USA > New York > The Diocese of Central New York; the founding fathers > Part 14
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
129
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
even before the Utica gathering. Notably, was there a sentiment among the clergy that the situation argued not for an assistant but rather for a division of the diocese. Even De Lancey nodded approval, but because he "hoped it would not come in his day," the Bishop threw his influence behind the idea of an assistant. There were none in the diocese disposed to question his wish. Thus at Utica resolutions were quickly passed favoring an election which followed the next day. The Journal, always jealous about allowing historians behind the scenes, merely reports that by concurrent vote of both orders the choice had fallen upon the Rev. Arthur Cleve- land Coxe. It does, however, indicate that votes were cast for others. Among these, according to the Rev. Charles W. Hayes, were George Leeds and Edwin M. Van Deusen, both of the Utica area, and Charles H. Platt, later of Christ Church, Binghamton. Though Dr. Hayes does not deny the personal influence of the Rev. William Shelton and Rev. Abner Jackson in the election of Bishop Coxe, it was his opinion that the result was a spontaneous affair by the clergy and laity.
"I have no doubt," so he records,
... that with most of the clergy, as myself, and perhaps with a great many of the laity, it was due simply to the picture of the man formed from his 'Christian Ballads.' The man who could write these must be the man, we thought, to succeed such a Churchman as Bishop De Lancey. Most of us knew little of him outside of that book.
Fortunately our perspective is not so limited. We know that he was born May 10, 1818, at Mendham, New Jersey, where his father was pastor of the local Presbyterian Church. Later his father moved to New York where he was in charge of the Laight Street Church until his abolitionist views led to his removal to Auburn, New York; here he became President of the Auburn Theological Seminary. Meanwhile, the son had been drawn into the orbit of the Church and in 1841 was graduated from the General Theo- logical Seminary. He was ordained a deacon, June 27, 1841, at St. Paul's Chapel, New York City, and became a priest, September 25, 1842, at St. John's Church, Hartford, Connecticut. Between then and his coming to Western New York he had declined an invita- tion to be the Bishop of Texas and had accepted the rectorship of Calvary Church, New York.
Notice of his election as "Assistant Bishop" was relayed to him ; his acknowledgment was one of "surprise and emotion." On
130
WILLIAM HEATHCOTE DE LANCEY First Bishop of Western New York
ARTHUR CLEVELAND COXE
CENTRAL NEW YORK
September 24, 1864, the future Coadjutor informed Bishop De Lancey of his acceptance. While waiting for consecration, Coxe and his wife, the former Katherine C. Hyde-a very distant cousin -of whom so many endearing entries may be noted in his diary, were busy beyond words. Dismantling a home was bad enough, but to leave Calvary Church, a parish devoted to his ministry, was difficult. There were also the round of social farewells with friends in New York and New England, such as a dinner with "Dan Huntington" in November. Finally after all goodbyes were over he left for Geneva where he was consecrated-but let him tell his own story of that gala event :
Wednesday 4 January [1865] in the Holy Tide of Christmas it pleased my Master Christ to call me this day to serve Him in the Episcopate. I was duly consecrated to be the Bishop Coadjutor to the Bp. of Western New York and to succeed him should I be the survivor ... The conse- cration was in Trinity Church, Geneva, which was beauti- fully decorated with rood screen surmounted by a cross and there received the imposition of hands and the Holy Scrip- ture.
From other sources one learns more of the service. Those ritualis- tically inclined will note that perhaps a dozen of the clergy were without surplices. While those who care for music, may read that Bishop Coxe remarked : "O, if we could only have had the Rose of Sharon instead of that Te Deum."
Three days later he was at Auburn, visiting the "chamber where Hobart died," thence on to the churches at Marcellus and Jordan. In July, he was at the Church of the Evangelists, Oswego. Of these and subsequent visits to Central New York one is referred to the Journal. Moreover, pertinent facts as to his administrations during the next three years are mentioned in other chapters of this volume. It should, however, be added that he was away from Geneva when he heard of De Lancey's death.1 Though not able to leave home for more than a short distance during his last days, De Lancey was Bishop to the end. Nor had his vitality ebbed too much after the consecration service of Bishop Coxe which may have been trying for an enfeebled man of sixty-eight. On April 2, 1865, on leaving for St. Peter's Chapel, Geneva, he suddenly found that he was unable to speak. During the next three days he rallied and
1 The details as to the last days and funeral of Bishop De Lancey are summarized from an account given by Dr. Hayes in his memorable volume.
