USA > Connecticut > The history of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut, Vol. II > Part 5
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33
39
IN CONNECTICUT.
peace and harmony of the Church, was not the issue before the civil court, but it was whether the man, with this particular sentence of degradation pronounced upon him, had the same clerical rights as before.
The Bishop with his clergy met in Convocation at Stamford on the 14th day of October, 1805, when be- sides himself thirteen were present, including two visiting brethren from New York. The object of the meeting was to confer, in a friendly and unofficial way, with the principal adherents of Rogers; and as soon as they had organized for business a committee was appointed to wait upon Mr. Cary Leeds, one of their number and their authorized "agent to nego- tiate a settlement of all the unhappy differences and disputes," and inform him that the Convocation was now ready to enter into a conference with him re- specting those ecclesiastical proceedings of the Dio- cese which were so unsatisfactory to him and his friends. The answer brought back by the committee was-"That Mr. Leeds informed them that he could have no personal conference with the Convocation." The Bishop had previously made a gentle requisi- tion upon him for the keys of St. John's Church, that it might be used for the meetings of the clergy while in town; and had told him that " his compliance in this particular would be in strict conformity to eccle- siastical duty." But the keys had been given up to the exclusive control of Rogers, and to him therefore a more peremptory requisition was sent, but without avail. Several letters or notes passed between the parties, and finally the "Rev. Philo Shelton, Rev. Daniel Burhans and Rev. Tillotson Bronson were appointed a committee to draft an answer to the last
40
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
communication from Cary Leeds to this Convoca- tion ;" and they submitted the following statement, which was approved unanimously and ordered to be engrossed upon the minutes.
" To Cary Leeds, Alexander Bishop and others who are dissatisfied with the ecclesiastical proceedings of the Bishop and clergy of the Diocese of Connecticut in regard to Mr. Ammi Rogers : -
" The Bishop and clergy of the Diocese of Connect- icut, sincerely desirous to promote the peace and pre- serve the authority of the Church, have met at Stamford in the hope that, by friendly conference with you, it would be in their power to satisfy you of the propriety and duty of submitting to the sentence pronounced upon Mr. Ammi Rogers. They regret that your refusal to engage in a personal conference has prevented that full and fair discussion of the sub- ject which in every point of view was so desirable. By persons who profess themselves churchmen in principles and in practice, they still cherish the hope that the following statement of facts from the author- ity of the Church will be duly regarded."
They then proceed to give a minute history of the hearing before the House of Bishops and to call atten- tion to every step taken in that body with reference to this matter. Their answer next goes on to say : -
" By recurring to the Journal, you will find that the above is an impartial statement of facts, and that the following particulars undeniably result from it. Mr. Ammi Rogers brought this business himself before the House of Bishops, and, in the words of his memo- rial, declared that 'he has never shunned investiga- tion, but on the contrary has always requested it, and
41
IN CONNECTICUT.
now prays that a candid and impartial inquiry may be made as to his conduct and character.' It appears that Mr. Rogers presented to the House his docu- ments ; and that a full hearing of the case was at different times made in the presence of both parties ; that Mr. Rogers confirmed the wish that he expressed for an inquiry by always attending for the purpose, and it was not until the close of the inquiry, and until he had reason to fear the unfavorable result to himself that he expressed to the Bishops that he did not wish them to come to any decision. Now as per- sons deeply interested for the peace of the Church and your spiritual welfare, we entreat your conscien- tious attention to the following considerations. Can you suppose, that, if Mr. Rogers did not wish for an inquiry into his conduct by the House of Bishops, he would have permitted them to engage in it, without entering his solemn protest against it? Can you suppose that the Right Rev. Bishop White, whose im- partiality and mildness are so universally acknowl- edged, - that Bishop Moore, who had been repre- sented by Mr. Rogers as friendly to him, - that Bishop Parker, who had just made his solemn vows at the altar, would have forced Mr. Rogers to an inquiry if he had not solicited it; - would declare that they had made a full inquiry and fair examination of the subject, if such inquiry and examination had not been made ? Can you suppose that these venerable Bish- ops of the Church would have violated every obliga- tion of truth and justice as well as the most solemn vows of office by condemning an innocent man ? Could Mr. Rogers have had a trial before a more im- partial tribunal ? Or can you suppose that, after the
