USA > New York > The Diocese of Central New York; the founding fathers > Part 5
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
At this gathering the Committee, having indicated it was unpre- pared to present a report, was instructed to do so the following
37
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
year. Dr. James Milnor, Rector of St. George's Church, New York, submitted the report in 1837. In substance the committee recommended approval of the proposed constitutional amendments, the division of New York into two dioceses, and that all steps necessary for division be taken so as to expedite the same after action by General Convention. These resolutions were adopted : whereupon provision was made for a Special Convention to which a committee would submit the boundary lines of the new dioceses. On this body Central New York was honored by the presence of Pierre A. Proal, rector of Trinity, Utica ; Henry Gregory, mission- ary at Calvary, Homer ; John Van Ingen, rector of Zion, Greene ; and William C. Pierrepont, patron of Zion, Pierrepont Manor.
While this committee was exploring its assignment during the months that followed Convention, the Messenger once again echoed with the arguments for and against division, as well as to various boundaries that interested persons and groups advanced. Some wanted to be left within the Mother diocese while others all but denied Convention the right of forcing them into new and strange surroundings. Others prayed for an answer to the weighty problem as to how a western diocese could possibly finance itself. Then there were contributors who spun long articles on populations within the proposed diocese, or who laboriously counted the num- ber of visitations by Bishop Onderdonk. As for Dr. Rudd, whose loyalty to the Church all respected, he sought refuge in "holy sil- ence," saying very little about a division which he deeply opposed. One of his few utterances at the time was, as given in the Mes- senger, "In the settlement of this question let there be unanimity, and we are content."
But the attainment of this accord was not so easily come by. In the meantime and while the press groaned under the weight of argument, Bishop Onderdonk issued a call for the Special Conven- tion to convene at Trinity, Utica, August 22, 1838. Most of those present had attended the previous meeting, but while there were new faces and a slight increase in lay delgates there seemed no reason to believe that western New York would exercise undue influence. Central New York was represented by all the important parishes except Christ, Binghamton, and Zion, Rome. After the usual preliminaries incident to the opening of a Convention the members heard the report of the committee on the proposed bound- ary line between the two dioceses. It was recommendd that the eastern line of Broome, Chenango, Madison, Oneida, and Lewis
38
A NEW BISHOP, A NEW DIOCESE
and the northeasterly line of Jefferson should be the dividing line. In arriving at this conclusion the committee had been guided by four outstanding factors. First, such a partition would leave to each approximately an equal share of the state's population which was then slightly in excess of two million. Though this favored the east by about a hundred and fifty thousand persons, it gave to the west an edge of two hundred and eighty-seven square miles out of a total of forty-three thousand and two hundred and fourteen. Sec- ond, the division would, by reason of existing communications, create a compactness conducive to easy travel and visitation. Third, it would enhance the eastern half's interest in the area north of Albany where the demand for missions seemed certain to increase within a few years. Fourth and last, the proposed line would more than any other line distribute the churches and clergy more equal- ly in reference to probable church growth. As a result out of two hundred and thirty-two churches, ninety would be in the new dio- cese while in respect to clerical representation at Convention the same district would have sixty-six out of one hundred and ninety- three. No other line, it was added, could provide for a better dis- tribution unless it rested on the North River-a division that had nothing to recommend it.
By the time the report had been presented and read it was late afternoon and the delegates wisely delayed matters until the next day. But by the time it came to consider the proposed boundary there had been some discussion over a canon respecting missionaries which involved the question of division. Although the canon was passed, a sour attitude seemed to have remained in the minds of some. One of these, the Rev. Lucius Smith of Fredonia, for reasons the sources do not make clear, then introduced a resolution rescind- ing the motion of the last Convention respecting a division. Before a vote could be taken, however, the House recessed until early evening; upon returning they heard a brief but timely address by the Bishop. Expressing "deep solicitude" over the "honestly, con- scientiously, and warmly cherished difference of opinion," he urged all to act as Christian men. He trusted the issue would be decided "in the fear of God with a single eye to His glory . . . in forget- fulness of the mere desire of victory, and entire superiority to all other than grave and holy considerations, and grave and holy means and efforts for success." Then he humbly begged pardon for having interrupted their proceedings.
