history essay
maxstudent
A Tradition to Live By: New York Religious History, 1624–1740 Author(s): Thomas E. Carney Source: New York History, Vol. 85, No. 4 (FALL 2004), pp. 301-330 Published by: New York State Historical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23187346 Accessed: 29-01-2018 23:12 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
New York State Historical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New York History
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
A Tradition to Live By: New York Religious History, 1624-1740.
Thomas E. Carney, Assistant Professor of Constitutional History, University of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland
"Rellijon is a quare thing, " said Dunne's Irish wit, Mr. Dooley. "Be
itself it's all right. But sprinkle a little pollyticl^s into it an dinnymit is bran
flour compared with. Alone it prepares man f r a better life. Combined
with pollytic\s it hurries him to it."1
The issue of religion was a subject of great concern for the people of colonial New York and continues to be so for those historians who
study that place and time. Many historians of this period have focused
their attention upon the relationship of church and state in the colony.2
The purpose of this essay, however, is to look at the development of reli
gion within colonial New York society from a more dynamic perspec
tive. I will argue that the New York colonial experience represents the
development of an expectancy of religious freedom. This expectancy of religious freedom was a shared belief held by many inhabitants of colo nial New York: that each individual had the right to choose and prac tice whatever religion that individual found acceptable. "Expectancy,"
as used in this discussion, is not to be confused with "expectation."
Rather, expectancy refers to a developing legal interest/right in its nas
cent form.ί This belief—this expectancy—is based, in the first instance,
1. Mr. Dooley, created by Finley Peter Dunne, quoted in Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment, 2d ed., revised (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), xivn2.
2. Patricia U. Bonomi, Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society, and Politics in Colonial America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 50—54; Thomas J. Curry, The First Freedoms: Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 65; John Webb Pratt, Religion, Politics, and Diversity: The Church-State Theme in New Yor/ζ History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967); E. Clowes Charley, "The Beginnings of the Church in the Province of New York," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 13 (March 1944): 6.
New York History Summer 2004 © 2004 by The New York State Historical Association
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
302 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY
in a perception of natural law and came to fruition through the agency
of tradition. The development of this expectancy was an evolutionary
process, growing with the experience of each generation. The expectan cy did not exist in 1624; it developed gradually and came into existence
by the 1740s. This story begins with a colony that was diverse in ethnic
ity, nationality, and religion and became even more so as the colony
developed. It traces the stages by which this initial diversity gave rise to
an expectancy of religious freedom that had come to fruition by 1740.
This development was fostered by several different situations which
existed in the colony: in some instances, the colonists lived beyond the
constraints of royal authorities; in other cases, the authorities simply
ignored what the colonists were doing. Under this hands-off policy,
people grew so accustomed to worshipping without interference that,
on occasion, they clashed among themselves and with the colonial
authorities. In all cases, the colonists sought to practice the religion that
they had chosen. In time the colonists came to believe that they had the
right to choose their own religion. This expectancy seldom took the
form of written law (although legislative acts occasionally did become
part of the process), but, in the colonial period, traditional practices had
the effect of law in the mind of the people.4
The province of New York, unlike other British North American colonies, was founded by the Dutch, not the English. The Dutch claims to the area were based upon the explorations of Henry Hudson who, in
1609, sailing under contract with the Dutch East India Company, first
explored the river that now bears his name. In 1614, the New
Netherland Company received a monopoly over this area and estab
lished a trading post at Castle Island, just below the site of present-day
Albany.5 The company's charter expired in 1618, and another group of
merchants, the Dutch West India Company, received a "monopoly to all
Dutch trade and navigation with the Americas and West Africa."6 The
3. For a discussion of the development of individual property interests/rights, see Charles A. Reich, "The New Property," 73 Yale Law Journal (April 1964), 733-787.
4. This process is not unique to the development of freedom of religion. It is the same process, at least in part, through which the common law itself was forged.
5. Michael Kämmen, Colonial New Yortç A History (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1975), 26. 6. Ibid.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740 303
Dutch West India Company began to occupy their claimed territory in
1624. In April of that year, the company sent the Nieu Nederlandt,
under the command of Captain Cornells Jacabson May, with the first
settlers to the colony of New Netherland. These colonists, who includ
ed Dutch Protestants and also Walloons, French-speaking Protestants from southern Netherlands, foretold the diversity that would character
ize the colony throughout its history to the present day.7
The Dutch West India Company promoted the fur trade in the
colony. Early efforts to populate this desolate and distant land failed to
excite most of the Dutch people, who enjoyed a reasonably comfortable
life at home as a result of an expanding Dutch economy. To attract set
tlers, in the 1630s and 1640s, the company authorized a series of "free
doms and exemptions" that promised free land and local self-govern
ment to any hardy soul "who brought five adults with him" to the
colony.^ These offers brought a moderate growth in population, but the
new immigrants were not Dutch, and most did not come directly from
Europe. The ballooning population of New England drove some English Puritans down the New England coast to the eastern end of
Long Island, where they established the town of Southampton in 1640
and soon expanded to found East Hampton and Southold. This group came to the colony of New York with a tradition of religious dissent. In
some cases, these Puritans were dissenters twice over: they or their
forefathers had fled from religious persecution in England, and at this
time some of these immigrants were fleeing from religious disputes in
New England. They would provide fertile soil for the future develop ment of the expectancy of religious freedom. By 1644, the population of
the colony was already so diverse that the Jesuit missionary Father Isaac
Jogues, a frequent visitor to the colony, wrote: "there may well be four or five hundred men of different sects and nations; the Director General
told me that there were persons there of eighteen different languages."9
7. Ibid., 29; Randall Balmer, A Perfect Babel of Confusion: Dutch Religion and the English Culture in the Middle Colonies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), vii.
8. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New Yor\, ed. Ε. Β. O'Callaghan (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons and Company, 1858), II: 551-57; I: 119-123. Kämmen, Colonial New Yor\, 31, 34-36; Pratt, Religion, Politics and Diversity, 4.
