USA > New York > New York City > A history of the parish of Trinity Church in the city of New York, pt 1 > Part 8
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44
ند كان يطلب شفطـ
CHAPTER V.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNOR FLETCHER.
Current Misrepresentations of Fletcher-The Bill for Settling a Ministry-Struggle between the Governor and the Assembly-Final Passage of the Act-Its Provisions- Election of the City Vestry-Their Attempt to Call a Dissenting Minister Defeated- First Mention of Mr. Vesey-The Managers of the Affairs of the Church of Eng- land-Their Petition to Fletcher and its Result-The Call of Mr. Vesey-Grant of a Charter, and Establishment of the Parish of Trinity Church-Provisions of the Charter-Ordination of Vesey in England-His Induction, Christmas Day, 1697.
TT is to be regretted that they who first took in hand to write the history of the city of New York should have been under the influence of strong prejudices against the Church; and still more to be deplored, that false reports and gossipy stories set afloat long ago should have been accepted, even down to our own day, as his- toric fact. Take, for example, the current account of Benjamin Fletcher. Whatever his faults-and certainly he had them-his zeal for the Church and his efforts to promote her interests should not have made him a mark for censure; he was sent here with instructions, which it was his duty to obey. The early annalists, however, inter- preted his conduct from a sectarian point of view. Wil- liam Smith leads off, describing the Governor as "a man of strong passions and inconsiderable talents, very active and equally avaricious," and "a bigot to the episcopal form of church government "1; and Smith is followed by a line of historiographers all singing in the same key .?
1 Smith's Hist. of the Late Province of New York, vol. i., 124, 128.
2 See Dunlap, Hist. of New York. vol. i., 216 ; Stone, Hist. of New York, p. 120 ; Mary L. Booth, Hist. of the City of New York, vol. i., 247. All repeat the slurs of Smith, word for word.
76
77
1692-98]
Fletcher Loyal to the Church
Bigot, indeed ! Why bigot, when the Church of Eng- land was, and had been for centuries, an integral part of the State and Realm? The author who opened the attack on this line was not a competent witness. Brod- head's notes are filled with corrections of his errors in matters of fact ; while as regards the animus of the per- son referred to, Dr. Samuel Johnson, in a letter to Arch- bishop Secker under date of March 20, 1759, declares him to be utterly untrustworthy in matters pertaining to the affairs of the Church of England in the American colonies. And yet, of such material as this the popular history of the times is made up.
It is the habit of a certain class of writers, on reach- ing the present point of this history, to break forth into denunciation of ecclesiastical establishments, and declaim against those who gave the Church of England a legal settlement in the province of New York. However ani- mated these expressions, they are out of place in a serious history of the day. It is true, that, on the permanent es- tablishment of the English authority in Manhattan Island, measures were taken to put the Church on a proper foot- ing. It is equally true that it was the duty of the sovereign and his representatives, the Governors, to do whatever was necessary to that end. Wherever the State went, the Church went with it. James II., though a Romanist, understood this : so did Governor Dongan, though, like the King, a Roman Catholic. William III., a Dutch Calvinist, in accepting the English Crown, be- came defender of the Church of England ; and Andros, Fletcher, and others did no more than their duty in seeing that the Church took her rightful position in the province. There is no just cause of censure in these cases, and least of all should Protestants find fault, as against the English Church, considering that, as Mr. Brodhead has shown
78
History of Trinity Church
[1692-
conclusively, the Dutch Church had previously been estab- lished here, without reproach or opposition.
In pursuance of his instructions, Governor Fletcher gave early and earnest attention to the state of morals and religion in his province.1 His first act, on his arrival in 1692, was to issue a proclamation for the suppression of vice and the observance of the Lord's Day .? He also undertook the repair of the old chapel in the Fort, which the Dutch had left in a ruinous condition, on their re- moval to a new and much larger church, built of stone, and more to their mind. In October, 1692, the Governor initiated proceedings looking to the establishment of the Church of England. Nothing could be done without the concurrence of the General Assembly, and on this point a long fight between him and that body ensued ; and no wonder, for they were nearly all Dissenters, and regarded the Church of England with suspicion and dislike.