Discussion then followed on the Smith resolution, which was
39
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
lost upon vote by orders. The clergy divided thirty-two for, and sixty-seven against; the laity, eighteen for, and sixty-four against. Of the clergy who supported the motion fourteen were from Cen- tral New York, namely, the pastors at Owego, Moravia, Rome, Skaneateles, Danby, Ithaca, Harpursville, Holland Patent and Oriskany, Paris Hill, Fayetteville, New Hartford, Elmira, Sack- ett's Harbor, and Onondaga Hill and Geddes. Of the eighteen affirmative lay votes all but one came from Central New York and included the delegates from Harpursville, Elmira, Fayetteville, New Berlin, Norwich, Oxford, Brownville, Sackett's Harbor, Watertown, Holland Patent, New Hartford, Oriskany, Grace, Utica, Trinity, Utica, Geddes, Onondaga Hill, and Candor. In the case of Grace, Utica, and Oxford no clerical representative was present and in another instance Onondaga Hill and Geddes, and Holland Patent and Oriskany had the same pastors. Expressing the result of this key vote differently one notes that the opposition was strongest in those counties on the eastern side of partition, particularly Oneida, Jefferson, Chenango, and Broome with some support from Chemung, Tioga and Onondaga. Finally, research revealed that the laity seemed more concerned than did the clergy as to the fear of division. The defeat of the Smith resolution did not altogether silence the opposition. Mr. Chester Griswold of Trinity, Utica, and the Rev. T. S. Judd, St. John's, Delhi, vainly tried to keep Madison, Tioga, and Tompkins counties within the eastern diocese. Neither of these gentlemen were residents of these counties, so that precisely why they elected to become "die-harders" is difficult to fathom. It makes very little difference in any event since a motion adopting the boundary line as defined in the original resolution was passed. Whereupon the Convention, after agreeing to reconvene at Trinity, New York, on September 11 to implement the action that had been taken, adjourned.
At this later gathering a short delay, in adopting the necessary resolution to signify the Convention's official desire for division, was occasioned by memorials from Trinity, Watertown, and St. Paul's, Brownville. The language was the same in both documents thus suggesting some degree of cooperation between the two. Ad- mitting that the issue of division had become a settled matter, "no longer open for discussion," the vestries of these parishes affirmed their fear as to the outcome in so far as they were concerned and asserted that it was their "duty to make one more effort to escape from the injurious effects which we apprehend." They reminded
40
A NEW BISHOP, A NEW DIOCESE
all how from the first they had opposed division and then voiced strong opposition against being forced "against our wishes . . . without any necessity for it . . . in the face of our unanimous remonstrance" into a western diocese. In conclusion they "respect- fully ask that before the final measures for the separation are per- fected, the boundary may be so adjusted as to include the county of Jefferson in the Eastern Diocese."
Although some may have been moved or disturbed over this last minute endeavor to disassociate Jefferson County from the new diocese, the Journal merely records that the documents were laid on the table and ordered to appear in the Journal. Following this action it was voted that the Church in New York be divided into two dioceses along the boundary line now established by law, said division to take place on November 1, 1838; also that New York's delegates to General Convention, then in session at Philadelphia, request consent to and ratification of the division. Several other resolutions were then adopted relating to the naming of the new dioceses, the disposition of the existing Episcopal Fund, and the relation of both dioceses to the General Theological Seminary, the settlement of which was to be decided at the regular Convention in October of the same year. Following these actions the adjourned session of the special convention closed its proceedings in singing part of the Ninety-ninth Psalm, and in receiving the blessing of Bishop Onderdonk, whose administration of these delicate matters had been as wise as they had been beyond reproach.
A few days later and with the consent of Bishop Onderdonk the request for division received favorable action by both Houses of General Convention. And on the nineteenth of the same month, September, the Bishop made known to all in New York his decision to "remain in charge of that diocese which embraces my native city." It was entirely reasonable and natural for him to so deter- mine his future; moreover, by making his position known before the forthcoming Convention in October he had removed from the scene a factor that might have led to some troublesome comment. At this gathering, the last at which churchmen of Central New York might attend as members, several matters occurred of distinct interest to the clergy and laymen of that area. In the first place, Trinity Church, Lowville, shared with several other parishes in New York the distinction of being the last to be admitted into Union with Convention of the Mother Diocese of New York. Regarding this action it may be of some interest locally to note that
41
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
the request of Calvary Church, North Hill, in Schroeppel, Oswego county, for admission into union was denied on the ground that one of the certifiers could not be a subscribing witness. Mr. Kent Jarvis was the only representative from Lowville present at this meeting.
