USA > New York > New York City > Annals of St. Michael's ; being the history of St. Michael's Protestant Episcopal Church, New York, for one hundred years 1807-1907 ; > Part 23
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
314
Annals of St. Michael's
labor. In addition the number of lay workers under the direction of the Society or laboring indirectly in its behalf on objects connected with it is believed to be not less than one hundred.
Before the Society had attained its present magnitude it was found to be indispensable to the proper system- ization of its operations and the infusing of the requisite energy, regularity and economy into its affairs that a suitable clergyman should be appointed who had the experience and the ability and who would be responsible under the Ecclesiastical Authority and the Board for the proper administration of its various religious and secular concerns.
If the reasons are required why Dr. Peters was unani- mously selected for this office by the Executive Committee they are briefly as follows:
He was practically the founder of our Mission to Public Institutions nearly twenty years ago and has continued his labors in them to this time, notwithstanding his duties as a Parish Minister. He has been either the founder or instigator and active promoter and the liberal bene- factor of nearly every other benevolent Institution now under the charge of the City Mission.
In addition to his benefactions he has collected a large proportion of the funds necessary to the establishment and support of these institutions.
His zeal, sound judgment, and practical benevolence are appreciated by a large number of the members of our Church, and possessing their confidence, he is better able than any Presbyter known to the Executive Committee to obtain the men and the means to carry on the exten- sive and increasing operations of the Society. He pos- sesses sound judgment and good executive ability and is fully capable to arrange, manage and direct the compli- cated and multiform affairs connected with the operations of the Society.
His character and principles both moral and ecclesi-
315
The Bishop's Veto
astical are believed to be both unimpeached and unim- peachable.
For these and many other reasons not deemed necessary to state in this communication but which are of great importance to the interests of the Church and which will be given if necessary the Committee most respectfully but earnestly request your ecclesiastical consent to the appointment of the Rev. Dr. Peters to the position to which he has been appointed by the City Mission Society.
In answer the Bishop read a communication, the text of which he declined to give to the Committee, refusing his consent to the proposed arrangement, by which Dr. Peters was to be made executive head and general director of the City Mission Society. This put an end to that proposition, and although Dr. Peters continued until the end of his life to act practically as executive head and general director, he did so as chair- man of the Executive Committee and an unpaid official. Ten years later it became necessary for the City Mission to engage a paid superintendent, but no further attempt was made to revive the plan of appointing Dr. Peters, vetoed by the Bishop in 1867. Whether the rejection of this proposition was to the ultimate advantage of the City Mission Society and of Dr. Peters's work in general, we do not know; but we are distinctly of the opinion that for the interests of St. Michael's parish as a parish it was a fortunate occurrence. Dr. Peters believed that the Bishop was largely influenced in his attitude toward him on this occasion by his activity in the question of the division of the Diocese, one of the few matters of importance in which Dr. Peters took any important part in Convention discussions and action.
It will be remembered that the first division of the
316
Annals of St. Michael's
Diocese into a western half, out of which were later created the dioceses of Central and Western New York, and an eastern half was finally effected in 1838. By 1851 the Diocese of New York proper, the present dio- ceses of New York, Long Island, and Albany, had grown so unwieldy that a committee was appointed in the Diocesan Convention to consider and report on a division. That Committee reported back to the Con- vention of 1852 and no action was taken. New York had been without a Bishop since 1845, when Bishop Onderdonk had been sentenced and suspended for im- moral conduct. In 1852, Dr. Wainwright, rector of Grace Church, was elected provisional Bishop and it seemed to be the general opinion that, in view of the fact that the Diocese was now provided with a Bishop, it might not be necessary to proceed to division, or at least that there was no immediate need of action. Dr. Wainwright wore himself out and died within two years. In 1854 Dr. Horatio Potter, then rector of St. Peter's, Troy, was chosen as his successor; both he and his principal competitor being represented as favoring the division of the Diocese. Division was, so to speak, one of the planks in each platform. After the election, however, the Journal of Convention contains no notice of any further discussion of the question of division until 1859. There had been in the meantime increasing complaints of inadequate Episcopal supervision and expressions of a desire for the division of the Diocese. In his Con- vention address of that year, 1859, Bishop Potter takes up and discusses the various informal propositions which had been made looking to division of the Diocese, reaching, however, an unfavorable conclusion. It was clear that the Bishop and Diocese both needed some sort of relief, and in order that the Bishop might not be
317
Division of the Diocese
over-burdened and that the Diocese might be efficiently administered, Judge Murray Hoffman suggested the pos- sibility of rural deans to take a portion of the Bishop's work. In the following year this proposal of rural deans was referred to a Committee of Seven, of which Judge Hoffman was one and Mr. Peters another, but in that form the idea did not appear practicable. The following year, 1861, the Bishop, in his Convention address, again discussed the question of the division of the Diocese in such a manner as to make it seem clear that some sort of relief was required, although he him- self was still opposed to division. This part of the address was referred to a Committee of Thirteen, of which Mr. Peters was again a member.