9. Kämmen, Colonial New Yor\, 37; Balmer, A Perfect Babel of Confusion, vii.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
304 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY
This was probably an overstatement, but the basic sentiment—great
diversity in religion and ethnicity—was accurate.10
The Dutch Reformed Church was the only officially recognized reli gion in the Dutch Republic by the early seventeenth century, but it was
not the only religion practiced in the country. Despite the best efforts of
the Reformed ministers, the civil magistrates prevailed in their efforts to
protect the religious minorities. The result was an uneasy policy of tol eration in the Netherlands, born from Article 13 of the Union of
Utrecht of 1579, leading to tensions and power politics between the
Reformed Church and the civil magistrates. The magistrates attempted
to control the Reformed ministers who were vying with them to domi
nate and direct Dutch society.11 This oppositional situation was carried
over to New Netherland. The Dutch West India Company controlled the colony and looked to the Amsterdam Classis, which was a loose knit association of Reformed ministers of Amsterdam churches who
were responsible for maintaining orthodoxy in Amsterdam and in the
colony, to provide for the religious welfare of the colony. But this rela
tionship was not without its tension. The company sought "a
lighthanded policy of toleration" to promote the colony's success as a
commercial venture, but the company also had to contend with the
Reformed ministers' demand for orthodoxy and religious dominance.12
10. The religious and ethnic diversity of colonial New York is the single fact upon which all his torians agree and most have commented. William Smith, Jr., A History of the Province of New Yor/{, Michael Kämmen, ed. (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1972), I: 203—208; Thomas Jones, History of New Yorl{ during the Revolutionary War, ed. Edward Floyd DeLancey (New York: New York Historical Society, 1879), 2; John Fiske, The Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America (Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1899), I: 230; Patricia U. Bonomi, A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New Yorf{ (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), 1—2; Curry, The First Freedoms, 62.
11. The traditional interpretation of the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic as "a haven of tol eration" has recently undergone some réévaluation. Andrew Pettegree, "The politics of toleration in the Free Netherlands, 1572—1620," in Ole Peter Grell and Bob Scribner, eds., Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 182—198; see also Jaap Jacobs, "Between Repression and Approval: Connivance and Tolerance in the Dutch Republic and in New Netherland," de Halve Maen (Fall 1998): 51—58.
12. Oliver A. Rink, Holland on the Hudson: An Economic and Social History of Dutch New Yor\ (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), 228. The past decade has been marked by a renewed interest in the relationship between the religious and commercial interests in the West India Company's administration of New Netherland. Willem Frijhoff has argued that religion did play a significant role in the company's decisions; while Jaap Jacobs and Oliver A. Rink have argued for the dominance of commercial interests. All these historians, however, have pointed out that the situa tion was much more complicated than previously suggested. Willem Frijhoff, "The West India
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740 305
The precariousness of this situation became problematic with the appointment of Pieter Stuyvesant as director-general of the colony in
1647. Stuyvesant, a professional soldier and the son of a Dutch Reformed minister, was director-general of New Netherland from 1647
to 1664. He was a devoted Calvinist, "fiercely patriotic, fearless in battle,
capable of towering rages, and an autocratic leader with a reputation for
discipline and work."'3 The new governor and the Dutch Reformed ministers in the colony entered into a symbiotic relationship. The gov
ernor ensured that the Reformed Church maintained its exclusivity
within the colony, and the Church aided the governor in preserving
order. In the colony the social situation became explosive because the
governor refused to recognize the unofficial policy of toleration.
Overturning the unofficial policy of benign neglect of the past,
Governor Stuyvestant sought to eradicate in toto all other religious prac
tices, regardless of whether they were practiced in public or private.
Prior to Stuyvesant, the unofficial policy had engendered an expectancy
on the part of the colonists, especially the English dissidents of the peri
od, that they would be permitted to practice their religion in the colony,
at least in the privacy of their homes. This expectancy based on past
policy and the governor's zeal collided, but the governor could not
extinguish the colonial drive or desire for individual religious free
dom.^ Religious freedom was an elixir which, once tasted, would not readily be relinquished by those who had enjoyed it.
By the 1650s, many Lutherans resided in New Netherland. Some were Dutch, but others were Swedes and Finns who had established a
colony, New Sweden, on the Delaware River that the Dutch had seized and incorporated into New Netherland. In October 1653, several of these Lutherans petitioned Governor Stuyvestant for "permission to call
a Lutheran Minister out of Holland and to organize separately and pub
Company and the Reformed Church: Neglect or Concern," de Halve Maen, 70 (Fall 1997): 59—68; Jacobs, "Between Repression and Approval" de Halve Maen, 71 (Fall 1998): 51-58; and Oliver A. Rink, "Private Interests and Godly Gain: The West India Company and the Dutch Reformed Church in New Netherland, 1624-1664," New Yorl{ History, 75 (July 1994): 245-64.
13. Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 223; Frijhoff, "The West India Company and the Reformed Church," 60. Stuyvesant was appointed director-general in May 1645 but did not arrive in the colony until May 1647. Fiske, The Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America, I: 194—95.
14. For a full discussion, see Pratt, Religion, Politics and Diversity, Chapter 1.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
3o6 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY
licly a congregation and church."1? This effort by the colonial Lutheran
church came close upon the heels of the that of Lutherans in the mother
country, who had only recently gained a very limited right to organize
there.1^ The Dutch Reformed ministers, the Reverends Johannes
Megapolensis and Samuel Drisius, immediately sent word of the request
to the Amsterdam Classis. Megapolensis argued that such an action by
the Lutherans "would tend to the injury of our church, the diminution of hearers of the Word of God, and the increase of dissensions of which
We have had a sufficiency for years past." To grant the Lutherans'
request "would also pave the way for other sects, so that in time our
place would become a receptacle for all sorts of heretics and fanatics."1?
