USA > New York > The diocese of Western New York : a history and recollections > Part 10
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 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39
I have already (p. 85 supra) noted the suggestion at the Conven- tion of 1830 of the growing need of more Episcopal services than it was possible for one Bishop to render in the whole State, and the " surprise" and " evil omen" which it is said to have evoked.
I said that the movement resulted in the division of the Diocese of New York. But I have found nothing to show that any such thing as a new diocese was thought of at first. The earliest allusion to the need of additional Episcopal service appears in the Gospel Messenger of Sept. 27, 1834 (Vol. VIII. p. 34), in a communication which I give in full.
" Dear Sir :- I do not wish to find fault,-the duties of our Bishop I know to be arduous in the extreme,-but I do know that our churches in Western New York are suffering from year to year for want of more frequent and more regular visits from their Bishop. I hope, sir, this subject will claim the attention of our next Convention, and that measures will be taken at once to remedy the evil by the appointment of an assistant Bishop, who shall reside at the West. This step will have to be taken sooner or later, and the longer it is delayed, the more tardy will be the progress of the Church.
" A LAYMAN."
Nothing is said here about a new Diocese, and indeed the word " assistant " would seem to exclude that idea ; but I have no doubt that the writer of the letter italicized in his own mind the words " who shall reside at the West," though the emphasis did not get into print. The Editor (who was from the first, if not to the last, utterly opposed to any plan involving a new Bishop) in his comment fully admits that " no one man can discharge the duties which will be required by the advancing importance of the Diocese," and declares that "our
94
DIOCESE OF WESTERN NEW YORK
beloved Diocesan perceives the need there will be of some relief" in course of time, but not now. The next week (Oct. 4) he says,
" Our unknown friend ' A Layman,' as well as some others who have called our attention to this subject, will expect from us an attempt to show how the evils complained of can be remedied, except by the appointment of an Assistant Bishop or the division of the Dio- cese. In relation to the latter measure we shall not at present speak, because, to our apprehension, it must be utterly out of the question with nineteen-twentieths of the best-informed of our Communion."
Then he goes on to speak of the canonical and other difficulties in the way of electing an Assistant Bishop (an almost insuperable one, as the law of the Church stood then, being the entire absence of the required condition of " old age or other permanent cause of infirmity" in the Diocesan), and finally proposes the appointment of "one, two or more clergymen for certain specified districts," under the name of the " Bishop's Commissary, District Presbytery (?), or Arch- deacon," though fearing that " A Layman" and many others " will start, fearing some bad omen in the latter appellation. Just such fears," he sensibly remarks, " were excited when Bishops were intro- duced into the country ; but we cannot believe that considerate and candid Churchmen will indulge in any alarms on the use of a name."*
These remarks were taken up at once (Oct. 11) by the New York Churchman (then edited by Dr. Samuel Seabury), which " thinks the discussion of these details premature, but must be permitted to say that of all the plans which could be devised, that is the worst which aims to supply a bearable deficiency, and succeeds only in creating an intolerable incumbrance."
However, " A Layman " is followed very quickly by " A Western Churchman " with a bolder proposition. An Assistant Bishop, he declares, " does not meet the full necessities of the case. The Church in New York has now six times the thirty clergymen of 1811 ; in 1860 she will have a thousand. In less than the age of one man the Bishop of New York would need two or three Assistants." For the same reasons, and more, Archdeacons will not answer ; any number of them cannot do a Bishop's duty. We must then
* No anticipation of A.D. 1903 !
95
MOVEMENT FOR A NEW DIOCESE, 1834
" Divide the Diocese when it is too large for the supervision of one man. Let there be a provision made that any diocese may be divided by its own vote when the number of its clergy or parishes shall exceed 100, or 200, as the wisdom of the Church shall see fit. I could wish that no diocese should number more than one hundred parishes. The Senatorial districts will yet be sufficiently large for dioceses in this State. * * ** You shall hear from me again."
The Editor thinks " A Western Churchman" altogether too san- guine as to the growth of the Church, and cannot believe that New York will have a thousand clergymen in 1860 (it had, in fact, less than 500), or the whole American Church more than 1900 (but it had nearly 2200). Meantime the (Philadelphia) Episcopal Recorder thinks the suggestion of Archdeacon "a strong proof of Romanism" in good old Dr. Rudd. "Where in the revealed word of God will he find any sanction for " such officers ?- And where, replies the Doc- tor, is the Scriptural authority for Standing Committees or Sunday School teachers ?
