USA > New York > New York City > A history of the parish of Trinity Church in the city of New York, pt 2 > Part 18
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
"'BENJAMIN MOORE,
"'Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York.
"'By his son "'CLEMENT C. MOORE.
"' The Rev. John Henry Hobart D. D. Secretary of the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York-'
"Now, therefore, in obedience to the directions of the Bishop, con- tained in the above letter, which is hereby given, a special Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the State of New-York, will be held, for the purpose specified in the letter aforesaid, in the City of New-York, on the second Tuesday of May next, at 10 o'clock, A. M., at which time and place the Clergy and Lay delegates are requested to attend.
" JOHN HENRY HOBART, "Secretary of the Convention. "New-York. March 2Ist 1811."
On receiving this communication the Board appointed Messrs. R. King, Richard Harison, John Onderdonk, and Thomas L. Ogden as delegates to the Special Convention : and now the fray began. The Rev. Cave Jones was an Assistant Minister of Trinity Church. His colleague, the Rev. John Henry Hobart, was put in nomination for the office of Assistant Bishop. Mr. Cave Jones, persuaded that Dr. Hobart was not a proper person to be elevated to the Episcopate, ventilated his opinions on that point in a pamphlet entitled, A Solemn Appeal to the Church,
212
History of Trinity Church
[18II-
. and thus soon provoked a strife which raged long and loudly, and drew the most important personages of the day into the field of battle.
At this distance of time it is possible, we trust, to review the controversy between Mr. Cave Jones and Dr. Hobart with calmness, and without prejudice to any engaged therein.
At the outset it must be stated that Mr. Jones was a man of blameless repute. Up to the breaking-out of the unfortunate controversy he had been held in high re- gard by the Corporation, and in loving esteem by the people to whom he ministered. The congregation of St. Paul's Chapel, indeed, stood by him even during the rag- ing of the war of pamphlets to which the controversy gave rise. The Corporation, with its customary generosity to all the Clergy on the staff of the Parish, had voted five hun- dred dollars to him, Oct. 13, 1808, in consideration of losses recently incurred.1 These facts sufficiently attest the good will entertained by the people of the Parish and the Corporation for Mr. Jones before the unfortunate issue of his Solemn Appeal.
The full title of this pamphlet is :
" A Solemn Appeal to the Church : being a plain statement of Facts in the Matters pending between Dr. Hobart with others and the Author. By the Rev. Cave Jones, A. M. One of the Assistant Minis- ters of Trinity Church, New York. Together with an Appendix, containing A statement of the case of the Rev. Mr. Feltus : under his own hand.
"' Doth our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doeth ? St. John Ch. 7. v. 51.'
" New- York : Printed for the Author. 1811."
The preface or advertisement is dated May 18, 1811. In it the author states that as a proposition on his part to lay the whole matter before a tribunal of impartial gentle-
1 Records, liber ii., folio 180.
213
The Solemn Appeal
1813]
men had been refused, he had no course open to him but to issue this Solemn Appeal, which was to be considered "strictly as a measure of self-defence." The text of the Appeal covers eighty-five closely printed pages. The fol- lowing is a brief summary of its arguments :
At the outset he states that Dr. Hobart had several times apologized to him "for rash and unbecoming con- duct" and promised "that there should be no future cause of complaint." He alleges that Dr. Hobart broke this promise, and when the author, in order to end an unbearable situation, had proposed that all matters at issue should be laid before the Bishop and Clergy, Dr. Hobart had responded that even if "the Bishop should call the Clergy together, he would not meet with them." Under these circumstances, and in view of the candidature of Dr. Hobart for the office of Bishop, the author feels that no time must be lost in acquainting the Church at large with the true state of affairs.
He then proceeds to note in detail the occasions on which, as he asserts, Dr. Hobart was rude to him. For two of them, one on the occasion of the insertion of a para- graph relating to General Hamilton's death, the other in regard to a proposal that Dr. Hobart should take the author's duty for one Sunday, the author admits that Dr. Hobart had apologized. The third, however, related to the consent given by the Standing Committee for the ordination to the diaconate of a certain Mr. Gillet, Dr. Hobart maintaining that the Standing Committee had been purposely called together when he was known to be out of the city, on account of his well-known unwill- ingness to certify to the candidate's fitness. Mr. Jones relates at length a conversation that passed between him and Dr. Hobart on this subject. The views of the two disputants appear to have differed radically as to the
214
History of Trinity Church
[1811-
duties of the Standing Committee in cases like that of Mr. Gillet.
