SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD; 
 
 OR, 
 
 ®1)C Hector's €urc of Souls. 
 
 A CONTRIBUTION TO THE TKINITY CHURCH QUESTION. 
 
JlS^ 
 
 Qass. 
 Book 
 
SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD; 
 
 OR, 
 
 ®[)c llector'0 €ure of 0oul0- 
 
 A CONTEIBUTION TO THE TKmiTY CHDKCH QUESTION. 
 
 BY ONE OF THE DISFRANCHISED. 
 
 O J J ' J -> 
 
 J^ 3 ' 'j '' 
 
 33'€rD'-Sork 
 
 1857. 
 

 01 
 
 '^e^\ocje-r>ien^ ^^Pf 
 
 ■W,"^^ 
 
SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD. 
 
 In controversy, it is, above all things, necessary to distin- 
 guish the true issue, both from side issues, and from false 
 issues. 
 
 In the present controversy concerning Trinity Corpora- 
 tion, tJtere is no issue betvveen agrarianism and the rights of 
 property, neither is there any issue between Church and. 
 State. Nor have speculators, or radicals, or infidels, com- 
 menced this movement. The controversy has arisen from 
 within the bosom of the Episcopal Church itself 
 
 It is well known, that for several years past, there has 
 been a deep and almost universal dissatisfaction felt among 
 the Churchmen of New- York, with regard to the policy of 
 Trinity Corporation; a dissatisfaction amounting, in the case 
 of many, to burning indignation. 
 
 It is well known that several of the most distinguished 
 Ministers of Trinity Parish have shared in this feeling ; 
 and no one to a greater extent than the late lamented Bishop:) 
 WaiWJiright. The feeling was, that the Corporation was not 
 awake to its responsibilities. Like the Bourbons, it seemed 
 " not to belong to this century." Around all was activity; 
 within was torpor, if not stagnation. Clergymen grieved, 
 and laymen protested. 
 
It was natural, it was almost inevitable, under the circum- 
 stances, that some one of the many representatives of the 
 City of New- York should bring the"matter before the Legisla- 
 ture. It was so brought, and a Committee of Inquiry ap- 
 pointed. Since the appointment of this Committee, there has 
 been a remarkable and unprecedented revival in the parish. 
 But no flush of revival in the immediate parish, — however 
 it might silence the particular clergymen to whose zeal and 
 earnestness it is in the main owing — could be expected to 
 obliterate the causes of complaint which had all along existed, 
 and were still existing. These complaints were not mere fault- 
 finding, but based on principle. It was felt that while men might 
 do as they pleased with their own^ Trustees could not do as 
 they pleased with the property of others. 
 
 And the idea was generally entertained that the property of 
 this Corporation was a Sacred Trust Fund; that it ought to be 
 administered as a trust; that it was to be used specially for 
 the poor; and that, by charter, it belonged to, or was for the 
 benefit of, "all the inhabitants of the city in communion with 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church." 
 
 And so truly has this question of Trusteeship for the bene- 
 fit of '' all" been found to lie at the bottom of the whole mat- 
 ter, that, as it appears, the Senate "Committee of Inquiry" 
 has found the solution of this question to be the only practical 
 solution and relief of which the case of Trinity Corporation 
 admitted. It has, accordingly, recommended the repeal of that 
 portion of the Law of 1814, which is claimed to give the 
 Trinity Corporation the monopoly of a property originally 
 granted for the benefit of the whole Island. 
 
 Upon the iniquity of this Law, and upon the change of poli- 
 cy which followed its enactment, the dissatisfaction had been 
 mostly founded. There could, therefore, be no final issue to the 
 controversy, without some action with reference to this funda- 
 mental grievance. Indeed, already eflforts had been made to 
 eflfect the modification of this Law. Strong memorials had 
 
gone up to tlie Legislatures of 1846 and 1847, petitioning 
 for this. And contemporaneously with the session of the pre- 
 sent Committee of Inquiry, a meeting of Episcopal clergy- 
 men and laymen of the city, of all shades of theological 
 opinion, — among them a large number of those persons more 
 especially distinguished for their Christian liberality, — was held 
 to consider the whole question in controversy. This meeting 
 has resulted in an earnest effort to secure the repeal or modifi- 
 cation of the Law of 1814. Petitions and memorials, largely 
 signed, have gone up to Albany, with this object in view. 
 
 The controversy thus narrows itself down to this one issue, 
 to which it has constantly tended, and vvhich, from the nature of 
 the case, lies at its root. 
 
 It is the issue between the two opposing parties, claiming 
 the control and the benefits of a property left to " the Rector," 
 " together with all the inhabitants of the City of New-York, in 
 communion with the Church of England." It is the issue be- 
 tween the right to this property of all the inhabitants of the 
 City of New- York, in communion with the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church, and the right of three hundred and five corpo- 
 rators, all told : dead and alive, ministers and sextons, inhab- 
 itants of Brooklyn and of Saratoga county. 
 
 Those who are earnest in pressing this matter to some con- 
 clusion, may be right or they may be wrong in making this 
 issue. But this is the issue made, and not any other. All 
 other points raised are immaterial, if not insignificant ; or 
 based upon this issue. 
 
 It matters little, therefore, as bearing upon the principal is- 
 sue, that Trinity Corporation has expended large sums for 
 Christian objects. 
 
 It could not possibly have done otherwise, as its funds were 
 available only for Christian objects. A corporation which has 
 enjoyed for one hundred and fifty years aj large property, now 
 
6 
 
 worth five millions, and of which the income has from time to 
 time largely exceeded all possible expenses, could not fail in 
 the course of so many years, to help on the building of 
 a great many churches, &c. But before we admit the pre- 
 tentious claim of munificence, which is paraded on all sides 
 like the pompous '' MUNIFICENTIA" with which the sta- 
 tues at Rome are labelled, with a view of trumpeting forth 
 the munificence of some particular Pope ; as we inquire at 
 Rome, so we want to know, at home, whether the fleecing of 
 any poor sheep, whether the seizure of that to which the poor 
 had a right, has at all helped on the ability to make this pre- 
 tentious exhibit. 
 
 The only real point which these charities make — until the 
 above question be settled — is this, that the Vestry have not 
 appropriated the funds to their own personal uses. And this is 
 one of the strong points put forth by the advocates of the 
 Corporation. But surely honorable men must wince under such 
 commendation. It is almost an insult. "A Christian Corpo- 
 ration has not become a den of thieves." " The officers of the 
 Church have not committed sacrilege." Make the most of 
 this, and how little does it amount to! What bearing has it 
 on the main issue ? 
 
 It matters not again that Trinity Corporation has a large 
 debt. 
 
 The debt is almost equal to the cost of Trinity Church and 
 Chapel ; and it remains to be proved that it was not incurred 
 to meet this cost. A debt is no. incumbrance upon a property 
 which increases in yearly value to an amount far exceeding 
 the annual interest. A debt is a measure recommended by 
 policy in a Corporation of this character. It can be thrown, 
 as dust, into the eyes of men, to ward off speculation, confis- 
 cation, and applications for aid. 
 
 It matters little further that individual members of a Corpo- 
 ration have benevolent schemes in their hearts. These 
 
schemes may not be adopted, or acted upon by the Corpora- 
 tion at large, and they may be repudiated, when occasion 
 serves, by other individuals, as the projects laid before the 
 Legislature of 1814 have been repudiated. A pious imagina- 
 tion devises schemes, but a cautious vestry refuses to endorse 
 them. How rapidly do the beautiful castles in the air, seen in 
 the "fancy" of a most excellent man,* disappear in the strong 
 light of a few stern "facts." Benevolence said — "Build no 
 Chapel for the Fifth avenue." But the Vestry said — " Let us 
 build for our old 'associates.'" Benevolence said: "Spend 
 then only $40,000." But the Vestry said : •' We will spend 
 $79,000." And presently mismanagement and extravagance 
 quietly run the amount up to 8230,000 ; and the scene 
 closes upon Benevolence, with its beautiful schemes still on 
 paper^ and the Vestry with its beautiful Chapel, in the glorious 
 reality of stone and gilding and color. 
 
 The rifling disposition of the Vestry, and the influence of 
 Benevolence, and the result of the whole matter, are easily 
 summed up. Benevolence pleads : " You build Dives a palace, 
 while yet Lazarus lies at your gates." And the Vestry quietly 
 replies : " Dives is an old parishioner, and one of our most 
 respectable citizens." 
 
 But for all this — notwithstanding the failure of Benevolence 
 — his schemes are excellent, and may possibly be carried out. 
 But the question is not (it always comes back to this) : " To what 
 use shall this property he put? hut — " Who are entitled to its 
 control .?" If Trinity's monopoly is unrighteous, all her deeds 
 are poisoned. 
 
 To use the legacy left to heirs, not for thev, advantage, but 
 to carry out our own schemes, can scarcely be called benevo- 
 lence ; it is not even honesty. 
 