Next week, comes in another correspondent, "Episcopalian," earnestly advocating division on the ground that a Bishop should be able to pass two or three days in every parish, make himself familiar with each congregation, and as far as possible with its individual members, which Bishop Onderdonk obviously cannot do. Against division the editor argues again in three full columns, declaring finally that any argument for dividing New York would lead "to a like severance of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia ;" and maintain- ing that the case of Asia Minor in primitive times having 315 Bishops, adduced by a friend in private conversation as an argu- ment for New York having 65, is answered by " the fact that there could have been but a single denomination, i. e., Episcopalians, in any city or district at that time." But " A Western Churchman " returns to the charge with the declaration that "if the way is not too much blocked up with canons, sound policy will favour a division of the Diocese;" that it is too large already ; parishes, like indi- viduals, are lost in the crowd ; the Journal is spread over too much ground, and comes to us after the Convention has lost all its interest for our parishes. "We may vote against division, but it is inevitable ; in a very few years all will hold up their hands for it."
96
DIOCESE OF WESTERN NEW YORK
Finally the Bishop takes up the subject in his Address of 1834 (Oct. 3). * I give his words in full. t
" I feel it to be my duty, brethren, to advert here to a topic which has long most seriously occupied my mind. The rapid growth of this Diocese, for which we have so much cause to be thankful to the great Head of the Church, and the consequent increasing burden of care and labour essential to its due Episcopal supervision, must before long force upon us a case calling for an important change in our ecclesi- astical polity. The anxious reflections with which my mind has been long occupied on the subject, have found sympathetic movements in the minds of valued friends who have counselled with me on this most inter- esting point, and whose views of it are of that well-ordered character which befit a Churchman's approach to any important change in the es- tablished polity of his Church. The time must come, brethren, and perhaps it may not be long distant, when this Diocese will be too great for unshared supervision. The deep solicitude with which this convic- tion has been accompanied in my mind has been increased by the many difficulties which surround the subject. It is not to be lightly approached. It calls for the deep thought, and deliberate investiga- tion, of those best qualified to consider it-the experienced, enlight- ened, and judicious friends of the Church, whose minds have been long exercised on her concerns, and who are well versed in her prin- ciples, and well experienced in her institutions. To such- deeming any more detailed reference to the subject, on the present occasion, as premature-I leave it for their reflections and their prayers, and, when they shall think it best, their action."
The Convention responded (on motion of Mr. Thomas L. Ogden, of Trinity Church, New York) with a resolution
"That six Presbyters of the Diocese and six Lay Members of this Convention be appointed to consider the suggestions contained in the Bishop's Address, relative to some further provision for the discharge of the Episcopal functions within this Diocese, so as to meet the increasing exigencies thereof ; with instructions to confer thereon with the Bishop, and to report at the next Annual Meeting of this Convention."
* It would be interesting to know whether the subject came up when the Bishop, at the ordination of the Rev. James A. Bolles, at Batavia, Sept. 4, met for the first time eleven of his clergy, a number " never before assembled at so remote a western point of the Diocese ;" this circumstance presenting " a view of the increase of our Communion which imparted to my mind feelings of the most grateful nature."
t Journ. N. Y. 1834, p. 42.
HENRY ANTHON, D.D.
BENJAMIN DORR, D.D.
PIERRE ALEXIS PROAL, D.D.
97
MOVEMENT FOR A NEW DIOCESE, 1834
The Committee appointed were
The Rev. Thomas Lyell, D.D., .
Mr. Thomas L. Ogden,
The Rev. John C. Rudd, D.D.,
Mr. Henry F. Penfield,
The Rev. John Reed, D.D.,
Mr. John D. Dickinson,
The Rev. John M'Vickar, D.D., Mr. James Emott,
The Rev. Lewis P. Bayard,
Mr. Edward R. Jones,
The Rev. William Shelton,
Mr. Peter A. Jay. *
Of whom Dr. Rudd (of Auburn), Mr. Shelton (of Buffalo), and Mr. Henry F. Penfield (of Canandaigua), were from " the Western District."