Dr. Hobart took the view that the Standing Committee was called upon to decide as to literary, theological, and mental attainments. Mr. Jones, on the other hand, main- tained : " We meet there only for the purpose of enquiring into the moral and religious character of the candidate : if these be clear we then deliver him over to the Bishop, and examining Presbyters, to determine on his mental and lit- erary qualifications." 1 Both men defended their position with warmth, and it is very likely that Dr. Hobart lost his temper. The next disagreement was in regard to a letter written by Mr. Jones to the Rev. Joseph Prentice, of Athens, an old and familiar friend of his, with whom he seems to have been in the habit of conversing freely, frankly, and without reserve. In one of his letters to this friend, Mr. Jones had commented on Dr. Hobart's action in using an appropriation from the Protestant Episcopal Society for the Promotion of Religion and Learning for the dissemination of a work of his own rather than for cer- tain tracts which the Society had ordered to be reprinted. By some means the contents of this letter came to the knowledge of Dr. Hobart. Mr. Prentice positively denied having communicated its contents to anyone ; but the Rev. Mr. How, on the other hand, who had taken the side of Dr. Hobart, asserted that " Mr. Prentice exhibited it in the first instance to a friend, who recommended its being sent to Dr. Hobart." A further charge against Dr. Hobart was that of electioneering in the choice of Vestrymen at the Easter election of 1808.
It is evident that it was impossible for these two men to work amicably together. On the 13th June, 1809, how- ever, a truce was ratified in the presence of Dr. Harris,
1 Solemn Appeal, p. 10.
-
215
Fresh Disagreements
1813]
who issued a formal certificate to the effect that Mr. Jones and Dr. Hobart had met at his house and agreed that " whatever had passed between them of a disagreeable na- ture, prior to the above date, should be buried in oblivion ; that they were to set out de novo."
Unfortunately, a sharp difference of opinion arose soon after between Dr. Hobart and Mr. Jones as to the attitude to be assumed in their relations to a brother clergyman, the Rev. Dr. R. C. Moore.
Dr. Hobart maintained that no exchange of duties ought to be made between any of the Clergy and Dr. R. C. Moore, for the reason that the latter was in the habit of deviating from the strict letter of the law in the perform- ance of divine service. Mr. Jones took the position that while he did not approve of Dr. Moore's irregularities, he did not see, so long as the Bishop made no complaint, why the Clergy should band themselves together against Dr. Moore; that other men violated rubrics and canons in other ways ; and that the matter of exchange should be left to the decision of each clergyman. Thus the two men, almost immediately after their pact, set to pulling different ways again. Their relations became more strained through the action of Dr. Hobart and his friends, of which Mr. Jones bitterly complained, in circulating the report that Dr. Beach absolutely declined to be nominated for the Bishopric-Dr. Beach and his friends considering this as a move to force Dr. Hobart forward as the only logical candidate. Dr. Beach, it seems, called on Dr. Hobart and drew his attention to the anomalous position which would result if Dr. Hobart should become Assistant Bishop. As Bishop, Dr. Beach would be under Dr. Hobart ; while, as Assistant Rector, Dr. Beach would be over Dr. Hobart, who was an Assistant only. Mr. Jones in con- clusion accuses the friends of Dr. Hobart of using every
216
History of Trinity Church
[ISII-
electioneering device possible to obtain votes for their candidate.
This is the summary of the Solemn Appeal. As we read it dispassionately we wonder at the pettiness of the charges brought forward in so solemn a way. There can be no doubt of Mr. Jones's sincerity ; the impress of candor is on his production ; but his judgment was at fault, and after all said and done, the main point brought out is this, that men of very different temperaments were most unfor- tunately yoked together.