 To expend the property of others in our name, and as our 
 own corporate alms, and to seek credit for generosity while so 
 doing, is insufferable meanness. 
 
 * See communication from John A. Dix to the Select Committee of the Senate. 
 
To build a temple, — not as David prepared to build, who 
 said : ''I will not offer unto the Lord my God, of that which 
 doth cost me nothing ;" to give, — not as Mary gave, bestowing 
 her own costly ointment ; but to give the money provided by 
 Christ for the poor^ to build therewith a Temple : this is not 
 building to the glory of God. This is not a parallel case with 
 that which Christ sanctioned, when He thought it "no waste" 
 to overlook the poor, in doing Him honor. But this is such a 
 case, as if Judas had used the money of the bag intended for the 
 'poor, to buy costly ointment therewith, and make a show of 
 zeal and liberality. This, indeed, is a work *'for Christ's 
 burying," in the most fearful sense of those words. 
 
 Undoubtedly, the right or wrong of all these " benevo- 
 lences," " schemes," and " chapels," depends upon this single 
 question, whether this property of Trinity is a trust or not ; is 
 for the poor or not; is for " all," or for a part. To this ques- 
 tion — On which side lie the rights in the case ? — all rhetoric 
 must give place. 
 
 There is a singular imperviousness, however, on the part of 
 the advocates of the Corporation, not only to the justice of 
 the claims made, but even to the fact that such are made. 
 It is amusing to notice the cross purposes of the argu- 
 mentation both in pamphlets and conversation. The charge 
 is made : " You give us not our heritage." 
 
 The answer replies : " We give you our alms." 
 
 Charge — " You defraud the city of its rights." 
 
 Answer — *' We are benevolent to the country." 
 
 Charge — " You dispose of that which is not your own." 
 
 Answer — " We never appopriate aught to our own personal 
 uses." 
 
 Charge — " You rob Peter to pay Paul." 
 
9 
 
 Answe?'—" Feier is rich enough to take care of himself." 
 
 Charge — " You have divided the Parish, yet retained the 
 whole fund. ''^ 
 
 Answer — " The division destroys your right to any benefit 
 from the Fund." 
 
 Charge — " Your new gate of 1814 shuts out thousands of 
 the poor and emigrants, who, by the Charter, would be under 
 *' the Rector's care of souls ;" and for the tenth part of whom 
 your Churches do not give accommodation." And the cool 
 answer is : " All such are now not of the Parish." 
 
 Thus the issue is either ignored, or else the whole question 
 begged. But, of course, this fencing must come to an end 
 some time, and the issue be met manfully and fairly. It is 
 to this principal issue that the attention of every earnest 
 Churchman should be directed. It matters little what Trinity 
 may do with her own ; hut if the spiritualhj destitute in our 
 midst are defrauded of a spiritual provision intended for iJmir 
 benefit, it is a sin against which every honest heart must rise up 
 with indignation. 
 
 This is the point now to be considered. 
 
 It appears that the Corporation, by the Charter of 1697, 
 consisted of " The Rector, together with all the inhabitants 
 from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit in the city of New- 
 York, and in communion with the Protestant Church of Eng- 
 land." 
 
 It appears, further, that the law of 1784 — passed after the 
 Revolution — annulled all privileges inconsistent with our 
 American and republican principles, but ratified and de- 
 termined all other rights of the Corporation. On the subject 
 of the qualification of Corporators, it determined as follows : 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 *' And whereas doubts have arisen on those parts of the said 
 Charter and Law .first above mentioned, which speak of 
 inhabitants in communion of the said Church of England, for 
 removal thereof: "Be it further enacted by the authority 
 aforesaid, that all 'persons jorofessiiig themselves meinhers of the 
 Episcopal Church, who shall either hold, occupy, or enjoy a 
 pew or seat in the said Church, and shall regularly pay to the 
 support of said Church, and such others as shall, in the said 
 Church, partake of the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 
 at least once in every year, being inhabitants of the city and 
 county of New- York, shall he entitled to all the rights, privi- 
 leges, benefits and emoluments which in and by the said Char- 
 ter and Law above mentioned are designed to be secured to the 
 inhabitants of the city of New-York in communion of the 
 Church of England." 
 
 The term " Episcopal Church," used in this Law, does 
 not mean Trinity Church, which is mentioned by name when 
 reference is made to it, but the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
 It will be noticed that these terms, which give the conditions 
 by which inhabitants of the city might be qualified to vote, 
 are not exclusive of rights previously existing. It is not en- 
 acted, as in the Law of 1814, that these shall have the privi- 
 lege, ''a7id no other persons." 
 
 All those who possessed the elective franchise before, viz : 
 all the inhabitants in the city, " in communion with the Church 
 of England," possessed this franchise still ; for as Mr. John 
 C. Spencer forcibly declares, ''it is maintained upon the clear- 
 est and best settled principles of law, that all acts and charters 
 in relation to Trinity Church, form one body of laws, upon the 
 same subject, which are to have full eflfect and operation in 
 every particular, in which they have not been repealed, in ex- 
 press terms, or by a subsequent repugnant provision."* 
 
 Now, this privilege of franchise granted by the Charter 
 to all communicants of the City, was so far from being 
 
 ♦ Examination of Minority Report, 1846, p. 34. 
 
11 
 
 repealed by this act of 1784, that the 1st section of that law 
 expressly enacts, that nothing in this law shall be in any wise 
 construed to annul, injure, repeal, or make void the said Charter, 
 where the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution of this 
 Stale. " The rio-hts of communicants under the Charter were 
 not inconsistent, &c.," and remained therefore as before. The 
 intention of the act was to enlarge, not to restrict the elective 
 franchise. The words " in communion with," in theXharter, 
 might be interpreted to mean comm*inicants only ; or to in- 
 clude also members by baptism, or any persons professing them- 
 selves members of the Church. Now the law of 1784 inter- 
 preted these words so as to favor the latter construction. It 
 admitted *' all persons professing themselves members of the 
 Episcopal Church, who should hold a pew in said Church." It 
 also recognized the right of any who should, at least once 
 every year, partake of the Holy Sacrament in said Church. 
 But this was surplusage, as we have seen ; for the right already 
 belonged to every communicant. 
 
 All that Colonel Troup pretends is, that the law annihilated 
 " the exclusive right vested in the communicants to vote for 
 charter officers, by dividing it with those who should hold pews 
 or seats in Trinity Church, and contribute to its support."* 
 
 And in accordance with this interpretation, the title of the 
 Corporation was changed in 1788, to " the Rector and inhabit- 
 ants of tlie city of New -York ^ in communion with the Protest- 
 ant Episcopal Church in the State of New- York." 
 
 Upon this enactment, interpreting, preserving, and enforcing 
 the original charter, the claim is founded, that all the inhabit- 
 ants of the city of New- York, in communion with the Episco- 
 pal Church, have a true title in Christian equity, to be mem- 
 bers of the Corporation established by the Charter. All these 
 inhabitants are claimed to have this title, except those who 
 can be proved to have relinquished their rights in the premises. 
 
 ♦Troup's Remarks, p. 34. 
 
12 
 
 In equity and in law previous to 1814 they had this title — 
 in equity, they have it still — but in law, no longer ; for the 
 law of 1814, passed at the solicitation of the then Corporation 
 of Trinity Church, in the most arbitrary manner, deprived the 
 " inhabitants of the City" at large, of their rights as corporators, 
 and confined the privilege to the congregations of Trinity 
 Church and its Chapels. 
 
 In support of this law, %nd of the principle upon which it is 
 based — it is contended, that •' corporators seceding into an- 
 other corporation, renounce the privileges of the corporation 
 from which tliey have withdrawn." 
 
 The assertion, as stated in these words, is no argument, but 
 simply a begging of the question : for the very point at issue 
 is this — whether certain corporators have " seceded" or " with- 
 drawn" from the Corporation of Trinity Church. 
 
 If the assertion is meant to imply, that the same persons can- 
 not be members of two different corporations at one and the 
 same time, it is singularly at variance with our whole church 
 practice ; that of the corporators of Trinity included. 
 
 Nothing is more common, than for corporators of Trinity to 
 hold pews, and have the right of voting in a country church, 
 and sometimes in a city church, as well as at Trinity. It has 
 also happened to a vestry-man of Trinity Corporation to be- 
 come not onl} a corporator, but even a vestry-man in a new 
 corporation. It has also happened to a vestryman of Trinity 
 Corporation to be returned as delegate to Convention, by 
 another corporation. 
 
 We are further told, by way of makeweight, that " tlie 
 original charter of St. Peter's, Albany, entitles that church, 
 " The Rector and inhabitants of A^lbany, in communion, 
 (kc." " Bui who has ever dreamed of grounding on this title a 
 " right," in St. Paul's, and Holy Innocents, and other 
 churches in Albany, to vote for Wardens and Vestrymen of 
 St. Peter's?" 
 
