USA > New York > New York City > A history of the parish of Trinity Church in the city of New York, pt 2 > Part 9
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
" It is proposed now to show, not only that there never was any foundation in historical fact for the reckless charges of wrong doing made by the plaintiffs in actions against the Church, but that the children of Mrs. Bogardus parted with their title by actual sale and
93
94
History of Trinity Church
[1784
conveyance to the English Governor, shortly after her death, and that if by reason of informalities in the transfer they ever had any right to redress, they had lost such right long before Trinity Church came into exist- ence ; that for more than sixty years after they sold the farmn, twenty- seven of which was before Trinity Church was organized, they made no claim to the property, though occupying prominent positions in the Colony, and living within a mile of the " farm," and that their descend- ants never made any claim until after the death of all the family of An- neke Jans who were of the first generation, that is, of all who had knowledge of the facts. Whether the claims which were subsequently brought forward were at first made in good faith, based on obscure tra- ditions, or whether they were instituted by unscrupulous conspirators, it is not necessary now to consider ; but it is believed that the history of the controversy, so far as it can at this late date be investigated, will show that the title of Trinity Church to every parcel of its lands to which Anneke Jans Bogardus ever had any color of a prior claim is not only free from legal defect, but is free also, and has always been free from any equitable claim of her descendants, and that if any wrong was perpetrated when her children parted with the property, it was a wrong on the part of those who managed the transaction, against the others in- terested in the proceeds ; the fraud of some of the heirs upon the others, antedating the existence of Trinity Church nearly forty years." 1
The acts of " the Council Appointed for the Temporary Government of the Southern Parts of New York State," have disappeared. No trace of them has been found thus far, either in the City of New York or at Albany. Weknow, however, from an announcement in the New- York Packet of February 5, 1784, by the trustees appointed by that Council to hold the property of Trinity Church, that the Bogardus claimants had Petitioned the Council to acknowl- edge the validity of their claim, and that their petition had been rejected. Notwithstanding this adverse verdict they persisted in their determination to annoy the Church, and next tried to intimidate the holders of leases under the Corporation into not paying their rents, or into acknowl-
1 Anneke Fans Bogardus, her Farm, and how it Became the Property of Trinity Church, New York. An Historic Inquiry. By Stephen P. Nash, LL. D. New York, 1896.
95
Protest of Trustees
1784]
edging, in some way, the contention of the heirs. These intrigues were carried to such an extent that finally the Trustees felt called upon to make a formal protest, which they did on January 26, 1784.
" Whereas the honourable Council, appointed for the temporary gov- ernment of this State, by an ordinance dated the twelfth of January in- stant, have vested the real and personal estate and property belonging to the Corporation of Trinity Church, in us the subscribers, for the rea- sons and purposes in the said ordinance expressed : And we have ac- cepted and entered upon the execution of the said trust, and received the title deeds books and papers belonging to the said Corporation. And whereas complaint hath been made to us, that Messrs. Cornelius, Egbert, and Everardus Bogardus, Cornelius Cooper and Abraham Brower, senior and junior, are daily intriguing with and menacing and disturbing the tenants of lands belonging to the said Corporation, and which have been held under the said Corporation, and those from whom they derive their title, for near one hundred years, as was fully proved (as we are well informed) on a solemn trial in the supreme court of ju- dicature, in the year 1762, by a special jury of respectable and disinter- ested citizens, who after a hearing of several days, gave a general verdict in favour of the said Corporation.
" And whereas the attempt of the said Cornelius Bogardus, and his associates, to avail themselves of the late confusions and of the ignorance or duplicity of the Tenants under the said Corporation, are as unjustifi- able as the conduct of such of the said tenants as have been debauched by their artifices is culpable, and both have exposed themselves to the penalty of the law.
" The said parties find themselves called upon, in faithfulness to the trust reposed in them by the honourable Council, to give this public warning to all persons who hold by lease from the said Corporation, that it is required of them by law to continue faithful to their tenure under the said Corporation ; and that if any of them shall combine with the said Bogardus and others, to transfer any possession from the said Cor- poration, the laws shall be rigorously put in force against them, to pre- vent similar frauds in future ; at the same time such of the tenants as act with integrity, are assured, that they shall be effectually protected and defended in their estates ; and that if they have been dispossessed by act or violence decisive measures will be pursued by us in a due course by law to restore them to their rights.
