1923-1928 (Reverend James MacPherson)

When the Trustees learned of Reverend Rand’s decision to end his pastorate, they met with the Deacons on June 4, 1923, and decided that they would act together as a Pulpit Committee to fill the vacancy. There was a question as to whether Reverend Rand would be able to pay his local bills before leaving and Mr. Nightingale was appointed to investigate the situation. The Pulpit Committee met again on June 11, 1923, and voted to give Reverend Rand $95.00 for a vacation and took care of the “great deal of correspondence” necessary to arrange for Reverend Macpherson, pastor of the West Henrietta Baptist Church, to preach as a candidate on June 16, 1923. Mr. Burt and Mr. Fillmore were put in charge of Prayer Meetings in the interim. Mr. Van Brocklin and Mr. Reeves were in charge “in full” of visiting pastors. Mr. Broadfield and Mr. Reeves were appointed to get estimates for repairing the roof and redecorating the interior of the parsonage.

After Reverend Macpherson preached to the Congregation on June 16, 1923, the Church met and voted unanimously to call him as pastor. He accepted the call and wrote (in part): “Your unanimity of spirit in extending the call has compelled me to believe that there is a great Kingdom work awaiting our united effort and I come with the firm conviction that in the future undertakings of the Church for the extension of that Kingdom among men, I shall have your whole-hearted and loyal support. May the years ahead see a notable and worthy expansion of the cause of Christ through our cooperation with Him.”

Reverend James Macpherson was a graduate of the Dennison University of Ohio and the Rochester Theological Seminary. He served one and one-half years in the army during World War I. He was interested in YMCA work and at one time acted as a student secretary of the YMCA at the Universityof Idaho. He and his wife Dorothy Jean were the parents of two children, Jimmie and Ronald.

In the interim between Pastors Rand and Macpherson, a Congregational Meeting was called by the Board of Trustees (September, 1923) to consider buying the Vasto Block property which adjoined that of the church (on the West). Combined with the land already owned this would have possibly been an adequate site for a new church. This is the first time that a need or desire for a new church building was mentioned in the available Church records. Reverend Macpherson in his history wrote that “the achievement of building the new Baptist church had its birth in a dream. It would be hard to discover who it was that first dreamed and beheld the vision of a new church for the Baptists of Manlius. The dream may have come to some loyal Baptist heart ten or even twenty years ago. No one will ever know. But dreams, if they picture a worthy ideal, have somehow a strange way of finding expression. The soul who dreamed must have told it to another, and another, and yet another. And while Baptists forgathered to worship, and to work, this dream , like the leaven of our Lord’s parable, soon leavened the whole lump. Soon it became a topic of conversation in the home, the street, the market-place, the Church.”

The September 7, 1923, The Fayetteville Bulletin reported that the Vasto Block was “the scene of a recent double murder, a place of many fires and domestic difficulties, but that it might yet become a place for saving souls.” The brick building was two stories high with two living apartments below and a half-dozen apartments above.

The minutes of the September Congregation Meeting read in part as follows: “The Chairman Mr. Nightingale explained that the Vasto property was to be sold and he thought it could be bought by the Church from Mr. Harley Crane, attorney for the Vasto Estate, if the Congregation was in favor of the same. A motion was made and carried that the Trustees be empowered to investigate and purchase the Vasto Block at a reasonable figure. A second motion was made and carried that the Board of Trustees be empowered to finance the above proposition. The Board of Trustees met and Mr. Nightingale and Mr. Broadfield were elected to represent the Board in purchase of said Vasto Block.” (Signed) B.W. Van Brocklin, Clerk.

Reverend Macpherson began his pastorate on October 11, 1923. The story of the Reverend James Macpherson’s pastorate at Manlius Baptist Church and the story of the building of the new Pleasant Street Church are one. He served the Church during the planning and building process as General Secretary for the Building Committee. In that capacity he attended all meetings, took excellent notes (all typed by Reverend Macpherson- there was no Church secretary at the time), wrote and typed all of the correspondence to architects and contractors, wrote and sent publicity to the newspapers, and was responsible for communications concerning fund raising and invitations to the various dedication ceremonies. When he was finished he wrote a history of the whole endeavor to be included in the collection of material to be placed in a steel box in the cornerstone of the new church. He kept carbon copies of almost everything. We have more than 200 pages documenting the entire process. During the whole time of planning and construction the regular programs of the Church continued as before.

In addition to the materials prepared by Reverend Macpherson, the Church has the original copies of most of the correspondence sent to the Church at that time and the programs for all of the ceremonies (dedication of the site, cornerstone laying and dedication of the finished building), and copies of many of the blueprints showing the development of ideas that led to the final plans.

In October 1923 the four Protestant Ministers of Manlius, now including Reverend Macpherson, formed an association which they hoped would result in a closer fellowship and more efficient cooperation of community service. Apparently the church bells were being rung too enthusiastically and at the same time with an “unpleasant intermingling and clashing of tolling.” The Ministers agreed that five minutes of tolling previous to the opening of the services ought to be sufficient.

Attendance in the Baptist Sunday School in October 1923 was good with the total number of scholars being 144 ( the goal was 150.) The local Strand Movie Theater requested permission from the Manlius Village Board to show movies on Sunday evenings, and in deference to the Churches of Manlius, only after the evening Church services were concluded. At this point in time the Village Board turned a deaf ear to the pleas of the owners of the Strand and passed an ordinance prohibiting the showing of moving pictures on Sundays. Any infraction of the ordinance would have resulted in a $20 fine.

On February 10, 1924, Reverend Macpherson recognized the impending celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday and preached on “The Gospel according to Abraham Lincoln.” A Junior Christian Endeavor meeting was cancelled because of a smallpox epidemic.

A great deal of Fayetteville newspaper publicity was given to a new Young People’s Society being formed in the Church. Previously, the older Baptist Youth Groups had been affiliated with the Christian Endeavor Society and according to all reports, it was a very successful program which attracted large numbers of young people. During Reverend Rand’s pastorate the Christian Endeavor affiliation was dropped, and much of the time there appeared to be no youth group at all. Now the Christian Endeavor banner was adopted again as the “Good Ship” Christian Endeavor. Fifty youth attended its first meeting on April 1, 1924, and enjoyed a “sumptuous” meal, contrary to expectations that some prankster might have celebrated the day by emptying the pepperpot in the meat pie or by flavoring the desert with vinegar. The youth then planned to begin a series of more serious meetings at which delegations of Christian Endeavorers from nearby Churches were to be welcomed as guests and to be invited to participate in the programs.

In June 1924, Miss Laura Cornelia Harris, daughter of Mrs. Yettie Harris was the only woman to receive the degree of Doctor of Medicine from the nine women studying in that college. She then began her services as an intern in the Syracuse Memorial Hospital.

Reverend Macpherson reported in his history of the building of the new church that “the months passed without any report from the Committee. Legal matters pertaining to the property under investigation had not been settled. Finally during the summer of 1924, the Committee was notified to attend a public auction at which the Vasto Block was to be sold to the highest bidder. The price at the auction soared above the limits which the representatives of the Church felt to be its value, approximately $7500, and they did not secure it. The sentiment of the Church was that the Committee had acted wisely. This first failure to secure a site merely intensified the desire of the members for a new church. The Committee was asked to continue its search for a desirable location and in the beginning of September 1924, one year after its appointment, the Pastor was notified that it was ready to make an report.

In almost every phase of the planning and building of the church, Reverend Macpherson anticipated the needs of the Church and Building Committee and wrote “unofficially” before being asked.

On September 10, 1924, seven days before the Church was to meet to hear the report of the Search Committee, Reverend Macpherson contacted Mr. Emery B. Jackson of the Northern Baptist convention who had written an article for “The Baptist” for January 5, 1924, on “How to Avoid Blunders in Building a Church.” Reverend Macpherson stated that he was writing unofficially that “we (the Manlius Baptist Church) are seriously contemplating a new plant here and have already appointed a site committee. It is likely that in the near future a site will be settled upon and we will proceed to study plans and take the necessary steps for building.” Reverend Macpherson wrote that he was keenly anxious to stimulate interest in the project and wanted to know if a stereopticon slide study or book study was available to help in visualizing our needs in Manlius. He also asked for material to help in outlining the functions of a Building Committee and its responsibilities.

Reverend Macpherson told Mr. Jackson that the population of Manlius was about 1500, that there were four Protestant Churches with the Methodists being the largest (350 members) and the Baptist second largest (200 members). Reverend Macpherson felt that we have a greater capacity for growth than the others. The Catholics had just built a $35,000 church and the Methodists were building their gymnasium. As was mentioned before, the biggest need was for more room for religious education and related activities. Reverend Macpherson said he was committed to the program as our Church School enrollment was over 250 and “we expect great growth in this branch of work.”

Mrs. Yettie Harris, Church Clerk, explained the need in the Church Letter from the Manlius Baptist Church to the Onondaga Baptist Association for 1925: “ For some years we have felt hampered through lack of room and facilities with which to work, particularly in the Sunday School and Young People’s Departments. Much inconvenience resulted, and additional effort was required to accomplish results. This we hope to remedy and we have at last launched our building project.”