131
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
declined as his overworked heart erratically responded to the de- mands of a tired body. He died about six o'clock on the morning of April 5, 1865. Bishop Coxe arrived the next day ; shortly there- after funeral services were held in Geneva, following which Bishop De Lancey's remains were taken to New York. Here for one night he lay in state amid the beloved surroundings of his old parish, Calvary Church, watched over by students from the General Theo- logical Seminary; later he was buried at Heathcote Hill, Mamoro- neck, New York.
Not many days after these happenings, Bishop Coxe appeared in Oswego where on April 29 he consecrated Christ Church. In his diary he described it as a "glorious day" and followed that entry with this significant comment: "This is the beginning of my work as Diocesan Bishop." Indicative of this work are the following extracts lifted from his diary. "Rose before day," after a night at New Berlin, "and after a hearty breakfast drove down the Valley to Mt. Upton. The snow on the trees, unshaken by wind, very pretty," though in reference to the little flock that greeted him he could only add-"a distressed little parish." Then after visits to Harpursville and Windsor he "was up by candle-light and off very early on the train to Chenango Forks," thence by coach to Greene and Oxford. Later at Clinton he observed that "Pyrne was not properly sustained." The next day, December 3, 1865, he was at Grace, Utica-the church being "crammed" and he experienced "a most Catholic service." Then on to Syracuse "where after business with a troublesome vestry" he went to bed worn out. But all of this was forgotten when in August of the following year he returned to Syracuse to attend the scheduled Convention. And this time he records: "We had a sublime, early service and after that, we had an agape-a Convention breakfast at the Hotel."
These interesting insights into the Bishop's life and thought do not tell the whole story. His mind was preoccupied at times with a study of Hebrew and Greek-skills that did him much good in his battles over Puseyism and his alarm over the inroads he saw Romanism making in American life. Then there was the most pressing matter-a division of the diocese. Out of deference to the wishes of Bishop De Lancey this vital issue had been dropped at the Utica Convention of 1864. But the truce was brief in duration and during the fall and winter months that followed the Buffalo Daily Courier and the Messenger had much to say about the mat- ter. Considerable talk must have taken place among the clergy,
132
CENTRAL NEW YORK
and it is difficult to believe that the Bishop shut his ears to what his friends of the Standing Committee may have said. Moreover, he heard much when visiting Utica where his brother, the Rev. Samuel H. Coxe, was rector of Trinity Church. Interestingly, however, his diary reveals about nothing on this matter.
But his mind was well aware and those that gathered at the Rochester Convention in August, 1865, must have expected him to say something about what was uppermost in their thinking. In his pastoral address that year there were fitting remarks as to the influ- ence of the late Diocesan, especially as to "his position [in the] Catholic Episcopate and as a leader in the council of our National Church." Nor did he ignore the problems that had arisen since the close of the Civil War. "What is to be done with them [the Negroes ] is a question which the Church must not leave to world- ly men, nor to speculative philanthrophy. These souls must be saved ... Is the Church equal to the occasion ?" And then with selected words he announced his decision to leave Geneva-"wisely chosen as a center six and twenty years ago-and to plant his pastoral staff at Buffalo, a step warranted by 'Scriptural precedent and Catholic Law.'"
Intimations of this translation appeared in a June, 1865, issue of the Messenger where the Bishop was reported saying: "Buffalo now was an Episcopal See and would probably remain an Episcopal See till the end of time with a resident Bishop of our Communion ... Such a city should never be without a resident Bishop." Doubt- less this was intended in part to point the mind of the diocese as to the future of which he said at Rochester :
I shall labor on, by God's help, as well as I can, until you, my brethren, may think it your duty to secure to your- selves more abundant fruits of the Episcopate by providing for the erection of at least one more See among the three- half million souls and the more than twenty thousand square miles of Western New York.1
The die had now been cast. Bishop Coxe had clearly gone on record as favoring a division of the diocese into at least one more See. From then on it became a question of geography tempered by economic consideration and the individual hopes of certain localities. Of the latter, the Messenger, December 28, 1865, printed an article favor- ing division, stating: "One of course being Buffalo, if an equal
. 1 Italics are the author's.