He has often related to the writer the incidents of the struggle for division which ensued and described the great personal pressure brought to bear by the Bishop against division. Members of the Committee who were favorable to division were seen by the Bishop and in view of his strong personal opposition to division, although themselves convinced of its desirability, the majority finally refused to join in the report recom- mending it. One distinguished member of the com- mittee, who was instrumental in drawing up what proved to be the minority report and who was himself to have presented it in Convention, at the last moment absented himself from the city and from Convention, so as not to come in conflict with the Bishop. The committee finally presented a majority report, signed by eight members of the Committee, to the effect that " a division of this Diocese at the present time is deemed inexpedient." Two members of the Committee, in- cluding the mover of the original motion, Dr. Hawkes, absented themselves from Convention, and three,
318
Annals of St. Michael's
Judge Hoffman, and Rev. Messrs. Peters and Payne, presented minority reports. The minority report of the two latter, printed in the Journal of 1862, contains a history of the whole matter and a proposition, origi- nating with Mr. Peters, looking to the ultimate division of the Diocese of New York into five parts, not imme- diately, but as occasion may arise. A statesmanlike scheme was proposed to provide for this division; and | in connection with the proposed plan of division it was suggested that the General Convention should be re- quested to consider the subject of establishing provincial synods.
According to this scheme the Diocese was to be divided into five districts or convocations: (I) the City and County of New York and the County of Richmond; (2) the Counties of Kings, Queens and Suffolk; (3) the Counties of Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess and Columbia; (4) the Counties of Rensselaer, Washington, Saratoga, Warren, Essex, Franklin and St. Lawrence, Rockland, Orange, Sullivan, Ulster and Delaware; (5) Greene, Albany, Schenectady, Schoharie, Otsego, Mont- gomery, Herkimer, Fulton and Hamilton. Each such convocation was to be empowered to deliberate upon the erection of its own district into a Diocese, and when- ever any convocation should vote in favor of such erection the subject was to come before the Diocesan Convention for action.
The result of the discussion which followed the sub- mission of these reports was the appointment of a new Committee of Nine, of which Dr. Littlejohn, afterwards Bishop of Long Island, was chairman, and Mr. Peters a member, to consider further the question of the division of the Diocese in conference with the Bishop. At the next Convention, 1863, that Committee reported
319
Ecclesiastical Recognition
by a vote of eight to one in favor of division. Then the Bishop formally refused to agree to a division of his Diocese and the matter was tabled.
The next year, in his Convention address, Bishop Potter again expressed his disapproval of division for the present. But sentiment on the subject had become too strong for him to resist and finally, in 1866, he was obliged, himself, to recognize the necessity of division, and so appointed a Committee of Fifteen to consider the subject once more. That Committee reported in favor of the present division of the Diocese, which was carried out in 1868. Dr. Peters had been omitted from this Committee, but it was generally understood that it was his persistence which had kept the matter to the front and been largely instrumental in securing the result. He prophesied at the time, however, that the method of division finally adopted, while better than nothing, was a mere makeshift measure, unsatis- factory and inadequate. In point of fact, to-day both Albany and New York are feeling the necessity of re- adjustment and further division, and the question is how it is to be properly accomplished.
