USA > New York > New York City > A history of the parish of Trinity Church in the city of New York, pt 2 > Part 27
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
(6) A Vindication of Christ's Divinity : Being a Defense of some Queries relating to Dr. Clarke's Scheme of the Holy Trinity. In Answer to a Clergyman in the Country. By Daniel Waterland, D.D. Master of Magdalen College in Cambridge and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty. Printed for Corn. Crownfield, Printer to the Univer- sity, Cambridge, 1721.
XII.
ORDINATION OF BENJAMIN MOORE TO THE DIACONATE AND PRIESTHOOD.
Certified Extracts from the Registry of the Diocese of London.
EXTRACTED from the Registry of the Diocese of London at Doctors' Commons.
1
320
History of Trinity Church
OND
'S
OF
dOHSIO
REGISTRY
Ordination Book, 1675-1809.
The Names and Surnames of all and singular the persons admitted into Holy Orders by the Right Reverend Father in God Richard by Divine Permission Lord Bishop of London in the Chapel within the palace at Fulham. On the twenty-fourth day of June in the year of our Lord 1774 . . on the same day Benjamin Moore. A.M. of King's College New York was admitted to the Holy Order of a Deacon.
The Names and Surnames of all and singular the persons admitted into Holy Orders by the Right Reverend Father in God Richard by Divine Permission Lord Bishop of London in the Chapel within the Palace at Fulham on the twenty-ninth day of June in the year of our Lord 1774 Benjamin Moore, A.M. of King's College, New York was admitted to the Holy Order of a Priest.
HARRY A. LEE,
H. E. T. Registrar.
XIII.
PAMPHLETS IN THE CAVE JONES CONTROVERSY.
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 Ministers 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. (104 pages.)
A Word in Season, touching the Present Misunderstanding in the Episcopal Church. By a Layman.1
1 Supposed to be William Irving.
1
321
Cave Jones Controversy
" The tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things : behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth." James, chap. iii., ver. 5.
New-York. D. & G. Bruce, 1811. (59 pages.)
Letter to the Vestry of Trinity Church by Bishop Hobart in answer to a Pamphlet entitled " a Solemn Appeal to the Church by the Rev. Cave Fones." To which is added an Appendix by the Rev. T. Y. How. New- York : Printed for E. Sargeant, 1811. (113 + 20 pages.)
Dr. Hobart's System of Intolerance exemplified in the late proceed- ings against his Colleague, the Author.
By the Rev. Cave Jones, A. M., one of the Assistant Ministers of Trinity Church. "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous Judgment." I Jo. 7, 24.1 " Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth ?" Gal. 4, 16.
New-York. Printed for the Author, 1811. (82 pages.)
A Plain Address to Episcopalians on the Proposed Meeting at Mechanic-Hall. By An Episcopalian.
New-York, January 13, 1812. (4 pages. No title-page.)
The Resolutions of Certain Episcopalians at Mechanic-Hall Con- sidered.
New-York, January 10, 1812. (15 pages. No title-page.)
A Dialogue between an Episcopalian & a Presbyterian on the sub- ject of the late meeting of some Episcopalians at Mechanic-Hall in the City of New- York. January 23, 1812. (8 pages.)
The Resolutions adopted at a Meeting of the Episcopalians at Mechanic Hall. Also two Letters from the Honorable Fohn Fay, to the Rev. Cave Fones.
New-York, February, 1812. (12 pages.)
Remarks on the Hon. Fohn Fay's Letter to the Rev. Cave Fones ; In a Letter to a Friend.2 February, 1812. (24 pages.)
The Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Addressed to the Rev. Cave Jones ; and recommended to the consideration of all whom it may concern.
New-York, February 10, 1812. (22 pages.)
An Address to the Committee, acting under the authority of the meeting at Mechanic-Hall, on the subject of the Memorial lately presented by them to the Vestry of Trinity Church.
New-York, February 25, 1812. (14 pages.)
1 An evident misprint for St. John 7. 24.
9 Believed to have been written by Dr. Hobart himself. VOL. 11 .- 21.
.
322
History of Trinity Church
A Statement addressed to the Episcopalians in the State of New- York relative to some recent events in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the said State.1
New-York, T. & J. Swords, 1812. (99 pages.)
Prelatical Usurpation Exposed : or a Vindication of the exclusive right of jurisdiction in the Right Rev. Samuel Provoost, as diocesan Bishop of the P. E. Church in the State of New- York. With an Appendix relating to the case of the Rev. Cave Fones. By Vindex.
" The servant is not greater than his lord." St. John.