At the time crowding in the sanctuary for Church Services was apparently not a problem since all of the pews (purchased in 1913 and relatively new) were to be moved to the new church Special pains were taken in planning the new building to ensure that the pews would fit properly and therefore save the expense of buying new ones.

The letter to Mr. Jackson was answered by George Earnest Merrill on September 16, 1924. He was Architect-Secretary of the American Baptist Home Mission Societies Department of Architecture located in New York City, New York. He enclosed leaflets or information sheets:

First Steps in Church Planning
Suggested Plan of Organization of Church Building Committees
Seven Deadly Sins in Church Architecture
Don’t Bury the Bible School

Mr. Merrill recommended the book Planning the Church Building by Henry E. Tralle and offered to send a stereopticon lecture on the matter of housing the Church School. He also sent a book entitled Department of Architecture which explained the purpose of the Department and how it functioned. George Merrill worked with the Church for several months in developing the plans so that when the Building Committee was ready to hire a local architect they knew exactly what they wanted in a church building.

Reverend Macpherson wrote in his history: “Wednesday evening September 17th at 8:00 o’clock in the Church Parlor, the Committee made two suggestions: the first- the remodeling of the church on its present site with the possibility of building to the rear; the second- building on the site of the parsonage at the corner of North and Pleasant Streets, already owned by the Church. The parsonage lot appealed most strongly to the meeting. Approximately 100 by 144 feet it was thought that ample space would be available for both church and parsonage if the latter were moved to the south line of the lot, leaving the corner for the church. The old church site measured only some 77 by 67 feet.”

After considerable discussion it was decided to utilize the parsonage lot which would give an attractive corner for the church. The Church, at first, decided not to relinquish the present site but to remodel it to meet developing social, recreational and religious needs of an American village community. The meeting was very harmonious. The Committee was thanked for its labors and retired.

At the same meeting nominations were made for the nucleus of a general Building Committee:

Mr. F. H. Broadfield
Mr. J. F. Chappell
Mr. W. H. Nightingale
Mr. G. W. Reeves
Mr. B. W. Van Brocklin

and these gentlemen were subsequently elected to the task.

On September 29, 1924, a meeting of the Building Committee nucleus was called together by Reverend Macpherson for the purpose of electing a chairman. Mr. Nightingale was elected General Chairman, and taking steps to launch the new building project, appointment was made of the following sub-committees:

To help fill out the Committee, the Pastor read the membership roll of the Church and Society to insure consideration of every name. Each Chairman was to ask the members chosen to serve and all accepted.

Program Committee:

Mr. F. H. Broadfield - Chairman
Mr. John Burt
Mr. T R. Cleveland
Mr. Harry Fillmore
Mrs. Y. R. Harris
Mrs. Jessie Hefti

Construction Committee:

Mr. J. F. Chappell - Chairman
Mrs. F. H. Broadfield
Mrs. Harry Fillmore
Mr. Newell Fowler
Mr. Clarence Pease
Mr. G. H. Tripp

Financial and Subscription Committee:

Mr. G. W. Reeves - Chairman
Mr. Harold Goodfellow
Mrs. W. H. Nightingale
Mr. Russell Randall
Mrs. H. E. Ransier
Mr. Harry Snook

Publicity and Collection Committee:

Mr. B. W. Van Brocklin - Chairman
Mr. Louis Broadfield
Mrs. Charles Cathers
Mr. J. H. Couden
Mr. W. E. Kane
Mrs. William Towne

The membership of the General Building Committee included 26 members, counting Reverend Macpherson, who was chosen to serve as the General Secretary

In order to start work the Committee felt it should have some funds available. Mr. Reeves, who was chairman for Finance and Subscriptions, announced to the delight and gratification of all present that a check for $1000 had been received by him for the new project. The donor was Mrs. Yettie Harris.

Mr. Nightingale asked Mr. Broadfield and his Program Committee to fill out a questionnaire provided by the Baptist Home Missionary Society Department of Architecture to help the Church define its needs. The General Committee was to act on the completed survey before final delivery to Mr. Merrill (Baptist Architect.) The Pastor suggested securing the stereopticon lectures from the Baptist Department of Architecture to give the Building Committee some suggestions for church plans. He was delegated to secure them and present them to the Church. The first meeting of the General Building Committee was scheduled for Friday, October 10, 1924. The full Committee seldom met, and while the sub-committees met at times separately, there were no minutes of these meetings. What is constantly referred to as the Building Committee is made up of five Chairmen of the sub-committees, Mr. Nightingale, Chairman and Reverend Macpherson, Secretary.

On October 3, 1924, Reverend Macpherson wrote Mr. Merrill asking him to send the stereopticon lecture, five each of the leaflets mentioned earlier and asked Mr. Merrill to visit the Church for discussion. (He hoped Mr. Merrill would have another engagement in the vicinity so that the expenses could be “cut down a little.”)

On October 7, 1924, a colleague of Mr. Merrill wired Reverend Macpherson with the news that Mr. Merrill was returning from the West and would be able to stop at Manlius on the 10th of October and hold a conference and give the stereopticon talk if desired, all for $30 ($25 for the conference and $5 for expenses.) Reverend Macpherson wired back, “Gladly accept Mr. Merrill’s proposition for Friday the tenth.”

On October 10, 1924, at 8:00 P.M. (Baptists in the twenties started meetings late and stayed late- this one adjourned “about” 10:45 P.M.) the General Committee met ( 18 of 26 members.) The filling out of the questionnaire was progressing. An accurate survey of the parsonage was required and Mr. Broadfield was entrusted with the responsibility of getting it done. Mr. Merrill showed the stereopticon slides illustrating the development of a modern church especially as it related to religious education.

On October 24, 1924, the five chairmen of the Building Committees met to take final action on the questionnaire. A motion was made by Mr. Chappell that the committee state the sum of $40,000-$50,000 on the questionnaire as the approximate cost of the new building. The plans of the present parsonage and a survey of the lot, along with the questionnaire were sent to Mr. Merrill by the Pastor.

On October 29, 1924, Reverend Macpherson in a letter to Mr. Merrill wrote that it was difficult to come to a decision concerning some of the questions asked and that we would be amenable to professional suggestions from the Department of Architecture “in which we have entire confidence.” He enumerated some important points:

“A worship auditorium with a main floor seating capacity of 250 would be ample for the present needs of the Church. If a gallery can be provided over the narthex to add to the seating space and at the same time could be utilized for Sunday School class room....so much the better. We are ready to be advised.”
This point concerned the estimated cost. The estimate without furnishings was $40,00- $50,000. This number was based in part on what the Committee thought to be the financial ability of the Church. “The moving of the parsonage with provision for a cellar and the adaptation of our old church for community and recreational needs are items which we must not forget and which will of course add materially to the above figures.”
The Committee hoped the parsonage could be moved to one side of the lot (the south side) without detracting from the appearance or serviceableness of the new building. Reverend Macpherson wrote, “We are a little apprehensive.”
Reverend Macpherson also noted that the Seneca Church organ was an Estey in good condition and gave Mr. Merrill its dimensions. The pews, he mentioned, were practically new, and their re-use would save considerable money. As to building materials, the Church suggested tile with a brick veneer (but later settled on brick.)

The planning for the seating capacity of the sanctuary was based on the use of the existing pews in the Seneca Street Church. According to the blueprints prepared by our architect, Mr. Hallenbeck, twenty-two single pews and ten double pews were to be placed in the new sanctuary, the remainder in the balcony (supplemented by chairs,) somewhat less than earlier plans suggested. With 5 adults per pew (sometimes one too many for 1998 size people) the capacity would have been 210 for the sanctuary and approximately 50 for the balcony. Actual numbers would depend on the ratio of adults to children. (Attendance figures quoted also count choir members and children and workers in the nursery.)

George S. Merrill wrote that he would be agreeable to base the one percent fee for sketch plan study services on $40,000 and sent the proper agreement form to be filled out and returned. With the completed survey prepared by the Building Committee Chairmen in their hands, the American Baptist Architects promptly prepared sketches of Schemes “A” and “B.” Schemes “A” and “B” (and later “C” and “D”) showed the building housing the sanctuary much as we know it today. The style was early American, featuring a high steeple and a portico with four tall pillars. The sanctuary was to hold approximately 250-270 people including 70-80 in a balcony. This part of the church plan never seemed to be in question and there was no recorded discussion of alternative designs.

The Educational Wing was, of course, very important since adequate space for the Sunday School and Church Organizations was the major reason for building a new Church home. Again, there seemed to be little difference of opinion. The Church adopted the Departmental Plan for the Sunday School which was strongly recommended by the Baptist Architects. The Sunday School would be divided into four areas, one for each Department (Beginners, Intermediates, Juniors, and Seniors.) Adults were to meet in other areas of the church. Each area consisted of three small class rooms and one larger meeting room where each Department would have its own Departmental Meetings. Later plans differed in how the church and parsonage were to be arranged on the lot, and whether or not a social-recreational hall and a chapel or meeting room for the Ladies Societies could be provided.

The Building Committee Chairmen had hoped that Schemes “A” and “B” would be available for presentation to the Annual Meeting on December 8, 1924, but the plans arrived too late. (The Building Committee Chairmen and Reverend Macpherson made an outstanding effort to keep the Congregation informed and in doing so were in turn informed as well concerning the sentiments of the Church Members. This sharing of information and ideas surely had a great deal to do with the success of the financial campaign which was to begin in the Spring of 1925.)