42
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
House of Bishops had made a full inquiry and pro- nounced their opinion, anything else was left to the Bishop of Connecticut than to carry their decision into effect ? Mr. Rogers made an appeal to the House of Bishops. They thought proper to investigate his conduct and pronounce a decision. The Canons of the Church of Connecticut in regard to the trial of clergymen could here have no operation. The
Bishop of Connecticut was the agent to carry the decision of the House of Bishops into effect. Mr. Rogers has been solemnly degraded from the ministry after a full investigation of his conduct, and a discus- sion in regard to him by the highest authority in the Church. We entreat you by your character as churchmen, by the memory of your forefathers who cherished the Church with inviolable fidelity ; - we entreat you by the prospect of that awful tribunal at which all mankind must be judged, to regard the Divine injunction, 'Hear the Church.' In the lan- guage of the Apostle, we exhort you, brethren, ' Put from you that unworthy person.' Remember the injunction of our Lord : 'If any man refuse to hear the Church, let him be unto you as a heathen man and a publican.' In the spirit of meekness and affec- tion, we entreat you. Rend not that Divine body, the Church which your Redeemer purchased with his blood. For ourselves we most solemnly declare, that mindful of the commission given to us by our Divine Master and relying on his promise, that He will be with His Church alway, even to the end of the world, we shall esteem it our sacred duty to preserve inviolate the authority committed to us: and we
43
IN CONNECTICUT.
trust that what is thus done by the lawful governors of the Church on earth, will be ratified in heaven."1
A copy of the foregoing document, signed by Mr. Bronson as chairman of the Committee, was deliv- ered to Mr. Leeds and a resolution of the Convocation next morning shows the manner of its reception, and the extent to which the misguided adherents of Rog- ers had allowed their passions to run. The resolution was, -" That Mr. Cary Leeds be informed that the Convocation have received his communication of October 16th, accompanied with a certain vote of a meeting held at St. John's Church in Stamford on the 27th day of May, 1805, attested by Isaac Holly, Jr., by which they have declared that they are not un- der the direction, nor amenable to the authority, of any bishop. This Convocation have therefore no further communication to make to Mr. Leeds on this subject."
Here was a step in the direction of actual schism. It was breaking away from the counsels which ought to have been heeded, and rashly setting aside the order and polity of the Church. No parish pursuing such a course could expect to be represented in the Diocesan Convention, and it was not surprising, there- fore, that a vote was afterwards passed in that body, excluding a lay representation from those "who should employ any person to officiate among them, who had been suspended or degraded from his clerical office." This action might have been regarded, for a time, with indifference by the friends of Rogers ; but in the end, even supposing the sentence of the ecclesiastical authority against him premature, it
1 MS. Records of Convocation.
44
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
would operate to their disadvantage and put them in the wrong for rejecting wholly the discipline of a kingdom which is not of this world. " Religion " says Dr. Chandler, " being a matter of free choice, for which we are ordinarily accountable to Him only who will hereafter judge us for our moral behavior ; and the Church, considered with relation to civil power, being, in the very nature of it, a voluntary society ; it is left to men's consciences to determine whether they will become members of it or not. But after they have become members, the laws of the Church are in force against them, and they are subject, in ecclesiastical matters, to the authority of those who govern it." Principles cannot be made false by mis- takes or oversights, nor does the mere use of the Book of Common Prayer constitute a man an Epis- copalian. He must love and honor the teachings of his communion and recognize the authority of a bishop - of a bishop, too, who has a canonical claim to his allegiance.
45
IN CONNECTICUT.
CHAPTER IV.
EPISCOPAL ACADEMY, AND RESIGNATION OF DR. SMITH; RENEW- AL OF THE CASE OF AMMI ROGERS; AND ORGANIZATION OF PARISHES.