In accordance with the duty now devolving upon him to procure from the General Assembly such legislation as was needed, Governor Fletcher addressed that body, Oc- tober 26, 1692, recommending the passage of a bill to
1 Fletcher was commissioned March 18, 1692. His instructions were dated eleven days earlier, and repeated clauses found in the instructions of several of his predeces- sors directing him to put the Church on the footing of an establishment.
It is worth while to give them here once more, as we are now approaching a question concerning which there has been much debate :
" You shall take care that God Almighty be devoutly and duly served throughout yr Government, the Book of Common Prayer, as it is now established, read each Sun- day & Holy-Day and the blessed Sacrament administered according to the Rites of the Church of England. You shall be carefull that the churches already built there be well and orderly kept and more built as the Colony shall by God's blessing be improved and that besides a competent Maintenance to be assigned to the Minister of each Orthodox Church, a convenient house be built at the Common Charge for each Minister and a competent proporcion of land assigned to him for a Glebe and exercise of his industry.
* * * Our Will & Pleasure is that noe Minister be Preferred by you to any eccle- siasticall Benefice in that our Province, without a Certificate from the Right Rever- and the Bishop of London of his being conformable to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England and of good conversation." -- N. Y. Col. Docs., iii., 821.
: Bolton's Hist. of the Church in West Chester Co., Introduction, pp. xi., xii.
ليسللأ من عط. عصى
79
The Provision for a Ministry
1698]
provide for a ministry in the province. The Assembly made fair promises, but delayed, and remained passive 1 till September 12, 1693, when a new Assembly convened. Being urged by the Governor to act, they complied so far as to appoint a committee to agree upon the best method of calling and settling such ministry. In his address on the opening of the new Assembly, the Governor says :
" I recommended to the former Assembly the setling of an able Ministry, that the worship of God may be observed among us for I finde that great & first duty very much neglected ; lett us not forgett that there is a God that made us who will protect us if we serve him. This has been alwayes the first thing I have recommended, yet the last in your consideration."-Journal of the Legislative Council of the Colony of New York, p. 42.
Thus urged, the Assembly appointed a committee " to agree upon the easiest and best Methods for the call- ing and settling a Ministry in each respective Precinct throughout the Province,"? the committee being com- posed of one from each county.
The committee reported on the following day ; their report was recommitted; on the 14th it was debated and again recommitted ; it was approved September 15 ; September 19 it was brought in by the Speaker, and passed on its third reading September 21.3 On the same day it had a second reading in the Council.
The act thus sent to the Governor was not satisfac- tory to him ; it was loose in terms, and obscurely worded. Accordingly, the Governor returned it to the Assembly with a request that it should be so amended as to recog- nize his power of presentation to ecclesiastical benefices.
1 See Journal of the Legislative Council of the Colony of New York, p. 39. Also Journal of the Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly, New York, 1764, vol. i., 30-33. Portions of the proceedings are missing.
Journal of the Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly, vol. i., 32.
. & Ibid., 34.
80
History of Trinity Church
[1692-
With this request the Assembly flatly refused to comply, whereupon the Governor, justly indignant, prorogued them, not without a strong and plain talk delivered in good, honest Saxon. On this point he was clearly in the right ; the power he claimed was already his1 and had been exercised by his predecessors ; but the hard-headed Dutchmen would not give in, nor their allies, the Eng- lish dissenters ; and so progress was for a time stopped.
The act, however, ultimately became a law ; the Gov- ernor appears to have found a way to make it available in the form in which it was originally passed, and wrote to the Board of Trade to this effect :
"I have gott them to settle a fund for a Ministry in the City of New York and three more counties which could never be obtained before being a mixt People of different Persuasions in Religion."?
Still the passage of the bill led to a discussion with respect to its proper interpretation, which continued for a series of years. It is very curious that the Dissenting party affected to believe that this law was intended for their benefit, although unable to drawany benefit from it ; and still more curious that any writer in our own day should claim that the act was for the benefit of the Presbyterians, who down to 1714, at least, had no place of worship in New York. Governor Fletcher was not un- true to his own principles and to the Church and State of England, and, therefore, while he desired a slight amendment, he accepted the act as recognizing the establishment of the Church of England, which legally came into the colony with the State. In declaring that
1 " We do by these Presents authorize and empower you to Colate any Person or Persons in any Churches, Chapells, or other Ecclesiastical Benefices within our said Province and Territories aforesaid as often as any of them shall happen to be void." -- N. Y. Col. Docs., iii., 830.