We do not have a blueprint or any information on Scheme “A.” Scheme “B” was somewhat ahead of current Manlius thinking in that the parsonage and church were not shown on the same lot. The plans also included a large one-story social room which would have been attached to the rear of the educational wing, and which could have been added later if funds were not available at that time. The American Baptist Architects tried to show what they thought would be the best plan for the new church and hoped to influence the Church to build the best building possible, even if they had to raise more money to pay for it.

The Building Committee Chairmen at the moment were not convinced. They met on December 16, 1924, to consider Schemes “A” and “B.” There was a general discussion but no action.

While the planning process was of great concern and interest to all members of the Church, the other activities continued unabated. In the fall of 1924 the Klu Klux Klan came into the news in the Fulton area. The incident was also newsworthy in the Fayetteville-Manlius area because it involved the former pastor of the Manlius Baptist Church, Reverend Royden Rand. He preached to his Sunday Congregation in Fulton (November 20, 1924) on “A Challenge to the Klu Klux Klan.” He raised some eyebrows (or hackles) by flaying the methods of those who opposed the Klan, and he did not accept the conclusions of those who decried it. He challenged the Klan, however, to live up to the standards of high principles published and enunciated as being the basic quality of the organization. Apparently, there was a growing difference between what was written and how the Klan behaved in many parts of the country. The Klan was mentioned in several Fayetteville Bulletins in 1925, which reported that one thousand auto loads of Klansmen had attended a meeting on Klu Klux Hill, one hundred and twenty at a meeting at Fullmore Corners, and finally a “watch” meeting in the stone School House in Manlius on New Years Eve, where it was reported than an interesting sermon was delivered by a noted but unnamed speaker.

On January 5, 1925, the Building Committee met again and after three hours of deliberation decided to ask the Baptist Architects for some revisions. Reverend Macpherson conveyed the opinion of the Committee Chairmen to Mr. Merrill in a lengthy letter on January 7, 1925. They wanted a sketch showing the church and parsonage on the present parsonage lot. Land to the south of the lot (on North Street) was not available, and the Committee Chairmen did not want to consider land to the east of Pleasant Street for economic reasons. They also wanted the cost not to exceed $60,000, the parsonage to face North Street, the church set further back on North Street, and an excavation under the auditorium. (They argued that since the parsonage had a full basement, the expense for an additional excavation for a full basement under the auditorium would not be much more.) They wanted to use the basement for Church Suppers and other social functions. Mr. Merrill graciously reported that making the alteration would be “a bit difficult” but agreed to make a study to see what could be done.

The Baptist Architects, led by George Merrill, had definite ideas about church architecture, especially concerning the design of church interiors, and were able to influence the plans of many American Baptist Churches, including ours, until the group was disbanded a few years later. Their ideas were presented in a pamphlet Seven Deadly Sins in Church Architecture by Harold E. Luccock which is reprinted in the appendix. The author felt that Satan himself in his travels on earth may have been responsible for some of the design and construction of certain churches which contain examples of his “Seven Sins.” The “sins” which the Baptist Architects were hoping to save us from committing were: 1. The Basement Sunday School: The author felt that using a church basement for Sunday School was almost an unforgivable sin (against light, against health, and against beauty.) Some of the basement rooms he had seen reminded him of the pit in which his brothers threw the young Joseph. 2. The second sin was the sin of Akron, Ohio, for this was where the sin of abandoning the Departmental Plan for the Sunday School started. The Akron plan was to have individual classrooms, adjoining a much larger room or auditorium where the whole Sunday School could meet occasionally. (If this sounds familiar, this is the way we operate our Sunday School today.) The Departmental Plan divided the space up into individual Departments (Beginners, Intermediate, Juniors, Seniors.) We followed this American Baptist Architects’ plan with no recorded opposition, although in his final letter of thanks to Mr. Merrill, Reverend Macpherson wrote that “your wise planning becomes more evident as the days go by” and “the light is gradually trickling into the minds of many who were either hostile to a Departmental program (for the Sunday School) or ignorant entirely of its meaning for the development of church life.” 3. The third sin to be avoided was to have a square sanctuary (which in itself was permissible) with the pulpit backed in a corner. (“Results are very distressing. the most uplifting worship does not proceed from a corner.”) Our sanctuary was to be rectangular, and we were not tempted to put the pulpit into a corner. 4. Another possible sin was for us to have displayed our brass organ pipes. Photographs of the Seneca Street church show them in all their glory. In the new church the organ pipes were hidden in the organ loft behind a wooden lattice. There was no recorded discussion of this arrangement and it is not known if there was any difference of opinion. 5. Sliding doors in the architects’ eyes made for a “rambling disjointed church with a loose sense of unity.” We were apparently not tempted by this sin. 6-7. These sins involved punishment in the pew and lack of air. The architects felt that some uncomfortable pews with high straight backs and narrow seats were the “devil’s masterpiece.” Our pews are more comfortable than that, especially since they were padded in 1987 and Church Services were somewhat reduced in time and in number per Sunday. (Before padding some of the pews had taken to sinning on their own. They had developed cracks and pinched a few people where they sat down.) The architects also felt that “in conduct of worship there abideth three things: art, music and air (but the greatest of these is air.) Neither the best art or preaching is any match for carbon dioxide.” The architects made sure that our sanctuary windows could be opened. The author felt that if his “faltering works” should come to the attention of Church Building Committees and they should be led to consult with the Baptist Architects in an effort to avoid these sins (ecclesiastical tragedies,) his efforts would be worthwhile.

The Building Committee Chairmen and Reverend Macpherson presented to the Congregation Sunday evening, January 11, 1925, a program of stereopticon slides illustrating a modern church building program and special slides of the current Manlius Church Schemes “A” and “B,” as furnished by Mr. Merrill (but not including any alterations.)

While the Building Committee Chairmen and Reverend Macpherson were mulling over the various building schemes, they took time out on January 16, 1924, for the Baptist Brotherhood Annual Chicken Pie Supper and served over two hundred people. The chickens were “well cooked” and the trimmings “most complete.”

The answer of Mr. Merrill to requests for changes in Schemes “A” and “B” was Scheme “C,” three copies of which were sent to us on January 26, 1925. This time the Associate Architect, Emery B. Jackson, author of How to Avoid Blunders in Building a Church, wrote the letter explaining the new plan. The parsonage was to be in the present parsonage lot (with the new church) and facing North Street. The church was set back a good distance from North Street. There was a large social hall on the main floor (according to Mr. Jackson, a severe critic of any basement room, “more attractive and inviting than any basement room could be.”) He felt that the cost would be close to $60,000, within the financial capabilities of the Church. (Drawings of the new church were included and copies have been included in the appendix.)

Mr. Jackson did not add the cost of excavating under the church auditorium. According to him, “Such space is very expensive when the psychological effect of a dark, damp, musty room is contrasted with a sunny well ventilated room above ground. The excavation under the parsonage can be disregarded. The expense of a basement is not in the excavation but in carrying down the walls and supporting the floor above with girders.”

On January 28, 1925, Mr. George Merrill visited with the Manlius Baptist Building Committee Chairmen for the last time in person and discussed Scheme “C” with them. In a letter of February 5, 1925, to Reverend Macpherson, he, as a check up on the Building Committee wishes, listed the items that he understood they wanted looked into concerning Scheme “C”:

Choir to face the audience
Basement plan showing boiler room & men’s toilet
Elevation study of scheme

On February 7, 1925, Reverend Macpherson replied to Mr. Merrill’s checkup with his own, and to the second item added - including excavation under the auditorium. (The Manlius Baptists were just as stubborn about including a basement under the auditorium as the Baptist Architects were about excluding one.) He also solicited advice on Syracuse area architects but Mr. Merrill was not able to suggest one. On February 12, 1925, the Building Committee decided to present sketches of Scheme “C” to the Church at the morning service on Sunday, February 15. All of the members of the Building Committee sat together on the platform and Mr. Nightingale presented a summary of the Committee’s work to date and Mr. Broadfield explained the main features of Scheme “C.” The Pastor provided a brief word on the spiritual approach. After the presentation the question was put to the Congregation by the Pastor concerning whether the Committee should proceed on the basis of the plans submitted. A motion was made by Mr. G. H. Tripp, seconded and carried (no vote tally was given) to authorize the Committee to proceed on the basis suggested by Scheme “C,” and have plans perfected for a final vote by the Church.

On February 18, 1925, George E. Merrill completed the required revision showing the excavation under the church auditorium, leaving an unfinished basement. He suggested that the Building Committee Chairmen now secure estimates from competent contractors.

In a letter of February 29, 1925, Reverend Macpherson thanked Mr. Merrill and praised the current plan highly. “Personally, I am delighted with the proposed composition. It embodies so beautifully our rich American Heritage and perpetuates in a dignified and worthy way the finest tradition of our godly forefathers. Such a structure would be a tremendous asset to this community inspiring its people to the loftiest idealism, teaching them by its mere presence reverence for God and love of country and best of all, furnishing a noble instrumentality for the healthy growth and expression of the Christian life.”