96
History of Trinity Church [1784
" To guard against misrepresentation, we think it proper to observe, that in a late petition of the said claimants to the Honourable Council, which was rejected, it is asserted, that they had failed in the before mentioned action by the mismanagement of Brower's advocates : But it is well known that the claimants had the aid of several of the most em- inent Counsel in this country, on that trial ; and after the trial were as- sured by them that the verdict was just ! That if ever they had a right it was extinguished by the length of possession against them. And if dormant claims under patents so ancient (for that under which title was then and is now set up against the Corporators is dated so long ago as 1667) should prevail, no man could tell when he was secure of his estate. But if they are nevertheless determined to persist in their claims, the trustees are willing, without delay to meet them in a legal course of justice ; a decision with which every good Citizen ought to be contented.
JAS. DUANE, DAN. DUNSCOMB,
WM. DUER, WILLIAM BEDLOW,
ANTH. LISPENARD, JOHN RUTHERFORD. ISAAC SEARS, LEWIS MORRIS, FRANCIS LEWIS.
NEW YORK, January 26, 1784." '
The Bogardus heirs, in the same issue of the New- York Packet, published their version of the matter, in a lengthy recapitulation of the history of their claim, ending as follows :
" And it is not doubted but the legislature, before whom the matters both of the claimants and trustees now stand, will do equal justice, howsoever grating it may be to the trustees ; it being too much for them to expect, that any virtuous legislature will, in vesting in the trustees the laws of the Church give to them also the real and indisputable lands belonging to complainants.
" We are Sir, " Your obedient Servants, EGBERT BOGARDUS, for himself and CORNELIUS C. BOGARDUS ; ABRAHAM BROWER, ABRAHAM BROWER, jun. for himself and CORNELIUS COOPER." 1 The New- York Packet and American Advertiser, February 5, 1784.
97
Action of Corporation
1785]
On April 23, 1784, the Corporation were informed
"that a Mr. Bogardus and others lay claim to part of the Church lands and that a Controversy will probably Ensue."
Accordingly, a special Committee, consisting of Messrs. Duer, Sears, Stevens, Troup, and Rutherford, was ap- pointed
"to superintend the affairs of the Corporation in such controversy, and to employ additional Counsel if necessary, and to give every proper Direction concerning the same." 1
That the action of the Vestry in taking this step was not premature is proved by the following notice, which appeared within a few weeks, on the 20th of May.
" Heirs.
" The heirs and other representatives of Amie Bogardus, widow, de- ceased, are requested to attend at Cape's Tavern, on Saturday next, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, on business of high importance, relative to the Lands, called Dominie's Hook, in this City, which formerly be- longed to her. New York, May 19, 1784."?
On the 3d of June, the Corporation decided to employ counsel to defend the interests of the Corporation against the Bogardus claimants.3
There is good reason to conjecture that these claim- ants were the real instigators of the action taken by the House of Assembly in the opening of the year 1785 in regard to the lands of Trinity Parish. The resolutions of the House, which cast doubts on the validity of the title of that Parish to the King's Farm, heartened them afresh, and their next proceeding was to raid upon the property of the Parish, and erect a fence upon the Church lands. This
1 Records, liber i., folio 442.
? The New- York Packet and American Advertiser, May 20, 1784.
3 Records, liber i., folio 450-452. VOL. II .- 7
98
History of Trinity Church
[1788
act having been brought to the notice of the Vestry at its meeting of June 28, 1785, they determined to place the matter immediately in the hands of their counsel,
" with orders that in case of any bad consequences it may appear that they have not been actuated by any motives of passion or interest but only in compliance of the direction of the Counsel." 1
It was further resolved that in case the counsel should decide to remove the fence, every member of the Cor- poration, except the Rector and Wardens, was to be present to witness the removal.