Dr. Hobart was brusque, irritable, and inclined to domineer ; Mr. Jones, on the other hand, was morbid and apt to magnify and brood over differences, until, unable to subdue his feelings, he finally rushed into print with his Solemn Appeal. There in charity the matter ought to have ended. If Dr. Hobart needed any vindication, he re- ceived it by being elected Assistant Bishop, May 29, 1811. With such a vindication he might have been content, but the matter did not rest. Steps were taken by his friends to draw the infirm and paralytic Bishop Moore into the controversy, and with success, for they persuaded him to debar Mr. Cave Jones from the Holy Communion.
The views of moderate men in the Church in depreca- tion of further controversy are well expressed in a pam- phlet entitled, A Word in Season Touching the Present Misunderstanding in the Episcopal Church. Though issued anonymously, it was believed to be from the pen of William Irving. The writer begs both parties to cry a halt, and thus sums up the situation :
"When Mr. Jones's 'appeal to the church ' made its first appear- ance, I heard but one opinion-that it was an ill-timed publication ; that the charges exhibited in it, with one solitary exception, amounted to nothing ; and that it ought never to have been published. In this opinion, all considerate, thinking men seemed to agree. The con-
217
A Word in Season
1813]
sequence was, not a single friend was weaned from Bishop H. ; and to the complete mortification and defeat of Mr. Jones, his head was in- circled with the mitre. The fact is, Mr. Jones's book is either true or it is false. What are the consequences in either case? If it is true, it only proves that Bishop Hobart is no saint ; that he unfortunately possesses some of the frailties attached to human nature ; that he is quick tempered ; that when irritated he delivers his sentiments with acrimony and irony ; and, that towards those with whom he is dis- pleased he is apt to bear himself with somewhat of a haughty demean- our. This is the amount of all the charges made by Mr. Jones against Bishop Hobart : for as to the case of Mr. Feltus, it is more particularly put home to the Bishop by that gentleman himself. These to be sure are weak charges ; and it seems to have given no little umbrage to the great host of Bishop Hobart's friends that they should be so small. The world is eternally fond of the marvellous-it never can forgive a mountain that brings forth a mouse ; and, indeed, it would really appear from the conversation of many of our ardent churchmen, that they are more offended that so little should have been said, than at the publication of that little. Had he denounced the Bishop for some enormous sin, - some startling transgression, the honest multitude would have forgiven him sooner, than for merely saying, as he has said, that the Bishop is an irritable man. But we will reverse the case, and say that the book is false. What then ? Does it follow inevitably that Mr. Jones is guilty of falsehood ? No .-- It only follows that Mr. Jones, like Bishop Hobart, is no saint. That he also possesses human frail- ties : that he also, perhaps, has been ambitious of church preferment : and, with self-love too common to us all, has prided himself secretly in the opinion that he was as eligible in point of standing and ability as Dr. H. He may, possibly, have beheld with an envious eye, the Doc- tor's growing popularity in the church ; he may, owing to the irritabil- ity induced by such a state of mind, have been easily affected by any observations of Dr. H. ; and regarding his words and actions through a jaundiced and distorted medium, may have magnified trifles, worthy of no regard, into affairs of mighty importance, wounding to his feelings, and derogating from his consequence. But, nevertheless, these causes of complaint, though false, or nearly so in fact, may have appeared important truths in the eyes of Mr. Jones. An imagination, perturbed by jealousy, may have given them being and magnitude. Who also can tell what may have been the tone and manner in which these things may have been said and done? How much does the force and mean- ing, the kindness or bitterness of every expression, depend upon the
218
History of Trinity Church
[181I-
voice, the look and gesture with which it is delivered ? These consti- tute the sting ; these dwell in the mind of the sufferer, and give the shape and complexion of his wrong. But when he comes to reduce it to writing, the shape and feature, the sting and poignancy are gone- the mere caput mortuum of the offence remains. What was tauntingly ironical, appears to be the very language of kindness and regard-what was bitter scoffing, appears friendly admonition. The silent page pre- sents neither voice, nor countenance, nor gesture ; these doubtless exist in the painful recollection of the writer, but the reader sees and hears them not : and thus, very probably, many of the observa- tions, which from the mode of their delivery may have had a highly galling significance to Mr. Jones, appear of but small importance in print.