Proceeding as authorized by a vote of the Church meant looking for a local architect, hiring a contractor and raising money. Later in February, Mr. Broadfield, Mr. Chappell and their wives were enjoying the warm weather in St. Petersburg, Florida. In order to keep the process moving, and to involve the Florida Chairmen of the Building Committee, Reverend Macpherson wrote them to elicit their opinions. He included the latest Scheme “C” revisions, a copy of Mr. Merrill’s letter of February 18, 1925, (and Reverend Macpherson’s reply of February 29, 1925) and requested the names of some authorities on building costs “in order to give us a fairly concrete idea as to the goal we should aim our financial campaign.”

Mr. Broadfield replied on March 5, 1925, with some suggestions concerning the plans and included the names of some Syracuse contractors. Apparently, Mr. Yettie Harris, sister of Mr. Broadfield, was visiting at the time and Mr. Broadfield shared the plans with her, Mrs. Broadfield and Mr. Chappell, all members of the General Committee.

From March 1925 to June 1925, the development of the building plans had to take a back seat to the financial drive led by Dr. F. H. Divine, a hard taskmaster who insisted on nothing less than the full cooperation of and backing of the leadership of the Church in his intensive seven day financial campaign.

April 13, 1925, was Easter Sunday and the Protestant Churches cooperated in a Go To Church Easter Sunday Campaign. It was reported that over 1000 Protestants attended church (2 services) on Easter Sunday. The Baptist Church counted 200 in the morning, 125 in the evening. The Baptists dedicated their new Pulpit Bible which was opened and placed in a basket of flowers. Colored lights were focused upon it. Four girls enacted a beautiful ceremony while two others sang “My Mother’s Bible.” In May 1925 the Church was beginning to plan again for its Daily Vacation Bible School for the Church and general community.

On May 6, 1925, Reverend Macpherson submitted two names of local architects who were supposed to have wide experience in church work to Mr. Merrill for his advice: Professor Earl Hallenbeck, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y., and Merrick and Randall, Syracuse, N.Y.. On June 10, 1925, Mr. Merrill reported to Reverend Macpherson that he had written to Mr. Hallenbeck and believed that “he is worth looking up in a serious way as a possible architect for your building project.”

The Financial Campaign

Reverend Divine was no stranger to the Syracuse area. He spoke at many meetings of the Onondaga Baptist Association when he was working for the American Baptist Home Mission Society in New York State. Later he started the Big Brother Financial Agency to fulfill his desire to be a Big Brother to pastors and churches with difficult financial problems. This was his personal aim for the remaining years of his ministry. He had recently conducted a successful campaign for the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Syracuse and some of the Manlius Baptists wintering in Florida had observed him in action in St. Petersburg and spoke highly of his “masterful genius.” The Manlius Baptist campaign would be his 305th, making a total of $17,000,000 raised.

Early in the Spring of 1925 Reverend Macpherson and the Building Committee Chairmen felt that the building plans had progressed to the point that it was time to start the financial drive. Reverend Macpherson contacted Reverend F. H. Divine of the Big Brother Financial Agency about the possibility of his coming to Manlius to take charge of our financial campaign. Reverend Divine answered promptly. He wrote that raising $60,000 would require a 6-7 day campaign, climaxing on a Sunday, and would cost $250 and necessary expenses (his traveling and hotel costs.) He would be glad to serve the Manlius Church if a date could be arranged. He sent folders which he said would answer most questions if read with care.

Reverend Macpherson was instructed by the Building Chairmen to find out the earliest time that Dr. Divine could come. On April 18, 1925, Dr. Divine announced that he was able to offer the Church June 1-7, 1925. Reverend Macpherson did not waste any time and sent an acceptance to Dr. Divine by night letter. Dr. Divine sent two folders with suggestions for preparation (“very important in every point.”) He asked the Church to do its best to get people out to meetings since “all hinges there.” He asked for a special afternoon for a “women only” meeting. He asked to meet, after the first night session, with 5-7 of the best men for foundation work. He sent more folders to pass out to people to promoter confidence and sent a sample copy sheet. On a personal note, he wanted to know if Manlius had a comfortable hotel or should he go to a private family.

Reverend Macpherson reported to Dr. Divine that at a meeting of April 28, 1925, a group of seventeen Church Leaders representing every department of the Church met and everyone present gave a personal testimony pledging himself and herself to work and pray for the success of the building campaign from June 1-7, 1925. He continued “you are to witness a spirit of loyalty on the part of the Manlius Baptist Congregation that cannot but promote abounding success.” The Ladies Aid Society was reported to be approaching the $1000 or more as a result of its splendid effort to make money.

The Church agreed to the following requests by Dr. Divine:

During May three-minute speakers would address every meeting on some phase of the new building.
Friendly visits will be made to every home of our Church constituency.
Effective advertising by the publicity committee.
Choir leader to consider a special building song sheet.
Plan a Building Booster Banquet for the end of May or June 1st. (The June 1st possibility was rejected by Dr. Divine who said that he needed all the time available without giving a supper the right of way.)
William Nightingale, General Chairman, was given the task of finding two good men to serve with the five Chairmen of the Building Committee subcommittees to form a seven man group for foundation work as requested by Dr. Divine.

Dr. Divine was still interested in his accommodations for the week. He said, “I have to have comfort at night.” Reverend Macpherson regarded accommodations in Manlius as being of mediocre quality and Dr. Divine stayed at a private home, possibly at the Van Brocklin’s, because Mr. Van Brocklin was in charge of entertainment which we assume included a place to sleep as well.

Another concern of Reverend Macpherson was the program for the last night, Sunday, June 7, 1925. June 7 was the first Sunday in the month and on that Sunday night the Protestants met together, and, as he noted, the Sunday Evening Church attendance habit is not very pronounced in the Manlius Churches generally (as noted earlier by Reverend Rand.) He asked Dr. Divine if he needed both services for Sunday, June 7, 1925. The answer came back immediately and forcefully as well. “Of course I must have the Sunday night service. It will be very vital to the campaign..” He suggested that the other Churches give up their evening service and come in and “watch you people go over the top. Even if your people are not strong in support of an evening service they should see the importance of making June 7 an exception to their habit.”

On May 26, 1925, on a Tuesday evening, a Baptist Booster Building Banquet was held in the Methodist gym in Manlius. The supper was prepared by the Methodists and cost 35 cents for adults, 25 cents for children under 14. Dr. Farrier of the State Convention spoke and “brought a fine message appropriate of the occasion.” On Sunday morning, June 1, 1925, Reverend Benjamin Starr, Stewardship Secretary of the State Convention, spoke to prepare the way further.

Although Reverend Macpherson mentions the “Christian Messenger” as having been also used other Sundays, unfortunately, we have no copies in the Church Archives.

Reverend Macpherson reported to Dr. Divine that he had prepared a special edition of the “Church Messenger” (the Church Bulletin) for Sunday and sent them out to all members and constituents beforehand. He said “the spirit continues to grow and I am sure that you are going to have a right royal welcome next Monday Evening.” (June 1, 1925.)

From here on the results of each evenings service are reported in letters which Reverend Macpherson wrote and sent to non-resident members and friends (along with pledge cards and stamped return envelopes) hoping that some of the excitement of the campaign would reach them and inspire their participation. Unfortunately, no one recorded for us an eye-witness account of what took place at the meetings. All we know is the total amount pledged at each meeting. The first meeting (June 2) with Dr. Divine resulted in $26,475.00 being subscribed. ($10,000.00 in pledges was conditioned on the Church receiving the whole $60,000.) Reverend Macpherson was so interested in positive responses from those to whom he was writing that he advised people to “wire their pledge at my expense if for any reason you fear that the mail will not reach us Saturday.” He prayed for each recipient that “God’s richest blessing be on you and yours today as you think of the Home Church and pledge your interest in its future usefulness in the Kingdom of God.”

After June 3, 1925, he reported to Mrs. Guilford of White Plains, New York, that on the second evening “the total was pushed a little over the $30,000.00 mark,” and he gave her a few samples of members and their pledges. This was apparently a second letter because he told Mrs. Guilford that he was writing again “not only because I know that you will rejoice with us to know the facts but because I also know that your affection for the old Church and memories prompt you and your husband to send a love offering for the campaign to be announced next Sunday, June 8.”

June 3, 1925, was also Ladies Day and it was carried out as planned. Mrs. Macpherson and Mrs. Harris had prepared the ladies of the Women’s Missionary Society at the May 6, 1925, meeting for the coming of Dr. Divine and the ladies agreed to give up their regular June meeting and meet with Dr. Divine at 3:00 P.M. on June 3, 1925. Twenty-one members of the Society and several guests listened to what was described in the Ladies Aid minutes as “a very interesting and instructive talk by Dr. Divine. Am sure that each one felt well repaid for going out into the sweltering heat.”

The total for Thursday was $33,000.00, for Friday $40,000.00, for Sunday morning for $51,000.00 and for Sunday evening a victorious $60,207.00. (We don’t know how many came from neighboring Churches to see us “go over the top.”)

