USA > New York > The Diocese of Central New York; the founding fathers > 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
78
FAITH OF OUR FATHERS
all of them gone to England for ordination? And on returning home, had used the Book of Common Prayer wherein the office of bishop receives prominence. However, had a poll been taken, a majority of the clergy, and laymen for that matter, would have shown an indifferent attitude toward bishops.
These observations may serve as an introduction to the theme of this chapter and aid in understanding why the Colonial Church enjoyed relative peace and concord in so far as internal life was concerned. But the calm had been shattered by American inde- pendence ; churchmen everywhere were faced with a fundamental problem as to what kind of a church now existed in America. As- pects of the dilemma were present in the questions raised. What about an Episcopate? What of a General Church assembly and dioceses? What of church support; should there be a church con- stitution and canons? And what of the Prayer Book? To these and other queries a variety of answers were forthcoming which pointed to the imperative need for action. Thus when General Con- vention, as it came to be known, met in 1785 basic principles were accepted which four years later were adopted by Convention.
At this gathering a constitution for the Church was accepted, seventeen canons were adopted, and the use of the Prayer Book was made mandatory. On these foundations rested the Protestant Episcopal Church in America in reference to doctrine, liturgy, and government. A few generalizations may make this clear. The rela- tionship of King and Parliament found no counterpart in the American Church thus guarding the latter from entangling alli- ances with the State. It would honor and respect "the powers that be" but it would not be involved in national policy and party strife.1 Within its own sphere the Church would determine and guide its life. It stood for the government of the Church, by the Church, and for the Church-a government that consisted of a House of Bishops and a House of Deputies. Moreover, and peculiar to the American plan, the latter consisted of lay and clerical representa- tives. Both categories were popularly elected and while the Bish- ops were in attendance by virtue of office, they were in the first instance chosen by a free election in diocesan convention. The American Church, therefore, reflected the current democratic spirit of the age. It was to be governed by a popularly elected assembly,
1 See C. O. Loveland, op. cit., Chapters VII-IX for a full account.
79
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
empowered to alter ecclesiastical law and by canon to fix the liturgical life of the Church.1
In gaining these ends the 1789 Convention was circumspect in retaining both Catholic and Protestant heritage ; its very name, the Protestant Episcopal Church, made that clear. The ancient three- fold order of the ministry was kept and perpetuated by Canon and the Book of Common Prayer. Taking the English Book then used, the American Church made certain changes. Reference to Crown and Parliament were deleted, some saints' days were dropped, a rewording of several prayers was effected, and the Athanasian Creed was omitted. "If an Episcopalian of today," Dr. Manross wrote in 1938, were to be suddenly transported backward ... he would have no difficulty in recognizing that the Prayer Book was basically the same as the one with which he is familiar." And few were the changes made by the time the Church unfurled its banners in Cen- tral New York.
Such additions as were made should not be cited as evidence of a marked drift toward a more catholic concept of the Church's liturgy. But the presence of such was in the making as was the existence of an evangelical movement. Those favoring the latter sought to translate by word and deed "the fundamental principles of the Gospel of the grace of God as revealed by His Son, Jesus Christ." The proponents of the former had as their goal a "redis- covery and re-emphasis of the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Catholic Church" as the Church had received the same.2 It is probably true that at the time the advocates of the Low and High Church issue, as they were to be known, had no clear vision as to where their thinking might lead ; but it was not long before it was manifested in many aspects of church life. Divergencies arose not only in theological matters, but as to what was proper in ritual, vestments, the hymns and music used, and other phases of worship and government. Zealous men on both sides used their abilities to promote differing interpretations. Moreover, in opposition to the General Theological Seminary there appeared in the 1820's the Evangelical Schools-Virginia and Bexley Hall. Special papers
1 The subsequent history of the Church during the first half of the last century is crowded with illustrations of the Church refusing to articulate itself with such reforming issues as slavery, women's rights, non-resist- ance, peace, temperance, and abolition. Many individuals did but the Church as such did little. See the author's Pioneering for Peace (Syra- cuse, 1933 ).
2 See W. W. Manross, op. cit., pp. 214-219 for treatment of these trends.
80
FAITH OF OUR FATHERS
also were founded representing various ideas and opinions of theo- logical and liturgical thinking.