Acting on this correspondence, the Classis promptly solicited the
support of the directors of the West India Company to oppose the
Lutheran petition. The Classis and directors both feared "that other
evil consequences might result: that Mennonites, as well as English
Independents, who are numerous there, might seek to introduce like
public assemblies."1® The directors of the company on February 23,
1654, enacted a resolution opposing the Lutheran petition and forward
ed it to Governor Stuyvestant.'9
The religious composition of the colony was further complicated in
the fall of 1654 when "some Jews came from Holland" and were later
followed by other Jews who were forced to flee from Brazil when the
Portuguese defeated the Dutch there.20 Once again, the Reverend
Megapolensis complained to the Amsterdam Classis and requested its assistance in driving "these godless rascals," the Jews, out of the colony.21
15. "Letter from Reverends Megapolensis and Drisius to the Classis at Amsterdam, 6 October 1653," Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New Yorfy, ed. Ε. T. Corwin (Albany: J.B. Lyon Company, 1905), I: 317; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 230.
16. For a careful examination of the Lutheran efforts to gain a freedom of religion in the Netherlands, see Jonathan I. Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477—1806 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
17. "Letter from Megapolensis and Drisius to the Classis," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 317. 18. "Request to the Hon. XIX, to Prevent Lutheran Preaching and Public Assemblies in New
Netherland, with Answer Thereto," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 320—21. 19. "Acts of Deputies Denying Lutheran Petition For a Pastor," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 322. 20. "Letter from Reverend John Megapolensis to the Classis of Amsterdam, 18 March 1655,"
Ecclesiastical Records, 1:335; Howard M. Sachar, A History of the Jews in America (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), 13—14; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 233.
21. "Letter from Reverend John Megapolensis to the Classis of Amsterdam," Ecclesiastical Records, 1:335.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740 307
In closing his letter to his religious superiors, Megapolensis painted a
picture of what appeared to him to be the dismal religious complexion
of the colony: "For as we have here Papists, Mennonites and Lutherans among the Dutch; also many Puritans or Independents, and many
Atheists and various other servants of Baal among the English under
this Government... ; it would create a still greater confusion if the obstinate and moveable Jews came here to settle."22
Stuyvestant, an ardent member of the Dutch Reformed Church,
feared the civil disorder that religious dissidents such as the Lutherans
and Jews might cause.23 He issued a proclamation in early 1655, specif
ically aimed at both, forbidding any "conventicles" or gatherings to cele
brate or worship pursuant to any practice other than the Dutch
Reformed Church. He also forbade the Jews from trading within cer
tain areas in the colony. In the Netherlands, these actions were not
blessed by the directors of the company. Writing to the governor in
June 1656, the directors chastised Stuyvestant for his actions. In very
direct language, they told him that the Jews were to be permitted to
"quietly and peacefully carry on their business as before, and exercise in
all quietness their religion within their houses." This was not a grant of
religious toleration or full acceptance in society. The directors were
possibly concerned that Stuyvestant's hostilities toward the Jews in the
colony would be communicated to those Jews in the Netherlands, whereupon the Jewish investors in the company might withdraw their
money from the company. Furthermore, the directive specifically pro vided that "Jews or Portuguese people however shall not be employed
in any public service . . . nor to have open retail shops." The Jews were
also required to live in what has subsequently become known as ghet toes: ". . . they must without doubt endeavor to build their houses close
together in a convenient place on one or the other side of New Amsterdam."24
22. Ibid., I: 335-36. 23. Governor Stuyvestant's aversion to Jews dated from his earlier service as governor of
Curacao, Sachar, Jews in America, 14. 24. "Letter from the Directors to Governor Stuyvesant, Concerning the Jews and Lutherans, 14
June 1656," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 352; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 234; Sachar, Jews in America, 13-16.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
3o8 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY
The directors also lamented that "[W]e would also have been better
pleased, if you had not published the placat against the Lutherans." The
directors then declared: "Hereafter you will therefore not publish such
or similar placats without our knowledge, but you must pass it over qui
etly and let them have free religious exercises in their houses."25 Perhaps
encouraged by this nominal recognition, the Lutherans continued to
press for freedom to practice their faith publicly. In October 1656, the
Lutherans in New Amsterdam petitioned the governor and his council
for the right to "celebrate, with prayer, reading and singing."
Responding to this petition, the governor and council remained steadfast
in their intention to prohibit "conventicles and public gatherings, except
those for the divine service of the here prevailing Reformed Church."20
The Lutheran question appeared unresolvable. The directors of the company continued to support the Lutherans' right to the private prac
tice of their religion, but the New York Lutherans pressed for the right
to worship publicly with the formation of a congregation under the
direction of a Lutheran minister. In the summer of 1657, Reverend
Johannes Ernestus Goetwater, a Lutheran minister, arrived in the colony
from Holland. Once more, the Reverend Megapolensis raged against the Lutherans. In a petition to the Burgomasters of New Amsterdam,
he argued vehemently that although the Lutherans could not hold sepa rate "conventicles," their numbers were increasing. He urged no further
concessions because "[I]f the Lutherans should be indulged in the exer
cise of their (public) worship, the Papists, Mennonites and others, would
soon make similar claims."2? After considering this petition, the
Burgomasters found that "[W]hen we deliberated on all this, we could
not believe that the Hon. Directors would tolerate in this place any other
doctrine, than the true Reformed Religion."2® This decision was subse
25. "Letter from the Directors to Governor Stuyvestant, Concerning the Jews and Lutherans, 14 June 1656," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 352.
26. "Petition of the Lutherans to the Governor and Council to be Permitted to Enjoy Their Own Public Worship, 24 October 1656," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 358—60; Fiske, Dutch and Quaker Colonies, I: 231—232.
27. "Petition of the Reverends Megapolensis and Dress to the Burgomasters, etc., Against Tolerating the Lutherans, 6 August 1657," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 386—88.