133
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
division of Western New York shall be made; or Rochester if the plea is adopted of setting off the largest city with its own district or such others as may be joined to it."
The reference is clearly to the "See Principle" which but a short time before had been brought to the attention of the Church by the erection of the Diocese of Pittsburg, "the first instance," Dr. Hayes states, "in the American Church of a name taken from a city." Hayes also adds this was probably due in part to the influ- ence of Bishop Coxe who writing to friends in that area is said to have stated :
For pity's sake don't let yourselves be saddled with such a name as 'Western New York.' We have had to struggle with it, and it has almost broken our backs. But we shall divide soon, and then I shall be 'Bishop of Buffalo' and the name of 'Western New York' will disappear, to be heard of no more.
In the same vein the Messenger, December 14, 1865, stated :
It seems to be admitted on all hands that the prelim- inary steps must soon be taken for erecting a new See in Western New York. The two into which it will be divided will necessarily contain within them other Sees in futoro. If the Diocese is divided as equally as possible, that division cannot last more than twenty-five or thirty years. Then the terms of 'Central' and 'Western New York'-if we retain them now-must drop out of existence. What will have been gained by keeping those names for a few years? Noth- ing whatever. But a great deal will be lost. Two of the four Sees will have come into existence twenty-five years later than they might .. . It is no light matter to destroy or mutilate the historical character of a Diocese, and it is for this very reason that we need the Episcopate under this title. The name 'Western New York' in which, wrong as it is, we all take such pride, which has already associations of no little value, must perish, sooner or later. This Diocese will be known only in history. Had it started right, with its proper See and title, it would have been as perpetual as the See of ... Canterbury.
The See Principle had been adequately stated and had much to do with subsequent attitudes and decisions.
Reverberations of the Principle followed in various parts of the diocese. Some of this stemmed from the recently established Asso- ciations, the first of which to evidence a rash of interest was that of Oneida, originally formed in December, 1858. Composed of a
134
CENTRAL NEW YORK
goodly number of the clergy of Oneida and adjacent counties, the purpose of the group was to confer and promote local missionary work, Sunday School organization and parish life in general. Sev- eral meetings were held for about seven years; then it became merged into the scheme of Diocesan Convocations formed in 1865. Among its accomplishments was the founding of St. James', Clin- ton, and the planting of missions at Augusta, Deansboro, and Oris- kany Falls. These and subsequent activities should dispel any doubt as to the strength and vitality of the Convocation. Equally impres- sive are the names of some of its leaders such as Charles W. Hayes and A. B. Goodrich, and the Hon. Joseph Benedict of Utica.
The Bishop, if present, always presided at these convocations. Thus no question was raised as to the propriety of his being at the Oneida Convocation in April, 1866. But surprise must have been shown by some when his admonitions to those present became com- mon knowledge. It was their duty, he stated, to prepare for what must take place "within the next three years-the erection of Utica into the See of a Bishop." Later that year at a subsequent meeting held in conjunction with the consecration of St. Andrew's Church, Augusta, the Bishop endorsed the creation of a committee to ad- vance the idea of a Utica See. These manifestations were not unnoted by the Messenger, whose editor, the Rev. William T. Gibson, was an intimate friend of the Bishop and generally dis- posed toward a See at Utica. In one of the issues of that paper there appeared the comment, which may have provoked some talk in the diocese, that Grace Church, Utica, "was rapidly getting ready to be made a Cathedral when the Diocese shall be divided." Added signs of existing trends were shown when Coxe attended a third meeting of the Convocation in July at which time a full and detailed report was adopted.