The failure of the claimants to obtain legislative action to wrest the King's Farm and Garden from its lawful owners kept them quiet for a while. Another oppor- tunity for annoyance was found when the Corporation were about to sell off a considerable number of lots ; the Bogardus heirs came to the fore again, and issued a formal protest against the sale :
"To the Public
" WHEREAS, THE CORPORATION OF TRINITY CHURCH, have advertised for Sale, at the Merchants' Coffee House, on the first day of April next, a number of Lots of Land, situate in Chambers' Street, Read Street, and other places, within the bounds of DOMINIE's HOOK PATENT, in the west ward of this city :
"The heirs of Annekie Bogardus, and those holding rights under them, in the said Patent, Do HEREBY GIVE NOTICE, that they are de- termined to support their claim to the Lands, within the grant formerly made to the said Annekie Bogardus. And this Notice is given, to pre- vent any person hereafter from pretending ignorance of the said claim ; which the Heirs and those deriving title from them, are determined to support.
"New York March 31, 1788." ?
And now we come to an event which seems to have brought this series of attacks to an end. On the Records
1 Records, liber i., folio 447.
2 The Daily Advertiser, March 31, 1788.
99
Testimonial to De Haert
1788]
of May 1, 1788, mention is made of a gift to a Mr. De Hart :
" A piece of plate for Balthazer De Haert, Esquire, was produced to the Board with the following inscription
"'To Balthazer De Hart Esquire For his Disinterested and upright Conduct in communicating evidence most important to them but which appeared contrary to his private Interest,
This Tankard was presented by the Corporation of Trinity Church in Testimony of Esteem, Gratitude, and Respect.' " 1
The occasion for this presentation, and the nature of the services rendered by Mr. De Hart, are given by Mr. Stephen P. Nash in a lucid summary of the case :
"In the suit of Bogardus, the plaintiff sought to avoid the effect of all statutes of limitation by alleging that Trinity Church acquired its title under the deed to Lovelace, in which Cornelius Bogardus had not joined, that it held possession of the property not adversely to him, but as tenant in common with him, and that he was therefore entitled to an accounting for a share of the income which the church had secured from the property.
"The answer to the allegation was that the Church never entered under the deed to Lovelace, but entered under a grant from Queen Anne made thirty-five years later, which purported to grant the full title to the property, and that the possession of the Church under the grant had always been exclusive, and not in common with any other claimant or owner. In this action, the deed to Lovelace was for the first time produced as a basis of any claim upon the part of any of the descendants of Anneke Jans, and it was brought forward by Bogardus to show that his ancestor, Cornelius, had not joined in it. It was not , produced in the early litigations. The family had either forgotten it, perhaps never knew of its existence, or, if they knew of it, kept silent
1 Records, liber i., folio 506.
100
History of Trinity Church
[1788
in respect to it. It seems to have been first discovered, so far as any one connected with Trinity Church is concerned, in 1785, when a Mr. De Hart, who was said to have been in the employment of Alexander Hamilton in his law office, found the deed in the course of antiquarian researches, and made it known to some persons connected with Trinity Church, who at once communicated it to parties urging the Bogardus claims by the following letter :
"NEW YORK, 2d December 1785.
" GENTLEMEN,
"We take the earliest opportunity of communicating to you the en- closed copy of the record of a Transfer to Governor Lovelace of Do- minie's Hook, from the heirs of Annetje Bogardus, and to which, though afterwards granted by the government to Trinity Church, you now claim to have inherited from them. Time and long uninterrupted pos- session had, it seems, worn away the memory of the transfer, and the evi- dence of it would probably still have remained dormant, if Mr. De Hart (who is deeply interested in your claims) had not accidentally discovered this record, and from a regard to justice, which does him great honor, made it known."
Whether this Lovelace deed had the effect of con- vincing any of the aggressive "heirs" of Anneke Jans, who in 1784 and 1785 had been active in pressing their claims, that they had no equitable right to the property cannot be established, but it did appear from the testi- mony of Mr. Hammersley, in the Bogardus case, whose grandmother was one of the Bogardus heirs, that his father had occasionally advanced money to the Bogardus claimant to enable him to carry on the litigation, but that after the discovery of this Lovelace deed his father told Bogardus that a paper had been found which convinced him that the Bogarduses had no right to the property, referring, as he stated, to the paper found by Mr. De Hart, a gentleman in Mr. Hamilton's office.