13 
 
 But it must be remembered that there was a difficulty to he 
 solved, both in New-York and in Albany. The difficulty was 
 this : " Given a territorial parish, with a Mother Church not 
 sufficient to accommodate the inhabitants; to determine in 
 what manner diudi onivhat terms provision shall be made for 
 new church accommodation." Such a difficulty may be, and 
 is, variously solved, and it is not necessary that the solution 
 adopted in one place should determine the solution everywhere 
 else.* 
 
 In difficulties of this kind, the propriety of the arrangement 
 made must depend upon the circumstances, upon the agree- 
 ment entered into between the parties, and upon its general 
 equity. 
 
 Now, it is evidently equitable that, when the endowment is 
 barely sufficient for one church, the Mother Church has the 
 best ri"-ht to it ; and it is but reasonable that the new churches 
 should relinquish all claun to it. But lohere Vie endowment is 
 amply sufficient for all, and where a Vestry act, not princi- 
 pally as managers for a few congregations, but as trustees for 
 a fund for the benefit of " all the inhabitants" of the city, it is 
 but equity here that all the inhabitants should have something 
 to say with reference to the election of those trustees. 
 
 Or another solution would be equitable, on which a parallel 
 case throws light : '' The division of the Diocese," says Dr. 
 Berrian {History of Trinity Church, p. 312), '' involved with it 
 also, in some measure, a division of the Fund. Such a portion 
 of the capital of it was necessarily ivithdrawn for the support 
 
 * New-York solved \t first hy building chapels, whose congregations had the 
 right of corporators. Was it wrong in consequence, for Albany to solve it in a 
 different way, bj' establishing independent c\v\xxc\ies without the rights of corpo- 
 rators ] And because Albany solved it in this new way, wtis it wrong there- 
 fore for New-York to adopt still another new way ! If precedents are to deter- 
 mine this point, must we not go back to the original precedent — the plan of a 
 Mother Church and chapels 1 Might it not, with still greater justice, be con- 
 tended that the Churches of Albany ought to he only chapels of St. Peter's, and 
 their Rectors Assistant Ministers thereof ^ 
 
/ 14 
 
 /'of the Bishops of Western New- York," &c. Now substitute 
 the word Parish for the word Diocese, and the sentence reads 
 wiih proper grammatical changes : " the division of a Parish 
 involves with it, in some measure, a division of the Fund ;" and 
 "such a portion of the capital" is ''necessarily withdrawn for 
 the support," &c. Now, doubtless, if the Parish of Albany- 
 had owned $5,000,000, either this solution of the difficulty, 
 or that which is insisted on in New-York, would have been 
 insisted on in Albany. But Trinity Corporation rejects both 
 these solutions — it rejects equally the idea of a " division," 
 and the idea of a general election of Trustees for a common 
 fund. 
 
 It did, indeed, proceed originally on the plan of dividing the 
 property ; and wherever it has set off churches and endowed 
 them with a generous and sufficient provision, with their fair 
 share of the property, and with an implied understanding that 
 these churches would relinquish the claim to control and benefit 
 by the remainder, the equity is fairly on the side of Trinity. 
 But such cases are exceptional, and affect half a dozen 
 churches at the utmost. 
 
 Again: it is urged that the " citizens of New- York did not, 
 by the Charter of 1697, derive their interest in the Corpora- 
 tion of Trinity Church by virtue of their being inhabitants of 
 the city, and in communion with the Church of England, hut 
 by virtue of their being under the jurisdiction ecclesiastical of the 
 Rector of Trinity Churchy inhabitants of the Parish, and in 
 communion with the Church of England." In other words, 
 a third condition is here introduced — the " being under the 
 jurisdiction ecclesiastical of the Eector of Trinity Church" — 
 a condition which it is notable does not appear in the 
 " Charter," from beginning to end, nor in the Law of 1704, 
 nor in the Act of 1784, nor in the Title of 1788. The other 
 conditions do appear in all these. 
 
 But it may be claimed, that though not the letter, yet the 
 spirit of the law implies this condition. An interpretation, 
 however, which involves a reductio ad absurdum : an interpre- 
 
15 
 
 tation which manages to interpret " all the inhabitants of the 
 City of New-York" in such wise as to exclude nine-tenths of 
 those inhabitants ; and then, by a double somerset back- 
 wards, to make the same '' all the inhabitants of the City of 
 New-York," now include inhabitants o^ Brooklyn 2Lnd of Sara- 
 toga County ; — an interpretation of this kind may be amusing 
 as a piece of jugglery, but it is a feat of legerdemain that does 
 not appear so well by daylight. 
 
 If this is the spirit of the Charter, as opposed to the letter, 
 it is an "evil spirit," and the sooner it is exorcised and cast 
 out the better. 
 
 The argument, however, has the merit of suggesting a new 
 idea of a Rector's relation to God's bounties. For, it seems 
 to be admitted, that if the grant had been to " all the inhabit- 
 ants," without particular specification of the Rector, the grant 
 would be available unto this day for "all;" but somehow the 
 fact of a Rector is made to operate as a bar to the flow of 
 God's mercies. There being a Rector, many of the inhabit- 
 ants lose their spiritual portion ; not that they have done any 
 tiling which the Rector does not sanction — for this is not pre- 
 tended ; — not that the Rector fails of his duly — for this is not 
 allowed : but that by virtue of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
 the minister of God is a disinheritor of God's people. Christ 
 multiplied the loaves, and gave them to the Apostles to dis- 
 tribute to the people ; and they distributed, till all had eaten, 
 and were full. And God has multiplied the loaves in our day ; 
 but somehow X\\\^ successor of the Apostles, the modern Rector, 
 is no longer to be agent for distributing, that all may be filled — 
 but becomes transmuted, by some legal technicality, into a 
 withholding power, by virtue of which the poor may be sent 
 " empty away." He becomes a sort of Doctor of Barataria, 
 whose office it is to order off the tempting viands which smoke 
 in the nostrils of the famished man. 
 
 Whether law is so very much at variance with common 
 sense, and every principle of Christianity, may very well be 
 
16 
 
 doubted. Indeed, the argument is but an assumption, and can- 
 not, for a moment, be sustained by law.* Distinguished Jurists 
 contend that numerous precedents, and the whole analogy of 
 the law, are at variance with the position maintained by the 
 argument in reply. 
 
 Be this so or no, a direct issue is made ; and we have here a 
 question for the courts. But unfortunately the Legislature of 
 1814 took the question from the courts. 
 
 The Chancellor of the period said : " If any doubts exist re- 
 specting such rights of suffrage, it is consistent with the salu- 
 tary principles of the Constitution of this State, to refer 
 them to the judicial cognizance, as the appropriate and 
 legitimate resort of adverse complainants in controverted cases 
 of that description." But the Law of 1814 was, nevertheless, 
 passed; and the Chancellor himself was prevailed upon to 
 vote for it, and also Chancellor Kent, then a comparatively 
 young man. 
 
 Chancellor Kent, however, on maturer reflection, did not 
 hesitate to pronounce the law unconstitutional. '\ It is true, 
 that this is not a judicial opinion. But when the circum- 
 stances are considered, great weight must be attached, at 
 least to the convictions of this eminent Jurist. For in 
 cominfj to this conclusion, he was forced to tread under foot, 
 not only his own early opinions, but his deliberate and legisla- 
 tive acts. And in avowing these convictions, he was publish- 
 ing the wrongs which he had committed against others. 
 Surely, then, none but the most conscientious and well- 
 grounded convictions could ever have induced him to take up 
 and avow the opinion that the Law of 1814 was "unconstitu- 
 tional." 
 
 Now the issue at present made is, whether this Law of 1814 
 shall be so modified as to be divested of its '^ unconstitutionaV^ 
 
 * A discussion of this and the collateral point will be found in the Appendix. 
 t Evidence, upon oath, to this effect, appears in the testimony appended to the 
 Report of the Senate Committee. 
 
17 
 
 features, and to leave the disputed question open to " the appro- 
 priate and legitimaie resort of adverse claimants in controverted 
 cases of that descriptionJ' 
 
 The Law of 1814 is shown to be a Law in which, avowedly, 
 the Legislature has usurped the powers of the Judiciary. 
 The Law of 1814, even if it does not deprive citizens of 
 their rights, as is maintained, undeniably deprives them of 
 a fair and equitable opportunity for deciding this question 
 of their rights in the courts. The Law of 1814 was regretted 
 by the very man, loithout whose vote it never could have become 
 a law — for Chancellor Kent's vote decided the question. And 
 in fine, the Law of 1814 was declared unconstitutional by the 
 highest legal authority which this State has produced. 
 