Even to this day the report impresses the reader as being a clear and positive statement of a project dear to the hearts of those who advanced it. Unfortunately it is not possible within the limits of this volume to even sketch the substance of the plan. Suffice it to say that a diocese was proposed which would include the five eastern counties and form a long narrow strip, one hundred and fifty miles north and south with an average width of forty miles. Supporting the scheme there was marshalled a mass of data that must have carried much weight and authority. More effective, it would seem were the concluding sentences wherein desires were balanced by moderation :
135
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
What plan of division is best for the whole Diocese may be left for the Diocese itself to determine; but it belongs to the Clergy and Laity of these counties to say whether they require and will support a Bishop of their own. If such is the wish of this Convention it ought at once to initi- ate such action as will ascertain the views of the other clergy and laity ... especially those of Jefferson and Chenango counties .. . so that if their concurrence should be obtained, the result .. . may be laid before the next Convention ... This we believe would be our duty even had not the sub- ject been laid before us and our consideration of expressly advised by the Bishop. It is well known that a speedy divis- ion of the Diocese is inevitable. Whether it shall be on the Territorial or the See principle is one question ; whether Utica shall in any case become a See is another. The Com- mittee are convinced that the general concurrence and immediate action of the five Eastern counties will be needed to accomplish such a result.
Clearly Bishop Coxe wanted a division of the diocese and the founding of a Utica See. But having passed these resolutions the idea seems to have dawned upon some one of sounding out opinion in Chenango and Jefferson before the August Convention at Syracuse. Thus the scheme was relayed to these counties. In Jefferson, thanks to the unusual interest expressed by the Rev. Theodore Babcock of Trinity, Watertown, a favorable vote was given, while in Chenango sentiment was divided between a See at Utica or Syracuse. Encouraged by these results, plans were made for a meeting of the clergy and laity of the five counties to be held in the afternoon preceding Convention. In advance of this informal gathering, the Oneida Convocation drafted several resolutions the preamble to which should be noted. Here the view was expressed that the proposed diocese of Utica could support a bishop and that the "residence and labors of a Bishop among us [was] ... indispen- sable to the efficient carrying on of the work of the Church in these counties." Therefore, it was agreed to "contemplate the present or ultimate erection of the City of Utica into an Episcopal See."
Presiding over the pre-convention meeting was the Hon. Joseph Juliand of Greene, with the Rev. Alfred B. Goodrich of Calvary Church, Utica, as secretary. While some delegates, like Rev. Ferdi- nand Rogers of Greene, Rev. Walter Ayrault of Oxford, and George W. Dunbar of New Berlin, either opposed division or favored a Syracuse See, the greater number seemed more concerned over the financial ability of a Utica Diocese to support a Bishop.
136
CENTRAL NEW YORK
The issue was resolved when Mr. J. M. Shearman, a vestryman of Trinity, Utica, reported that mention of this problem had been made at a recent meeting of the vestry of that parish. Aware of "the prospective large increase of revenue to the church from cer- tain property in New York," the vestry, so Mr. Shearman con- tinued, approved of an "appropriation of $1,500 per annum ... toward the support of a bishop provided Utica was the See and Trinity, the Cathedral." Following this significant news, Mr. Joseph Benedict softened the resistance of the Chenango delegates by indicating that railway construction now building would con- nect that county into closer ties with Utica.
Little now remained but to pass the prepared measures. While these called for a presentation to Convention of the July resolu- tions it was clearly stated that there was no intent to force an immediate vote but rather to encourage Convention to study the Oneida plan, as well as others, by a special committee. To this was added the hope that the principles of the See Episcopate should not be forgotten. A committee composed of A. B. Goodrich, Theodore Babcock, Walter Ayrault, and F. W. Hubbard, and Edward A. Brown of Watertown and Lowville respectively, was then named to present to Convention the decisions of both the July Convocation and the present gathering. It may be noted in passing that the archi- tects of the Oneida plan included the Rev. Charles W. Hayes, Holland Patent, Rev. Hugh L. M. Clarke, Rome, Rev. William J. Alger, Bridgewater, and Rev. A. B. Goodrich, Utica.