28. "Report of the Mayor and Aldermen of New Amsterdam Upon the Petition of the Ministers Against Allowing Lutheran Services, 14 July 1657," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 389.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740 309
quently ratified by the governor and his council, who ordered that the
placat prohibiting conventicles "be retained and enforced strictly."29
Attempting to explain and justify their position, they found this action
"to be necessary for the maintenance and conservation not only of
Reformed divine services, but also of political and civil peace, quietness
and harmony."3°
Such actions did little to reduce the flow into the colony of religious
dissidents, such as Puritans, Quakers, and Baptists. The dissident
English religious sect, the Baptists, appeared in the English areas of
Long Island outside the city of New Amsterdam in 1656. William Hallett, an Englishman living in the village of Flushing, was convicted
of hosting and participating in Baptist conventicles. He was fined fifty
pounds Flemish and banished from the colony. In the fall of 1657 the
Reverend Megapolensis sent notice to the Amsterdam Classis of the
recent arrival of "Quakers, as they are callec' "31 He also complained
once more about the continued presence in the colony of the Lutheran
minister, Reverend Johannes Ernestus Goetwater.32
Governor Stuyvestant responded to the Quaker invasion by issuing a
proclamation forbidding anyone from sheltering or assisting the
Quakers.33 This caused an outright rebellion by the English settlers of
the village of Flushing. In a well-reasoned argument based upon
Christian charity, the people of Flushing, many of whom were Quakers
but some of whom were not, defied the governor:
The law of love, peace and libertie in the [Dutch] states extending
to Jews, Turks and Egyptians, as they are considered the sonnes of
Adam, which is the glory of the outward State of Holland; so love,
peace and libertie extending to all in Christ Jesus, Condemns
hatred, warre and bondage; and because our Savior saith it is
impossible but that offence will come, but woe be unto him by
29. "Receipt of Report of Mayor and Aldermen by Governor-General and Council," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 390.
30. Ibid.
31. "Letter from Reverends Megapolensis and Dress to the Classis of Amsterdam, 25 October 1657," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 409.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
■ NEW YORK HISTORY
whom they Commeth, our desire is not to offend one of his little
ones in whatsoever forme, name or title hee appeares in, whether
Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker; but shall be glad to
see anything of God in any of them; desireing to doe unto all men as wee desire all men should doe unto us, which is the true law
both of Church and State;34
This truly Christian proclamation resulted in the arrest and imprison ment of two Flushing magistrates, Edward Farrington and William
Noble, who had been foolish enough to sign the Remonstrance and then
appear before the governor after he had read it. No documentation
exists that would explain what provoked Farrington and Noble to do
this. One might, however, reasonably presume that the two magistrates were themselves Quakers or, at least, had Quaker tendencies. The
Remonstrance then becomes a personal statement of faith; such expres
sions were common among Quakers.
Attempting to raise his attack on the Quakers to a theological level,
Stuyvestant issued a Proclamation for a Day of Prayer for March 18. He
preached to the citizens of the province that God in his righteous anger
. . . hath visited near and remote places, towns and hamlets with
hot fevers and dangerous diseases, as a chastisement if not punish
ment of the thankless use of temporal blessings; permitting and
allowing the Spirit of Error to scatter its injurious passion amongst
us, in spiritual matters here and there, rising up and propagating a
new unheard of, abominable Heresy, called Quakers; seeking to
seduce many, yea, were it possible even the true believers. . . .35
But prayer was not the governor's only means of attack on the Quakers.
On 28 January 1658, Governor Stuyvestant found Tobias Feaks of the
village of Flushing guilty of harboring and leading "the abominable sect
called Quakers." Feaks was fined and banished from the colony, but the
sentence was suspended because Feaks confessed his sins and promised
34. "Remonstrance of the Inhabitants of Flushing, L. I., Against the Law Against the Quakers and Subsequent Proceedings by the Government Against Them and Others Favoring Quakers, 1 January 1658," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 413; Rink, Holland on the Hudson, 237.
35. "Court Minutes of New Amsterdam, 21 January 1658," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 414.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740
to sin no more.36
Despite Stuyvestant's best efforts, in the fall of 1658, Reverend
Megapolensis continued to lament the inroads that various other reli
gious sects were making in the colony. The English towns on Long Island were seeking an Independent minister because they could not
find a Presbyterian; the Quakers "continue to disturb the people of the
province."37 And a new religious attack had commenced. In 1642, the
French Jesuits had begun to proselytize the Mohawk. This effort even tually proved to be a failure. Later the French Jesuit Father Simon Le
Moyne visited Manhattan "at the invitation of Papists living there, espe
cially for the sake of French privateers, who are Papists, and have
arrived here with a good prize."38 Nevertheless, the Jesuits were never
able to establish a continued presence in the colony.
In 1660, the Lutherans of Fort Orange (Albany) began to press for
their own church and to take up subscriptions to pay the salary for a
Lutheran minister. In his report to the Amsterdam Classis, the minister
at Fort Orange, Gideon Schaats, foresaw a "great schism" if the desire of the Lutherans was met.39
Like the Lutherans, the Quakers too continued in their obstinate
ways. The governor dispatched the Reverend Drisius and the under
sheriff to the village of Rustdorp on Long Island in early 1661 to break
up the Quaker conventicles which had been reported to him. Although the governor's representatives were unable to reach the conventicle, they
did obtain the names of those who participated. The townspeople of Rustdorp were forced to sign an oath promising to inform on anyone
who gave aid to the Quakers. Those few who refused to sign the oath
36. "Sentence of Tobias Feaks, Schout of Flushing, for Harboring Quakers," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 415.
37. "Letter from Reverends J. Megapolensis and S. Dress to the Classis of Amsterdam, 24 September 1658," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 433—34. Despite Megapolensis's vehement opposition to any religion other than the true Reformed Dutch Church, he carried on an odd part professional/part personal relationship with the French Jesuits dating from 1642. On two separate occasions, he was responsible for saving the lives of Jesuit missionaries, one of whom was Fr. Isaac Jogues, whom he ransomed from the Mohawks and sent to France. "Letter from Reverends J. Megapolensis and S. Dress to the Classis of Amsterdam, 28 September 1658," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 436—37.
38. Ibid., 1:436—39; "Isaac Jogues," The Francis Parkjnan Reader, ed. Samuel Eliot Morison (New York: DaCapo Press, 1998), 162—63.