The Missionary and Parochial Reports of 1834 are interesting only as showing the same steady and comparatively rapid growth in num- bers and prosperity which had now gone on in the "Western District" for ten or twelve years. Twelve new churches are reported as partly or wholly completed, of which five, at Mount Upton, Big Flats, Angelica, Sodus and Seneca Falls, were consecrated in the Bishop's usual summer visitation ; the others were Norwich, Bath, Mount Morris, Greene, Guilford, Danby and Fredonia. At Elmira there is " no church yet," but soon to be one ; at Homer (under Dr. Gregory) we hear for the first time of a Parish Library (as separate from a Sun- day School library) ; Geneseo " cannot be called flourishing," but neither can it said to be discouraging, with an attendance of 140, and 41 communicants ; Phelps is weak (it was only two years old) with only a school-room to meet in, and six or seven communicants ; Sodus has thirty ; at Lyons services are suspended for want of interest (four years later it was a substantial and flourishing parish); Medina has only the basement of a church, but a zealous congregation ; Canan- daigua has a new rectory (not that it had ever had an old one ) and is otherwise prospering. The Parochial Reports (i. e., of parishes inde- pendent of missionary aid) number 15 this year.
I note in the Journal of 1834 an effort, the first, I think, but more than once renewed, to make the Vestry of a parish independent of the Rector, by allowing meetings without his appointment or pres- ence. A committee appointed on the motion of Mr. Peter G. Stuyvesant, of the Church of the Ascension, New York, reported in 1836 an amendment of the Act for the Incorporation of Churches, having this effect. Action on this plan was postponed repeatedly
* Journ. N. Y. 1834, p. 49.
98
DIOCESE OF WESTERN NEW YORK
till 1839, when it finally drops out of the Journal. Whether the proposition grew out of some local trouble (as such proposed amend- ments often did), or not, it was probably felt then, as it has always been by most Church people, that it was not in accordance with the immemorial principle of parochial organization inherited from English ecclesiastical law, which makes the Rector not a member merely, but an integral part of every corporate body known as a " Vestry."*
Another interesting feature of the Convention of 1834 is a report from the Rev. Dr. Milnor of a visit by himself and the Rev. Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Kemper to the Oneidas near Green Bay, who, owing to the organization of the " Territory of Michigan," (Wiscon- sin having as yet no existence, t) were about to be separated, much to their regret, from their beloved " Bishop Hobart's Church," and taken under the General Missions of the Church. The chiefs " declared in very strong terms their attachment to the Church,- stated that many and great endeavours had been made to detach them from her, but they did not mean to be blown about as the leaves of the trees were by every wind ;" and their council had unanimously resolved to continue firm in her doctrine and worship, and hoped the Church would continue to them her fostering care. They had now a number of comfortable dwellings on their new reservation, “ a con- venient church built of logs, and fitted up neatly with a chancel, pulpit, reading-desk and vestry-room ; also a small parsonage near the church, which they purpose to convert into a school-house and build a more convenient house for their Minister," Mr. Cadle, of whose kind care of them they spoke very warmly. There were at this service 70 communicants, whose reverence and devotional deport- ment "evinced a heartfelt engagement in the holy duty."
And so we bid farewell to the Oneidas.
* The proposed amendment will be found in the Journal of 1836, p. 131.
t On the organization of Michigan in 1834, Wisconsin was included in its boundaries, and so remained till Michigan became a State in 1836.
# Since replaced by a large and thoroughly complete church of stone.
CHAPTER XVIII
STEPS TOWARDS A NEW DIOCESE, 1835
N the winter of 1834, Dr. Henry John Whitehouse, the gifted and admired Rector of S. Luke's Church, Rochester, returned from a year's absence in Europe ; and with his return, though not at all, it may be pre- sumed, by his agency, began a new and remarkable phase of the movement for the division of the Diocese. This part of the story has been told by the late Rev. Dr. James A. Bolles (in his address at the W. N. Y. Council of 1885),* more fully than it will probably ever be told again, and from his own personal knowledge. He truly says that " no man ever deserved his popularity more justly than did Dr. Whitehouse ; for not only as a scholar and preacher was he singularly gifted, but as a Pastor he was one of the most faithful, earnest, and devoted that the Church has ever had." He had just declined the Presidency of Hobart College when he was unanimously chosen Bishop of the new Diocese of Michigan. But his Western New York friends, determined that he should not be lost to them, at once addressed to him a remarkable letter, (too long to give here,) urging him to decline the election to Michigan on the ground that "a project for some time agitated "of erecting a new Diocese in Western New York would certainly be successful, and that he would as cer- tainly be chosen its Bishop; " no other individual would unite so much of the good feeling and deep interest of the clergy and laity of that part of the State." This letter was prepared at a meeting of laymen held in Canandaigua, and presided over by the Hon. John Canfield Spencer, (afterwards so distinguished as Secretary of State of New York, and U. S. Secretary of War and of the Treasury), who, though not then (if ever) a communicant of the Church, had more to do with the erection of the Diocese of Western New York and the
* Journ. W. N. Y. 1885, pp. 152-6. Dr. Bolles became in 1833 Dr. White- house's curate and locum tenens during his year's absence in Europe on account of illness, which proved however on his arrival in London to be only whooping- cough. He returned in good health, to do a great work in New York, and, many years later, as second Bishop of Illinois.