Prior to the presentation of these matters the Bishop delivered his annual address. Toward the close he commented on the question of a new diocese and urged prompt action so as to permit action by the General Convention unless opinion favored postponement to 1871. As for himself he stated : "I would not have the respon- sibility of such a delay recorded in my account with my Master." Nor did his listeners wish to assume that load. Thus on motion it was resolved to leave the matter to a Committee of Fifteen who were to render a report in 1867, the chairman being the Rev. Wil- liam Shelton of St. Paul's, Buffalo. This having been accomplished, the Rev. Dr. Babcock presented the statements and resolutions in reference to Utica which were properly handed over to the Com- mittee of Fifteen. Of the eight clergymen on this body four were from Central New York, namely, Babcock of Watertown, Beach of Oswego, Coxe of Utica, and George W. Hills of Syracuse. Messrs. Hiram Denio of Utica, F. W. Hubbard of Watertown,
137
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
G. F. Comstock of Syracuse, and W. R. Osborne of Binghamton were lay members from Central New York. Dr. Hayes described the committee as being conservative in nature and fairly well rep- resentative of the larger parishes in Western New York.
Now the Messenger, August 26, 1866, in reporting these events stated that following the creation of the Committee of Fifteen, the Rev. C. H. Platt of Christ Church, Binghamton, "went at some length into reasons why the Southern Tier of Counties should be regarded as intimately bound together and indeed more naturally connected with Buffalo than any other city on the Central Rail- road." Platt, however, did not implement his remarks with a motion and the idea was dropped. Meanwhile, Dr. Shelton on his return to Buffalo, formulated a questionnaire which was sent to the members of the committee each of whom were asked to find out whether the parishes in his area wished division and if so upon what premises. Moreover, was the projected division to rest upon a north-south or east-west line and should the Episcopate Fund be equally divided ? Finally, did the desire for division stem merely from the expressed wish of the Bishop or from the impression that the Church's best interest would be advanced by small dioceses ?
The replies to these questions were many and generally favored division "on the great principle that they needed more frequent and intimate supervision" than what Bishop Coxe would possibly render. As to the line of division a "unanimous" vote supported a north-south line through Seneca Lake ; it also was agreed that the funds of the Western New York should be equally divided. News of what the Committee was doing soon became common knowl- edge and occasioned some comment and criticism, portions of which were thought justified at the time. Had Dr. Shelton, for example, honestly wished to find out diocesan opinion would it not have been wiser to have directed his inquiries to the parishes and missions rather than to the committee itself ? On the other hand, it is doubt- ful that the result would have been much different. Evidence to support this conclusion may be seen in the position taken by the Jefferson and Onondaga Convocation in January, the former voting in favor of division without expressing preference as to either line, the latter supporting division along the north-south line. On the same day these meetings were held the Messenger ran a long edi- torial on the moot question of division. It was Gibson's opinion that the experience of 1838 argued for the Seneca Lake line. He also made it clear that there should be an equal sharing of the
138
CENTRAL NEW YORK
Episcopate Fund. But what is more interesting was his suggestion that the proposed division should lead to creation of See dioceses in all of the principal cities of the Diocese of Western New York. Utica, for example, might well include not only the eastern coun- ties but those of St. Lawrence, Herkimer, and Otsego.1
Almost a week later the Committee of Fifteen met at Buffalo. Dr. Shelton, so the Rev. C. W. Hayes relates, after opening the meeting astonished all by opposing any division ; why, is not stated. Possibly the Rev. Samuel H. Coxe of Utica had been forewarned of his attitude and so this may account for an entry in the Bishop's diary where it is recorded that his brother urged him to his duty "in the grave matter" of division. Shelton's influence was quickly deflated as the committee evidenced a strong sentiment in favor of division. After much debate it was agreed to divide the diocese along a line that followed the eastern limits of Wayne, Ontario, Yates, and Schuyler counties. In reference to this debate the Bishop commented :
The Committee met and although Judge Denio and others came on purpose to withstand the erection of two sees ... yet beyond all I had faith to expect, they came to a unanimous decision.
Nothing was said about Dr. Shelton's position and it may be that Dr. Hayes was wrong in making the statement he did. Other reso- lutions passed favored a scheme of common interest in existing diocesan institutions and funds ; equal distribution of the Episcopate Fund; and the consideration of the See Principle.
Although "Delta," writing in the Messenger, January 17, 1867, confidently asserted that the "question of the division .. . has been most satisfactorily settled," there were others who thought differ- ently. Between January and May, 1867, for example, proponents of the interests of the southern counties met at Bath and Owego and discussed a division that would have united these counties with Buffalo; there was also some talk of an Elmira See. News of these events soon reached the ears of the Bishop and Dr. Shelton who,
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.