the few years preceding and also “consulted the best architects in the Metropolis” (presumably Boston). The plan proposed by the committee called for a church measuring 66 by 62 feet. While the general details were indicated, specifics were not. “…Their extent [and] order is to be under the special direction of the chairman [James Sproat and] Mr. Cephas Thompson, two of [the] committee whose architectural skill and taste are such as most fully entitles them to the confidence of the precinct.” Sproat was noteworthy as a local architect of some stature, though little is known of his work today. Thompson, however, was more prominent, recognized nationally as a skilled portraitist whose artistic sensibility could be relied upon in the design and decoration of the church.

Aware of the precinct’s earlier vote to include side galleries in the church, the committee once more recommended these features be eliminated following examination of recently-built churches as well as consultations with ecclesiastical architects. While the committee noted that “the general reason of this advice, the committee hope their chairman, will explain to the precinct to their full satisfaction.” The reasons for its opposition were not left on record and we may only speculate regarding the committee’s reasons, though by this time galleries were becoming a thing of the past. The parish heeded the call of the committee and accordingly voted to reconsider the matter of galleries. (They were never built).

Regarding the location, the building committee had entered into negotiations in late 1827 and early 1828 with Lothrop Perkins, Esq., to purchase a 4-acre lot which stood on the so-called Upper Green on Plympton Street, adjoining the lot whereon stood the 1745 meetinghouse. At the time, a portion of the parcel was being leased by Perkins to others for the location of carriage sheds which undoubtedly served the nearby meetinghouse. The committee reported at the time “that after meeting and fully advising [and] considering the subject, it is their decided opinion that the new meeting house should be built on the land now owned by Mr. Lothrop Perkins, … four rods southwesterly of the place where the old meeting house now stands, the exact spot to be found by the same committee, thereafter” or by others. The lot recommended contained four acres, and the committee advised that it be purchased in its entirety “under the belief that the Precinct will need the whole for their full accommodation; [and] also believing that the vacant land Easterly of the old meeting house will soon be appropriated by the Precinct for a burial ground [and] if not the proprietors would purchase the same of the precinct at a price nearly equal to the sum to be paid by Mr. Perkins”. The committee was “confirmed in the expediency of the site recommended because the Green in front would greatly promote the requisite accommodations [and] because it is understood that a new highway is contemplated in the rear, near the northwesterly line of said Perkins lot.” The Perkins lot was duly acquired for $150 on May 6, 1828, though provision had to be made for those parties that had previously leased the ground for the private carriage sheds.

It was at this meeting in April, 1828, that the matter of a vestry in the building was first raised. As the precinct would later find, the inclusion of a vestry would have provided a smaller meeting space for residents and church members which could have been heated much more economically and reserved the church proper strictly for religious use. However, after careful consideration, the precinct voted 31 to 17 against including a vestry in the church design.

First Church of Middleborough, Plympton

Street, Middleborough, MA, photograph, late

19th century

Not all were enamored of the church design.  A

correspondent writing for Harper's Weekly

Magazine in November, 1885, was clearly

unimpressed.  "We drove around to he old

church which stands upon a green, and is

somewhat heavier in form than many buildings

of its time.  It used to be noted for its many

windows and their leaded panes, but these have

long since given place to more modern glass.

Some of them have been preserved by lovers of

antiquity in the neighborhood, and one was

shown to us that morning."

Since the start of the new meetinghouse, one important consideration concerned compensation for the pew holders in the old meetinghouse. At the time, pews were held as personal property purchased at auction with title deeds documenting ownership. If the old meetinghouse was to be abandoned, pew holders would need to be monetarily compensated for the loss of their pew. The initial committee that was named to consider the design and expense of a new meetinghouse was also charged with addressing this matter and it reported in October, 1827, that $2,500 was adequate compensation to pew holders. Two months later, on December 24, 1827, the precinct voted that $1,000 was sufficient.

To finance the cost of construction, the precinct voted to borrow money on credit. Ultimately, however, the construction of the new church was financed by the sale of the new pews there.