The steeple bell was tolled at the close of the Sunday Evening Service to announce the victory to the community at large. The red ribbon on the huge thermometer on the platform had steadily climbed to the $51,000.00 mark by the end of the Sunday Morning Service. Leaving nothing to chance seven teams of two members each went out Sunday afternoon to canvas those of the Church membership and constituency who had not yet subscribed. The Fayetteville Bulletin reported that enthusiasm ran high at the evening service and many added to their already generous gifts. Then Mrs. Broadfield announced an additional gift of $2000.00 in memory of her parents Mr. and Mr. I. N. Loomis and the goal was assured. Reverend Macpherson wrote,” A fine spirit of determination and loyalty marked the entire campaign. Participation by practically one hundred percent of the resident membership has shown that the Baptists of the village are united and eager for a worthy advance program.” After the campaign was over H. Clarke Colebrook, General Director of the Baptist Missionary Convention, wrote that he had received a card from Dr. Divine stating that $60,207.00 was raised. He congratulated Reverend Macpherson and concerning Dr. Divine said “I felt sure that if anybody could raise the money, Dr. Divine could do it.”

After the excitement and euphoria of a victorious campaign came the challenge of collecting the money. Reverend Macpherson sent each of the pledgers a letter thanking them for making the victory possible, and suggested how their payment could be made (in special envelopes provided for their convenience.)

The collection of money was well documented. The Church still has the pledge cards, the ledger books used to record the payments, and even some of the adding machine tapes used to obtain the total of the contributions.

On June 12, 1925, the Building Committee Chairmen met to transact business relating to the recent financial campaign. Mrs. Lena Randall was appointed secretary to record all payments of the pledges, send out statements and keep the books up to date. The Finance Committee of the General Building Committee was asked to assume the responsibility of meeting at least one a quarter to review the progress of the fund and take necessary action to assure its successful completion. The group voted to pay Mrs. Randall $100.00 per year.

Included in the appendix are:

Pamphlet from Dr. Divine
Dr. Divine’s acceptance of the call to run the Building Fund Campaign in Manlius.
A ticket to the Booster Banquet
Copy of special song written for the campaign to tune of “Onward Christian Soldiers.”
A pledge card. (Note that the pledges are for a five year period.)
A copy of the Challenge to the Members.
Calculation of the pledges on Sunday morning, June 8, 1925.

In the annual report of the church to the Onondaga Baptist Association, Yettie Harris, Clerk, wrote that “we can recommend him (Dr. Divine) in the highest terms. Not only was the $60,000 goal reached but our hearts were opened and uplifted by the gospel message from his lips.”

Dr. Divine’s campaign for the Manlius Baptists was his 305th. In eleven years, he raised over $17,000,000. He declared the Manlius Campaign to be one of the most unique in his entire experience. He felt that it would be hard to find another country village church with 200 members in the eastern part of the United States that could do what the Manlius Church had done. He gave credit to the splendid Christian devotion and generous spirit of two fine women. (He was referring to the Loomis sisters, Mrs. Yettie Harris and Mrs. Frank Broadfield.) The specific contributions of specific people are not generally publicly commented on in Church Minutes. In this case , however, it was generally known that the “two fine women” contributed 25-30% of the entire goal. (The Church and community got an idea of the resources of the two Loomis sisters when Mrs. Broadfield died on May 16, 1928, after an illness of one year. The Eagle Bulletin reported on its front page that Mrs. Broadfield left to her husband an estate in excess of $600,000.)

There seemed to be some question about the mortgage. H. E. Ransier could not find his copy and apparently the Church could not find its copy either. H. E. Ransier obtained a new copy from the County Clerk and wrote on an attached piece of paper “this will convince the skeptics.”

The campaign was successfully completed and on June 16, 1925. The Building Committee Chairmen met to consider the mechanics of recording pledges and payments. The pledge cards were so highly regarded that they were “deposited” in the bank for safekeeping. At the same meeting the mortgage held against the parsonage by H. E. Ransier in 1901 was paid, twenty-four years later.

The Building Committee Chairmen then returned to their responsibilities in planning for the new building. The successful campaign helped to change the minds of the Congregation and the Building Committee concerning the use of the old church and restricting the new church and parsonage to the confines of the parsonage lot. The current consensus was that the old church should be sold (to help pay for the new church) and that there was not enough room on the parsonage lot for the church and parsonage. The Committee discussed the possibility of securing additional property on Pleasant Street east of the parsonage lot, and a sub-committee of Mr. Nightingale and Mr. Broadfield was asked to interview Mr. W. W. Cheney and Mr. T. McManus with a view to “giving the church the best possible setting in this corner.”

On July 27, 1925, the Building Committee Chairmen met to hear the report of the Committee. At some time between June 16, 1925, and July 27, 1925, the scope of the Search Committee must have been expanded. Mr. Nightingale and Mr. Broadfield not

only interviewed owners of adjoining property but purchased land and houses. This included land on the south side of the parsonage lot (but not on North Street) as well as on Pleasant Street. The properties investigated were:

The Cheney property (east of the parsonage lot on Pleasant Street: This lot was purchased. The deed was passed and recorded. The purchase price was $2,500.00 of which Mr. W. W. Cheney donated $500.00 to the Church. The building on the property was sold to Mr. James Bullard for $125.00. Mr. Bullard donated $25.00 to the Church.
The McManus property (east of the Cheney Property on Pleasant Street): The Committee contracted to purchase the property for $1,400.00. The previous owners were to remove the building by September 1, 1925.
The Randall property: This was a smaller piece of property approximately 445 x 90 feet directly back of the Episcopal Church owned by Mr. Lena Randall. This property was felt to be valuable in that it would provide space for the parking of cars (we were now into the age of the automobile) and possible building extensions. An option was secured for $200.00. On September 21, 1925, the Committee was empowered to secure the property.
The Tuttle property (in the rear of the McManus Property) and the Perrington property (East of the McManus property on Pleasant St.): Both were investigated. The Committee decided against their acquisition.

Now that adequate land was available, the Construction Sub-Committee (Mr. Chappell, Chairman) was empowered to proceed with the moving of the parsonage “as soon as possible.” Necessary arrangements were to be made to enlarge the kitchen.

On September 11, 1925, the Ladies Aid Society continued raising money to meet their $2000.00 pledge to the Building Fund with their annual Curb Market Sale of baked “stuff,” fruits and vegetables.

On September 21, 1925, the Building Committee Chairmen met. Some difficulties were reported. Clearing of the Cheney property (removing the house to another lot) would cost $1,600.00. The McManus property acquisition was still not completed. There had been no search done on the property and the previous owners had failed to pay their taxes. The Randall property acquisition was completed.

In a letter to Mr. Merrill of October 13, 1925, Reverend Macpherson reported that problems in clearing the Cheney Property would delay moving the parsonage until the Spring of 1926. He noted that the decisions to buy more property and move the parsonage would enable modification of the Scheme “C” plan. The Committee requested:

A sketch plan showing the church to the best advantage on the parsonage lot which will be entirely given over to the new building.
A basement under the sanctuary which would permit the playing of basketball, and which could also be used for social purposes.
A room on the main floor that could be used for women’s groups and for

Sunday School that would hold 40 people or “thereabouts.” The Committee also wanted a kitchen and, if possible, toilet accommodations in the basement.

On October 15, 1925, Emery Jackson replied to Reverend Macpherson’s request, but argued against a recreation room under the church. He said that “it seems rather incongruous to put your recreation building under the church when you have acquired additional property which makes this unnecessary.”

Mr. Merrill replied later, on November 18, 1925, that the Baptist Architects had revised Scheme “C” to include a recreation room under the church auditorium, but, he informed the Committee, it would be too short for basketball games. He also drew attention to the heavy additional cost of providing three auditoriums. He couldn’t resist one more blast at underground rooms and said that “as I go about over the country, I find many deep basements under church auditoriums, no one of which have I ever found to be sweet and wholesome after they had been in use for a period of two or more years.”

Then he gave the Church Scheme “D.” It included a social room for recreation large enough and with a high ceiling for basketball, entirely above ground and a church parlor/chapel which would seat 75 people and could be a meeting room for women’s groups and Adult Sunday School Classes. Scheme “D” was drawn without a basement under the auditorium.

Mr. Merrill apologized in a way for his continued fight against underground rooms and asked the Church “not to look at us (the architects) as being overly persistent but to understand that we take our work very seriously and to be true to our calling we must give you in a positive way the benefits we have discovered by others in their buildings in the past. Every Baptist Church will do as it pleased, but we will at least have discharged our responsibility by thus politely, if vigorously, calling the situation to the attention of your Church.” He further championed Scheme “D” over “C” with a basement by saying that in Scheme “C” with a basement under the church, it would look as if the building were set up on stilts.

The Building Committee met on November 30, 1925, and discussed Scheme “D.” No definite action was taken that evening except to appoint the General Chairman William Nightingale to make a report of the Committee’s progress during 1925 at the Annual Meeting on December 7, 1925. This Meeting was reported to have been one of the best in recent years. The finances were reported to have been in a healthy condition with $400.00 in the Current Expense Fund and $8000 paid into the Building Fund. The major focus was, of course, on the building plans for the new church.