* Ibid., iv., 57.
1
81
Terms of the "Ministry Act "
1698]
Magna Charta1 provided for the Church of England, Fletcher took solid ground2; for the charter, confirmed again and again by Parliament, had for centuries recog- nized the establishment of the Church, and the power and duty of the sovereign in connection therewith.3
The following is a synopsis of the provisions of this Act, which had now become a law : It declared that there should be established "good and sufficient Protestant Ministers," one in New York City, one in Richmond County, two in the County of Westchester, and two in Queens County, to be paid by a tax on the inhabitants generally, to be levied by Vestrymen and Church Wardens, who were to be elected by those inhabitants. To the minister in the City of New York was to be paid annually
1 " Quod Anglicana ecclesia libera sit et habeat jura sua integra et libertates suas illesas."-Blackstone's Great Charter, p. 28.
3 Smith's Hist. of the Late Province of New York, vol. i., 129.
8 Mr. De Lancey, in The History of Westchester County, vol. i., 100, puts the matter as follows : " By the several 'Commissions' and 'Instructions' to the Gover- nors under the signs-manual of their Sovereigns, and their several oaths of office, the different Governors were commanded and compelled to maintain and support the Church of England in the province of New York. This was the exercise in New York of a power which was legally vested in the Sovereign of England by the Law of England, and which by his Coronation oath he was bound to exercise." The law, however, sprung in the main from Magna Charta, which was confirmed by many Parliaments. Again it is said : " The Church of England in New York originated not in this ' Ministry Act,' as has been so generally believed and stated, but in the earlier action of the English Sovereigns in virtue of the law of England." That Act was merely the second step taken in obedience to the " Royal Instructions," p. 102. See the confirmation of this view in ex-Provost Stille's paper on " Religious Tests in Pennsyl- vania," in The Penn. Magazine, 1885, p. 372. See also Mr. De Lancey on p. 106, where he quotes Lord Mansfield on the prerogatives of the King, together with Fuller and Lord Selborne ; though in arguing the prerogative of the Crown as respects matters of religion, the words of Gladstone on the Royal supremacy should here be quoted : " I contend that the Crown did not claim by statute, either to be by right, or to become by convention the source of that kind of action which was committed by the Saviour to the Apostolic Church, whether for the enactment of laws or for the admin- istration of its discipline ; but the claim was that all the canons of the Church, and all its judicial proceedings, inasmuch as they were to form parts respectively of the laws and the administration of justice in the Kingdom, should run only with the assent and Sanction of the Crown," p. 108. 6
.
.
82
History of Trinity Church
[1692-
the sum of {100 in cash, and to the county Ministers sums varying from £60 to £40, payable in produce. On the 2d Tuesday of January in each year, the freeholders of each city and town, summoned by a justice of the peace and a constable, were to meet and choose two Church Wardens and ten Vestrymen, who were empow- ered to levy the tax on the several precincts for the main- tenance of the ministers. The tax-roll, so made out, was to be delivered to the constable to collect the amount. The Wardens were to keep correct accounts of all money received and to report the same to the justices and Ves- trymen ; they were also required to pay the clergy their salaries in quarterly instalments ; and were liable to fine for non-fulfilment of any of the said duties. The Vestry- men and Wardens were also1 to call the ministers who were to officiate in the respective cures.
In accordance with the provisions of this Act, an elec- tion for Wardens and Vestrymen was held by the free- holders of New York, January 9, 1694, at the City Hall, where the following persons were chosen, viz. :
Church Wardens :
Nicholas Bayard, John Kerfbyl.
Vestrymen :
Robert Dakin,
John Spratt,
Robert Walters, Isaac Van Flack,
William Jackson, Matthew Clarkson,
Jeremiah Tothill, Isaac De Riemer,
John Crooke, Johannes de Peyster.
It must be constantly borne in mind that this was not the body known by the name of a vestry in the English, or our general, ecclesiastical law, but an anomalous body,
1 Laws of New York, vol. i., 95.
83
The Town Vestry
1698]
chosen by the freeholders of the town without distinction of religion, and also that in their action they did not in any way represent the Church, as will presently appear.