" A sufficient proof to me that the book of Mr. Jones is not false, is in fact the smallness of the charges it contains. Had he really felt dis- posed to resort to falsehood to asperse the character of Doctor Hobart, he would no doubt have told a blacker tale. To my mind, and I judge of this matter from no out-door gossipings, or extrinsic evidence, the book contains internal proof of its authenticity. It presents to me the sad writhings of a mind, lacerated by unkindness, and rendered sore by frequent irritations. It may be imputed to me as a heinous sin, but I confess I cannot read these records of mental suffering, without some sympathy for a man who seems to have been lonely in his labours- to have borne about with him in his weary vocations the sad burthen of a wounded spirit-to have stood in some need of that mutual assist- ance and community of affection from his brethren in the ministry, which make labour sweet and wayfaring pleasant, and to have looked in vain for such spiritual solace. I do not imply that the irritations of Mr. Jones were all afflicted by Dr. H .; they may have come from different quarters, while he possibly attributed them all to Dr. H. as the original instigator. It may be said, Mr. Jones is of a suspicious temper -of this I know nothing, but of one thing I am sure, his vexations and grievances could not have been produced by the amiable deportment and brotherly love of those around him. Few men complain of good treatment, or take offence at the infliction of benefits.
"Now, then, as the book, if true, ought not to have defeated Doctor H.'s exaltation, what ought to have been its effect if untrue ? Why the one it has had, to have recoiled on Mr. Jones and completed his defeat. Thus, Mr. Jones, granting the very worst, has experienced ample retri- bution : If he had misrepresented the character of Dr. H., he had the mortification to see that his statement was of no avail : If he cherished
219
A Word in Season
1813]
envy of Dr. H. it was punished by seeing him elevated above his head : If he was guilty of the deadly sin of ambition, it was severely chastised by seeing the coveted mitre removed beyond his reach, and placed on the brows of his rival. Here, then, the matter on both sides ought to have ended. However much it may have been taken up and entangled and connected with church matters and religious feelings, it was origin- ally and is intrinsically a mere dispute between Mr. Jones and Bishop Hobart, with which the church has nothing to do. These gentlemen, notwithstanding their clerical dignities, being now and then afflicted with the same passions that laymen are so frequently afflicted with, un- fortunately disagree ; they have not the caution to keep their own secret, their contention is promulgated to the world ; a mere personal dispute, in which neither the doctrines, nor the regulations of the church are in- volved, and the congregation in consequence of it, rises in her majesty, exalts the one to the pinnacle of honour, and hurls with her thunder the other to the dust !
"It may be observed that Dr. Jones, by publishing the book and appealing to the church, gave them a right to judge between him and themselves. The answer is, that Mr. Jones had a specific intention in doing this-whether true or false in his premises, he honestly believed Doctor H. an unfit person for the Episcopate, and he might honestly, though in error, have conceived it his duty to express publicly his opin- ion. Like all other zealous christians, and with equal sincerity, although equally wrong, he might have thought that the good of the church de- manded such an exposure. His opinion, however, was conceived to be erroneous, his evidence insufficient, and accordingly Doctor H. was elected ; and that ought to have been considered punishment enough for an erroneous opinion. But it seems that nothing can satisfy the in- dignation of the opponents of Mr. Jones but his absolute dismissal from the church : no less a punishment indeed for disliking a Bishop, than that which is inflicted in Great Britain on those who commit treason and felony, TRANSPORTATION !- indeed, much greater, for it is in a manner CONFISCATION and TRANSPORTATION, the visiting the iniquities of the father upon the children ! He must be stripped of his salary -- he must be banished from the state of New-York, so at least says Bishop Hobart -- ' he must go out of the diocese ' are his own words. And this has immediately become, in the eyes of the panic- struck congregation, the only possible means by which safety can be re- stored to the church. The unfortunate Parson Jones is the Jonas of the church ; it is only by throwing him overboard that the present tempest can be allayed, and whether there be a great fish at hand or not to save
220
History of Trinity Church
[18II
him, I fear enters but little into the thoughts of those who are so clam- orous for his expulsion.