A. D. 1805-1809.
GENERAL inquiries into the state of the Institution at Cheshire were authorized from time to time, and from the report of a special committee to the Annual Convention of 1805, which is entered in full upon the journal for that year, it appears, that instead of flourishing, " the number of students was gradually diminishing, the building going to decay, and the in- stitution itself sinking in reputation." It was not determined whether these unfavorable appearances arose from any deficiency in its organization, neglect or mismanagement of those entrusted with its inter- ests, or from the place of its establishment. The belief, however, was expressed that they resulted “in some measure from its location in the vicinity of a flourishing university, and in a town where it received very little patronage or encouragement ; " and further inquiry into its affairs, and into the causes of its pres- ent condition was recommended and approved.
The next Annual Convention, composed of fifteen clergymen and twenty-two laymen, was held in Chesh- ire, and though no report appears upon the journal of that year in regard to the further inquiries which
46
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
had been previously recommended, yet there is an important entry made towards the close of the ses- sion, which covers the whole ground and lets us into the secret history of the declining reputation of the institution. It is the resignation of the Rev. Dr. Smith, couched in peculiar phraseology and addressed : "To the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Connecticut, in session this fifth day of June, A. D. 1806.
" Whereas missives have passed between the Board of Trustees and me, whereby certain articles have been interchangeably acceded to by both parties, I hereby request this Convention to accept of my res- ignation of the office of Principal of the Episcopal Academy of Connecticut, and upon their acceptance of the same, I shall consider myself as detached from all connection with the said Academy, either as to its internal or external regimen or the emoluments thereof, from and after the first day of October next."
The resignation was accepted, and the Convention, without appointing a successor, adjourned to meet in Newtown on the eighth day of the ensuing October. The " missives " that passed between Dr. Smith and the Trustees were not, as may be inferred from the tenor of his letter, altogether of a pleasant nature. Charges amounting to an impeachment were brought against him, and the records of the Board show that the final adjustment of the matter was far from being mutually satisfactory. Perhaps the measures resorted to by one party to effect their object, were not taken with sufficient reference to the peculiar temperament of the other. The dignity of self-respect, like any other moral quality, is more easily lost than regained ;
47
IN CONNECTICUT.
and corporate bodies, dividing up the responsibility of their actions, seldom allow enough for private and individual character.
The Convention, which adjourned to meet in New- town, elected the Rev. Tillotson Bronson to supply the vacancy thus created, and he accepted the office and entered at once upon its duties. For about eight years he had been the Rector of the parish in Water- bury, but towards the close of 1805 " the high price demanded on all the necessaries of life and the increas- ing expenses of his family obliged him to ask for a proportionable increase in his salary." This, though advocated by many of the more substantial friends of the Church, was refused, and consequently he took his leave of the people in a farewell discourse, and removed to New Haven, to conduct the " Church- man's Magazine." He was the editor of that useful periodical, when appointed to the charge of the Acad- emy, and except during the interval of its publication out of the Diocese, he continued to add to his other labors the responsibility of arranging the matter and superintending the press.
At this adjourned Convention in Newtown, an ef- fort was again made to reopen the case of Ammi Rogers, and John Nichols, a lay delegate from Water- bury, introduced a resolution requesting the Bishop to revoke his sentence of degradation and leave the offender " to be proceeded against agreeably to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut." The Convention decided that it was not competent to judge respecting the sentence, and after its final adjournment the Bishop and clergy met in Convocation and declared "that in their opinion
48
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
the only proper board for redress of grievances com- plained of by said Rogers in consequence of his sus- pension and degradation " was the House of Bishops, to whose decision they expressed themselves ever ready to submit. Through a committee they also prepared a letter, which they directed to be signed by the Secretary and transmitted to the several bishops who were present at the last General Con- vention. The letter is given here in full, for it shows their desire to bring this troublesome business to an end in any way that would preserve "the honor of God's Church," and further " the prosperity of true religion."