It is a fact that no suit appears to have been com- menced by the " heirs " against Trinity Church from the
IOI
Nash's Summary
1788]
time of the discovery of this deed in 1785 down to the Malcolm suit in 1807.1
The reader is now referred, for a review of the history of the title to the King's Farm and the litigation relating to it, to a monograph from the pen of Mr. Nash, at the request of the writer of this History. It is a paper of importance, and will be found in the Appendix .? The Historic Inquiry, from which quotations have already been made, is a much larger work; it grew out of the paper given in the Appendix, and forms an expansion thereof. For both these contributions to our annals the Parish is greatly indebted to their learned and able author.
1 Anneke Fans Bogardus, etc. Historic Inquiry, by Stephen P. Nash, LL.D., pp. 72-74.
2 Appendix IX.
CHAPTER X.
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH.
Convention of Clergy and Lay Delegates in 1784-Action of Trinity Vestry-Con- vention in New York, 1786-Convention in Philadelphia, 1786-Motions Relating to Bishop Seabury's Ordinations-Reasons for Provoost's Opposition to Sea- bury's Standing-Ordination by Bishop Seabury in New York, and by Bishop Pro- voost in Rhode Island-Election of Dr. Provoost to the See of New York-His Passage Monies Voted by the Corporation-Departure for England-Comments of the English Press-Provoost's Letter to IIis Wife-His Presentation to George III .- His Consecration-Letter from Dr. Inglis -- Return to America -- Bishop Provoost's Serious Illness-Reasons for Believing Bishop Provoost to have been First Consecrated Examined.
TH HE Corporation of Trinity Parish took an impor- tant part in the organization of the American Church. To find some common bond by which the Epis- copal congregations should be held together in the sev- eral independent governments forming the confederation of the United States, was the desideratum : and, as is well known to the student of our history, the first step in that direction was taken in the month of May, 1784, by a few clergymen of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, who met at New Brunswick to renew a charitable society chartered before the Revolution for the relief of the widows and orphans of the Clergy. At that meeting, the state and prospects of the Episcopal congregations and the means of uniting them having been under discussion, it was decided to hold a larger meeting in New York for the further consideration of the subject. In October, 1784, such a meeting was held, to which eight of the States sent delegates. They agreed on several principles, of which the following were the most important :
I02
103
1785] Convention of Clergy and Lay Delegates
" 1. That there shall be a general convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
" 2. That the members of the Episcopal Churches in each state should send deputies to that convention, consisting of Clergy & Laity.
" 3. That the said Church maintain the doctrines of the Gospel as now held by the Church of England, and adhere to the Liturgy of the said Church as far as shall be consistent with the American Revolution and the Constitutions of the several States.
" 4. That in every State where there shall be a bishop duly conse- crated and settled he shall be ex-officio a member of the Convention.
"5. That the Clergy and Laity assembled in Convention shall de- liberate in the body, but shall vote separately, and the concurrence of both shall be necessary to give validity to every measure."
The Rector, at a meeting held May 13, 1785, laid before the Vestry the proceedings of the Convention of Clergy and lay deputies held in New York the autumn before ; it was ordered that these proceedings be entered on the Register of Files, and the board adopted this resolution :
" Resolved. That the Corporation do approve of the recommenda- tions and propositions of the Convention of Clergymen and lay depu- ties held in this City on the 6th and 7th of October last and that it be recommended to the members of the Episcopal Church within this State, That a meeting be held in this City on Wednesday the 22nd June next of all the Episcopal Clergymen within this State together with lay deputies from the several Episcopal Congregations in order to determine on some plan of organization and to appoint deputies to attend a general meeting of Clerical and lay deputies from the several Episcopal congregations within the United States at Philadelphia on the tuesday before the feast of St. Michael, next." 1
Messrs. James Duane, John Alsop, and Marinus Wil- let were appointed delegates from Trinity Parish to this meeting. It was held June 22d, and the following per- sons were elected Clerical and lay deputies to the Con- vention to be held at Philadelphia in September :
1 Records, liber i., folio 473.
:
104
History of Trinity Church
[1785
The Rev. Samuel Provoost, the Rev. Abraham Beach, the Rev. Benjamin Moore, and Messrs. James Duane of New York, John Davis of Dutchess County, and Daniel Kissam of Long Island.1
The Convention assembled at Philadelphia in October of that year. Its proceedings having been made known to the Vestry, they passed a resolution requesting the Rector to recommend to the several congregations in the State of New York to appoint deputies to meet on the third Thursday in May next to take into considera- tion the proceedings of the Philadelphia Convention, and to elect deputies to another Convention, to be held in Philadelphia on the third Tuesday in June following.