 The Law of 1814 was, moreover, an act of special legisla- 
 tion ; and nothing more is asked, but that this special legisla- 
 tion be set aside, that the question may be amicably decided, 
 before the proper Tribunals, upon its merits. And can it 
 be that any lover of fair play ; any man in whose veins flows 
 the blood of a statesman ; any man who has at heart the inter- 
 ests and the peace of the Church, can refuse earnest men a 
 full hearing of their claim before the Courts, on equal vantage 
 ground with their opponents ? 
 
 Undoubtedly this is the only course by which the peace of the 
 Church can be secured. This is not the first time that this 
 issue has been made before the Legislature, and it will cer- 
 tainly not be the last. The Legislature is always open. It 
 cannot c?ose a question. And those who consider themselves out- 
 raged by the course pursued by Trinity Corporation, and who 
 know the poor of the city to^ be sufferers thereby, have every 
 motive to press this matter, so often as an opening presents 
 itself. 
 
 When the Courts decide the point, there will be an end to 
 these excitements and hard feelings. The Vestry-men of 
 Trinity are confident of the righteousness of their cause— 
 they ought not to fear its consideration by the calm and 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 deliberate judgment of our Tribunals. And if the Courts do 
 decide that "all the inhabitants," &c., are entitled to vote 
 for the Trustees of this property, no honest man, however 
 much he may fear the confusion at elections that may ensue, 
 but must be pleased that the great mass of our population have 
 regained their rights. 
 
 But, in fact, these fears of confusion are not well grounded. 
 A Committee, mutually agreed upon* by the principal parties 
 at issue, can, surely, in the exercise of Christian wisdom and 
 moderation, hit upon some plan by which confusion may be 
 avoided. 
 
 It may be agreed upon that the Rectors of parishes — as 
 representatives of the voters of their parishes — should sit with 
 the Vestry as assessors, and no action be taken without 
 their consent. Or, the Senior Wardens may act in this ca- 
 pacity; or, delegates specially elected in each parish at 
 Easter ; or, such delegates may be elected to present the 
 proxies of the congregation at Trinity Church, on Easter 
 Tuesday ; or, by compromise, the Legislature may be re- 
 quested so to modify the incidentals of election as to permit 
 the Vestry to be voted for at Convention by the delegates of 
 the City Parishes. Or, the Chapels of Trinity may be set 
 off as independent Churches, and the Rector retain Trinity 
 Church ; in this way there will no interference of congre- 
 gation with congregation, except in the case of the Trinity 
 congregation, which is of a missionary character. Or, after 
 the death of the present Rector, the Bishop may be elected 
 as Rector— the Bishops have generally been the Rectors— 
 and Trinity congregation also, in such case, elect its own 
 minister. Or, by a compromise, the present corporators of 
 Trinity may retain a property sufficient to support their 
 present Church and Chapels, and to carry on any good work 
 down town ; and the remainder be divided into a fund to 
 pay off the debt, a fund for missionary operations in the two 
 dioceses of the State, a fund for the support of feeble city 
 parishes, a fund for religious institutions; and, lasdy and 
 chiefly, a fund for church-extension and free chapels in the 
 
19 
 
 citv, of which fund the Bisliop shall be the chief Trustee or 
 Rector, and the communicants of the city the corporators. 
 
 By some plan of this sort — and a hundred such will suggest 
 themselves — all confusion may be avoided. Or, the whole 
 question may be compromised without the expense and delay of 
 law. Bnt no compromise can be accepted which does not 
 proceed upon the basis that the Vestry shall act — 1. As 
 Trustees ; 2. As Trustees for the whole city ; and 3. For the 
 benefit of the poor rather than the rich. 
 
 It is from the rejection of this basis that all the present mis- 
 management, and the almost universal dissatisfaction, has re- 
 sulted. 
 
 When a wealthy Corporation acts not as Trustee, but 
 in its own rig;ht, it is obnoxious to all the dantrers which beset 
 wealth on the one hand, and corporation life on the other. If, 
 even in the case of Christian soids, •' they that will be rich fall 
 into temptation and a snare," much more will this be the 
 case with a Corporation that " has no soul," from which the 
 only safeguard against the corruption of wealth — namely, in- 
 dividual responsibility — is eliminated. 
 
 The fault is not in the men, but in the system. The Vestry 
 of Trinity is composed of men of high standing — some of them 
 rank among the noblest in the city. And the Rector, as every 
 one knows, occupies a place in the regards of the Church and 
 of the community, second to none of his contemporaries in the 
 ministry. 
 
 Inheriting an unwise policy — nurtured in an age of less re- 
 ligious activity — hampered by the unproductiveness of a 
 property so large as to excite large expectations — the victims 
 of mismanagements, and of costs trebling estimates — pressed 
 on all sides for favors far exceeding their capacity to extend — 
 burdened each with his own absorbing business, and obhged to 
 trust almost wholly to committees — and more than all, having 
 the feeling that they might do what they pleased ivith their 
 own — they hav^ certainly fallen very far short of what could 
 have been desired, but not of what might have been expected. 
 
20 
 
 The property standing in their own right, they naturally dis- 
 posed of it, as other men dispose of their own private means; 
 not on abstract principles, according to the measure of need, 
 and independently of personal considerations, but according 
 as they had a favor unto one, or were under the injluence of 
 another. 
 
 And as things went by favor, very naturally they " took . 
 care of their friends ;" and the charges of nepotism and 
 ecclesiastical partisanship lie at their door. These charges, 
 indeed, have been denied ; and to the extent and in the 
 sense in which they are denied, the denial is doubtless 
 true. No one supposes that the theology of claimants is 
 ope I discussed at Vestry meetings. But that friendship, 
 affinity, and companionship through many a hard fought Con- 
 vention battle, — that circumstances like these 1iave not affected 
 the votes of individuals in the Vestry, — this no one living in 
 New-York, who is at all aufait, will pretend to doubt. And 
 indeed, why should they not ? On the principles of the Vestry, 
 such a course is perfectly justifiable. They were disposing — not 
 as Trustees, impartially — but in their own right, and of their 
 own property. And who does not help his friends more than 
 his adversaries ? Who does not seek to further the cause which 
 he believes to be orthodox, more than that which is somewhat 
 doubtful ? Accordingly, the Vestry must have been either more 
 or less than human not to have been moved by considerations 
 of this character. There is nothing to be ashamed of in all 
 this — if t lie principles he sound which they entertain respecting 
 the tenure of their property. 
 
 So again, as things went not only by favor but by influence, 
 the rich had an advantage over the poor and helpless. The cler- 
 gyman of a weak congregation just struggling into life, received 
 a stipend of ^200 a year ; the Rector of a comparatively wealthy 
 church sometimes received double and treble that amount. 
 So, again, the principle frequently avowed of contributing one- 
 third of the whole amount to be raised, necrssarily led t(3 the 
 result that the richer congregations, contributing most, received 
 most. 
 
21 
 
 UjJon their own principles, again, it was proper to provide first 
 for their own parish, and to distribute even to poorer parishes 
 only " the fragments that remained over and above." 
 
 Hence it has happened that, while Emmanuel Church, the 
 Church of the Good Shepherd, the Church of the Holy Mar- 
 tyrs, the Church of the Advent, and St. Timothy's Church, all 
 situated in districts of extreme poverty, were without church- 
 buildings of their own, the gorgeous pile of the new chapel 
 was erected for the old parishioners of Trinity, in the very 
 centre of wealth and fashion. It was erected at an expense 
 sufficient to provide all those five congregations with buildings, 
 if not so complete, yet of the size of the Church of the As- 
 cension. 
 
 On their own principles, again, the Corporation can justify the 
 fact that the congregation of the chapel, with their church 
 built for them, are not required to support the annual expen- 
 ses of the chapel, save in part ; and that their annual expenses 
 amount, if report be true, to $12,000 a year — a sum sufficient 
 to build a free church annually. 
 
 Again, on their own princip)les, they can justify the tact, that 
 after having been led on to spend $150,000 more than they had 
 intended on the chapel, and $230,000 in all, when they found 
 themselves able to spend an additional sum of $28,000, they 
 devoted this, not to the benefit of any of these houseless con- 
 gregations, but to build a new chancel and additions to St. 
 John's Chapel ; in part, indeed, for schools and repairs, but in 
 main part for alterations, for ornament, for bravery and sliow ; 
 which improvements, so called, whether advisable or not, surely 
 might have been delayed till some effective measures had been 
 taken to relieve actual distress. 
 
 Again, on their own principles, supposing the question to 
 arise between giving §2,000 annually to the Orphan's Home, or 
 the same sum for the music at Trinity Chapel, it would be na- 
 tural for them to disburse the money for the latter object. 
 