39. "Letter from Reverend Gideon Schaats to the Classis of Amsterdam, 22 September 1660, " Ecclesiastical Records, I: 483.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
■ NEW YORK HISTORY
were arrested and imprisoned.^0 These efforts by both church and state
to vanquish the Quakers were unsuccessful. One year later, the magis
trates of Rustdorp complained to the governor "that the majority of the
inhabitants of their village were adherents and followers of the abom
inable sect, called Quakers, and that a large meeting was held at the
house of John Bowne in Vlissingen [Flushing] every Sunday.'^1 The governor responded by once again ordering the arrest of the Quakers.
The orthodox sentiments of Governor-Director Stuyvestant contin
ued to be out of step with those of the authorities in the Netherlands.
These had now moved beyond their former position of unofficial tolera
tion of private worship by dissenting sects. For even as the governor con
tinued his persecution of the non-conformists, the States General passed
and published an Act in 1661 promising religious freedom in New
Netherland. The Act specifically sought to induce "all Christian people
of tender conscience in England or elsewhere, oppressed" to come to
New Netherland where they could establish a colony free from persecu
tion^2 But how far the States General was truly prepared to go to estab
lish freedom of religion in New Netherland quickly became a moot
question, for in September 1664, an English fleet under the command of
Colonel Richard Nicolls captured New Netherland, thus ending the
Dutch control of the area. On 30 July 1673, the Dutch did regain control
of the colony, but it lasted only until October 1674, when the province
was returned to the English under the terms of the Treaty of Westminister.43
This point in time has some importance for two reasons. First, it
marks the end of the Dutch phase in the development of the expectancy
of religious freedom in colonial New York. More importantly, it fore shadows the intrusion of a new contentious force into this process—the
Church of England.
At first, an expectancy of some degree of religious freedom based
upon the informal Dutch policy grew as the colony changed hands.
40. "Council Minutes. Proceedings Against Quakers at Jamaica, Long Island. Land at Flatbush, 1661," Ecclesiastical Records, 1:496—99.
41. "Council Minutes. Quakers in Flushing, 24 August 1662," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 526-27. 42. "Act of the States General and Conditions Offered by the Dutch West India Company to
Settlers in New Netherland, 1661," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 499. 43. Kämmen, Colonial New Yori{, 89.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740
With the English capture of New Netherland in 1664, the Dutch Reformed Church lost its official status. Its church members became
part of the general population that shared an expanding expectancy of
religious freedom as the result of the guarantees given to the Dutch in
the Articles of Capitulation. The formal transfer of the colony of New
Netherland from the Dutch to the English government was effected
through the Articles, which were a series of twenty-three provisions
drafted by Colonel Richard Nicolls on behalf of the province's new pro prietor, James, Duke of York and Albany. In one sense, the Articles
were a Bill of Rights for the Dutch who remained in the colony. The
Articles specifically guaranteed the enumerated rights to the Dutch citi
zens. Paragraph eight stated very pointedly: "The Dutch here shall enjoy the liberty of their conscience in Divine Worship and church dis cipline. "44
Furthermore, in the last decades of the seventeenth century, Louis
XIV of France inadvertently contributed to the religious diversity of the
province of New York. In the 1660s, the French king embarked upon a
campaign of persecution of the Protestants within his country that cul
minated in his repudiation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, thereby out
lawing Protestantism in France.45 During this period over 160,000
Protestant men, women, and children fled France. Many found new homes in the British North American colonies of South Carolina, Massachusetts, and New York.4^
Those French Protestants, Huguenots, who came to New York set tled in several locales. By the mid-1680s, they comprised roughly one
third of the population of Staten Island, but most banded together to
44. "Articles of Capitulation on the Reduction of New Netherland, 24 August 1664," Ecclesiastical Records, I: 558.
45. In 1598, the Protestant Henry of Navarre accepted Catholicism and became Henry IV, King of France. After all, as Henry said, "Paris is worth a Mass." In an effort to reduce religious discord in his country, the new king issued his famous Edict of Nantes. Under this royal pronouncement, limited freedom of religion was granted: Protestant rituals of worship were permitted in two hun dred fortified cities, towns, and villages, but were forbidden in any town where a Catholic bishop resided, and no new Protestant congregations were allowed to be established after 1598. The Edict suffered several reversals after Henry's death in 1610 before it was finally revoked by Louis XIV in 1685. This revocation of the Edict resulted in a mass exodus of French Protestants, the Huguenots. See Jon Butler, The Huguenots in America: A Refugee People in New World Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 1, 14—15.
46. Ibid., 1.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
314 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY
found the town of New Rochelle. They purchased the land from the
Pell family and built their town from the ground up. By the 1690s, the
Huguenots had constructed their own church.47 In 1695, it was esti mated that 200 families comprised the French church in New York
City, making it one-half as large as the Dutch Reformed Church, but
twice as large as the Church of England congregation in that city.4®
The decision of the refugees, who were seeking a land where they could
practice their religion without fear of persecution, to settle here must
certainly have been influenced by the expectancy of religious freedom
that was shared by the other inhabitants of the colony.
This expectancy was reflected by the "Charter of Libertyes and
Priviliges Granted by His Royal Highness to the Inhabitants of New
York and its Dependencies,"passed by the New York Assembly in 1683.49 Pursuant to his instructions from Prince James, the Duke of
York, Governor Thomas Dongan had convened the colony's first elected
assembly in that year, and the assembly passed the "Charter."5° Under
its terms, "no person or persons, which profess faith in God by Jesus
Christ, shall at any time, be any ways molested, punished, disquieted, or
called in question for any difference of opinion or matter of concern
ment, who do not actually disturb the civili peace of the Province."?1
The Charter provided that "the Churches in New York do appear to be privileged Churches . . . provided also that all other Christian Churches,
that shall hereafter come and settle in the province, shall have the same
privileges."52 These provisions are particularly significant. This was the first popular expression of the colonists' expectancy of religious freedom
that was made in New York. It provides clear evidence that such an
expectancy was alive and well there. With the second of the foregoing
provisions, the colonists' representatives rejected the idea of a single
47. Ibid., 146. 48. Ibid., 147. 49. "The Charter of Libertys and Privileges Granted by His Royal Highness to the Inhabitants
of New York and its Dependencies, 30 October 1683," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 864. 50. "Instructions of James, the Duke of York to Governor Dongan, 27 January 1683,"
Ecclesiastical Records, II: 847.