"A Bishop must be blameless of good behaviour
not a brawler not a novice moreover he must have a good report of them which are without, lest he fall into reproach." St. Paul.
" If principles be false and doctrines unwarrantable, no apology can make them right ; if founded in truth and rectitude, no censure from others can make them wrong." Blackstone.
" Si quid novisti rectius istis,
Candidus imperti ; si non, his utere mecum." Horace. 1812. (71 pages).
The Essentials of Ordination stated, in a letter to a friend ; on the subject of the Right Rev. Bishop Hobart's consecration. By John Bow- den, D.D., Professor of Belles-Lettres in Columbia College. New-York. Printed by James Oram, 1812. (22 pages.)
Serious thoughts on a late administration of Episcopal orders, submitted to the calm reflection of the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church with a postscript in answer to Dr. Bowden's " Essentials of Ordi- nation Stated." By Hieronymus. New-York, March, 1812. (80 pages.)
A Defence of the essentials of ordination in answer to a pamphlet entitled serious thoughts on a late administration of Episcopal orders .? New-York. T. & J. Swords, 1812. (53 pages.)
A Brief Statement relative to the late election of Wardens and Ves- trymen in Trinity Church, and in the other Parishes of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the City of New- York. New-York, April, 1812. (4 pages. No title-page.)
Sworn Statement by Dr. Hobart, before Josiah Ogden Hoffman, Recorder of the City of New-York, on November 23, 1813.
1 By Dr. Hobart.
? Believed to be by Dr. Bowden.
323
Consecration of Grace Church
Documents relative to the Submission to Arbitration between the Rev. Cave Jones and the Corporation of Trinity Church. New York : T. & J. Swords, 1813. (59 pages.)
Report of the case between the Rev. Cave Jones and the Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New- York in Communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New- York.
As the same was argued before the five Judges of the Supreme Court of the State of New York-Arbitrators to whom the differences between the parties were referred by a rule of the said Court.
By Matthew L. Davis. New-York. Printed by William A. Davis, 1813. (587 pages.)
XIV.
A CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT OF THE CONSECRATION OF GRACE CHURCH IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
On Wednesday, December 21, 1808, being the festival of St. Thomas, Grace Church, at the corner of Rector Street and Broadway, was con- secrated by the Right Rev. Bishop Moore. After the consecration ser- vice morning prayers were read by the Rev. Mr. Lyell,1 Rector of Christ Church, and a sermon suited to the occasion preached by the Rev. Mr. How,2 an assistant minister of Trinity Church.
1 Thomas, son of John and Sarah Lyell, was born in Richmond County, Virginia, on May 31, 1775. In 1792 he was appointed a Methodist circuit-rider in Frederick County, Va. He was afterwards in Providence, Rhode Island. About 1799 he was chosen a chaplain of Congress. On June 14, 1804, he was made deacon by Bp. Clag- gett. In the same year he was elected Rector of Christ Church in New York City to succeed the Rev. Dr. Pilmore. He was ordained priest by Bp. Moore. He remained in his parish until his death on March 4, 1848. He was the trusted friend of Bp. Hobart, a member of the Standing Committee, deputy to the General Convention, and filled many other positions of honor and trust.
2 Thomas Yardley How (1), a college mate and old friend of Bp. Hobart and Dr. Beasley, was a graduate of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University). He studied law and in 1805 was practising in Albany, N. Y. By the influence of liis friends he returned to his first intention, pursued a course in theology under Dr. Beas- ley of St. Peter's, Albany, ISO8, was made deacon by Bp. Moore on June 15, ISO8, and on July 14, ISOS, he became an assistant in Trinity Parish. In IS16 he was made Assis- tant Rector of Trinity Church. "He was," says Dr. Berrian, " an accomplished scholar, a sound divine, and a clear and forcible reasoner." He was deposed in IS18 for causes affecting his moral character. His life was prolonged to old age, in whichi lie repented bitterly and was exemplary and devout.
1 Also Howe.
324
History of Trinity Church
This Church was erected at the expense of the Corporation of Trinity Church, under the direction of Rufus King, Anthony L. Bleecker, and Moses Rogers, Esqrs., a Committee of the Vestry appointed for the purpose.
We have been furnished with the following description of the build- · ing. This edifice forms a parallellogram of 101 feet within the walls in length, and 57 feet in width, the largest Church the ground would admit of. The exterior of this building is composed principally of brick, without any pretensions to the regular orders of architecture ; the projections are marble and wood ; the cornice, which is Doric, is well imagined, and as well executed : it is surmounted with an appro- priate ballustrade subdivided by pannels, the beauty of which entirely atones for the want of taste so evident below.