22 
 
 True, the congregation of Trinity Chapel, not having been 
 burdened with the expense of the building, not being burdened, 
 except so far as pew-rents go towards it, with the support of 
 the clergymen, were as abundantly able to provide their own 
 music as other congregations are which have to bear these ad- 
 ditional burdens, over and above the expenses for music. True, 
 also, nothing so appeals to the heart as the case of a helpless 
 orphan. God looks down upon a child lying in the midst of 
 misery and vice. Christ calls to His Church to care for that 
 child. If left to its fate, it is almost certain to lose its spiritual 
 inheritance ; if nurtured by God's people, it is almost certain 
 of a home in Heaven. The angels of these little ones behold 
 the face of the Father in Heaven ; they bear the announce- 
 ment of the rescue of these children of the kins^dom, into that 
 which is within the veil. And surely no music is sweeter to 
 God than the psalm of thanksgiving which the angels sing over 
 a child thus saved from sin and shame. But, on the other 
 hand, to the ^' old pcwish loners,'^ the music of the psalms as sung 
 by a choice choir may be sweeter. They may prefer the hear- 
 ing of earthly chant and antiphon, to the knowledge of an- 
 gelic rejoicings; the pleasing of their own ears, to the salva- 
 tion of the little ones for whom Christ died. 
 
 At any rate, the Vestry have preferred that destination of 
 their money which has provided for the songs of Zion, and 
 not for its fatherless children. 
 
 And though this be not in accordance with the saintly idea 
 of Christianity, yet, as things go, it is in accordance with the 
 disposition which every man makes of^ his own. And the 
 A'^estry, dispensing ^/zeiV own and providing ' (or their oivn, s-re 
 not so very much worse than others. But if God did give this 
 property, and multiplied it, and set it apart as a sacred trust for 
 the good of His poor, and did not give it to the Corporation to 
 be disposed of as it should please, without reference to claim, 
 need, or suffering, how piteous has been the mistake ! 
 
 Even a inother, however, will clothe h^r own children in 
 
velvet, though others walk in rags. And a Corporation cannot 
 be expected to do better. 
 
 But Trustees, dispensing ?2o^ their own hut a Trust, — impressed 
 with the sacredness of their Trust, — and responsible, not to the 
 unseen God alone, but to the visible and watchful Church, — and 
 bound to provide equally for all God's children, and especially 
 for his poor — Trustees of this sort ought to be relied upon for 
 better things ; and the only desire of the Memorialists is to 
 transform the present independent Corporation into Trustees 
 acting upon these principles. 
 
 Add, now, to the list of the disadvantages of the existing 
 Corporation, the fact that it holds a iiwnopoly which influen- 
 tial men are continually striving to wrest from it; and that, 
 owing to its present policy of accumulation, it holds, in one 
 mass, a property most tempting to cupidity, — and you will un- 
 derstand how it siust live in constant dread, both of the repeal 
 of the Law of 1814, and of legislative radicalism in general, 
 and of stock-jobbing disputes as to its title; not to speak, also, 
 of the everlasting heirs of Anneke Jans. And living in this 
 constant dread, it is led, not only to court political influence, 
 but to commit itself to doubtful worldly policy, to resort to 
 manoeuvres and petty craft and unmanly concealments, such 
 as those which the Senate Committee's Report, and the Church 
 Journal newspaper, have exposed. 
 
 And these things, so discreditable to all concerned — and in- 
 jurious, indeed, to the cause of Christ — are not inevitable in 
 themselves, but they are inevitable so long as the Corpora- 
 tion occupies its present position, and acts upon its present 
 principles. 
 
 And what is to be the limit of this policy of doing as they 
 please with their own, to the exclusion of the claims of the 
 poor ? What is to hindeT them from, some day, disposing of 
 all the down-town churches, and investing the purchase- 
 money, together with the five millions, in some new West- 
 
24 
 
 minster Abbey, which shall surpass even the proudest cathe- 
 drals of Europe, and St, Peter's itself? The}' may feel that 
 such a building may, in the course of ages, be worth, to the 
 influence of divine truth in the world, vastly more than all it 
 ever cost. They may feel that they owe to the city some con- 
 tribution, in the way of beautiful and magnificent edifices. 
 And they will not fail of authority for such views. Excellent 
 men, high in station, may sanction them. 
 
 Trinity Church and Chapel may suffice now. But as 
 wealth rolls in upon us like a flood ; as domestic splendor in- 
 creases ; as the Korth End, above the Park, is gradually filled 
 up with mansions which put the palaces of Genoa to the 
 blush, — may not our city aspire to something in the church 
 line more on a level with European grandeur? 
 
 If some individual of enormous wealth were to devote ten 
 milHons to erect a St. Peters in our midst, who would cast bitter 
 reproach upon him ? Would not most men applaud ? Would not 
 men say, at worst, that it was folly ? Would not all acknow- 
 ledge that he had a right to do as he pleased with his own, and 
 would not his name go down as that of one of the benefactors 
 of the city ? Is it not on this policy that the astute French 
 Emperor is now acting ? 
 
 What is to hinder, then — if this property belong to the Cor- 
 poration, and is not a Trust — their erection, if they please, of 
 a glorious temple in this city, like Westminster Abbey; a 
 cathedral on which wealth will be lavished without stint, by 
 which all that aesthetic taste can desire will be gratified, and 
 in which — or rather in one corner of which, as in Westminster 
 Abbey itself — the old parishioners, some lew hundred of them, 
 at least, may find accommodation ; whilst the main nave and 
 aisles are reserved — their only practicable use — for the tombs 
 of magnates, chief captains, and great poets ? Meanwhile the 
 dens of vice and misery will be overflowing. 
 
 Or, if they are responsible only to the 305 corporators, what 
 shall hinder them from making an arrangement by which 
 
25 
 
 these corporators shall become almoners of the Corporation ; 
 in other words, be provided with pocket money for their chari- 
 ties ? or, from devising sinecure agencies and offices, and filling 
 them by corporators with large salaries ? What is to hinder 
 their bestowing upon the Rector a revenue equal to that of an 
 English bishop? or, from raising the Sexton's salary from 
 $1,000 a year (a salary even now greater than the stipend of 
 two-thirds of our country clergy, and which more than one 
 ciiy clergyman would be thankful to get) to a sum which shall 
 make his claim of usefulness rank, not only above those, but 
 above that of any bishop of the Church ? 
 
 The nobleman's butler " hoped his lordship would not put 
 him on a par with the inferior order of clergy." Trinity's 
 sexton may not be satisfied to rank below any minister of 
 Christ " not belonging to the parish." 
 
 Would we could say such things are impossible. But his- 
 tory is full of such follies, perversions, and ambitions. From 
 the days of the deacons at Rome down to the last disclosure of 
 ecclesiastical misappropriation in England, the Church has 
 groaned under such scandals. Every year or two, some mal- 
 administration of the kind is brought to light in Europe. We 
 have no fear of the present Vestry, but we do fear their theory. 
 They are too irresponsible. They are not Trustees in any true 
 sense of the word. 
 
 It may be thought that their relation to the property would 
 not be changed by any change in the number of corporators. 
 But this is a mistake. It is often in the more or less of a 
 thing that its moral quality lies. It is in the smallness of the 
 elective franchise that the danger of close corporations, and 
 the rottenness of rotten boroughs, is to be found. 
 
 As at present constituted, the Corporation, by setting off one 
 congregation after another, can reduce the corporators to a 
 very manageable number. But if the communicants of the 
 city were restored to their original rights by charter, their 
 very numbers would be a satisfactory safeguard. At present 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 the fund goes first for " the old parishioners," secondly, for the 
 poor. But if all the poor of the city in communion of the 
 Church were admitted to have a beneficiary interest, their 
 claim would precede that of all others. 
 
 Between the equityof the two systems — between their respec- 
 tive bearing upon the claims of the poor — between the safe- 
 guards they present against misappropriation, there cannot be 
 a moment's choice. The only point which the present sets up 
 over the other is, that the technicalities of law are in its 
 favor. 
 
 If, indeed, the spider has woven his web so completely over 
 the prey that there is no possibility of escape, then, indeed, the 
 case is ended. But not until this is made as clear as the noon- 
 day — not until it is proved to demonstration that the Legisla- 
 ture is powerless to act — should any true-hearted man, who 
 loves mercy more than sacrifice, equity more than pettifogging, 
 refrain from his best endeavor to make God's provision for the 
 poor effective, and to place it under proper safeguard. Let 
 not the pound of flesh be given till it is proved that there is no 
 escape from such a course. 
 
 If men talk of acquiescence in the Law of 1814, let it be 
 considered whether the communicants, inhabiting this city 
 since 1844, have acquiesced. These have lost a heritage. It 
 was taken away from them before their spiritual birth. As 
 soon as they had knowledge of good and evil, they spoke. How 
 could they speak before they were born ? And shall the un. 
 born heir be defrauded, and the fraud be justified on the plea 
 that he made no complaint? 
 
 If men talk of laws having the force of a contract, let it be 
 asked whether contracts are binding on the one party when 
 the other has not fulfilled the pledges, and implied conditions, 
 upon which the contract was made. And who will say that 
 Colonel Troup's " moral certainties" and " happy conse- 
 quences," have been carried out ? The masterly Report of the 
 Senate Committee demolishes any such pretension. 
 