During this period, when Dr. Peters was so strongly advocating division, in opposition to the wishes of the Bishop of the Diocese, he was subjected to much pressure; but he was as obstinate as he was mild, and however much the Bishop might be able to induce others to change their opinions, it was absolutely im- possible to move him. The Bishop was a man who could not tolerate precisely this sort of opposition, and so long as he was Bishop of the Diocese, as Dr. Peters used to say afterwards, he was never appointed to any committee or entrusted with any duty con- ferring distinction or indicating confidence. Few prob-
320
Annals of St. Michael's
ably realized how keenly Dr. Peters felt this, or how highly he appreciated the confidence of his fellow- Churchmen, and what position conferred by them meant to him. When near the close of his life, in 1891, he was elected to the Standing Committee, it was almost pathetic to see how the man who had accomplished such a great work in the Diocese, was delighted with this very tardy recognition on the part of his fellows in the Church. His appointment as Archdeacon of New York in the following year was a similar and if possib e greater source of gratification.
In general, in view of the work done and the position actually held by him, the ecclesiastical recognition which he received was small. In 1865 Trinity College, Hartford, conferred upon him the title of S. T. D. About this time, also, the reputation of the work which he had accomplished in New York brought him two offers or partial offers of what were practically mis- sionary bishoprics. His father had come originally from Blue Hill, Me., and he was widely connected and well acquainted in that State. In the summer of 1864 he visited Maine, taking two of his sons with him, and spent a couple of weeks traveling, large'y by stage-coach-for there were few railroads in Maine in those days-over all the coast line, visiting his relatives and kinsfolk on both his father's and his mother's side, and making acquaintance, as I remember it (for I was one of the two boys) with all the Churchmen, and they were few in number, in the different towns and studying the Church situation. I understood vaguely at the time that it was in some way a Church mission, that his visit to Maine had something to do with the Church in that State, and afterwards was informed that certain influential Churchmen in Maine had sug-
32I
A Loyal Citizen
gested his candidacy for Bishop of that Diocese in the near future. Dr. Peters, after conscientiously consid- ering the situation, concluded that the obligation to his mission work in New York was superior to any obliga- tion which could come to him in relation to Maine, and declined to have his name considered as a candi- date for Bishop of that State.
In 1866 the Bishopric of Florida was offered to him by those who seemed to have authority in the matter. I always understood, from his own allusions to this affair that, the Diocese being in a desperate condition financially, their object was to secure a Bishop who had or was supposed to have means sufficient to sup- port himself and probably assist the Diocese also. He declined to consider the proposition for himself, but it was, as I always understood, at his nomination or suggestion that Dr. Young was made Bishop of that Diocese; and in later years Bishop Young used half jocularly to reproach Dr. Peters for having made him Bishop of Florida.
During war times Dr. Peters's command of the German language enabled him to minister to the German re- cruiting station which was maintained at 95th Street and Broadway. Here, on a large property belonging to the Mott estate, where Dr. Williams lived for many years (his house is still standing, a curious little wooden structure, which looks as though it were upside down), a German regiment was encamped for some months, recruiting its strength and drilling preparatory to going to the front. Mr. Peters became their chaplain during that period and St. Michael's their parish church. The first service held every Sunday-and Mr. Peters held at least five services somewhere each Sunday in those days-was in German for this regiment, which
322
Annals of St. Michael's
filled the whole church. Mr. Peters, as might be sup- posed of a man of his temperament, was profoundly stirred by the war. A patriot and a citizen he desired to do his part for his country. It seemed impossible to leave the large mission work which depended upon him and offer himself to go to the front as chaplain. But throughout the war, although not, as a clergyman, subject to draft, he provided a substitute, paying him out of his own pocket. His house was the centre in which the women of the neighborhood gathered to work for the soldiers at the front. Many of his pa- rishioners were in the army, with whom he kept in close touch. After the war the writer of this sketch, making a visit to Richmond, found that Mr. Peters had been in the habit of corresponding with the rector of the Monu- mental Church with regard to his parishioners in the Confederate prisons, securing for them such friendly ministrations, spiritual and otherwise, as were prac- ticable and repaying the service by caring in a similar way for the prisoners of the Monumental Church who were confined in northern prisons.