The cupola which terminates the structure is composed of wood. It is of a cyclindrical form, resting on an octangular pedestal, enriched with three quarter columns of the ancient Ionic order, supporting the dome roof, from which springs a small fanciful spire, in which is inserted the vane, representing a dart.
The interior of this building presents a lofty concave ceiling, pan- nelled after some of our best models, supported by four massy columns, in the Grecian Ionic order, with corresponding pilasters. On one end is the organ loft, on the other the chancel in the form of a semi- rotunda. The fine effect of the pannels diverging from the centre, the pilasters between the windows, and the very elegant mahogany railing to the communion table, present one of the most beautiful chancels in the United States. The reading desk, which corresponds with the lead- ing order of the whole (the Ionic), is square, and presents a handsome front to the entrance of the middle aisle, and is composed of two three quarter columns and two pilasters supporting a light dentil cornice. The clerk's desk projects from between the two columns in the impost and is finished on the top by the capping of the same. From behind the reading desk rises the pulpit, which is of a cylindrical shape, sup- ported by an ancient Doric shaft, without a base : the canopy is sus- pended from the concave in the chancel, and has high pretensions to novelty and beauty. The stairs, which are of the geometrical kind, are neat and elegant. The building is warmed on a new plan. The fire is made in furnaces erected in the foundation and the heat diffuses it- self by means of stone flues under the pavement of the aisles, and affords an equable warmth.1
1 The Churchman's Magazine, vol. vi., No. I, January and February, 1809, pp. 79, 80.
=
325
Intrusions of Seabury and Provoost
XV.
BISHOP SEABURY'S "INTRUSION" AT HEMPSTEAD, N. Y., A.D. 1785, AND BISHOP PROVOOST'S "INTRUSION " AT NARRAGANSETT, R. I., A.D. 1792 :
CONSIDERED BY
THE REV. JOSEPH HOOPER, M.A.
The visit of Bishop Seabury, in November, 1785, to his old home at Hempstead and his ordination in St. George's Church of Mr. John Lowe of Virginia to the diaconate and priesthood, deserve a fuller consideration than could be given in the text.
At that time Bishop Seabury was the only Bishop within the United States. He was aware of the trouble and expense of the long voyage to England when candidates for holy orders "went home" for ordination.
Until other American dioceses were duly organized under an Episcopal head, he was willing to ordain those who presented them- selves with proper credentials.
Colin Ferguson, one of the first deacons ordained in this country, was not from the Diocese of Connecticut.1 In a letter to the Rev. Dr, William Smith, the famous Provoost of the College of Pennsylvania. dated at "New London, August 15, 1785," Bishop Seabury says : "Till you are so happy as to have a Bishop of your own, it will be a pleasure to me to do everything I can for the supply of your churches. And I am confident that the clergy of Maryland and the other States will be very particular with regard to the qualifications and titles of
1 " At an ordination held in Christ's Church, in the city of Middletown on the third day of August, 1785,
Colin Ferguson, A.M., of Washington College, Maryland
Recommended by Dr. Wm. Smith, Revd. Messrs. John McPherson Wm. Thompson, and others.
Henry Van Dyke, A.M. Ashbel Baldwin, A. M. Philo Shelton, A. M.
Recommended by the Clergy of Connecticut
Were admitted deacons."
P. 3 of " A Registry of Ordinations by the Bishop of Connecticut" in " A Reprint in full of the Registry of Ordinations by Bishops Seabury and Jarvis," published as an appendix to the Journal of the Convention of the Diocese of Connecticut, 1882 ; also, in pamphlet, Svo, pp. 16.
326
History of Trinity Church
persons to be admitted into their own Order. Should they think proper to send any candidates hither I could wish that it might be at the stated times of Ordination ; because the clergy here, living so scattered, it is not easy on every emergency to get three of them to- gether ; and never without some expense which they cannot well afford. I cannot omit to mention again the particular satisfaction Mr. Ferguson gave, not only to me but to all our clergy. I hope he will prove a worthy and useful clergyman." 1
During the summer and fall of that year Bishop Seabury ordained several candidates from various States, two of them being recommended by Dr. White of Philadelphia and Dr. Benjamin Moore of New York.
The Church in Virginia had been prostrated during the Revolution, its temporalities had been practically seized by the State, and there was no immediate prospect of the consecration of a Bishop. It was under these unfavorable circumstances that a young man from Fredericks- burgh sought holy orders. He was anxious to be at work and brought with him letters of commendation from several of the best-known clergy -. men of Virginia. Whether he came to New York and announced his intention through Dr. Moore, or a special appointment for Hempstead had been previously made, cannot now be known.