Concerning all this some general remarks were made in an earlier chapter where it was shown that by 1815 the Diocese of New York was presided over by Bishop Hobart who by many has been regarded as a high churchman. Early in his priesthood he was not so known. His published writings were moderate and showed a mind concerned rather with devotion and worship; it would be wrong of course to contend that high churchmanship and devotion are divorced ; certainly in Bishop Hobart they were happily married. But in 1805 there appeared his Companion to the Festivals and Fasts in which he declared Episcopacy was the hall mark of Christ's Church. Taken to task by certain Protestant writers, Hobart struck back as did his critics in turn. Others, within the Church, were then drawn into the conflict which while not helping the cause of Christian fellowship stamped him as the leader of a growing high church movement. Hobart's stature waxed especially after he was made Bishop as may be seen by reference to his pastoral addresses, articles, and books. In 1819, for example, he stressed the idea of Apostolic Succession in his Principles of the Churchmen and the security it afforded to the "Holy Eucharist" which he held to be the highest form of worship. Again in his Catechism in answer to the question : "Who have authority to administer the sacraments ?" the reply was: "The lawful ministers of the Church." And when asked: "Who are they?", the answer was: "Those who derive their authority from Christ Himself by regular succession from the apostles." But at the same time he shuddered
... at the unparalleled absurdity, the tremendous im- piety, of changing by a literal construction of language, evidently figurative, bread and wine into the body, soul, and divinity of His Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; of thus liter- ally feasting on his Redeemer.
Likewise he condemned auricular or private confession, and rejected the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. "Evangelical truth and Apostolic Order" became the "watchword" of Hobart and his followers.
Later in 1827, when addressing Convention he boldly censured the aims of those in Pennsylvania who sought to "amalgamate Epis- copalians with other denominations." Such tendencies promoted discord and undermined the essential principles of the Protestant
81
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Episcopal Church. What else, he stated, might be expected of their introduction into the Church of
. doctrine or practices peculiar to some other denom- inations of Christians-the encouragement of men not ordained to lead devotions, and to expound the Scriptures in what are called prayer meetings, to overthrow our unriv- alled Liturgy, by the introduction of extemporaneous pray- ers ... to establish insubordination to Episcopal authority.
He concluded by saying :
Experience here-experience, long experience in that country from which we are descended-lifts her warning voice against all plans, however plausible, for reviving relig- ion in our Church, which are at variance with her institu- tions. These institutions set forth and endorse those great doctrines which constitute the Gospel, the power of God- the sinfulness and guilt of man-his transformation by the renovating influences of the Divine Spirit-his salvation only through the merits and grace of a Divine Mediator. Our Church considers these merits and this grace as pledged and conveyed to the faithful in her authorized ministra- tions, and in her holy sacraments and ordinances. In her daily Morning and Evening Prayer, she amply provides all the occasions of public worship. In her Liturgy, she supplies the most impressive and fervent language of devotion. Let her doctrines be received into our hearts, and regulate our lives-let her institutions be faithfully endorsed and prac- ticed-and we shall then discharge the sacred duty of pre- serving, in her purity, that Church which best exhibits gen- uine and primitive religion-and thus we shall finally attain the great end of our calling, the great business of the present state of probation-the salvation of our souls. God grant this for Christ's sake.
How these views, "Hobart Churchmanship" they were often described at the time, were received in Central New York is diffi- cult to determine. On the one hand there was some support given by the Messenger, whose editor, Dr. Rudd, was loyal to Hobart beyond all question. But of the clergy and laity in general little is known though one finds it difficult to believe, judging from the opposition he provoked in other sections of the state and nation, that this area was entirely void of evangelicals. Hobart had no illusions about the latter-conservative followers of the Wesleys who while having much in common with Methodism, remained within the Church hoping to lead it into what they held were safer
82
FAITH OF OUR FATHERS
and sounder doctrines and ritual.1 The Bishop trembled for the safety of the Church in much the same manner Archbishop Laud worried when facing Puritan attack. On the other hand Hobart most certainly was not what is now called "Anglo-Catholic." His references to the "altar" and the "priest" were welcomed but when he held the eucharistic "elements" to be mere "tokens" and flatly denied the medieval doctrine of the sacrifice, some high church extremists were aghast. There was much in Hobart that resembles Laud, Latimer, and Ken-English divines who stood by the Scrip- ture and the faith of an Apostolic Church. These men firmly be- lieved the Church of England was Catholic and Apostolic and they died "in the communion of the Church .. . as it stands distinguished from all papal and puritan innovations and as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross."