On January 19,. 1926, the Building Committee Chairmen met again. There was concern that Scheme “D” called for a flat roof with a balustrade over the church parlor. Some thought that a hipped roof would be more practical in the winter, but the flat roof prevailed at least for a time. Surprisingly, the group accepted, also for the moment, the

judgment of the Baptist Architects concerning a basement under the auditorium. The Committee also discussed the question of hiring a local architect to prepare inspections and oversee the construction of the building. (The Baptist Architects work ended with the planning stage.) Reverend Macpherson was requested to contact Mr. Hallenbeck and ask him to confer with the Committee on possible arrangements for further work on plans and specifications. January 19, 1926, was also the day that the WCTU celebrated the sixth anniversary of the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution (The Dry Amendment) with Sunday Evening Services in the Baptist Church.

On January 26, 1926, an informal conference was held with Mr. Hallenbeck. There was no record of the Committee choosing between Schemes “C” and “D.” Perhaps there was no contest between “a church appearing to be built on stilts” as Mr. Merrill described Scheme “C” (including a basketball court with a low ceiling under the auditorium) with a full size gymnasium on the surface under the educational wing. Nor was there any record of the Church accepting Scheme “D.” (They had already approved Scheme “C.”) There was no record of a further discussion concerning a basement under the auditorium or a flat roof over the parlors, but both the basement and hipped roof were part of the final plans, apparently with Mr. Hallenbeck’s approval.

A letter from Mr. Merrill to the Building Chairmen was read. Included was a bill for the final work done by the American Baptist Home Missionary Society Department of Architecture. Mr. Merrill wanted it understood, however, that his department was still keenly interested in the project and would consider it an honor to be called on for any service which was in their power to render (no further payment would be required.)

On February 8,1926, the Building Committee Chairmen met at the home of William Nightingale. Mr. Hallenbeck was there to discuss modifications and materials. The group approved of Mr. Hallenbeck and voted to engage him as architect for the new church and school. His fee was to be 4% of the cost of the building. (It would ordinarily have been 5%, but the Baptist Architects were paid 1% for their preliminary work.) He was requested to proceed immediately with the work of completing details and specifications for the new church, and although it was not mentioned in the minutes, he was to take the information to several area contractors and solicit bids for the construction work (exclusive of heating, lighting and plumbing).

On April 29. 1926, a contract was awarded to Mr. Steele to move both the parsonage and garage to their new location for $935.00. Reverend Macpherson and his family needed temporary headquarters, and the Committee in charge had just 10 days to find something suitable (where they stayed, and it must have been for several months, was not reported).

On May 14, 1926, the Building Committee Chairmen met to discuss the parsonage problem and hear the report of Mr. Hallenbeck on bids from six general

contractors. They ranged from $53,850.00 from Valentine and Purchase to $88,175.00 from Heuber Bros. The Committee took no action on the bids that evening but instructed Mr. Hallenbeck to keep in touch with Valentine and Purchase as a possible contractor for the work.

On May 25, 1926, the Baptists had their Second Annual Building Banquet in the Methodist gym. It was served by the Ladies Aid and “was enjoyed by a large gathering of young and old.” Mr. Nightingale reported on the progress of work on the new church and Mr. Reeves reported about the financial situation. The gathering was told that in order to begin actual work on the church $25,000.00 must be in hand.

Professor Hallenbeck spoke on the modern requirements of a church building, elaborating on beauty, durability and economy. Apparently the colonial type of architecture was criticized along these lines but the Professor said the colonial architecture lent itself most admirably to best results from all these stand points. De. H. C. Colehook, general director of the New York State Baptist Convention, analyzed the local situation and pleaded for quick action in getting the building project started. It would, he said, be the means of conserving to the church its fine group of growing youth.

Another informational session for Church Members was held on Tuesday, June 15, 1926, at 8:00 P.M. in the Seneca St. Church. The various sub-committees met in a rare general session to inform the Congregation of what had been accomplished thus far, and to answer any questions they might have in connection with the planning and construction.

The Fayetteville Bulletin reported that William Nightingale, the Building Committee Chairman, told the Congregation that “owing to the inability to get the work started in the season (1926) as desired, the Committee has decided to postpone the erection of the new church until next season”(1927) . The delay was caused by difficulty in planning and the time required to move the parsonage.

From the start of the building to the completion, progress was marked by three significant ceremonies. The first was the dedication of the site to the Service of the Almighty God on Sunday Morning, October 3, 1926. In an impressive ceremony the boys and girls of the Beginners and Primary Departments of the Church School removed soil with small trowels and placed it in a basket to be preserved and used for the growing of plants in the interior of the new church. Unlike the following ceremonies (Cornerstone Laying and Church Dedication) where many visitors were invited to participate, this was mainly a Congregational ceremony, conducted near the empty cellar of the removed parsonage and followed by a Service of Thanksgiving in the church. The program is reproduced in the appendix.

At a meeting of the Building Committee Chairmen on November 29, 1926, the main business was to consider how to finance the new church building. It was evident from the figures submitted by the Financial Secretary and Treasurer that if construction were to begin in spring of 1927 a special effort would be needed to be under taken to encourage subscribers to pay up their pledges in full by the end of the third year (summer of 1928). Many of the pledges were for five years. Although it was agreed that this would be impossible for some, the sentiment prevailed that a meeting should be held to give publicity to the need and the plans as soon as possible.

The meeting scheduled for December 13, 1926, was to be an all male affair (surprising since most of the pledges were from, Mr. & Mrs. and the largest of all came from a woman). It was to be a dinner meeting and the Ladies Aid (who pledged $2000.00 to the campaign) agreed to furnish a free supper.

A mimeographed statement (the first mention of a mimeograph machine- from now on the members would be informed with a deluge of information, only to be surpassed with the later invention of the Xerox machine) prepared by Mr. F. H. Broadfield gave the results of those who had pledged to complete their pledges in three years. (Mr. Nightingale and Mr. Broadfield had been asked to canvass as many subscribers as they could before the meeting with a view to securing definite pledges to report to the men, thus stimulating further action at the meeting.) With these receipts and money from other sources, including a $15,000.00 mortgage, $4,533,78 remained to be provided. The Pastor hoped that the yet to be provided amount would be subscribed at an early date so that the building could proceed. This was not to be the end of financial problems, however, and more pleas would have to be made to keep the contractors paid as the building of the church progressed.

Building the New Church

The Building Committee Chairmen met with Mr. Hallenbeck on February 22, 1927, to discuss letting the contract for constructing the new church. They had in hand six bids ranging from Valentine and Purchase’s bid of $53,850.00 to Heuber Brothers bid of $88,175.00. These had been submitted in the spring of 1926, however, and there was some doubt that the bids were still valid. The architect felt that prices of building materials had, in general, advanced since last spring. Of course, the Committee was interested in the lowest bid and was pleased when Mr. Hallenbeck gave the firm of Valentine and Purchase an unqualified endorsement.

The Committee felt it would be wise to accept the bid of Valentine and Purchase and voted to do so, pending the approval of two members, Mr. Frank Broadfield and Mr. John Chappell. They were, as usual, enjoying the warm weather of St. Petersburg, Florida, for the winter months.

Reverend Macpherson wrote them a long letter the next day, February, 23 ,1927, and urged them to vote, even though the motion to hire Valentine and Purchase could have been considered passed with three affirmative votes (William Nightingale, George Reeves and Bert Van Brocklin). In his letter he wrote, “Your vote is necessary and if it is possible to have it in the affirmative the morale of the whole Church will be strengthened that much more.”

The Florida Building Committee Chairmen did not respond immediately. On March 1, 1927, Reverend Macpherson sent an urgent telegram. He wired Mr. Broadfield and Mr. Chappell, “Owing to advance on original prices quoted for steel and mill work, Valentine and Purchases hesitant about contract. Firm’s possible acceptance of more building will be influential in (not ) withdrawing bid. Architect suggests prompt action. Wire endorsement of Committee’s action noted in minutes and Chairman will sign.” Reverend James Macpherson.

On March 1, 1927, the Florida Committee Chairmen sent a letter to Reverend Macpherson stating their positions (dictated by Mr. Broadfield, and written by Mrs. Broadfield). Mr. Broadfield and Mr. Chappell reminded Reverend Macpherson that they were in the construction business also and felt that construction material prices were lower than last year and therefore they would not consider it wise to accept last year’s bids. Mr. Broadfield thought that if the contract for the base building (exclusive of plumbing, lighting and heating expenses) could be lowered to the right figure, the whole cost could be brought within our budget. He also suggested that the Committee contact Jenks-Vinton as another possible contractor.

In a March 2, 1927, telegram, Mr. Broadfield rejected again Reverend Macpherson’s request to approve the bid of Valentine and Purchase and made a counter proposal. “We suggest other bids for new church unless heating, plumbing and wiring complete are provided for in the fifty-seven thousand dollar budget.”

In a long meeting on March 7, 1927, the three Building Committee Chairmen left in Manlius and Reverend Macpherson discussed the contracts again. Mr. Hallenbeck had been asked to compare the prices of building materials with those of a year ago and found that most had increased in price (cement, brick, pine and wire nails). Structural steel was an exception. Wages for carpenters had increased from $1.00 to $1.15/hr., painters’ wages had increased 10% and millworkers were also paid more. Valentine and Purchase had accordingly increased their bid by $600.00. The second lowest bidder found it impossible to lower his bid. (This was still the “Roaring Twenties” and in Syracuse the building boom was expected to be the greatest in years.)