51. "The Charter of Libertys . ..," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 864. 52. "The Charter of Libertys," Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New Yorf(,
1:115.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740
established church by providing for an equality of privilege among all
"Christian Churches."53 While this was not separation of church and state in the modern sense, it was a clear step in that direction. The
duke, when he became king, subsequently refused to approve the Charter, thus denying it the effect of law. Nevertheless, his refusal
could not change the fact that the people of New York in 1683, through
their elected representatives, had come to a recognition of their right to
freedom of religion. The Charter remained an expression of the
expectancy of religious freedom that existed in the colony.54
Dongan, as was true of all of New York's colonial governors, was
aware of the diversity of religion within the colony. In his "Report on
the State of the Province" in 1684, he wrote: "Here bee not many of the
Church of England; few Roman Catholics; abundance of Quaker
preacher men and Women especially; Singing Quakers; Ranting Quakers; Sabbatarians; Antisabbitarians; Some Anabaptists; some
Independents, some Jews; in short of all sorts of opinions there are
some, and the most part, of none at all."55 Such diversity was obvious
proof of the expectancy of religious freedom that existed in the colony,
and under Dongan this expectancy expanded. In 1684, the New York City mayor and aldermen imposed a property tax for the benefit of the
city and provided an exemption from the tax "for those of the Calvinist
opinion."56 This exemption was most likely a concession to the Dutch Reformed Church and done to comply with the provisions of the
Articles of Capitulation. The representatives of the Lutheran church in
the city promptly petitioned the governor and his council that the same
exemption be granted to their church property. Dongan and the coun
cil, with little discussion, granted the Lutheran petition.57
James II's ascendancy to the throne in February 1685 marked a peri od of confusion in the policy of toleration. In the "Secret Instructions to
53. For an extended discussion of "multi-established churches," see Levy, The Establishment Clause, 12.
54. Kämmen, Colonial New Yor\, 103—05. 55. "Governor Dongan's Report on the State of the Province, 1684," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 879. 56. "Petition of the Lutheran Church at New York to be Exempt From Taxes. Order of Council
Thereupon, 16 September 1684," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 884. 57. Ibid.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
■ NEW YORK HISTORY
Gov Dongan," issued on 29 May 1686, James, a Roman Catholic but officially head of the Church of England, directed that "you shall take
especial care that God Almighty bee devoutly and duly served through
out your government: the Book of Common Prayer, as it is now estab
lished, read each Sunday and Holyday, and the Blessed Sacrament
administered according to the Rites of the Church of England."5® Other
subsequent actions, however, were not consistent with James' new appar
ent interest in the Church of England. Whitehall—with the king's obvi
ous blessing—granted the New York City Huguenots' petition that they
be allowed to trade freely with the British territories.59 These French
Protestant merchants, not being English citizens, were generally prohib
ited from trading within the English empire by the Navigation Acts.
Then in April 1688, Dongan granted the Dutch Reformed Church's
petition for incorporation.60 These actions, taken by King James in an
attempt to garner the support of nonconformists, were, nevertheless, par
ticularly provocative. In the first instance, the act of incorporation gave
the Dutch Reformed Church a legal status that arguably was equivalent
to that of the Church of England in New York. With the act of incorpo
ration the Dutch Reformed Church became a legal entity that was capa ble of holding title to both real and personal property. In later years, the
Lutherans also petitioned for incorporation on several occasions, but
these requests were denied by the colonial governors and the imperial authorities at Whitehall. The Lutherans did not receive their charter
until after the War for Independence.6'
58. "The Secret Instructions to Governor Dongan From James II, 29 May 1686," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 913.
59. "Petition by French Protestant Merchants Residing in New York to be Allowed to Trade Freely with All Other British Territories. Petition Granted by Whitehall, 19 July 1687," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 936.
60. "Petition of the Dutch Church of New York to be Incorporated, 4 April 1688," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 952
61. For an excellent summary of the Lutheran experience in colonial New York see A. G. Roeber, Palatines, Liberty, and Property: German Lutherans in Colonial British America (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), Chapter One. The state-centered, conformist nature of British religious policy, in New York as elsewhere, arose out of painful circumstances. The religious conflict and radicalism that had convulsed Great Britain during the English Civil War and after wards in the intolerant regime of Puritan Oliver Cromwell caused a "centrist" movement to emerge, which tried to chart a course between the Catholicism and absolutism of the Stuarts and the radical
Calvinism of the Puritans. The centrists restored the monarchy in 1660 and enacted a series of laws designed to curb both Catholics and Protestant dissenters of all sects. These laws included the Act of
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740
The inconsistency of the official religious policy, brought on by con
tinued religious tensions, continued after the Glorious Revolution of 1688—89 in England, and in 1689—90 with Leislers Rebellion in New York. The "Secret Instructions to Governor [Henry] Sloughter," issued by William and Mary in 1689, combined James II's earlier admonition
to initiate the use of the Book of Common Prayer with a grant of "liber
ty of Conscience to all Persons (except Papists), so they be contented
with a quiet and Peaceable enjoyment of it, not giving offence or scan
dal to the government."^2 This was in accord with William's promo tion of the Act of Toleration, intended to relieve pressure on non-con
formists, enacted the same year. Two years later, official policy, as it was
now represented by Governor Sloughter, had made a turn. Sloughter
attempted to fulfill the first part of the Instructions by proposing "An
Act for ministers in every town, and their maintenance." The act was
rejected by the Assembly, but the struggle between that body and repre
sentatives of the British government was just beginning.6^
In spring 1693 the new governor, Benjamin Fletcher (1692-1698),
addressing the assembly, renewed Sloughter's demand for an established
Anglican church: "There are none of you but what are big with the
privilege of Englishmen and Magna Carta, which is your right; and the
same law doth provide for the religion of the Church of England."64
Fletcher's exhortations were to no avail; the largely non-conformist
Uniformity (1662) which required all ministers in England and Wales to use and subscribe to the Book of Common Prayer. This was superceded by the more severe Test Act of 1673, that excluded from public office (both military and civil) all those who refused to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, who refused to receive the communion according to the rites of the Church of England, or who refused to renounce belief in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Inconsistencies in applying these laws were caused when the Stuart monarchs Charles II and James II attempted to intervene on behalf of Catholics. William and Mary, who had been installed in the monarchy by Parliament in the Glorious Revolution of 1689—90 on agreeing to a number of condi tions, one of which was to uphold the Church of England, continued through their ministers to pro mote the established church. However, William worked with the Whigs in Parliament to enact the Act of Toleration of 1689, which repealed many restrictions on Protestant dissenters. In spite of this, sentiment in favor of curbing the religious dissension that had caused so much discord and blood shed continued to be strong. It was this sentiment in Great Britain and the official policy fueled by it that clashed with the expectancy of religious freedom that was evolving in New York.