Hobart's strong personality, sometimes described as high handed and ill-tempered, his learning, and the dignity of his episcopal office did much to advance high church views throughout New York. Nor did the impact lessen after his death. He did not live to wit- ness the Oxford Movement but of its antecedents and early leaders he was well informed.2 Of this phase of Church history this volume is not concerned though a few comments are needed as to its influ- ence upon the American Church. Those who have studied this problem believe that while differing opinion was expressed as the Oxford Tracts appeared, the Church was slow to evince any lively interest. Bishop Onderdonk, for example, said nothing of it in his Convention addresses, 1831-1838, though he was known to be high church in attitude. However, at the consecration of Bishop De Lancey in 1839, Onderbonk in a sermon, "The Episcopal Office," left no doubt as to his views concerning Apostolic Succession and the doctrine of the ministry and sacraments. Moreover, on the same occasion, Bishop De Lancey gave evidence that he was aware and somewhat disposed toward the movement started in England. Neither of these men spoke of it by name though both knew of its existence. The first reference to the Oxford Tracts appeared in the Diocesan Journal of 1841. According to this source Bishop De
1 Manross, Hist. Amer. Church, op. cit., 215-216 summarizes the views of this group: personal conversion, acceptance of episcopacy, historical and apostolic, as preferable to other organization (but not essential), the Lord's Supper a commemorative service void of supernatural grace, and Gospel preaching (hence Evangelicals).
2 It has been said that Hobart was a Tractarian; it is equally true he was not a Puseyite.
83
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Lancey remarked, during the course of his pastoral address, that the Oxford Movement had not as yet penetrated the diocese to any degree and that he was not over concerned about its effects. The Tracts, he reminded his audience, "were no-where regarded as standard works or tests of Churchmanship" and he expressed con- fidence in the ability of the clergy to sift the wheat from the chaff. The idea that the Movement might divide the Church was "pre- posterous in the extreme" as was shown by the fact that the "unity of the Church has hardly been ruffled" and "never presented a firmer front of opposition to the errors of the Roman Catholic Faith." These sentiments, it should be noted, were made several months after Newman had issued Tract 90 in which the latter tried to show that the Thirty-Nine Articles were not incompatible with Roman teaching. Since that time and up to the summer of 1843 not much heat had been generated about the Movement in the Diocese of Western New York. This does not deny the existence of a high and low church controversy, the presence of which was noted in the election of De Lancey to the office of bishop. One should not overlook the short pastorate of William Croswell, 1840- 1844, at St. Peter's Church, Auburn, who was one of the early leaders of the Catholic group in the Church.
Meanwhile much concern had been expressed over events in New York City relating to the ordination of Arthur Carey, a young man who had been profoundly impressed by the Oxford Tracts.1 Opposition to his ordination was spearheaded by those, notably the Rev. Henry Anthon of St. Mark's, New York, and a former rector of Trinity Church, Utica, who saw in Mr. Carey a "Romanizing" influence inimical to the life of the Church. Although De Lancey at Convention in 1843 and in contemporary issues of the Messenger, sought to quiet the storm as it blew through Western New York some damage to the Diocese had been effected. This may explain why the Bishop thought it best to restate his views in the Messenger later in the same year.2 But what had been done could not so easily
1 See Manross, Chorley, and others for the story of this case.
2 "Subjected as we all are to sweeping charges of error, secret asper- sions and violent assaults, under the title of injurious fame, yet in my intercourse with the clergy of the Diocese, I know of no one among them, who does not, in maintaining the cause of Christ and His Church, dis- tinctly repudiate the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. With her Pray- er Book unaltered, her articles untouched, her Clergy faithful and her Laity well taught, the church is safe against the encroachments of error from any and every quarter; and from the promise of her Divine Lord, will be found to be as firm as the everlasting rocks," see Journal, 1843.