Another matter of some importance related to the distribution of the Episcopal Fund, the origins of which dated back to a canon passed in October, 1796. According to this decision annual collec- tions were to be made in every church and assigned to the Treasurer to be held by him until the interest therefrom would be adequate to support a bishop. By October, 1836, the whole sum-principal and interest-amounted to nearly seventy-one thousand dollars. Now at this time Trinity Church, New York, with due regard for its rector, Bishop Onderdonk, and in harmony with its tradition of assisting the Church throughout the State, added the sum of thirty thousand dollars to the Episcopal Fund on the express condition that the capital of the fund remain inviolate, and should the diocese be divided that one-half of the sum of seventy-one thousand and all of the thirty thousand be assigned to the diocese in which the City of New York may be located. Since then the amount of the fund had grown by October, 1838, to $102,648.82 of which a total of $183.07 had been received from the several churches for the year 1836-1837, Central New York's share being about twenty-five dol- lars. These, in brief, were the essential facts that faced the com- mittee appointed at the adjourned session of the special convention. Conservations and communications passed between them and the Vestry of Trinity Church, on the basis of which the October Con- vention unanimously agreed that the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars be transferred to the new diocese, said amount to remain inviolate, though the interest thereon was to be applied to the sup- port of the Episcopate of the said diocese. The equity of this division seemed clear to all. The same attitude prevailed in reference to the election of trustees to the General Theological Seminary. Here again there was a question of finance, the entire amount having been contributed by the state since the inception of the scheme of elected trustees standing in 1838 at about one hundred and fifty- seven thousand dollars. In view of the impossibility of trying to determine what portion may have come from western New York yet considering the number of clergy in the new diocese and the number of trustees then residing in this area, the committee's recom-
42
A NEW BISHOP, A NEW DIOCESE
mendation that western New York be entitled to five trustees was accepted.
Having settled these affairs, loaded with detail but producing no element of discord, the Convention adopted without dissent the following resolution: "That the Diocese east of the division line between the two Dioceses of the Church in this state retain the name 'The Diocese of New York,' and that the Diocese west of the said division line be denominated "The Diocese of Western New York.'" Then the Convention, after settling other matters routine in nature, expressed its gratitude to God for directing its steps toward an amicable adjustment of all difficulties ; affirmed its determination to cultivate the most friendly relations with each other, and its will to redouble all efforts for the promotion of God's work in both dioceses. Whereupon, "The minutes having been read and approved, and the Convention having united in prayer with the Bishop, and having received his blessing, adjourned sine die. Benjamin T. Onderdonk, D.D., Bishop of the Diocese of New York, and President of the Convention."
43
CHAPTER V
LIFE IN WESTERN NEW YORK
Eight days after the close of the Adjourned Session of the Special Convention, Bishop Onderdonk issued a pastoral letter to the par- ishes and missions of western New York informing them of the forthcoming Primary Convention. The date set for this historic event was November 1, 1838, and Trinity Church, Geneva- already enshrined by the herculean efforts of Davenport Phelps and Bishop Hobart-was selected to act as host. Moreover, its location had much to recommend it. Situated on a bluff overlooking lovely Seneca Lake and fronting the Genesee Turnpike, Trinity Church was in the very center of the new diocese. Natural and historical reasons for attending this notable gathering were overshadowed by the occasion that prompted its calling. A new diocese was to be instituted and its first diocesan was to be chosen. Circumstances so unique rarely happen more than once in the life of either a clergy- man or layman. To many the opportunity of playing a role-large or small as the case might prove-must have seemed providential in itself.