27 
 
 Were these pledges carried out, the only objection, on the 
 score of equity, which the advocates of the Corporation have 
 urged, would have been obviated. It is said that the repeal 
 of this law will involve interference on the part of congrega- 
 tion with congregation. It would not involve this interference 
 if the chapels had been set off as separate churches. But this 
 setting off of chapels is precisely what Colonel Troup urged 
 as an inducement to the ratification of the bill by the Council 
 of Revision. He said " the bill, when passed into a law, 
 would have the happy consequence of enabling the Vestry of 
 Trinit}^ Church, from time to time, as society shall advance, 
 to separate the churches with the consent of their congrega- 
 tions, and to endow them with competent estates ?"^ 
 
 Here, then, were inducements presented to the Council of 
 Revision — but they were forgotten as soon as uttered. The 
 promises have not been fulfilled ; and now the non-fulfillment 
 ■of the promises — i. e. the fact of there being four churches 
 that might be interfered with — is used as a reason why the 
 law should not be repealed which was obtained by these 
 promises. Back -handed logic never was carried to a greater 
 absurdity. 
 
 Let the Corporation fulfil its implied pledges, and there will 
 be no difficulty to be apprehended, with regard to interference 
 of congregation with congregation. The providence of God 
 has smoothed away this only obstruction that the Law of 1814 
 did not provide for, by making Trinity Church a missionary 
 church — that sort of church which is generally provided for 
 by a society, or individuals from without. 
 
 Thus far the question has been discussed, as if it were in- 
 volved in some difficulty, and therefore a proper question to be 
 referred to the courts. 
 
 * Remarks on Trinity Church Bill, before the Council of Revision by Robert 
 Troup, Esq., one of the Vestrymen of Trinity Church. 
 
28 
 
 A few words more may be added to show that the injustice 
 of the Law of 1814 is so patent and so flagrant that it needs but 
 the possession of a moral sense to lead every one, at once, to 
 pronounce its condemnation. 
 
 For there is a large and a suffering class of corporators dis- 
 franchised by that law, against whose claim not the shadow 
 of an argument has as yet been put forth, in public at least, by 
 the defenders of that law. 
 
 For whatever may be the cogency of the argument which 
 justifies the exclusion of the members of those churches which 
 had withdrawn before 1811 from the spiiitual charge of the 
 Rector of Trinity, this argument does not in the least touch the 
 case of those who do not belong to any of those churches, 
 and particular]y the case of those who do not belong to any 
 church whatsoever. These persons have never ^^ secrdecV^ from 
 Trinity Corporation, or ^^ withdrawn^' from the jurisdiction 
 ecclesiastical of the Rector of Trinity Parish. 
 
 To all such, therefore, the Law of 1814 does additional injus- 
 tice. Had that law not passed, all communicants coming to 
 this city would have been, ipso facto, members of the Parish and 
 Corporation, and under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the 
 Rector of Trinity Church. But the Law of 1814 has deprived 
 them of this right. Previous to this law the Parish of Trinity 
 Church covered the whole island, and included necessarily all 
 those who did not claim allegiance to another Pastor than the 
 Rector of Trinity Church, and the Parish was bound to provide 
 for their spiritual needs. But the Law of 1814, in restricting the 
 privileges of that Parish to the congregations of Trinity 
 Church and its Chapels, has confiscated for the benefit of those 
 (at that time) wealthy congregations, the wealth raised by 
 God for the benefit of His poor, scattered abroad without a 
 shepherd, all over the island. These sheep, it must be in- 
 sisted on, have not withdrawn from the fold. The Law of 
 1814^05 driven them from its shelter. They have not aban- 
 doned the Rector of Trinity Church — the Rector of Trinity 
 Church has abandoned them. Those who were thus abandoned 
 
29 
 
 had no other resource but to seek some other shepherd to 
 care for their souls. And is it Christian argument, is it even 
 logic, to contend that those who have been thus cast off have 
 no rights, because they are thus cast off; because they are no 
 longer permitted to be "under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of 
 the Rector of Trinity Church !" Does any man lose his rights 
 to his spiritual provision, because you arbitrarily take that pro- 
 vision from him, and force him to live as best he can ? And the 
 injustice is the greater, from the fact, that those thus cast off 
 form the great bulk of " the inhabitants of the City of New 
 York in communion," 6ic. 
 
 The communicants of this city who cannot be accused of 
 " seceding from" the Parish of Trinity Church — the commu- 
 nicants who have never " withdrawn" from the "jurisdiction of 
 the Rector," are, at the present day, four thousand six hundred 
 and forty-two. X hundred years hence their numbers will 
 be tenfold. Now the communicants of Trinity Church and 
 Chapels, in 1814, for whose- advantage these thousands and 
 thousands of souls communing with Christ have liad the gates 
 of Trinity Parish shut in their faces, were only seven hun- 
 dred. — Yes these seven hundred, together with the Rector, 
 shut out and excluded — hij their own initiatory act, remember ! 
 — the thousands of souls that were to come after, reserving 
 for themselves the spiritual provision given for the benefit 
 of " all the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting and 
 to inhabit in our said city of New- York, in communion with 
 our aforesaid Protestant Church of England." 
 
 But Jurther ; even if it be contended that those who, thus 
 deserted, sought spiritual consolation elsewhere, and organized 
 into parishes, have thereby forfeited their rights, — what shall 
 we say of those, (and they are numbered by thousands,) of the 
 poor of our Church who have no parish connection, and who 
 have an additional claim, from the fact that, for the most part, 
 they have come from the country of those sovereigns to whose 
 bounty Tiinity Parish is indebted for its wealth? Not a word 
 can be whispered against the equity of their claim to be beneficia- 
 ries. 
 
30 
 
 But have they any rights as such ? Is this right admitted 
 acted upon? Does the Charter provide for such as these? 
 Undoubtedly it does, in so many words. Has God. provided for 
 these ? The Charter says, •' Yes." The Law of 1814 says, " No." 
 And the Corporation of Trinity Church echoes, " No." And 
 what are the actual facts following upon the denial ? Have 
 any churches been built for these ? No. Are the Missionaries 
 of Trinity Corporation scouring the whole city— north, south, 
 east, and west — seeking for them ? No. 
 
 A good work is indeed done in the lower parts of the city, for 
 which be due credit given. But the inhabitants of the lower 
 wards are not all the inhabitants of the city ; and these poor 
 of the Church of England exist in every quarter. 
 
 There are none, indeed, in the neighborhood of Trinity 
 Chapel — as the clergy attached thereto feelingly report — but 
 at a half mile's distance, in almost any direction^ from the carv- 
 ings and gildings of that splendid building, these poor * ??2^7/ he 
 found. 
 
 You may find them in swarms on the leasehold property of 
 the Corporation, in the neighborhood of vSt. Luke's Church. 
 You may hear of them at the Grace Church Mission Chapel 
 in Astor Place, or from the Missionary of St. George's, or from 
 the Mission of Calvary, or from the Sisters of Mercy of the 
 Holy Communion. You may find them in every street from 
 Greenwich to Chelsea, and from Chelsea to Bloomingdale. 
 
 You may find these lost sheep, if you seek them, in tenement 
 lodgings, in back alleys, in damp basements, — in wooden shan- 
 ties, amid the stagnant pools, or on the rock tops of the suburbs. 
 You will find them with their old religious associations broken 
 up — with bad habits acquired — with children unnurtured — with 
 confirmation vows falsified — with communions interrupted or 
 abandoned; in fine, in the greatest spiritual destitution; but 
 with no one who has "the care" of their souls, with no recog- 
 nized " Rector," and this, notwithstanding that Charter which 
 says : " There shall be a Rector to have the care of the soids 
 
31 
 
 of the inhabitants within the said parish, and in the communion 
 of our Protestant Church of England.'" 
 
 These castaways from the fold are here to-day and away to- 
 morrow, passing from house to house, from ward to ward, as 
 rents drive or wages draw them. 
 
 But notwithstanding the frequent changes, there is in every 
 neighborhood always a population of this class. And many a 
 parish minister is said to find the extra-parochial work among 
 these Church of England poor — wJio have no parochial connec- 
 tion ivith him — more laborious and exhausting than his proper 
 labors among his recognized parishioners. 
 
 But often, again, the clergyman of their vicinity may never 
 hear of them, until some child lying sick unbaptized, or 
 some death-bed, or some dispensation of Providence, greater 
 than usual, induces them to repair to the nearest minister of 
 God. They repair to the nearest minister of God, and join his 
 communion, unconscious, poor souls, that by thus doing, they 
 forfeit their right to the spiritual provision which God has 
 made for them — they forfeit this right, as being no longer 
 "under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Rector of Trinity 
 Church." 
 