The body thus elected, and known properly as the Town Vestry, gave no comfort to Governor Fletcher. Tothill, Crooke, and Clarkson were members of the Church of England, and subsequently became members of the Vestry of Trinity Church, whose records attest their zeal in her cause ; but the rest appear to have been Dissenters, and determined obstructionists. This Town-Vestry met once or twice, but took no important action till February 5th, when they voted that a tax of one hundred pounds should be " assessed, levied, collected and paid by all and every one of the Inhabitants and Residenters within this City and County for ye Maintenance of a Good suffi- cient Protestant Minister according to the directions in the sd Act." On the 12th day of the same month they met again, and adopted a resolution, which clearly indicates their wishes ; the record runs as follows :
" Upon reading an Act of Genl Assembly entitled an Act for Set- tling a Ministry and raising a Maintenance for them in the City of New York, &c., itt was proposed to this board what Perswasion the person should be of by them to be called to have the Care of Souls and Offi- ciate in the Office of Minister of this Citty, by Majority of Votes itt is ye opinion of the board that a dissenting Minister be called to officiate and have the Care of Souls for this Citty as aforesaid."
By what vote this resolution was adopted we do not know; but the resolution was drawn with the distinct knowledge that a minority existed who were resolved to oppose the action of the majority. No doubt Tothill, Crooke, and Clarkson were members of the said minority and did their duty as members of the Church of England. Thus it appears that a division in the Town Vestry existed
. 1 Murray Hoffman, Ecclesiastical Law in the State of New York, p. 18.
84
History of Trinity Church
[1692-
from the first ; a division so serious that the Dissenters could not carry out their design.
While matters were in this position the Governor brought forward the name of the Rev. John Miller, Chap- lain to the Forces, as entitled, from his position, to the appointment of minister. The Governor's Council, how- ever, appear to have opposed him on this point; the matter was dropped ; and the Wardens and Vestry went out of office without making any appointment. At their last meeting they were asked by the Mayor whether, and, if so, when, they would proceed to levy the tax for the maintenance of the ministry, and they replied that they would not raise the money till a minister should be appointed.
Another Board was elected, January 8, 1695, consist- ing of the following persons :
Wardens :
Johannes Kip, Jacobus Cortlandt.
Vestrymen : Philip French,
Robert Darkins,
Teunis D. Key, Johannes De Peyster,
Robert Sinclair, Isaac De Riemer,
Jeremiah Tothill, William Jackson,
Brandt Schuyler, John Spratt.
The reader, perceiving that there is a racy Dutch flavor in this Board also, will not be surprised to hear that the majority still proved obstinate. Governor Fletcher, how- ever, seems to have made up his mind that something must and should be done ; and, having called the attention of the Council to their conduct, threatened to prosecute them at the public expense if they declined to perform their duty. This prospect was sufficiently alarming to spur them on to action; and accordingly, on Saturday,
85
The Election of William Vesey
1698]
January 26, 1695, at 8 A.M., our worthies met, and actu- ally proceeded to call a minister, by proceedings which stand thus on record :
" Pursuant to an Act of General Assembly, Entitled An Act for the settling of a ministry and raising a mainte- nance for them, etc., the Church Wardens and Vestrymen above-named have this day mett and nemine Contra Di- cente Called Mr. William Vesey to officiate in the same place according to the directions in the said Act con- tained."
This seems to have been an attempt at compromise, but it did not serve the purpose. The vote was passed "Nemine Contra Dicente," evidently only a portion voting, while there is nothing to show whether Vesey was elected by the Episcopal or non-Episcopal party. The fact that the Governor opposed this election does not prove that the candidate was a Dissenter, for he was not; nor can it be shown that he was the nominee of the Dissenting party. But, taken in connection with the fact that Governor Fletcher desired the office for the Chaplain of the Forces, and that the Vestry acted under a threat of prosecution, it is fair to hold that the nomination of Mr. Vesey was the work of those favorable to the Establishment, the minority forcing the majority. There is nothing what- ever to prove that the majority desired the election of Vesey, or that he was ever notified of his election. Neither the Governor nor the Dissenters were satisfied, and the matter fell dead. The action of the City Vestry was apparently the result of fear of prosecution for abuse of trust.