62. "Secret Instructions to Governor Sloughter, so far as They Relate to Religion, 1689," Ecclesiastical Records, II, 991; see also, Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New Yor\, III: 688-89.
63. "Council Journal, New York, 10 April 1691," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 1013. 64. "Governor Fletcher's Opening Address, 10 April 1693," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 1054.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
■ NEW YORK HISTORY
assembly refused to act. Undaunted, the governor renewed his proposal at the next session of the assembly: "I recommended to the former
Assembly the settling of an able ministry, that the worship of God may
be observed among us, for I find that great and first duty very much
neglected."65 This time, the new assembly chose to act on the gover
nor's proposal, promptly referring the matter to a committee to prepare
the necessary legislation. The committee quickly completed its task and
placed the proposed legislation before the full assembly. The act provid
ed "that in each of the respective Cities and Counties hereafter men
tioned and expressed [the City of New York and Counties of Richmond, Westchester, and Queens] there shall be called and inducted
and established a good sufficient Protestant Minister to officiate and
have the care of souls. . . ,"66 The Ministry Act was passed on 22 September 1693 and sent to the governor.
Governor Fletcher responded to the bill by requesting that the
assembly amend it by inserting language that vested in the governor the
authority to appoint the ministers. The assembly, however, quickly
rejected the governor's demand. Fletcher, angry and frustrated with the
assembly, called them to appear before him. From the very beginning
of his statement his frustration with them was apparent. "There is also
a Bill for settling a ministry in this city and some other counties of the
government, " he said. "In that thing you have shown a great deal of
stiffness."67 The governor understood that the assembly had deliberate
ly defied him:
I sent down to you one amendment of three or four words in that
Bill, which, though very immaterial, yet was positively denied. I
must tell you it seems very unmannerly. There never was an
amendment yet desired by the Council Board but what it was
rejected. It is a sign of a stubborn ill temper, and this have also
passed. But, gentlemen, I must take leave to tell you, if you seem to
65. "Governor Fletcher's Opening Address, 12 September 1693," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 1073. 66. "An Act for Settling a Ministry & Raising a Maintenance for them in the City of New York
County of Richmond Westchester and Queens County, 22 September 1693," The Colonial Laws of New YorFrom the Year 1664 to the Revolution (Albany, NY: James B. Lyon, State Printer, 1896), I: 329.
67. "Governor Fletcher's Address to the Assembly," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 1075.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740 319
understand by these words (calling the minister) that none can
serve without your collation or establishment, you are far mistaken;
for I have the power of collating or suspending any minister in my
government by their Majesties letters patent, and whilst I stay in
the government.*^
With these words, the governor prorogued the Assembly, and thus
began the controversy over whether or not the Anglican Church was established in New York.
Many English governors and officials of this period and a number of
historians have argued that the Ministry Act of 1693 established the
Church of England as the official church in at least the four lower
counties identified in the act. But not all historians have agreed.
Sanford Cobb, in his analysis, has stated: "What in legal construction it
[the Ministry Act] did, was to establish, not a church at all, but six
Protestant Ministers in places named, and these ministers of no specified
denomination, save that they must be Protestant."69 Later, Clinton
Rossiter, reviewing this situation, remarked that if there was an estab
lished church, under the terms of the Ministry Act, "no one was quite sure what it was."7°
In fact, what is not said, as well as what is said, in the act goes against
any interpretation favoring the establishment of the Church of England
anywhere in the colony of New York. In the first instance, nowhere in
the text of the act is there any reference to the Church of England or the
use of the Book of Common Prayer in the liturgy, although such refer
ences were commonly used at this time. On the other hand, the act did
specifically provide that "there shall be ... a good sufficient Protestant
Minister" at the specified locations in the colony.71 The obvious point is
that "Protestant" does not necessarily mean or specify Church of
England. Therefore, the specific language of the act does not support a
68. Ibid.
69. Sanford H. Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America: A History ('New York: The McMillan Company, 1902), 339.
70. Clinton Rossiter, "Shaping of American Tradition," William & Mary Quarterly, 3d series, XI (1954): 522.
71. "An Act for Settling a Ministry & Raising a Maintenance ...Colonial Laws of New Yorl{, I: 329.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
320 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY
narrow interpretation of it as establishing a specific denomination any
where within the colony.
In addition, the composition of the assembly goes against this inter
pretation. Colonial assemblies, generally, opposed the wishes of their
governors. In respect to religion, it is unlikely that the New York
Assembly, elected by a population that contained only a minority of
Anglican church members, would want to establish the Church of
England in the colony. Rather, under the specific language of the act,
each "good sufficient Protestant Minister" was to be "called in to offici
ate in their respective precincts by the respective Vestrymen and church
wardens" of each church.72 This concluding provision of the act was a
recognition of the established practice within the colony of allowing the
people of each local church to select their respective minister. The act
was, in reality, part of the developing tradition of religious freedom in New York.