Bishop Seabury was a prudent man. In the unsettled condition of the Church "to the southward " and the open hostility shown to him by many in the General Convention of 1785 he would not willingly incur further censure of his acts. He was well versed in canon law, Ancient, Mediaval, and Anglican.
He knew that the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London in the former colonies had ceased when they became free and independent States, but he also was convinced that as yet no legitimate succession to that jurisdiction had taken place in the State of New York. Could he not act as a Bishop of the Catholic Church in bestowing upon those who desired them blessings and privileges which otherwise they must forego ?
Upon this question the Rev. Dr. William Jones Seabury " says : " But it is obvious that where there was no recognized jurisdiction existing neither the Apostles nor their successors were under any obligation to suspend action where they thought it necessary or expedient, as appears from their action in extending their ministrations among the heathen. And while in the case in question there is no doubt that the Bishop was
1 Life and Correspondence of the Right Reverend Samuel Seabury, D.D., by E. E. Beardsley, D.D., Boston : Houghton, Mifflin & Co., ISSI, pp. 230, 231.
2 The Charles and Elizabeth Ludlow Professor of Ecclesiastical Polity and Law in the General Theological Seminary, New York City.
327
Intrusions of Seabury and Provoost
beyond his own particular jurisdiction, it is not equally plain that he was within that of any other. So far as Episcopal jurisdiction, properly so called, is concerned it is manifest that there was no other existing upon which his act was an intrusion." 1
During Colonial times all parishes, whether in New England, the Middle Colonies, or the south, were equally under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, and any priest holding the Bishop's license could officiate in any part of the plantations, provided his ministrations were acceptable to the people and in conformity to the English canons.
There were no canons of the American Church upon this subject until a later date. It required time to impress upon the people diocesan boundaries, and only as an occasion like this arose was the necessity for them perceived.
But Bishop Seabury was within the limits of the Diocese of New York, which had been organized in June, 1785. Did not the Bishop by his act defy the ecclesiastical authority of that Diocese ? Dr. Seabury in his "opinion " says : "The association of representatives of the Church in the State of New York into a convention a month or two pre- vious to the date of this act, however important in its bearing upon the future life of the Church in the State and its relation to the Church in other States, would hardly by that time have taken such shape in the minds of men as to make it plain to all that the right to perform the functions of the ministry in that State was to be exercised subject to its authority and not otherwise than with its permission. And an opportu- nity being offered for conferring ministerial authority upon one who needed that authority for the furtherance of the work of the Church, it does not seem that the only Bishop in any of the States, and the only Bishop likely to be in any of the States for an indefinite time to come, needed to hesitate about using that opportunity." 2
If, however, Bishop Seabury is not justly censurable for an infraction of diocesan rights, was he not to be condemned for disregarding the Constitution of the American Church adopted at Philadelphia on Thurs- day, October 4, 1785 ?
The sixth article provides that "every Bishop shall confine the exercise of his office to his proper jurisdiction ; unless requested to ordain or confirm by any church destitute of a Bishop." 3
This constitution was binding only upon those dioceses which had
" Extract from a manuscript opinion sent to the writer in August, 1900.
? Extract from Prof. Seabury's MS. opinion.
3 Reprint of the Journals of the General Convention, 178.4-1817. Philadelphia : John Bioren, 1817, p. 9.
328
History of Trinity Church
acceded to it. No deputies from New England were present. Bishop Seabury and his clergy had been informally invited by Dr. White, but did not attend, as they thought the office of a Bishop had been degraded by the Fundamental Principles of 1784.
The Bishop of Connecticut could not consider that the action of that Convention placed any restraint upon his Episcopal acts. As a matter of fact only a very brief account of its proceedings appeared in the papers of the day, and there were very few correspondents of the Connecticut clergy or its Bishop who were in attendance.
It would, then, appear that there was no proper ecclesiastical authority to prohibit his officiating within the territorial limits of the State of New York.
He had many friends in Hempstead to whom it was a pleasure to minister. Of the regard of these friends Dr. Moore, the historian of St. George's, thus writes : "Bishop Seabury was regarded by the Churchmen of Hempstead with pride and affection as the child of the parish ; and he reciprocated the feeling. Through all his after years he frequently revisited the scenes of his youth and the home of his numerous relatives." 1
There is a brief account of the ordination in The New- York Packetfor November 10, 1785, which has already been given on p. 107 of the text.