" RIGHT REV. SIR : The Bishop of Connecticut, with the advice of his presbyters in Convocation assem- bled at Cheshire in the month of October of the year 1804, passed sentence of degradation against Mr. Ammi Rogers. In taking this step, the Bishop conceived himself warranted by the proceedings had with regard to the said Mr. Rogers before the House of Bishops at New York. This opinion was formed on the consideration of the full and solemn hearings that were given to Mr. Rogers and the delegation from Connecticut, and on the conceived impropriety of again calling in question facts which the highest ecclesiastical authority in our Church had said were proved. Having nothing in view, as is hoped and believed, but the honor of God's Church and the pros- perity of true religion, it is found with regret that a different opinion has been expressed by two of the members of the House of Bishops, in their affidavits given to Mr. Rogers; which has exposed the Church in Connecticut to much inconvenience and trouble,
49
.IN CONNECTICUT.
and the dangers of an unhappy schism are greatly increased by the efforts now carried on by the said Rogers and his adherents.
" If these evils are to be ascribed to the governors of the Church in Connecticut in consequence of their erroneous conclusions from what was done at New York, they flatter themselves that it was the error of the head and not of the heart. But however this may be, they stand ready to be corrected by the com- petent authority. And being disposed to do every- thing in their power for the peace of the Church, they do hereby request that you will, in conjunction with the other bishops concerned, transmit a statement of your view of the whole subject, together with your advice to Connecticut how it would be prudent in the present state of things to proceed ; and particularly whether it would be advisable to give Mr. Rogers a new trial on the ground of nullity in the act of degradation.
" Your advice on this, or any other point that may tend to remove the unhappy embarrassments under which the Church is laboring, will be thankfully re- ceived and seriously weighed and considered."
Answers to this letter from the three bishops to whom it was severally addressed were read to the Convocation which met at Watertown on the second day of June, 1807. Bishop White, in his "Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church," 2 has a note in refer- ence to the Clergy of Connecticut desiring advice on the question of again taking up the case of Ammi Rogers and granting him a new trial. Both he and Bishop Moore were in favor of the measure ; " but," he adds rather sharply, " it did not take place. It would
1 MS. Records of Convocation. VOL. II. 4
2 P. 190
50
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
have been more discreet in them to have withheld their advice, until they should have known that it would have effect." Bishop Claggett, who went very extensively into the merits of the sentence of degrada- tion and recited the history of the action which led to it, differed in opinion from those two prelates, and thought that nothing but reordination could " restore Mr. Rogers to his former standing in the Christian ministry." His letter,1 which is too long to be inserted in this place, undoubtedly had its influence in pre- venting the Bishop and clergy of Connecticut from pronouncing their own degradation a nullity.
The excitement produced by his imaginary wrongs was meat and drink to Rogers, and he poured his com- plaints into the ears not only of those who sym- pathized with him, but of all who were disposed to listen. For many years, hardly a convention or con- vocation in the Diocese was held that he did not flood with his papers or visit with his importunities. He had his friends to bolster up his cause, and afford him a medium through which to operate, and hence Bish- op Jarvis, in his address to the Annual Convention of 1807, - which was the first address ever printed in the Journal, - called attention to the office of the Episcopate and earnestly rebuked any disregard of its rights and powers.
"The firm belief," said he, "that ecclesiastical au- thority, in its fullest extent, was essential not only to the well ordering, but even to the very being of the Church in this country, caused our predecessors to plead so strongly as they did for the obtaining of it. From their public communications, we learn what evils
1 Appendix A.
51
IN CONNECTICUT.
they expected would be remedied, and what benefits would be enjoyed, by having resident bishops in the American Church. One particular advantage, preëm- inently conducive, in their opinion, to its welfare and reputation, would be the complete information which the bishop could obtain, or the personal knowledge he would have of those who should be presented to him for ordination ; and thereby the greater security would be established that no disqualified or unworthy per- sons would get admission into the ministry. But in case such instances should happen and the Church should suffer scandal, the bishop would be at hand, to correct, to suspend, and, if necessary, to silence, to depose from their office, and even to excommunicate from the society of Christians, the vicious and incor- rigible.