 But why talk of these things ? The Law of 1814 has consid- 
 erately released "the Rector," and ''the successive Rectors," 
 from these unpleasant responsibilities. It permits them to drop 
 the apostleship ; but at the same time to retain the bag. It 
 permits this rich Corporation to say to these poor souls : " It is 
 Corban^ by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me." 
 
 Good Queen Anne fondly hoped, when she gave '' the Queen's 
 farm," that the people of Christ in this city were provided for. 
 God put it in her heart to give. He knew what was to come 
 hereafter. He foresaw the unparalleled growth. He foresaw 
 the immense immigration ; and His merciful Providence made 
 spiritual provision for the spiritual destitution which has over- 
 
32 
 
 taken us. His miraculous power has enlarged the cruse of oil 
 into an ample provision for all time. 
 
 What could have been done more to His vineyard that He 
 hath not done in it ? 
 
 But the Law of 1814 decrees that this Divine provision shall 
 not avail for the benefit of those for whom it was intended. 
 And a Christian Corporation shelters itself behind the Law of 
 1814. 
 
 Nor will it be of use to say that " the Charter of Trinity 
 Church empowers the Corporation '• as they see fit!' to " nomi' 
 natc,'^ "choose," "admit," persons into the Corporation ; and 
 that " the discretion for admitting, implies the power, at discre- 
 tion, to refuse admission.'' And hence that persons did not, by 
 charter, become corporators, by the single fact of communion 
 with the Church. 
 
 The answer is: that the Church and the Corporation were 
 by the Charter coextensive. And this right of ''admitting'^ 
 refers only to those not of the communion of the Church. It is 
 expressly spoken of as a right to admit to " the Church and 
 Corporation." All communicants were corporators, and admis- 
 sion to the Communion involved admission to the Corporation, 
 by the very terms of the Charter, and of the Act of 1784. 
 
 Nor, again, is it other than mockery to say, that " any who 
 now choose, can become corporators, by taking a pew, or 
 becoming a communicant in the Church or Chapels." 
 
 That is : the Shepherd having driven the sheep from the 
 fold, the lost sheep is at liberty to come in some " other way," 
 if he can ! The shepherd is absolved from all obligation to seek 
 the sheep, but the sheep may seek him 1 
 
 And what opportunity is there even for taking advantage of 
 this gracious permission ? 
 
S3 
 
 Is there room in the four churches — over and above their 
 respetn congregations — for the four thousand six hundred and 
 forty-two communicants and their families 1 
 
 Can the poor take pews in Trinity Chapel? And is there 
 any room in its free sittings for the hundredtli part of them ? 
 Or can the poor of the upper city be expected to spend their 
 only day of rest in a weary tramp — no " Sabbath day's jour- 
 ney," but twenty times that distance — to Trinity or its chapels ? 
 
 Nor, were such things possible, would the,cruel injustice of 
 the law be thereby annihilated. Still would it be true that the 
 New-York which has grown up since 1814— the poor and com- 
 municants of this New- York — have been defrauded by the law 
 of 1814. 
 
 Maintain, also, if you will, that the older churches which 
 consented to, or acquiesced in that law, have no rights 
 in the case. Maintain, also, if you will, that Grace, and St. 
 Mark's, and St. George's, and others, made their bargain with 
 Trinity, and having got their mess of pottage are no longer 
 entitled to their birthright. Be this so ; the new city, never- 
 theless, the new communicants, the English Church emigrants 
 of to-day, were no parties to the bargain. Goneril may have 
 divided the spoil with Eegan, but the case of Cordelia is none 
 the less pitiful. If the old mother parcelled off the patrimony 
 to herself and the living children, despoiling the child still in 
 her womb of its portion, this but makes the elder brothers par- 
 takers in the guilt, it does not wash out the fraud put upon the 
 child yet unborn. 
 
 This child of the future is the helpless, guiltless sufferer. 
 
 The New- York of to-day— the heir of the old city — the child 
 
 of suffering and want — this child, though a lawful heir, has 
 
 been despoiled. 
 
 L.ofC. 5 
 
34 
 
 " This is the heir," said the Corporation of 1814, '' come, let 
 us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours." And the Cor- 
 poration of 1857 takes up the antiphon : " We have our ' law,' 
 and by our ' law' he ought to die." 
 
 Let charity indeed say, " they know not what they do." 
 But it is still true that this law of 1814 sends Christ's new-born 
 sons, and Christ's poor of this latter day to suffer " without the 
 gate." 
 
 "INASMUCy: AS YE HAVE DONE IT UNTO THE 
 LEAST OF THESE MY BRETHREN, YE HAVE DONE 
 IT UNTO ME." 
 
 The city and the Diocese have lately received a solemn 
 admonition not to abet " lawless acts," or to aid " the cau^e of 
 oppression." 
 
 Now, whatever may be the opinion entertained of the pro- 
 priety of that admonition — a point concerning which, though 
 the " heartburns," these lips will '' keep silence" — yet, all must 
 acknowledge that as^ainst no fouler misdeed than that of " law- 
 lessness" and " oppression," can the Christian be warned. 
 
 But let every conscientious man determine, on his own 
 responsibility before God, with these facts before him, which 
 cause, in this controversy, is the cause of " lawlessness" and 
 '* oppression." 
 
 And having decided this question upon the plain and patent 
 facts, let him determine how far he can sanction by deed, 
 word, or even silence, a crime so pregnant with present and 
 future wrong and misery as the Law of 1814. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 In which the case of congregations inhabiting terri- 
 torial jparishes^ and the q^uestion of ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction^ are briefly discussed. 
 
 It is not necessary to build on supposed cases, or analogies, 
 or abstract principles of equity, to determine the point of ec- 
 clesiastical jurisdiction. There are precedents on these points 
 in ecclesiastical law, and by this law they may be decided, so 
 far as they involve an interpretation of the Charter of 1697. 
 For this charter constituted the city into a " Parish," as the 
 term is understood in English law. Its Rector had cure of 
 souls, not only over the inhabitants of the city in communion 
 with the Church of England, but also — as by a distinct recital 
 we are told — over " the inhabitants," without limitation, or 
 reference to denominational relations. This is the Rector's 
 position in an English parish. Moreover, to the Rector and 
 Wardens were granted the same privileges as those possessed 
 by the Rector and Wardens " of St. Mary Bow within our 
 City of London." The citizens of the city in general, without 
 respect to creed, were assessed for the Rector's support and 
 for tile completion of the church. The principles of English 
 law are therefore applicable here. 
 
 How, then, does this law, in accordance with whick the charter 
 was granted^ regard this case of new congregations and chapels 
 in a territorial parish ? 
 
36 
 
 Now, of these chapels, there were several sorts, we are told : 
 '' 1. Domestic Chapels, &c. 
 '' 2. College Chapels, &c. 
 " 3. Chapels of Ease, &:c. 
 
 " 4. Parochial Chapels, which differ from Chapels of Ease 
 on account of their having a permanent minister or incumbent, 
 though they are in some degree dependent on the Mother 
 Church." 
 
 A parochial chapelry with all parochial rites, independent of 
 the Mother Church as to sacraments, marriages, burials, re- 
 pairs, &c., is called a reputed parish. — HooJc's Church Diction- 
 ary, page 130. 
 
 Of course, such reputed parishes cannot be organized without 
 consent of the Rector ; but, this consent given, the " incumbent" 
 may be, and often is, elected by the people, and not appointed by 
 the Rector. In short, we have here precisely the very sort of 
 congregation, church, and clergymen within a territorial par- 
 ish, as we find among ourselves within the territorial parish of 
 Trinity Church. Our American names are different from the 
 English, but the things are the same. 
 
 Now% how doesEndish law^ — how would the English Charter 
 of 1697 — view these very congregations, if this commonwealth 
 were still a colony ? Would the Charter and the law deter- 
 mine that these congregations, these reputed parishes, formed 
 no part of the territorial parish, and had neither privilege 
 therein nor duties thereto ? Not so. We are distinctly told : 
 " The inhabitants of a precinct where there is a chapel — though 
 it is a parochial chapel, and though they do repair that chapel 
 — are nevertheless, of common right^ contributory to the repcdrs oj 
 the Mother Church. If they have seats in the Mother Church, 
 to go thither when they please, or receive sacraments or sacra- 
 
37 
 
 mentals, or marry, or christen, or bury at it, there can be no 
 pretence for a discharge. Nor can anything support that plea, 
 but that they have, time out of mind, been discharged (which 
 also is doubted whether it be of itself a full discharge) ; or 
 that in consideration thereof, they have paid so much to the 
 repair of the church, or the wall of the churchyard, or the 
 keeping of a bell, or the like compositions (which are clearly a 
 discharge)." 
 
 " If the chapel be three miles distant from the Mother Church, 
 and the inhabitants, who have used to come to the chapel, 
 have used always to repair the chapel, and there marry and 
 bury, and have never within sixty years been charged to re- 
 pair the Mother Church ; yet, this is-not any cause to have a pro- 
 hibition, but they ought to show in the spiritual court their 
 exemptions, if they have any, upon the endowment." — Burns' 
 Ecclesiastical Law, vol. i., p. 281. 
 