"Is it possible that our good churchmen think nothing less can atone for disliking Doctor H. than having a living worth three thousand dollars a year taken away from a respectable and hitherto exemplary clergyman :- all the little comfortable arrangements he had made for the future settlement of his family-all the soothing prospects he had fondly painted to himself of living at peace in his native city, among a people that he loved-of passing the evening of his days among the friends of his youth, and of being gathered to the same sepulchre with his fathers-are all these to be laid desolate with one rude sweep? Is every comfort to be trodden under foot-every expectation blasted, and all merely because Parson Jones dislikes Bishop Hobart? Surely, if I do not egregiously mistake, the punishment exceeds the offence -- it re- minds me of the prophecy of our blessed Saviour, concerning the treat- ment of his ministers ; 'some of them shall ye scourge in your syna- gogues, and persecute them from city to city.'
" Another circumstance that is to be added to the weight of punish- ment, is the absolute interdict of the communion by Bishop Moore to Mr. Jones-almost excommunication. Nothing is further from my in- tentions than to point any reflections at the conduct of that worthy and truly exemplary father of our church ; but I cannot but consider it as highly reprehensible for any one to have tampered with his feelings while suffering under the present afflictive dispensation of Providence. From the nature of the malady under which he has laboured, it must be evident to every person the least acquainted with the complaint, that his mind cannot, at this moment, be in such a state, as to bear being troubled with unpleasant controversies ; or to decide with perfect clearness on the merits of a cause, discoloured as the present one is, by prejudice, and individual animosity."
Pamphlet after pamphlet issued from the press. "Statements," "Dialogues," "Resolutions," " Remarks," followed each other in quick succession. For such as care to prosecute the matter further, a complete list of these pub- lications is given in the Appendix.1 The whole Church became involved in the dispute. As we read the pam- phlets in these days, when all the heat of the strife is over
1 Appendix XII.
-
221
Action of the Vestry
1813]
and the dust of the battle has settled, we cannot but wonder at the vehemence and bad taste exhibited in most of them. The calm and dispassionate historian in the record of facts finds much to blame on both sides. If he cannot side with Mr. Cave Jones in his appeal, he cannot but feel that the punishment meted out to Mr. Cave Jones far exceeded his offence.
Turning now to the Vestry, we find that they acted calmly and on the whole very fairly between the two con- testants. The Solemn Appcal was dated May 1, 1811. On the 9th of that month the matter was brought up before the Board, and the following resolution was passed :
"Resolved that a Committee of this Board be appointed to take into consideration a late publication of the Rev. Mr. Jones one of the Assist- ant Ministers of this Church Entitled "A solemn Appeal to the Church " and that they report to the Vestry at their next Meeting whether any and if any what Measures ought to be taken by this Board in relation to the same." 1
On May 13th the Committee reported :
" The Committee to whome it was referred to take into considera- tion a late publication of the Rev. Mr. Jones, entitled a "Solemn Appeal to the Church " have maturely reflected thereon. The publi- cation in question appearing to relate to matters, the cognizance and decision of which exclusively belong to regular tribunals established by the canons of the Church, the Committee deem it improper to present these matters to the Vestry, in any shape by which their merits may elsewhere be made the subject of discussion. Nevertheless, in the relation which subsists between this Corporation and the junior Assist- ant Ministers employed by it, the Committee deem it the right and duty of the Vestry to notice, and as occasion may require, to animadvert upon such of the public acts of those ministers, as may be calculated to effect the peace and welfare of the religious community with which they are united.
"The Committee, having in this view considered the subject 1 Records, liber ii. folio 207.
222
History of Trinity Church [1811
referred to them, are of opinion, that the pamphlet lately published by the Rev. Mr. Jones, calls for the serious attention of this Board.
"The evident tendency of appeals to the public, on the subject of private difference between ministers of the Gospel, must, in all cases, be to weaken the reverence and respect justly due to the clerical office ; to destroy its influence ; impair the discipline and government of the Church ; and to bring reproach upon the cause of religion.
"In the case of an associated ministry, like Trinity Church, evils more immediate and pernicious are to be apprehended, inasmuch as the people will naturally take part in the disputes of their pastors ; their own passions and prejudices will be brought into the contest ; and these must soon banish from the mind that peace and good-will which can alone dispose it to the reception of religious instruction.
"That a course obviously involving consequences of such deep importance to the character and welfare of the Church, should have been resorted to by one of her ministers, in the first instance, without even an experiment of the efficacy of that sanctioned and prescribed by her canons, adds to the grief which every reflecting mind must feel on this occasion, and leaves less room for extenuation than might exist under other circumstances.
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.