100
DIOCESE OF WESTERN NEW YORK
election of its first Bishop than any other layman. This " Pledge " letter, as it was called, was written for the W. N. Y. clergy to sign, and put into the hands of Dr. Bolles and the Rev. William Staunton (the very two who fifty years afterwards told their narratives to the Council of 1885) to circulate. Of course both of them declined taking any such office on themselves, and the letter came to naught, except that the fact of its preparation being known started immediate- ly a movement in favour of the Rev. Dr. Francis L. Hawks, then at the very head of the clergy in popular estimation.
Under these circumstances, together with the Bishop's Address of 1834, met the first Convention of the Church which ever assembled in Western New York; held in the old (and still present) Trinity Church, Utica, Oct. 1, 1835. The first business was the report of the Committee of 1834 on the Bishop's Address, which declared the election of an Assistant Bishop impracticable, and recommended a division of the Diocese as the only possible alternative remedy for present difficulties. The Bishop's Address, immediately following, referred to the action of the General Convention of 1835, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Church to provide for the division of a diocese into two under certain conditions,-a proposition which must be ratified by the General Convention of 1838. But the point that " division " was inevitable (if anything was to be done), was now definitely settled.
Dr. Bolles tells us here of a very remarkable duel of words in this Council between Mr. Spencer and Dr. Hawks (on a matter not germane to our history, the management of the old Church property at Fort Hunter, of which we have spoken on p. 6 supra,) in which the great lawyer "found more than his match," and which possibly contributed to discredit the " Rochester movement," as it was called .* " From this time forward," he says," the great battle for the division of the Diocese was mainly fought upon sound Church principles, no matter what the private motives of a few individuals, here and there, who had their favourite candidates for the Episcopate. Nor is it possible," he adds, for any person, now, to conceive of the difficulties which had to be overcome.
* "It was stigmatized in Utica and Buffalo,"says Dr. Bolles, " as a Rochester rebellion ; and so much opposed to it were some of our Buffalo brethren that they went to the Utica Convention by way of Oswego." The only members from Buffalo, however, were Dr. Shelton and the late George B. Webster.
1898
1798
TRINITY CHURCH, UTICA Consecrated 1806
IOI
STEPS TOWARD A NEW DIOCESE, 1835
" For it was not only the first example of the division of any diocese in our country ; it not only involved the surrender of much of the State pride which had always been felt, as well by Churchmen as by others, for the great State of New York ; but by many of the best and wisest men, it was opposed as an act of suicide, because that without the wealth of Trinity Church, and the City of New York, and the Valley of the Mohawk, we could not exist. There was scarcely a parish in the contemplated new diocese, which was absolutely self-supporting ; not one with an endowment, and almost every one a missionary station. All we could do, there- fore, was to fight the battle as Churchmen, basing ourselves upon the teaching and practice of the Primitive Church, and trusting in God for help and deliverance ; and I hesitate not to say that the best weapon which was used, and the most effective argument, was a pamphlet then published by Professor Whittingham, afterwards the learned Bishop of Maryland."*
I give here some extracts from a letter written in March, 1835, by Professor Whittingham, then in France, as an important testimony to Bishop Onderdonk's part in the erection of a new diocese-a measure to which the Bishop is said, I know not how truly, to have been personally averse.
" Of all your items of news the newest-I might almost say astounding-to me was that Bishop Onderdonk had brought before the last Convention an intimation that the unshared responsibilities of the Diocese are too great for him. I may have misjudged,-nay, I must,-but Bishop Onderdonk is almost the last man from whom I should have looked for such an intimation. Not that I think it improper . far otherwise. I am fully convinced that such is the state of the case, and am most heartily rejoiced that he has felt and avowed it. It is another proof of his manly, Christian, straight- forward openness and honesty. He is a pillar of adamant, not to be moved from the truth and right as he sees and feels it. But if the State of New York should be divided (as I really do not now see why it should not) one can hardly foresee to what results the prece- dent may or may not lead. Many of our States must become too large for dioceses. The House of Bishops must thus be increased. Its powers as a part of our General Convention will be more and
* Journ. W. N. Y. 1885, p. 156. For an abstract of this remarkable letter (from Dr. Brand's Life of Bp. Whittingham, I. 184) See infra, ch. XX. It is an expansion of his remarks on the subject in the N. Y. Convention of 1837, written out at the request of a member deeply impressed by them. (Brand, I. 185. He says a " clergyman of W. N. Y., Mr. De Peyster ; " but there was none of that name.)