 It appears, then, that the congregations of these parochial 
 chapels, with a separate minister, with independent services, 
 do not necessarily lose their connection (either of privileges 
 or of duties) with the territorial parish under the ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction of the Kector. They may still have seats and ser- 
 vices at the Mother Church ; and they are bound to pay rates 
 for the support of that church. They are bound also to pay 
 rates, even if tlVey have no such seats, unless they have made 
 some " composition,^'' or can show some " exemption^ And in 
 harmony with these principles, the Charter of 1697 pro- 
 vided that the inhabitants of the city, in communion with the 
 Church of England, without specification of "exemption" or 
 "composition," should h^ assessed annually, not only for the 
 support of the Rector and the completion of the church, but 
 also for the maintenance of the assistant. And had English 
 rule continued toour day, according to this Charter and English 
 law, all the communicants of this city could have been com- 
 pelled to pay rates for the maintenance of Trinity. 
 
 The point here is, that, according to the law under which 
 
38 
 
 the Charter was granted, the connection with the territorial 
 parish is not broken u]d^ is not severed^ by the establishment of 
 separate and independent chapels. It cannot be said that the 
 members of these chapels are not parishioners of the parish. 
 
 The principle involved in this obligation on the part of all 
 the parishioners to contribute to the support of the Mother 
 Church, is analogous to that which requires all the inhabitants 
 of a township, in our day, to pay taxes for the maintenance of 
 a public school. The church was considered a public benefit, 
 and therefore to be sustained by the public. Individuals might 
 not attend the public church, as they may not make use of 
 the public school. They might have a church ot their own, 
 as they may have a school of their own ; but the obligation is 
 nevertheless binding on all in either case to provide for the 
 public benefit. 
 
 It may be contended, however, that as the " inhabitants 
 of the city," &c., do not pay rates now, they are not therefore 
 entitled to vote in the matter of Vestries. But the fact, 
 that these " inhabitants,'' &c., are not only "in the commu- 
 nion of the Church" at large, but parishioners, in the legal 
 sense of the word, is the essential and permanent fact. The 
 fact that they are not now liable to parish assessments, is an 
 incidental advantage, which comes to them by American law^ 
 and not by the Charter of 1697. That would still hind such 
 ''inhabitants,^^ cj-c, if these particulars of the Charter had not 
 been repealed by the Act of 1784; this "'incidental ad- 
 vantage" does not destroy " the essential and permanent 
 fact." 
 
 And do the members of Trinity Church and chapels pay 
 rates? And if the members of other churches do not pay rates by 
 the law of man, do they not, however, under the law of God 
 contribute to the support of public worship in this city ; yes, 
 and provide spiritual instruction for the poor " inhabitants," 
 &c., for whom Trinity Corporation does not provide ? 
 
 And moreover, if our fathers were assessed to support Trin- 
 ity, and paid dues in the days of her poverty^ and all along from 
 
39 
 
 1697 to 1775, more than three quarters of a century, have not 
 their children in the faith some claim upon her privileges in 
 the days of her abundance ? 
 
 Let us consider, now, the assertion, that the " being under 
 the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Rector," is the condition 
 of membership in the parish. As has been said, this condition 
 does not appear in the Charter, or in any of the law^s relating 
 to the Corporation. 
 
 But it may be contended that it is implied in the fact of a 
 Rector. The case of the " parochial chapel" disproves this. The 
 members of these chapels are members of the parish, though not 
 under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Rector. Or rather, 
 they are under his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, quoad hoc, so far 
 as membership in, duties to, and benefits from, the parish are 
 concerned. 
 
 But it is not English law alone which decides this case thus. 
 Foi" our own American Canon Law has its own and corres- 
 ponding decisions on this point. (Canons ix. of 1853; xi. of 
 1832.) Our canons, from the beginning, have recognized, in 
 a limited way, the idea of a territorial parish, and have laid 
 down rules with regard to jurisdiction in such case. The rule 
 is not the same as that of English law ; but in the present con- 
 troversy, brings us to the same result. By our canons, a 
 particular village, town, or city, in which there is but one 
 clergyman having cure of souls, is recognized as a territorial 
 parish, so far as the question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction is con- 
 cerned. Such clergyman has sole jurisdiction over the people 
 of his own communion, within the limits of that village, town^ 
 or city. No clergyman can officiate there, nor can any new 
 congregation be established there, without his consent, except 
 in extreme cases, where the ecclesiastical authority of the 
 diocese intervenes to put down oppression. When a clergy- 
 man is permitted to establish a church, then these two Rec- 
 tors, conjointly, have jurisdiction over the territorial parish, 
 and no one can officiate therein without their joint consent. 
 
40 
 
 In other words, the new clergyman becomes an associate-rec- 
 tor, quoad hoc. Each clergyman has separate charge over his 
 own congregation ; but the Rector has associated the new 
 clergyman with himself, in the joint jm'isdiction of the./em- 
 iorial parish. They are pastors, in common, over those who 
 may not belong to the congregation of either. 
 
 The congregation (it is to be noticed), composed of men and 
 women, is distinct, botli in idea and fact, from the territorial 
 parish. The terms are not homogeneous. And a congrega- 
 tion, so long as its members still reside within the limits of the 
 territorial parish — i. e. within the district over which the Rec- 
 tors have conjoint jurisdiction, can no more withdraw from 
 said parish, than a man living in a house can withdraw from 
 it while still loithin it. A territorial division only can estab- 
 lish a separation between the parts of a territorial parish. Such 
 a division may be made — it is often made in England ; but 
 where parishes are divided, the territorial limits of each are 
 necessarily distinctly traced out. If there is a parochial chapel 
 within a parish, and a division of the parish is made, the 
 boundaries are determined, and each Rector possesses full 
 and sole jurisdiction in his own parish; there is no conjoint 
 jurisdiction. But until such territorial division and assignment 
 of separate jurisdiction is made, the territorial 2:)arish must 
 necessarily continue to exist. Now, the idea of making such 
 terrritorial division in our laro^e cities has been renounced. 
 Our congregations overlap each other. A communicant of 
 one church lives next door to a church he does not belong 
 to. Trinity is up town, down town, and across town. 
 The canons draw, in such case, no parish lines. Our con- 
 gregations, therefore, are not' parishes, proper, in the origi- 
 nal or territorial sense of the word. Our churches are all 
 "parochial chapels." But, at the same time, as has been said, 
 our canons do distinctly recognize the old idea of *' a terri- 
 torial parish," over which, in the first instance, the solitary 
 Rector has jurisdiction; and over ichich other Rectors have: 
 afterwards — by his consent — conjoint jurisdiction luith him. 
 
 Now, when the Rector of Trinity Church associates other 
 
41 
 
 clergymen as Co-Rectors with him, so far as conjoint jurisdic- 
 tion over the territorial parish is concerned, it cannot, with any 
 propriety, be said that any inhabitants of the territorial parish 
 have withdrawn from his ecclesiasticarjurisdiction, when they 
 expressly acknowledge his ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the terri- 
 torial parish. They acknowledge that he has this jurisdiction ; 
 they acknowledge that others have it only because he has joined 
 them with himself in its possession; they acknowledge all the 
 jurisdiction over the territorial parish which he claims him- 
 self. 
 
 Let us put a case in illustration : — Were the Rector of 
 Trinity Church, by and with authority and consent of tlie 
 Vestry, to admit the assistant-ministers having charge of the 
 chapels, as '' Associate Rectors ;" were the congregation of 
 each chapel permitted to have an organization of its own ; to 
 elect it own minister; to elect, also, ten men. to be called 
 Vestrymen, to manage its internal affairs ; if all this were 
 done by and with the consent of the Corporation, it does not 
 appear that this step would necessarily sever the bond that 
 now unites these congregations with the Corporation. These 
 Associate Rectors would hold the parish in common. The 
 congregations of the chapels would have greater privileges ; 
 but the integrity of the parish would not be broken. And, yet, 
 this is, in substance, precisely what has taken place in the terri- 
 torial parish of the City of New- York. The Rector has assented 
 to the conjoint jurisdiction. The Corporation has assented to the 
 system of subordinate vestries. And the whole process that 
 has taken place, has been simply a matter of internal arrange- 
 ment within the territorial parish — an arrangement with the 
 consent and sanction of its authorities, but without any viola- 
 tion of its integrity. And, therefore, every inhabitant of the 
 City of New- York, in communion with the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church, is still an inhabitant of the territorial parish, 
 called, in the Charter, "the Parish of Trinity Church ;" and is 
 under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Rector of Trinity 
 Church, conjointly with that of those Rectors whom he has 
 associated with himself, and with whom he haj shared the 
 jurisdiction. 
 
4 ^ i