The Rev. Thomas Lambert Moore, Rector of the parish, makes this entry in his Diary :
"1785, Nov' 2ª. Wednesday-Read the morning service previous to Mr. Jno. Lowe of Virginia receiving confirmation and Deacon's Orders.
"Nov' 3ª Thursday-After morning service Rcad by the Rev'd Mr. Bloomer, and a sermon by the Bishop the same gentleman was solemnly ORDAINED PRIEST." ?
In entering the record in his Register Bishop Seabury makes no distinction between it and those which were held in the Diocese of Connecticut. It is a "special ordination " simply because it was not held at the stated times of ordination.3
In the extract from Dr. Provoost's letter to Dr. White given in
' History of St. George's Church, Hempstead, Long Island, N. Y., by the Rev. William HI. Moore, D.D., Rector of St. George's Church, Hempstead, New York : E. P. Dutton & Co., ISSI, p. 16.
2 History of St. George's Church, Hempstead, p. 165.
3 " At a special Ordination held in St. George's Church, Hempstead, Long Island, New York, on Nov' 2d, 1785, John Lowe of Fredericksburgh, Virginia, recommended by the Revd Messrs Robert Buchan, Francis Wilson, Rodham Hamer, was admitted Deacon, and at an Ordination held in the same Church on Novr 3d. 1785, the above named John Lowe was ordered Priest."-P. 4, Register of Ordinations.
329
Intrusions of Seabury and Provoost
Bishop Perry's Half Century of Legislation,1 it is to be noted that the writer does not lay especial emphasis upon the Episcopal acts of Bishop Seabury on Long Island, but dwells upon the danger to which the Bishop had exposed himself of arrest for " misprision of treason."
Dr. Provoost was, apparently, less concerned about the official acts of confirmation and ordination among the old parishioners of Dr. Seabury's father, than apprehensive that some measures might be con- certed by the "Non-Juring Bishop" and his adherents by which the Scottish succession would be exalted above the English and the appli- cation to the Archbishops for the consecration of Bishops for America be in some way thwarted or delayed. In a second letter to Dr. White he says : " If we may judge from appearances, Dr. Cebra and his friends are using every art to prevent the success of our application to the Eng- lish prelates. . . . He certainly would never have run the risque he did by coming to New-York, unless some political ends of consequence were to be answered by it." 2 While according to our present constitution and canons such an exercise of Episcopal powers would be severely condemned and could justly be called an " intrusion," there seems to be no contem- porary evidence to show that it was so regarded even by Dr. Provoost.
One of our learned canonists, the Rev. Dr. Hart, Secretary of the House of Bishops, says : "I am inclined to think that in those early days before canons had been devised for use here, the canonical in- stinct was undeveloped and that Bishops officiated when and where they were asked if they were so disposed. I doubt if either party thought at all seriously of intrusion. Very likely in those days a good part of Long Island was considered to belong to Connecticut. I think the formal decision by the Courts was later." 3
After considering the circumstances under which Mr. Lowe was ordained, the Rev. Dr. Seabury says in conclusion :
"To judge the exercise of such discretion at that time and under those circumstances by the standards and circumstances of the present day would be manifestly unjust. The power being in him and him only and no existing rights of any other Bishop of the Church being impaired by the exercise of it, there would seem to be need of very plain and positive evidence that such exercise was hurtful to the Church before it could rightly be condemned." 4
1 Vol. iii., p. 283.
? Extract of letter dated " New York, Dec. 28, 1785," as quoted in Bishop Perry's Half Century of Legislation, iii., p. 284.
3 MS. letter of the Rev. Samuel Hart, D. D., to the writer, August 23, 1900.
4 MS. opinion of Dr. Seabury.
330
History of Trinity Church
The judgment of charity would incline us to agree with the learned descendant of the first Bishop of the American Church, and to deter- mine that the visit of Bishop Seabury to Long Island was, under all the circumstances, necessary and justifiable, and not intended as an act of intrusion.
Nearly seven years after, the Bishop of Connecticut felt that he had just cause of complaint against his brother of New York.
Bishop Provoost had accepted the recommendation by the Standing Committee of Massachusetts of Mr. Walter C. Gardiner for ordination to the diaconate. On invitation of the clergy of Massachusetts, Mr. Gardiner, then " reader " in St. Paul's Church, Narragansett, and some members of that parish, the Bishop of New York visited the ancient parish of St. Paul, Narragansett, now Wickford, and on June 24, 1792, made Mr. Gardiner a deacon.
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.