102
DIOCESE OF WESTERN NEW YORK
more felt. The representative character of that body will be dimin- ished. There will be an approximation to the old character of the Church in the third or fourth century."
Whether from or in spite of these considerations, Professor Whittingham proved to be the most earnest and effective advocate of the new Diocese in and after the Convention of 1837 .*
In his Address of 1835, the Bishop commends
" The primitive and scriptural mode of contributing to the support of the Church by a perpetual and systematic exercise of charity, under the proper epithet of Offerings of the Church." This, he says, " has recently been introduced, with the happiest results, in various parts of our Communion. Its great outlines are that no man has, on Christian principles, a right to the enjoyment of property, without a thankful acknowledgment of the source whence it is derived, by the offering of a due portion of it to the cause of God; and that according as God has prospered him, he should at stated times give of his abundance plenteously, or of his little, gladly of that little. Judging from the results of this plan which have been elsewhere experienced, I have no doubt that at least twenty thousand dollars could be raised for religious purposes in this Diocese in addition to all now raised, which would be felt as a burden to none. I commend the subject to your serious consideration."
A Committee was appointed, but with no action the next year fur- ther than a general commendation of the subject. t
* Bishop Coxe says in 1885 (speaking of the prevailing notion that a State and Diocese must be conterminous), " Who was it that woke us up to higher and more Catholic ideas? I answer, Dr. Whittingham, afterwards Bishop of Maryland ; his memorable little tract it was that stirred the whole Church." (Cent. Hist. N. Y. 108.) And again : "I well remember the Convention at Utica in 1835; passing through that city to New York, on that very day, I encountered many of the clergy and lay Deputies as they left the canal-packet and exchanged civilities with those who welcomed them. I felt a deep interest in the questions they came to consider, but little dreamed of the import to myself of their action." (Journ. W. N. Y. 1885, p. 43.)
+ Shortly after this Convention, occurred (Dec. 16,1835) what is still remembered as " the Great Fire" of New York. The next Sunday Dr. Whittingham, who had seen it from his home in Orange, N. J., preached a striking sermon (which has not been preserved) on the subject. Immediately after the service it was asked for by a member of the congregation (of Grace Church, New York), who on obtaining it with some difficulty from the preacher, said, "For this I shall give you $20,000 to be expended by you on such charities as you may choose." The money was paid the next day, and acknowledgments of various contribu-
103
STEPS TOWARD A NEW DIOCESE, 1835
This plan of "offerings of the Church," which seems so common- place and matter-of-course in this day (little as it is practically lived up to) was first brought conspicuously into notice a little before this by Bishop Doane of New Jersey ; and one W. N. Y. clergyman (Dr. Benjamin Dorr of Utica) had already tried it faithfully, " persuaded that no plan so efficient can be cherished."*
This year for the first time appears no account of any Episcopal visitation of Western New York, the Bishop having been occupied by attendance at the General Convention in August and September. I find in the Missionary Reports the interesting fact of the organiza- tion of Grace Church in the "Upper Town " of Lockport, giving that place, still only a village, two churches, which only Rochester had had up to this time. But the Lockport missionary (the Rev. Sam- uel M'Burney) officiated regularly also at Lewiston, Niagara Falls, and Youngstown, the latter place however having no parish till many years later. Christ Church, Oswego, under the Rev. John M'Carty, sets a good example by relinquishing the missionary stipend with an acknowledgment (by the vestry) of all it had received as " a debt to be paid by liberal contributions from time to time." At Ellicottville and Olean, a Deacon (the Rev. Thomas Morris) "is much encour- aged " in his work, though the nearest Priest is fifty miles away. The Rev. George H. Norton is pained to acknowledge that S. Paul's Church, Allen's Hill, is in "a very Laodicean condition," but is comforted by the propriety and devotion with which the service is kept up (even with only lay-reading) by the people of Trinity Church, Centrefield. "It is indeed reviving," he says, "to any clergyman who is not accustomed to an animated performance of our Liturgy, to visit a people like those who compose this parish, who are so spiritually minded, and sustain with such admirable effect the respon- sive parts of our public service," a people who " till four years ago were entire strangers to our Church."t Christ Church, Sher-
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.