A year following, Charles Godfrey of Taunton, Nathan Kingman of North Bridgewater and Ezra Fobes of Bridgewater were named an impartial committee for the “appraisement” of the pews in both the old and new meetinghouses and the distribution of the $1,000 allotted to the holders of the old pews. Though the precinct had previously voted to finance the cost of construction of the new church through borrowing money on credit, ultimately the church was to be built with the monies received from the sale of the pews in the new church (minus the compensation to holders of pews in the old meetinghouse), The purpose, therefore, of assessing the pews in the new meetinghouse was so that a figure could be set which would both cover the expense of building the new meetinghouse as well as providing the $1,000 compensation to the old pew holders. The parish, however, voted that the $1000 offered for the old pews not be added to the cost of the new church, a step which was motivated strictly by financial self interest as including it would raise the final price of pews in the new church.

In December, 1828, the precinct voted to sell the new pews at auction “as soon as may be after the dedication of the meeting house”. Deeds of sale were to be provided. “In order that every person may have a fair opportunity to bid for first choice understandingly”, the treasurer was directed to have a plan drawn up showing the numbered pews and their appraised value. Two hundred copies of the plan were to be printed and distributed “that one copy may be left with every householder.”

Typically, the precinct had reserved a number of pews to itself, but in order to maximize the amount which would be realized from the sale of the pews, the precinct restricted itself to reserving only ten, and named Zachariah Eddy Esq., Thomas Weston Esq., Seth Miller Esq., Captain Samuel Thompson and Eleazer Thomas a committee to designate those pews. Holders of pews in the old meetinghouse successfully bidding on new pews were permitted to deduct the appraised value of the old from the expense of the new.

To outfit the church, Philander Washburn and Horatio G. Wood were authorized to “procure & furnish the Precinct at first cost with such number as may be wished of Watts Psalms & Hymns entire & Worcester Select Hymns bound with same” for use in the singers’ seats. Three dozen copies of these hymnals were purchased and in order to prevent their disappearance, the precinct ordered that they be clearly marked: “To be used in the seats and not to be taken out.” In case this caution failed to deter any parishioner intent upon lifting a hymnal for their own use, the precinct further voted on January 7, 1829, that the “Leader of the singers be a committee to see that all proper care is taken of the books furnished the singers seats” and that the committee purchasing these books “have them lettered ‘Singers Seats.’”

Little is left on record concerning either the construction of the church or the pew auction, though its dedication was held on the first Tuesday of January, 1829, with appropriate ceremonies planned by Gamaliel Rounseville, William Bourne, Joshua Eddy Jr., Thomas Weston and Captain Samuel Thompson. Reverend Dr. Beecher, father of Henry Ward Beecher who would later attain greater prominence, gave the dedicatory sermon which was later published in pamphlet form.

Following the completion of the church, the ground surrounding the structure was graded about May or June, 1829, the precinct soliciting volunteers for the purpose. A precautionary measure was taken when the parish voted to insure the new meetinghouse with the Bristol County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. against loss or damage by fire. The precinct further voted that in the event of a loss of the church by fire, the compensation received from the insurance company be used towards the construction of a new church “and that all Persons owning Pews in this Meeting House have pews alike situated in the Meeting House when rebuilt.” Fortunately, the church never needed to resort to this action , though fires during the mid-twentieth century at the Middleborough town dump (which occupied the site of the Middleborough Council on Aging on Plymouth Street) were potentially threatening.

The fate of the 1745 meeting house was somewhat ironic and the failure to incorporate a vestry into the design of the 1828meetinghouse was responsible for a portion of its predecessor being preserved. The precinct ultimately sold the 1745 meetinghouse at public auction, but not before salvaging the “porch” and several windows for use in a new vestry building which was raised in 1829 behind the church, construction of which also utilized material left over from the building of the church.

Since its completion and dedication in 1829, the Church of the Green has become one of Middleborough’s most historic and iconic architectural gems, recognizable to all with even but a fleeting acquaintance with Middleborough.

Sources:
“Records of the 1st Precinct in Middleborough from 1794 to 1836”, Collection of the Middleborough Public Library
Middleborough Antiquarian, “Our Architectural Heritage”, 4:2, 3, April 1962
Harper’s Weekly New Monthly Magazine, “An Indian Journey”, November, 1885
Plymouth Deeds 166:257