An earnest patriot, Dr. Peters belonged politically to the Democratic party, his democracy being con- ditioned on his general principles: his opposition to special privileges and consequently to a protective tariff; and thorough belief in the people and, as a con- sequence, in local self-government. He never, how- ever, expressed himself in any public manner on political issues; in fact he most carefully avoided any such ex- pression, believing that it would interfere with his relig- ious work. He always performed his duties as a voter and was a regular contributor to party funds. The local party organization always called on him in person for subscriptions for that as for all other neigh-
HOUSE FORMERLY OCCUPIED BY DR. A. V. WILLIAMS In Period of Transition, after Cutting through of 95th Street
.
323
Services for Germans
borhood matters, sure of a liberal response. Outside of politics every neighborhood enterprise or merry- making looked to Dr. Peters for sympathy and financial co-operation, if nothing else. Even those who "shot the devil" on New Year's Eve, according to the old New York Dutch practice, always called at the rectory some time after midnight, when the devil was sup- posedly driven off, to ask and receive a liberal donation for their efforts in disturbing the rector's peaceful sleep. He was fond of old customs, and even such a bad old custom as this he could not quite bring himself to frown upon; much less the practice of New Year's calling. On New Year's Day he was always at home to receive his male parishioners, and on the two days following New Year's he returned their calls.
It was not only in holding services for German regi- ments that Dr. Peters made his knowledge of that language effective for good. There were, in the middle of the last century, a great number of Germans on the west side of the city from 59th Street to Manhattan- ville, without religious opportunities of any kind. Dr. Peters's acquaintance with the German language, resulting from his residence in Germany, enabled him to reach these people and he considered the mission to them as among his obligations. To supply their needs services were held for many years in the German language in St. Mary's or St. Michael's Church. The largest settlement of these Germans and the most neglected of all lay too far southward to be readily accessible for either of these centres. A town of ragpickers of considerable size had grown up in the neighborhood of what is now 8th Avenue from 86th Street southward. The creation of the park drove out such Germans as were in that neighbor-
324
Annals of St. Michael's
hood, adding them to this colony. How in 1867 Dr. Peters commenced here the mission work out of which grew Bethlehem Chapel, and finally St. Matthew's Church, is narrated elsewhere.
Still one more church grew out of his efforts to realize his theory of the obligation of St. Michael's Church to provide spiritual care for all the people in St. Michael's territorial cure, establishing churches, if possible free churches, at different convenient points as the popu- lation increased. He did not believe in chapels. Ec- clesiastically as politically he believed in self-govern- ment, and his aim always was to establish churches which should at the earliest possible moment be made independent and allowed to control their own affairs. In the sixties and seventies quite a village developed in the neighborhood of Iroth Street, owing to the fact that this street was at an early date opened across to 8th Avenue and Harlem. Enterprising builders lined it on both sides with little wooden houses, which were occupied by plain artisans, while on the neigh- boring streets and lanes, not yet cut through, de- veloped a population of inferior grade. In course of time the character of this population changed, the fairly well-to-do artisans giving way to a poorer population largely Roman Catholic. Finally, about 1880, Iroth Street became the slums of Bloomingdale, and a Sunday rarely passed when the police were not called out to quell some disturbance or to gather up the injured. It had become a field for mission work. In the meantime the population in the immediate neighborhood of St. Michael's had grown so large that Dr. Peters felt that it would be necessary to create a new parish to the north. Accordingly, in 1884 he detailed his son, who was then his assistant, to secure
325
One More Church
a hall in that neighborhood and commence holding services there. Probably fortunately, because of the immediate proximity of the Cathedral, whose erection, however, seemed at that time in the very far distant future, no hall could be obtained. About that time also the improvement of Harlem Commons began to attract people to the neighborhood east of Morning- side Park and north of Iroth Street, and it soon became clear that a church was much more needed there than on Iroth Street. To this region, therefore, Dr. Peters turned his attention, with the view of founding probably the last hive which would ever swarm from St. Michael's, the Church of the Archangel. But the story of this work and of his New Jersey mission is told elsewhere.