The compromise having failed, the Board resumed hostilities. On April 12th following, the City Vestry sought aid from the Assembly, and sent a petition to that body on the subject of their powers; whereupon, the
86
History of Trinity Church
[1692-
Assembly, assuming judicial functions, proceeded to give an interpretation of the Act, and declared that "the Vestrymen and Church Wardens have power to call a dissenting Protestant Minister "1 (Journal of the As- sembly, p. 53). The next day the Governor prorogued that body. His address ran thus :
"Gentlemen-You have proceeded to give your opinion or interpre- tation of that Act of Assembly which provides for a Ministry in this City and two other Counties, upon a petition presented unto you and you say that the Church Wardens and Vestrymen may proceed by that Act to call a Protestant minister dissenting from the Church of England and raise the money for his maintenance. Not to tell you that there is no protestant Church admits of such officers as Church Wardens and Vestrymen but the Church of England, It is out of your province to take upon you to explain an Act you did not make : the Laws are to be interpreted by the Judges."-Fournal of Legislative Council, p. 76.
This was the last of the opposition raised by the Dissent- ing party, and when the next Board was elected its mem- bers acted according to the law .?
" Note the language : " A dissenting Protestant Minister." The Act of 1693 de- clared "a Protestant Minister" should be appointed. The term may have been used to denote a minister of the Anglican Establishment. In contra-distinction from the Dutch and French Calvinists, the Lutherans and other religious bodies, the English Establishment was commonly styled "the Protestant Church " ; the same use of the term, by way of distinction, continues among certain classes to this day. I have very often heard the phrase used by the common people from the old country under my charge in New York and elsewhere : " He is a Dissenter, but his people were all brought up in the Protestant Church," or, "So and so is not a Wesleyan ; she belongs to the Protestant Church." In such cases the Church of England is meant ; I have heard it so called scores of times. The words " dissenting Protestant Minister" were used advisedly with a view to contravene the provisions of the Act.
' " In 1695, Governor Fletcher told the New York Assembly, that the interpretation of the Ministry Act was a matter that belonged to the Courts, to which, however, the Presbyterians made no appeal. The Assembly was not an authority. It was a crea- ture of the Crown, and not a true republican representative body. The part performed by New York in developing republican institutions was small. In 1621 Virginia had made an advance that New York did not reach a hundred years later ; for at that time, while the Pilgrims were starving in their communal huts at Plymouth, free rep- resentative government, the first established in America, was firmly and intelligently
87
The Act of 1693
1698]
Upon a review of this fight between the Governor and the Assembly it appears that it was the design as well as duty of the Governor to introduce the Church of England as an establishment into the province ; that the Act of 1693, obtained from the Assembly for that purpose, was ambiguous in its terms, but, upon an interpretation in ac- cordance with the usages of the day, would have met his wishes ; that the scheme was vigorously opposed by the Dissenters ; that the Assembly, departing from their line as law-makers, and assuming judicial functions, tried to help the Dissenting interest by interpreting the Act in a sense agreeable to them ; and that the victory rested with the Governor. It is also important to bear in mind, in connection with the election of Mr. Vesey, by the anoma- lous body known as the City Vestry, that there is no truth in the statement, often made in derision, that the first Vestry of Trinity Church called a Dissenting minister to be their rector. Three facts expose the fallacy of the assertion : Ist, Trinity Church was not then in existence ; 2d, the Board which elected "Mr. Veazie" was not a vestry as we now understand it; 3d, Mr. Vesey was not a Dissenting minister, nor had he ever been a Dis- senter; all of which will hereafter appear.
A new Board was elected January 14, 1696, consist- ing of :
planted in Virginia. In fact, the position of New York with respect to the develop- ment of popular rights has been misunderstood. The ancient Presbyterian was deceived in fancying that the New York Assembly had the power to establish Presby- terianism. The modern Churchman is deceived if he supposes that it established the Church of England. It could not do anything except what the King. through his agent, the governor, allowed. So far as the Church of England was concerned, the business of the Assembly was simply to recognize the legal status of the Church. That was all that the Act accomplished in 1693. Until then it was inexpedient to act, but when the Duke of York reached the throne he felt the responsibility, and did what he conceived to be his duty to the Crown." (Centennial History, Prot. Epis. Church, p. 98.)
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.