" I ask, then, gentlemen, whether the Episcopate in possession be considered as holding primitive powers ; and whether it be now viewed in the same light in which they viewed it, who contended so long and so earnestly to procure its establishment among us ? Is it found to be a remedy for the evils complained of, and does it experimentally yield to the Church that good which was expected ? During the time in which our Church was destitute of resident bishops, there were among the clergy men of acknowledged abilities, and of characters approved for their activity, learning, and piety. How watchful were the endeavors of these clergymen may be easily imagined ; and yet by them we have it asserted, as one of the evils for which they solicited the Episcopate as a redress, that vicious men from this country, by means of testimonials, either forged or obtained, God knows how, procured ordina-
52
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
tion in England ; and after having been invested with the sacred office, had been sent back to take charge of the souls of others - in the prosecution of which work they acted as if they had not or imagined that they had not any souls of their own.
" Are we not compelled to own that the same fact has taken place since bishops have been present among us ? After a solemn investigation, full proof of fact, and actual deposition from office, have not num- bers arisen to support the degraded person, even while he continues to minister, in defiance of the au- thority which has stripped him of all right so to do ? By this contumelious and ruinous procedure, a schism commenced, the future extent and continuation of which is indeed uncertain ; but most certain has been the contempt shown to ecclesiastical authority. The false tongue of the transgressor has found listening ears, and minds disposed to credit his tales, and to as- sociate with him in the work of mischief. By them the bishop's character has been loaded with obloquy and reproach, and Korah (though thus to use the name is degrading even to Korah), in the eye of his company, has become the saint and the bishop the sinner.
" Repeated efforts to bring this subject before the Convention, though every attempt to do it was, in my apprehension, a fresh outrage upon the order and authority of the Church, is the cause of my speaking in this manner. Had circumstances been such as would have directed me to call your attention to the ordinary concerns only of the Church, according to her well known rules, and sound doctrines, it would have been far, far more congenial with my wishes."
53
IN CONNECTICUT.
Failing in all his attempts to be recognized and re- stored, and furnishing, as an eminent lawyer of that time said, an example of the triumph of justice over law, Rogers again ventured to carry his case be- fore the House of Bishops in the shape of an appeal from the sentence of degradation under which he lay. Two bishops only - White and Claggett - were pre- sent at the General Convention which met in the city of Baltimore, May, 1808, and on the fourth day of the session, the "documents signed Ammi Rogers," accompanied by a letter from his counsel, were under consideration ; and in the final decision1 which was rendered, the House both confirmed its previous ac- tion and refused to interfere with the proceedings of the Bishop and clergy of Connecticut. Not satisfied with this decision, he sent in, on a subsequent day, " certain petitions addressed to the General Conven- tion," but as the resolution had been taken by the Bishops to dismiss the subject of his case finally from consideration, they passed them, without opening, to the House of Clerical and Lay Delegates, where the action upon them was equally summary and decisive.
Soon after this, Rogers left Connecticut and removed to New York, locating himself in the neighborhood of his earliest ministrations. While there he brought a suit against Bishop Jarvis for slander before the Circuit Court of the United States, to be holden at New Haven, April, 1811, claiming damages in the sum of twenty thousand dollars. The Convention of the Diocese appointed a committee of laymen to em- ploy legal counsel to defend in the suit thus insti- tuted, and great pains were taken to collect testimony 1 Appendix B.
54
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
to rebut his witnesses and establish the righteousness of his degradation from the ministry. Declining to appear when the case was called, he was non-suited, and " the Court considered that Bishop Jarvis should recover against him $316.24 - cost and charges laid out by him for his defence " - and accordingly he had execution for that amount.1
But the anger of this degraded priest was not yet burnt out, and Bishop Jarvis going afterwards to the City of New York to assist in the consecration of Griswold and Hobart, was sued by him before the Supreme Court of that State and damages once more laid at twenty thousand dollars for issuing papers against him without authority, breaking up his settlements, and causing distress and trouble to himself and family. The suit was pending when death came to the Bishop and terminated all further proceedings. He had been, in a measure, unable to silence the discontents which sprang up in certain quarters from the operation of what he conscien- tiously believed to be the exercise of his Episcopal duty. The disturbance of the Diocese was to him, with his infirmities, a personal trouble, and this wretched business for years gave him no peace. Per- petually recurring in different forms, and sometimes instigated or encouraged by those who undoubtedly had the welfare of the Church at heart, it was the one great trial of his Episcopate and shaded with op- pressive sorrow his latest days.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.