Dr. Peters's remarkable success as an administrator led to many demands upon him, both private and public. It was very difficult for him to refuse to do any work which was offered to him. People whose private affairs were in confusion applied to him for assistance and it was astonishing to those who had to deal with his affairs after his death to realize how many people he had advised and assisted. He was sought also for the boards of all sorts of organizations and institutions of benevolent character. Owing to the confidence felt in his administration by the public, his help was also sought by institutions which had fallen into difficulty.
In 1873 the House of Rest for Consumptives, the first hospital of its kind I believe in the country, was established at Tremont in a very modest way. Its trustees found themselves unable to interest the public in the work and finally, after struggling for some years to maintain the institution, they turned to Dr. Peters
326
Annals of St. Michael's
for help. Among the trustees were some who had assisted him from the outset in the work of the Shelter- ing Arms, the City Mission and elsewhere, a bond which in his judgment created an obligation on his part, so that he felt himself obliged to accede to their request, and in 1876 he became president of the House of Rest for Consumptives, a position which he continued to hold until the day of his death.
In the following year, in order to save them from utter ruin, he was obliged to accept the charge of the Children's Fold and Shepherd's Fold. They were originally established by the Rev. Mr. Cowley, one of the missionaries of the City Mission on the Island, to care for children who were city charges. It was the usage of the city in those days to commit children to institutions or to the care of individuals and pay a cer- tain sum for their keep. The Roman Catholics had taken full advantage of this, but no proper provision had been made for the care of Protestant children com- mitted by the city. With the help of a number of benevolent gentlemen interested in the City Mission Mr. Cowley organized and incorporated these two institutions to receive and care for Protestant children committed by the city, it being calculated that the city grant could be made to pay at least the larger part of the expenses of such an institution. Having established the institutions and secured the grant which he desired, Mr. Cowley mismanaged them to such an extent that he was finally prosecuted for cruelty to children and sentenced to a year in the penitentiary.1
1It is a strange comment on the attitude of the clerical mind toward evil doing by a clergyman that, in spite of this conviction for a criminal offence, a committee of five clergymen, to whom was
327
Mount Minturn
In this emergency of their institutions, some of the trustees called on Dr. Peters for assistance and after a legal battle both the Shepherd's and the Children's Fold were rescued from Mr. Cowley's hands and Dr. Peters became their president. For a number of years the children of these institutions were housed in build- ings in the neighborhood of St. Michael's Church or distributed among families especially selected for the purpose, Dr. Peters giving his personal care and at- tention to the well-being of every child. As the city encroached more and more he secured a large tract of land at Elmsford on the Northern Railroad, which he named Mt. Minturn, and here he undertook to estab- lish a benevolent colony. It was his plan to retain the Sheltering Arms as a central city station and a place for the care of children who must be kept in close touch with parents, or whose stay in the institution was ex- pected to be short, but to care for the greater number of the children of all his institutions in the country, housing them in separate cottages, each of which should be a real home. He proposed also to so arrange that the city parishes might place colonies of children or even adults at Mt. Minturn, paying a ground rental and a charge for water, light, etc., which would greatly reduce the expense for all.
At the time of his death, he had so far perfected his plans, that the boys of both the Children's and the Shepherd's Fold had been transferred to cottages built for them at Mt. Minturn. His scheme was a magnifi-
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.