The Journal records the existence of ninety-six churches in the diocese but some of these were either too small or so enfeebled as to discourage any hope of their being represented. While others so far removed as Watertown, Mayville, and Brownville might well be excused for not attending, especially in view of the other meet- ings of that year. Thus when forty-two churches answered the roll call on the first day the return must have seemed satisfactory. Of these twenty-seven were from Central New York and included such well known clergymen as John C. Rudd and Pierre A. Proal of Utica, John McCarthy of Oswego, John Van Ingen of Greene, and Stephen McHugh of Holland Patent and Oriskany. Not in attendance were the clergy of Watertown, Brownville, Sackett's Harbor, Pierrepont Manor, Binghamton, Oxford, Homer, and Perryville. The laity from Central New York numbered thirty- three, out of a total of one hundred and two, they included men like William C. Pierrepont of Pierrepont Manor (the only person present from Jefferson County), Thomas H. Hubbard and John E. Hinman of Utica, Gary V. Sackett of Seneca Falls, George B. Throop of Auburn, and Jonas Earll, Jr., of Onondaga Hill. Listed as residing at New Hartford but not entitled to a seat, and thus
44
LIFE IN WESTERN NEW YORK
not present, was the aged pastor, Marcus A. Perry. The Rev. George B. Engle, Missionary at Fulton and Baldwinsville, was also absent.
A request having been made in advance that the Convention be opened by appropriate services, Morning Prayer was read, starting at ten-thirty and was followed by a sermon by Bishop Onderdonk who then administered "the sacrament of the Lord's Supper" as- sisted by J. C. Rudd, John McCarthy, and Lucius Smith, the last being at one time rector of St. Peter's, Auburn. After the close of the service-which left no doubt in the mind of any one but that Western New York was a "very member incorporate" of the Church, Dr. Rudd was named Temporary Chairman and the Rev. John Van Ingen, Secretary. Two committees were then appointed to certify the clerical and lay delegates and to devise rules for order and governance. This done, the gathering adjourned until mid- afternoon.
During this recess there must have been an air of sadness and expectancy ; sadness, because their honored and beloved Diocesan, Benjamin T. Onderdonk, was to leave them; expectancy in the hope and prayer of obtaining a successor of equal rectitude, purity, and benevolence in character. It must therefore have been a rather sober body of men that reassembled that afternoon. The seating of the members was a matter of but a few moments though the report of the other committee, headed by Pierre A. Proal, rector of Trin- ity, Utica, was the signal for some debate. The discussion was really of no great consequence since it concerned procedures and rules incident to the election of temporary officers-all of whom were from Central New York-and the acceptance by Convention of the Episcopal authority of Bishop Onderdonk "until a Bishop be duly elected and consecrated." Then the drama of the Conven- tion moved on. A special committee waited upon Bishop Onder- donk, informed him of what had happened, and escorted him to the meeting where he was cordially received by all. Dr. Rudd, tempo- rary chairman, then retired and the Bishop took his rightful place in the chair. Following a few brief remarks by the Bishop the Convention cleared the table of a number of detailed matters and adjourned to meet again in the evening. By this time there had been considerable opportunity for speculation as to who might be chosen bishop. Of this, the brittle minutes in the Journal report nothing nor does it reveal the slightest concern when a motion call- ing for the election to proceed was laid on the table by a narrow
45
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
vote of both orders. Following which Convention rose until the next morning.
What happened after that evening session became a matter of some conjecture. It has generally been believed that many of those present informally gathered to discuss the merits and demerits of William H. De Lancey, of the Diocese of Pennsylvania and Man- ton Eastborn of the Church of the Ascension in New York.1 Both of these gentlemen were well known and had many friends in Western New York. Eastborn's candidacy, because of his splendid pastoral record in New York where his moderate churchmanship had won much applause, appeared to many as being unusually bright. But De Lancey's fortunes had risen rapidly after the influ- ential editor of the Churchman, Dr. Seabury, had given him the nod at the Utica Convention. Seabury's opinion was not be be taken lightly and John C. Spencer, lay delegate from St. John's, Canandaigua, to the Geneva meeting, had been so impressed that he had actually gone to Philadelphia to see, hear, and meet Dr. De Lancey. Spencer returned home convinced that here was the man the new diocese should and must have. Nor should it be for- gotten that the rector at St. John's, the Rev. Augustine P. Prevost had been tutored and presented to the diaconate by De Lancey. Supporters of Eastborn, however, were concerned over De Lancey's "high church" attitudes and believed also that his personality and cultural heritage was not in keeping with a frontier diocese.