As delegates to this New York meeting the Rector and the Assistant Ministers were appointed to represent the Clergy, and Messrs. James Duane, John Jay, Robert R. Livingston, Richard Morris, John Alsop, William Duer, and Paschal M. Smith to represent the laity.
A full account of the organization of the American Church is given by Bishop Perry in the second volume of his History. He discusses the opposition to the episcopal character of Bishop Seabury, in New York, as well as in other States, in the Old World as well as in the New, on the ground that it was derived from a source considered by many persons to be invalid and irregular. Among the opponents of Bishop Seabury was Dr. Provoost : the part taken by him in the controversy, on which Bishop Perry comments severely and with great warmth, will be re- garded from diverse points of view. Fortunately, the Parish, as such, was in no way involved in the question ; and I am not therefore required, as I am not disposed, to say anything on either side, as critic or judge, but shall limit myself to some extracts from the records of the
1 Records, liber i., folio 475.
1786]
Seabury's Ordinations IO5
period, illustrative of Dr. Provoost's proceedings at the time when the matter referred to was before the Church. His opposition to the Bishop of Connecticut was shown at the General Convention in session at Philadelphia from June 20 to 26, 1786, when he made a motion, seconded by the Rev. Robert Smith, of South Carolina,
" That this Convention will resolve to do no act that shall imply the validity of the ordinations made by Dr. Seabury."
The motion was lost, New York, New Jersey, and South Carolina favoring it, while Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia voted in the negative. But in its place a resolution in the same general direction was carried unanimously :
" That it be recommended to this Church in the States here repre- sented, not to receive to the pastoral charge, within their respective limits, clergymen professing Canonical subjection to any Bishop, in any State or Country, other than those Bishops who may be duly settled in the States represented in this Convention."
This resolution, which implied a doubt of the validity or regularity of Dr. Seabury's ordinations, was followed by another, unanimously passed the following day :
" That it be recommended to the Convention of the Church repre- sented in the General Convention, not to admit any person as a Minis- ter within their respective limits, who shall receive ordination from any Bishop residing in America, during the application now pending to the English bishops for Episcopal Consecration." 1
Bishop White, in his Memoirs, referring to Provoost's attitude toward Seabury, admits that it did not proceed from personal feeling :
" Bishop Provoost, although he did not appear to be possessed of per- sonal ill-will to Bishop Seabury, was opposed to having anything to do with the Scotch succession, which he did not hesitate to pronounce irregular."? :
1 Journals of General Conventions, edited by William Stevens Perry, D. D., vol. i., PP. 37, 38.
2 Memoirs, p. 163.
106
History of Trinity Church [1789
It must be remembered that Dr. Provoost was not alone in his view of the case. There was a very wide dif- ference of opinion on the subject. The interference of the well-known and highly esteemed Granville Sharp, grand- son of the Archbishop of York, and his letter inveighing against the legal and ecclesiastical standing of Bishop Seabury, had their influence, and caused many to hesitate, to commit themselves to an absolute expression of opinion in favor of the Scotch succession. Many devout Church- men still attached importance to the sanction of the Crown to the consecration of bishops. The unanimous deter- mination of the Convention of 1786, that no clergyman ordained by Bishop Seabury should be admitted within the limits of the dioceses there represented pending the application to the English bishops for episcopal consecra- tion, also shows a belief on the part of the Convention that such action would be favorably received in England by the English bishops.
Add to this the non-recognition in England of the non- juror bishops, and the rumor that there had been in Amer- ica, in the person of John Talbot, of Burlington, N. J., an actual non-juror Bishop,1 who had not dared to use his episcopal office, and it will readily be seen that an epis- copate claiming validity through a non-juring succession was not likely to commend itself to Churchmen in this country. It was not till 1789 that a positive declaration of the Convention affirming the validity of Scabury's con- sccration could be passed,2 and thus the controversy was happily brought to an end.3
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.