The latest information on costs was sent to F. H. Broadfield in Florida on March 8, 1927, in a long night letter (telegram) that cost $3.07, Reverend Macpherson explained again that most building materials were more costly. He reported that Jenks-Vinton, the firm suggested by Mr. Broadfield, refused to bid. He warned them that cutting final costs would involve revising plans and specifications already accepted by the Committee and the Church and contracted for with the architect. He concluded that postponement would cost more later and that the sentiment among our people was for action now. He closed by asking for Divine Guidance. The night letter was signed by William Nightingale, George Reeves, Bert Van Brocklin and Reverend Macpherson.

With this final plea, and perhaps with the help of some of that Divine Guidance Reverend Macpherson was praying for, the Florida Committee Chairmen succumbed and wired their reply on March 9, 1927. “We regret necessity of larger budget. Provide full basement under auditorium. Approve Valentine- Purchase bid. Broadfield and Chappell.”

The contract was signed with Valentine and Purchase, Inc. just three days later on March 12, 1927, for the erection of the building at the cost of $53,700.00 ($150.00 less than the original bid of $53,850.00). The contract did not include heating, lighting, and plumbing. The first load of material was hauled to the site on March 21, 1927. On April 11, 1927, the excavation for the foundation was completed and on May 7, 1927, the pouring of concrete for the foundation walls was completed. The first steel was set up on May 25, 1927, and on June 3, 1927, the first brick was laid on the south-east corner of the social hall.

The rapid progress led the Church to the second significant service, the laying of the cornerstone. This was scheduled for Sunday afternoon on June 12, 1927. The cornerstone was discussed at several meetings of the Committee Chairmen. The architect, Mr. Hallenbeck, agreed to have the cornerstone ready in time. Reverend Macpherson began collecting materials for the cornerstone box which Mr. George Fowler of the Fowler Hardware Co. made of copper and gave to the Church. The dimensions were 10”x 5”x 4”. The contents of the Cornerstone Box are listed in the appendix. They include copies of historical documents, pictures of the old church, pictures showing the progress in building the new church, lists of organizations of the church and their leaders, newspaper clippings related to the progress of the church building, and much more. Reverend Macpherson cut short his History of the Building Project in order for it to be included and collaborated with the Publicity Committee (led by Chairman Bert Van Brocklin) to prepare the program.

While the church construction was proceeding rapidly and plans were being made for the Cornerstone Laying Ceremony, the Church was meeting for a Third Building Supper in the Methodist Church Gymnasium on May 21, 1927. The Building Committee Chairmen and Reverend Macpherson reported on the various phases of the building situation. The architect, Mr. Hallenbeck, was present and answered questions from the Congregation.

The Laying of the Cornerstone Ceremony was held as scheduled on Sunday, June 12, 1927, at 3:30 in the afternoon. Reverend W. S. Turell, President of the State Pastors’ Conference and of Syracuse Ministers’ Association , Reverend H. Clark Colebrook D.D, Executive Secretary of the Baptist Missionary Convention of the State of New York, and Reverend James Macpherson, addressed the gathering, which was held out-of-doors near the actual cornerstone of the church. The program is reproduced in the appendix and the event was covered in local newspapers. Reverend Macpherson had requested that The Journal American (Syracuse) send out a photographer. The newspaper’s reply in part was “ it is a policy of the Journal to work its camera men all hours of the night and day through the week but Sunday is their holiday. Only on very exceptional occasions are they called out, so unless you set the village on fire or rob all the banks between Syracuse and Chittenango, I see no possibility of having photos made.” The Church had some photographs of its own taken, however, and the paper was willing to use them with its accounts of the ceremony.

The other important contracts were soon let. The plumbing contract went to Mr. Nightingale (General Chairman) and Mr. N. L. Fowler (also a church member) for $13, 775.00, the heating contract to William J. Goff for $420.00 and the electrical contract to Harold Dye for $500.00.

Though the major decisions had been made, the responsibilities of the Committee Chairmen were in no way diminished. The construction proceeded rapidly and at every meeting (approximately every two weeks) there were new decisions to be made, i.e., steam versus vapor for the heating system (steam was chosen); heavier wire for areas where a kitchen range might be installed or heaters needed for an assembly room (heavier conduit was put in where needed if in the future heavier wiring would be required); asbestos shingles vs. Flintkote (asbestos was chosen); whether to brace the steel work of the steeple to keep it stable in high winds until the brick work was high enough to permit inserting the lateral I beams (the Committee Chairmen chose to be cautious and provided for the extra support); how to install the bell from the old church in the new church (which was more difficult than expected); buying insurance (the Committee wanted $10,000.00 in coverage “right away”); the height of the stair risers; the hearth construction for the fireplace in the chapel; and the installation of lightning rods.

There were also decisions concerning moving the organ, installing a buzzer system for the Church School, floodlighting the tower, and screening the open lantern of the tower to keep birds out. By September interior work was far enough along to consider colors for the woodwork (cream color on the body of the woodwork with a walnut trim). There was grading to be done, sidewalks to be laid, and many, many small problems too numerous to mention.

In the later part of the 1920-1930 decade the Editor of The Fayetteville Bulletin wrote articles called “Through the Mirror,” which profiled some of the important people of the Town of Manlius. The September 1, 1927, column featured the life of Frank H. Broadfield, husband of Mary Loomis Broadfield and brother-in-law of Yettie Loomis Harris. The Editor told of Mr. Broadfield’s farm life, of his services to the Town of Pompey and to the Baptist Church of Manlius, and of his winters spent in Florida where he enjoyed the mild weather and busied himself in the home construction business.

He was erroneously called the General Chairman of the Building Committee, a job held by William Nightingale.

The Editor wrote that “the experience gained in his building activities is proving to be a valuable asset in connection with his part in the construction of the new Manlius Baptist Church.” As Chairman of the Building Program Committee “he was a leading factor in getting the project underway and is now actively engaged in supervising the completion of the structure. The Church is his hobby and his fellow Church members say that, with the exception of the Pastor, to Mr. Broadfield, more than any one man, is due the erection of this beautiful edifice.”

As construction progressed, the need for money increased. The payments to Valentine and Purchase (and probably the other major contractors also) were to be paid in installments as parts of the work were completed. On May 10, 1927, the Building Committee Chairmen met to discuss the financial problems. Payments in June and July would be especially heavy as they would involve the greater part of the church structure. They decided to have Mr. Reeves’s finance sub-committee ask subscribers who promised to pay their subscriptions in full December 1, 1927 (or before) to pay 50% by June or July. As many others as possible were to be induced to do likewise. The Building Committee Chairmen apparently had the authority to borrow money as needed and in August, 1927, borrowed $8,000.00 from the bank to meet the September 1st payment on the general contract. At this time the Committee decided that $25,000.00 would be needed to complete the work, $36,000.00 having already been paid to Valentine and Purchase. On September 22, 1927, at a special meeting of the Church after Prayer Meeting, the Congregation voted to give the Trustees the authority to dispose of the old church property, the proceeds to be applied to the new church. On September 27, 1927, another special meeting was called to give the Trustees authority to mortgage the new church for at least $15,000.00, so as to enable the Building Committee Chairmen to take care of paying the remains of the contractor bills on completion of the building.

Another financial communication to the Congregation from Reverend Macpherson was a letter dated November 16, 1927, stating that the new church was almost completed. He congratulated the members for their loyalty and devotion thus far and informed them that the cost of the building and furnishings would be approximately $62,000.00. The pledges added up to a little over $60,000.00. The building was erected because some subscribers were willing to pay their entire pledge by December 1, 1927, and the Trustees were working to arrange for a $15,000.00 mortgage on the new building to be held by Mr. Frank Broadfield and Mrs. Yettie Harris. The bad news was that $10,000.00 more was required to finish paying the contractors. He asked the people “where shall it come from, how will we secure it?” and then gave the people a way out of the dilemma. “Pay all of the unpaid pledges. If they are not paid we will have to borrow a like amount.” He asked “Shall we permit the members of the Church to pay interest on unpaid subscriptions?” He invited all of the members to the Annual Meeting on December 5, 1927, and promised it would be an “historic” evening.

The December 5, 1927, Annual Meeting was an important one. The Congregation didn’t know it as yet, but it would be Reverend Macpherson’s last in the Manlius Church. Reverend Macpherson expressed his appreciation for the way the Church and Congregation stood back of him in the past year, and for the loyalty and cooperation shown by each one in construction of the new edifice. Them he spoke of the Loomis family and their connection with the Manlius Baptist Church for the past 90 years, 1837-1927. He spoke of Mr. Isaac Loomis, father of Mrs. Yettie Harris and Mrs. Broadfield, and how Mr. Loomis would read sermons and conduct the services on Sunday when the Church was without a pastor. He spoke of how Mrs. Broadfield taught Sunday School for years and how Mrs. Harris played the organ (she resigned as organist on December 6, 1926). (He didn’t mention it but Mr. Broadfield was a chorister and had also resigned at the same time, but his resignation was not accepted and Mr. Earl Kane was named as a substitute.) Because of the loyalty of the Loomis Family to the Church he suggested that the social hall (and gymnasium) be called the Loomis Memorial Social Hall of the Manlius Baptist Church. A motion to that effect was made, seconded and carried. The name was to be bestowed on the Hall at the time of the new church dedication.