Possibly Dr. James A. Bolles was correct in his analysis, name- ly, that it was a contest between the high and low church groups. In any event the issues were so freely discussed at this evening gathering that its chairman, the Rev. Benjamin Hale, President of Geneva College, left the meeting in disgust. "Dr. De Lancey's friends," so the historian of Western New York wrote, "seems to have been wiser, for they waited quietly no doubt in earnest prayer, like the Normans on the night before Hastings."
But history records the Saxons likewise prayed that evening. Morning came to the contestants at Geneva though unlike the events at Hastings few if any were willing to give battle; at least the Journal and other sources indicate little storm and stress. The
1 See C. W. Hayes, op. cit., 100, 121, who relied upon a "narrative of Dr. Bolles, who was a member and a very active one of this Convention." The Messenger, September 8, 1838, quoted the Cayuga Patriot, August 29, 1838, as stating that likely candidates included De Lancey, Henry Anthon of New York, Francis L. Hawks of New York, and Dr. H. J. Whiteside of Rochester. Dr. Eastburn later became Bishop of Massachusetts.
46
LIFE IN WESTERN NEW YORK
Rev. Gordon Winslow, Missioner at Elmira, read Morning Pray- er after which the Bishop took the chair. Keenly aware of the tensions of the day before, he proceeded to offer the same wise and temperate counsel he had givn at Utica. "Remember," he said, "that you are Christians engaged in your Master's work ; and mem- bers of the holy church of Christ who should be very jealous, and with a jealousy, of her sanctity, purity, good order, and welfare." Having resumed his seat he then entertained a motion by John C. Spencer-how important a role this layman played is difficult to determine-that the rules of order be suspended and that the house proceed to elect a bishop. The motion being carried, Bishop Onder- donk, once more to calm feelings and sentiments, asked them to spend a few minutes in silent devotion after which appropriate prayers were said.
Thus the way was cleared for final action. But with what brevity was this action recorded in the Journal! Many normal occurrences were left out. Surely there must have been a nomina- tion if not nominations, and it is impossible to believe that some knowledge as to the results of the voting did not exist. All that is known appears in the Journal which reports as follows :
After these prayers, the house proceeded to ballot for a Bishop. The Chair appointed the Rev. Dr. Shelton, Mr. Provost, and Mr. William C. Pierrepont tellers to receive votes of the Clergy.
The clergy having at the call of their names by the Sec- retary, deposited their votes, the Chair appointed Messrs. William B. Rogers, Charles H. Carroll, and the Rev. Mr. Metcalf, tellers to receive the votes of the laity.
Whereupon the several parishes represented, upon the call of their names by the Secretary, deposited their votes.
The tellers then announced that, having counted the votes, a majority of both orders had concurred in the elec- tion of the Rev. William Heathcote De Lancey, D.D., of the Diocese of Pennsylvania.
It is at once apparent that a "majority of both orders" had chosen De Lancey as Bishop, a conclusion that is confirmed by a subse- quent reference in the Journal to the passage of a motion declaring Dr. De Lancey to be the "unanimous" choice of the Convention. Evidently some support had been given to another or other candi- dates though who these were or how many votes they received is not known.
William Heathcote De Lancey was born October 8, 1797, at
47
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Mamaroneck, New York, son of John Peter De Lancey and Eliz- abeth, daughter of Col. Richard Floyd. Through his father the bishop was descended from Etienne De Lancey, a Huguenot of Caen, Normandy, who sought sanctuary in New York City in 1686 where he died in 1741, being buried in the old churchyard of Trinity of which he once had been a vestryman. At the age of twenty, William De Lancey was graduated from Yale College and three years later was married to Frances Munro, a grandchild of the Rev. Harry Munro, last Rector of St. Peter's, Albany, under the British Crown. By this time his mind had become sharply bent toward the life of a minister in the Episcopal Church and soon he began intensive study for that end under the guidance of a most capable tutor, Bishop Hobart, who ordained him deacon and priest in 1819 and 1822 respectively. Shortly thereafter he moved to Philadelphia where he served under the venerable Bishop White. He was Secretary of the Diocesan Convention of Pennsylvania, 1823 to 1830, and Secretary to the House of Bishops of General Convention between 1823 and 1829. From 1828 to 1833 he was Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, after which he returned to his first love, the Church, becoming assistant minister of St. Peter's Church, Philadelphia. He succeeded his friend and bishop to the rectorship of that parish in 1835.
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.