84
FAITH OF OUR FATHERS
be erased. Opinion in some quarters became touchy and boiled over when a careless word here or a variation in service there evoked the cry of "Rome." But it should not be concluded that all provoca- tion came from one side. High churchmen added fuel to the fire by questioning the loyalty of the evangelicals to the Church.
The controversy continued and once again the Bishop endeav- ored to soften and remove the friction. Speaking to Convention in 1846, he marshalled all that he had said earlier in a stout defense of the Church. The latter, he insisted with true historical insight, was Catholic and Protestant long before the advent of the Oxford reformers. Painstakingly he explored the Church in respect to doc- trine, polity, ritual and liturgy, rubric, vestments, architecture, music and in many other ways. In each and every case he was firm in declaring that what the Church had done and now practiced was not Roman but was affirmatively Catholic and Apostolic. To many it must have seemed as though the voice of Bishop Hobart was sounding once again in defense and praise of the Church Militant. But De Lancey injected into his remarks some current aspects of the ritualistic side of the conflict. With pride he pointed that in the diocese there were no "emblematic candles" on the altar, that "Holy Communion" was administered from a "Communion Table or Altar; as practiced from the first in this country," that Holy Baptism was administered to adults and infants from fonts, cups, or bowls, and that the number of weekday services were regulated by the ability and health of the clergy and the needs of the parish. Again, except as limited by the size of the chancel, desks and pul- pits were commonly used. These and other features of the Church and its ministrations had, so the Bishop stated, "no more to do with Romanism than with Mahometanism."
But here again there were loyal clergy and laity who thought differently. Evidence of this was shown in 1847 when dissatisfied with the materials and publications of the Sunday School Union there was formed the Evangelical Knowledge Society which aimed to spread its ideas through the Sunday schools of the Church. Of this movement, which was national in scope, De Lancey was well informed but it was not until May 5, 1848, that he heard an auxiliary of the society was to be established at Rochester. Touched to the quick by the failure of those issuing the call for this gather- ing in not informing him of their intent, the Bishop replied with a letter directed to all the churches in the diocese. In his communi- cation he frankly admitted the right of churchmen to promote ideas
85
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
by organization and publication, but to do this without previous consultation with the Bishop, Standing Committee, rectors and vestries was subject to question.1 Here, the Bishop affirmed, was a design "to rivet a party character on the Diocese from which we have been heretofore free and to promote discussion and conflicts, rather than to advance unity, harmony, and peace." Presumably, he must have known that Evangelicals held the High Church group to be an offending "party" on the Church.
The circular calling for the organizational meeting at Roches- ter had been signed by four clergymen and thirty-five laymen. Of the former none were from Central New York though the Rev. Tapping R. Chipman had served at Oxford between 1844 and 1845. Who the laymen were is not known though one was listed as a resident of Oswego. Another rector, Bethel Judd, who had labored in Central New York, 1837-1846, was also a member of the Rochester group. However, the local organization lacked virility and ceased to exist by the close of the decade.
During the remainder of Bishop De Lancey's life, although feelings were aroused from time to time over ritualistic trends in a few parishes, the gap between high and low churchmen never became serious.2 His program of keeping the Church on an even keel and of regarding differencies as non-essentials, generally found favor. With Bishop Hobart, Bishop De Lancey may be styled a High Churchman but not an extreme Anglo-Catholic. Evidence of this may be found in his article, "What is not Puseyism" as pub- lished in the Messenger and Journal for 1843. More inquiring readers may wish to study his address to Convention the following year in which he stated :
Every day, as it passes, confirms the members of the Church, of all shades of opinion, in their attachment to the Holy Scriptures, as the rule of faith, and to the Prayer Book, as the authorized exposition of the doctrines, polity, and worship, to be maintained by our branch of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ; in which we profess in the
1 Possibly this might indicate that De Lancey, while loyal to the his- toric episcopate, was not prone to exalt the prerogatives of office as en- dorsed at first by other bishops in the church.