At the meeting, Mr. Shulte brought up the question of a Constitution and By-Laws for the Church. (The Church abided by various rules and regulations, but had had no written Constitution and By-Laws.) He suggested they call a meeting and select a Committee to prepare the same. Reverend Macpherson was also in favor of a constitution, and suggested that this would also be a good time to change the name of the Church. (“The Baptist Church and Society in Manlius and Pompey” was seldom used as a name for the Church except legally and for the Annual Meeting Notes, and had been in practice replaced by “The Manlius Baptist Church.”) A motion was made and carried that the Reverend Macpherson be empowered to appoint a committee to draft a Constitution and By-Laws and to report on a date he might set. There was no mention of action on either the constitution or a name change, however, during the few months left of the Macpherson pastorate.

At the December 6, 1927, meeting of the Building Committee Chairmen, Mr. Purchase of Valentine and Purchase came to ask the Committee to formally accept the building from the contractors as all of their work, with the exception of a few details which would be taken care of before the end of the week, was completed. The Committee agreed that pending the completion of some projects to vote to accept the building. At this point Valentine and Purchase had been paid $45,000.00. $1,918.00 was due to make the payments 85% of the contract price (and an additional amount of $1,673.00 for extra work.)

On December 18, 1927, the Congregation bade farewell to the old Seneca Street church building with what The Fayetteville Bulletin called “a delightful farewell party.”

The parlors were filled to their capacity and a splendid program was given. The “Spirit of Christmas” was exemplified by everyone present and also by absent members. Many beautiful Christmas Baskets were to be carried to shut-ins as a result of the service.

Reverend Macpherson reported to Baptist architect W. E. Merrill on January 18, 1928, that we moved up from the Church of the Holy Acorn (his description of the old church steeple) on the Thursday before Christmas. The Church School attendance increased 75% after the move. The transition was not complete until April 1, 1928, however. The social hall (gymnasium) was used for a Christmas (1927) entertainment and for a play presented by the Women’s Missionary Society. The first service in the sanctuary was a prayer service on December 22, 1927. The organ installation had not been completed, however, and regular services were deferred until April 1, 1928, when the Baptistry was also used for the first time.

On January 3, 1928, the Building Committee Chairmen met. This was the last meeting for which we have Reverend Macpherson’s notes and may have been the Committee’s last meeting. The mortgage arrangement with Mr. Broadfield still had not been settled but was to be taken care of early in February. 1928.

On January 18, 1928, the County Court with the Honorable William L. Barnum, County Judge, presiding, gave the Baptist Church and Society in Pompey and Manlius permission to mortgage its real property for the sum of $15,000.00. Terms were that the rate of interest should not exceed 6% per annum and that the proceeds of the said mortgage be used to complete the payments of the said new church edifice described in said petition; to complete the equipment and furnishing thereof and the alteration and repairs to the parsonage therein. Signed William L. Barnum.

A Bond was drawn up in which the Baptist Church and Society in Pompey and Manlius was held and firmly bound with Frank H. Broadfield and Yettie Harris. The condition was that the Church pay Frank H. Broadfield and Yettie R. Harris $15,000.00 with interest at 6% until the whole of the said principle sum and interest was fully paid.

On February 6, 1928, at a special meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Manlius Baptist Church, it was resolved that the Church borrow of the Fayetteville Commercial Bank of Fayetteville, New York, a sum not to exceed $9,000.00 and interest. Be it further resolved that the Manlius Baptist Church execute a note payable on demand for $9,000.00 and the said Manlius Baptist Church and the President of the Board of Trustees of the Church are hereby authorized to execute the said note. Signed Harold Goodfellow. By October 1, 1929, the note was almost paid up. There was an unpaid balance of $250.00. A copy of the note signed by all of the Trustees can be found in the Appendix.

On March 18, 1928 a month before the Dedication of the new church building, Reverend Macpherson, Pastor of the Manlius Baptist Church since October 10, 1921,

submitted his resignation to the Church effective the first Sunday in May 1928. What was he like as a pastor of the Baptist Church of Manlius? His work as secretary of the Building Committee and unofficially the prime mover of the whole process is well documented because he kept excellent records. Very little is written in Church Minutes about the life of the Church during this period, although the activities of the Church as chronicled in The Fayetteville Bulletin, proceeded as usual.

Mrs. Harris, in her annual letters (as Church Clerk) to the Onondaga Baptist Association, described Reverend Macpherson as a preacher and a leader:

1924: “The new pastor is a good preacher, a wise leader, and has taken up the work with earnestness and enthusiasm.”

1925: “Seldom listened to better preaching nor received better pastoral care.”

1926: “Our pastor (is) a good Bible student and our prayer meetings are helpful to a good understanding of the word, while the sermons we hear are stimulating to a better living.”

1927: ‘Pastor Macpherson has been our guide and inspiration.” (She noted that the Seneca Street Church construction was started 100 years previously.)

Reverend Macpherson was able to take time out to attend as a delegate the Northern Baptist Convention in Washing ton DC from May 25-30, 1928.

Mr. Merrill (Baptist Architect) seemed to realize that Reverend Macpherson had thoughts of leaving Manlius and perhaps hoped to change his mind. In his last letter of January 21, 1928, to Reverend Macpherson, he wrote “You are going to have a great time as you go on with your work in the new building, and I hope you see your way clear to remain there for a considerable time" and thus demonstrate what a difference a satisfactory building makes in strengthening a Church from the smallest tot to the oldest member.” This was not to be, however. In his letter of resignation dated March 11, 1928, Reverend Macpherson stated that he had come to Manlius to build a church and now that it was completed he felt that “If the time for a change in leadership has ever come to the Church, I feel that that time is now.” (The entire letter is reproduced in the appendix.) In his letter to Reverend John Willis, pastor, First Methodist Church, Homer, New York (formerly pastor of the Methodist Church in Manlius), inviting Reverend Willis to return to Manlius to take part in the Dedication Services, Reverend Macpherson explained his resignation. He wrote “doubtless you have heard of our going to Lincoln, Nebraska. My last service will be on April 29th. It’s hard to leave this fine edifice with its opportunities for a developing program, but I feel we are doing the right thing. The Lincoln work is attractive in many ways not the least of which is the great educational institutions there with an aggregate of ten-thousand students. (Lincoln, Nebraska, was the home of Nebraska Wesleyan as well as Nebraska State University.)

Final ceremonies for the Dedication of the new church were held from April 7 to April 22, 1928. It was an ambitious undertaking with five different events scheduled. (The program for all of the events is reproduced in the Appendix.) The first event on Tuesday, April 17 was Community Night. All of the Protestant Manlius Church Pastors participated, and Reverend John H. Willis, former pastor of the Manlius Methodist Church spoke on “Community Religion.”

Wednesday (April 18) was Educational Night. Professor F. O. Erb, Ph.D., from the Rochester Theological Seminary and Chairman of the Commission on Religious Education at the Baptist State Convention, spoke on Religious Education and the local Church. The Church School was open for inspection. Dr. Erb was supposed to dine at the Macpherson home before the program, but because a case of mumps had developed in Reverend Macpherson’s family, other arrangements were made.

It was apparently a bad night in other respects for in his letter of thanks to Dr. Erb, Reverend Macpherson apologized for “the miserably small representation of the people.” He felt that the non-attendance was a result of a “smallpox scare,” which he thought was “abating somewhat,” but feared it would affect other services.

Thursday (April 19) was Building Night. The members and guests met in the gymnasium-social hall for a supper served by the Ladies Aid Society. This was the fourth (and final) building supper. The social hall was dedicated as the Loomis Memorial Social Hall. Reverend George H. Hobart, pastor of the Eastwood Baptist Church, spoke on “Bricks and Character.” Mr. Hallenbeck and the Building Contractors were invited as guests to this occasion.

On Friday and Saturday (April 20 & 21) the Congregation was allowed to rest. Sunday, April 22, 1928, was Dedication Day. The Dedication Sermon was entitled “The House of Prayer” and was given by Reverend Macpherson. The Building Committee symbolized the end of its work by presenting the keys of the church to the Board of Trustees. At 12:00 special dedication exercises of the Church School were held in each department in their assembly rooms.

On Sunday evening, April 22, 1928, the regular Union Evening service for the village was held with the local Churches participating. Reverend Albert Sears, D.D., of Syracuse spoke on “The Local Church and the World Field.”

Some of the joy and satisfaction in the completion and dedication of the new church must have been dampened by the year long illness and death of Mary Louise Loomis Broadfield on May 16, 1928. She and her sister, Yettie R. Harris, were said to have made the new church possible by their generosity. Mrs. Broadfield had for many years been a loyal and active member of the Church. She was recognized in 1925 as the only living active member who had been connected to the Church for 50 consecutive years. She sang in the choir and taught a men’s Bible class for a time (and other classes as well.)

On April 29, 1928, Reverend Macpherson preached his last sermon and shortly thereafter left with his family for Lincoln, Nebraska. Reverend and Mrs. Macpherson’s letters were voted to be transferred to the Second Baptist Church of that city.

First Baptist Manlius