2 See the Journal, 1846, 1847, and 1849 for references to attitudes in certain parishes. Writing late in the nineteenth century, the Rev. W. M. Beauchamp of Central New York, commented that under De Lancey the diocese "happily avoided extreme" in spite of pressures from low church parishes. In one instance, however, he consented to the founding of a low church parish-the Church of the Evangelists in Oswego.
86
FAITH OF OUR FATHERS
Creeds of our belief. There has not been breathed a desire to modify the Prayer Book from any responsible quarter of the Church; but on the contrary, every indication is given of most watchful determination to maintain the bulwark of the Church-that illustrious monument of wisdom, piety, and moderation, which characterized the English Reforma- tion.
De Lancey's endorsement of Protestanism was also voiced at a meeting in London in 1852 of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. One remarkable fact, he stated, of the Church's growth in America was
... that at least half of the new members were converts from Popery, or from the numerous Protestant sects ... It has been asked why in America the Church should be dis- tinctively called Protestant? The truth was, they learnt from their Bibles that St. Peter was rebuked by St. Paul and that St. Peter did not preside at the council of the Apostles ... They protested against the assumptions of the Papacy, as well as the soul-destroying errors that had crept into the Church of Rome, and hence they were called Prot- estants.
And he added: "He was a Protestant by birth, descent, by relig- ion, by Church, and in no other position he ever wished to be, but he did not feel that he was thereby absolved from his relation to the Catholic Church.1
During the few years Bishop Coxe ministered to the needs of the Church in Central New York very little change took place in reference to high and low church trends. The Messenger continued to give prominence to the issue of which a few illustrations may not be amiss. In one instance the Church Journal is taken to task for pro-Roman attitudes ; the Messenger going so far as to charge the paper with designs to promote, "as the Romanists do," a Visible Head-"this monstrous figment of medievalism." And is Dr. Pusey's suggestion of a concordat to be really followed up in earnest ? Then there was "Catholicus" who in a January, 1868, issue of the Messenger held that the way of meeting Rome was "not on 'Prot- estant' ... but on 'Catholic' grounds." About the same time the Messenger pled for an unbroken front in "defense of sound Church- manship, the clearly Protestant, yet truly Catholic Churchmanship of Bishop Hobart and Bishop De Lancey.
1 See Journal, 1853, p. 47, for expression of concern over the Tracts being mailed to his people, and his views on Brotherhoods and Sister- hoods, Journal, 1854, p. 45.
87
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Meanwhile Bishop Coxe had published his provacative work, The Criterion, a Means of Distinguishing Truth from Error in Questions-with Four Letters on the Eirenicon of Dr. Pusey. Printed at Buffalo and including one hundred and twenty-nine pages, this tract created much stir throughout the diocese and the Church generally. The Bishop's thesis was that the Newmanite or Puseyite method of interpreting the Thirty-Nine Articles "is plain- ly dishonest, apart from all questions of Theological truth or the error of Trent Decrees." The Articles are point blank against Romanism and were so meant to be. Those who wish to feel the pulse of Bishop Coxe in this matter would do well to read his Diary preserved at the Diocesan House in Buffalo, New York. Nor should one overlook his remarks printed in the Journal, 1867, in reference to a forthcoming world conference at Lambeth Palace, London. Among other things the Bishop stated :
May He who heard the cries that went up from the Lollard's Tower, when He gave England a Cranmer for its Primate, accept our intercessions in behalf of Cranmer's living successor, that God would make him an instrument of restoring Catholic Unity on Nicene principles, and so of completing the work of a Scriptural Reformation.
Meanwhile, as related in the following chapter, the Church in America had become concerned over ritualism. Fanned by Bishop John H. Hopkins in his Law of Ritualism and the "Declaration on Ritualism," issued by a committee of the House of Bishops, one being Bishop Coxe of Western New York, the controversy spread rapidly. Lively debates took place throughout the Church. The religious press gave it much attention and a number of petitions were circulated for presentation at the General Convention of 1868 at which, however, no definite action was taken. By the time it was joined again in 1871, Central New York had become a Dio- cese in its own right. Since this study does not relate to the story of the Diocese per se it seems unwise to carry on the narrative in reference to this controversy. But those whose curiosity is not satis- fied, in so far as Central New York is concerned, will find the issues of the Messenger, 1866-1868, a revealing introduction of things yet to come.
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.