Governor Fletcher's response also undermines interpretation of the
act as establishing the Church of England in the colony. Upon his
receipt of the act, the governor demanded a single amendment to the
act. He wanted the selection of each minister by the vestrymen and
church wardens to be "presented to the Governor to be approved and collated,"73 a means by which he could ensure that they were Anglican.
The governor's request was summarily rejected by the assembly,74 sug
gesting that this provision lay at the heart of the governor's determina
tion to establish the Church of England in the colony and that prevent
ing its passage was central to the assembly's resistance to such an estab lishment.
The assembly, in the years that immediately followed the passage of
the Ministry Act, took the opportunity to clarify its intent in passing the
act. In 1694, Governor Fletcher allowed the Anglican chaplain of the
English army, the Reverend John Miller, to claim the benefits under the
act. The assembly rejected the governor's action and found "by a
Majority of Votes it is ye opinion of the board that a dissenting Minister
72. Ibid., 1:331. 73. "An Act for Settling a Ministry ..., 22 September 1693," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 1079. 74. Journal of the General Assembly, 22 September 1693,1: 34.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740
be called to officiate and have the care of souls for this City as
aforesaid."75 One year later, in response to a petition from the "Church
Wardens and Vestry for the City of New York," the assembly offered its
opinion "that the Vestrymen and Church-Wardens have power to call a
Dissenting Protestant Minister; and that he is to be paid and maintained
according as the Act directs."7^ These pronouncements by the elected
assembly are important for two reasons. First, the assembly clarified the
meaning and the spirit of the act. The act was not meant to establish the
Church of England or any other denomination as the official church of
the province. Second, the assembly, through the act, left it to the people
to pursue their individual religious preferences. Each of the assembly
members, elected by the inhabitants of their respective districts, reflected
the interests and desires of the electors. Specifically, the act reflected the
expectancy of religious freedom that was shared by the population.
Governor Benjamin Fletcher had failed to convince the assembly to
enact legislation that would establish the Church of England as the offi
cial church of the province. Instead, the assembly passed a bill that
authorized the people to call a Protestant minister of their own choice,
thereby advancing the expectancy of religious freedom in the province.
Faced with this reality, Fletcher disregarded the intent and wording of
the Ministry Act and fiercely maintained that the Church of England
was the official church of the province. By means of this rhetoric, his
own persistence, and political power, he created an interpretation that
the Church of England was the official church of the province. So per suasive was Fletcher that his interpretation has been accepted by some
modern historians.77 More important, the creation of this "official"
interpretation proved to be a dangerous tool in the hands of subsequent
defenders of the Anglican church who used this interpretation to argue
that the Church of England was the established church in the colony.
There was, however, a quasi-legal basis for the actions of the late sev
enteenth-century governors' efforts to portray the Anglican church as
75. "Decision as to the Meaning of the Ministry Act, by the Assembly, 12 February, 1694," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 1096,1097; Cobb, Rise of Religious Liberty in America, 340-41.
76. "Journal of Assembly of New York, A Dissenting Minister may be called, 12 April 1695," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 1114.
77. Kämmen, Colonial New Yor/(, 136; see also Bonomi, Under the Cope of Heaven, 51—52, for a discussion of the nature of the "established church" in colonial New York.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
322 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY
the official church of the province. In the secret instructions to Governor Fletcher and the Earl of Bellomont (1698-1699), who succeed
ed Fletcher, the king directed that "no Minister be preferred by you to
any ecclesiastical benefice in that province, without a certificate from
the Right Reverend Bishop of London, of his being conformable to the
Doctrine and discipline of the Church of England."?8 Acting on this
instruction, the Earl of Bellomont in 1691 reported to the Lords of
Trade that he had rejected an act passed by the assembly to establish a
non-Anglican minister in the province because "it being contrary to his
Majesty's instructions."79 And again in 1700, the Earl of Bellomont
refused to "countenance" or to "recommend" petitions from the resi
dents of Queens and Suffolk Counties requesting the appointment of
Protestant ministers who were not Anglican.®0 Bellomont's actions
were an extension of Governor Fletcher's "official interpretation" that
the Church of England was the established church in the colony. The
assembly's actions and the petitions of the people of Queens and Suffolk
Counties, however, illustrated that the people had rejected that interpre tation.
The religious diversity of the Province of New York continued to be
a distinguishing aspect of its colonial history. Echoing the statements of
earlier Dutch and English reports, the ministers of the Church of
England at the close of the first decade of the eighteenth century report
ed to the Bishop of London: "That it has been a general observation that
considering the number of Inhabitants of the Colony of New York no
place produces a greater diversity of opinion in matters of Religion."81
In a practical attempt to deal with their own diversity, the peoples of the
colony divided themselves into "virtually a series of colonies. The com
78. "Secret Instructions to Governor Sloughter . . . Ecclesiastical Records, II: 991; "Secret Instructions for the Earl of Bellomont, 31 August 1697," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 1213.
79. "Earl of Bellomont's Report to Lords of Trade, 22 July 1699," Ecclesiastical Records, II: 1331. 80. "Earl of Bellomont's Report to Lords of Trade, 17 October 1700," Ecclesiastical Records, II:
1392-93.
81. "Memorial of the Clergy of the Colonies of New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia in America To the Right Hon. & Right Reverend Father in God, HENRY, Lord Bishop of London, Relating to Mr. Poyer and the Church of Jamaica, New York, 13 November 1711," The Documentary History of the State of New Yort(, ed. Ε. Β. O'Callaghan (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons & Company, 1850), 3:224.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740 323
mereiai town on Manhattan, the Dutch settlements in the Hudson
Valley, and the Puritan villages on Long Island were quite independent
of each other."®2 This geographical division enhanced their expectancy
of religious freedom, breeding a peculiar sense of religious identity and a
suspicion of those of differing beliefs. When people of different beliefs
were mixed, conflict often followed. The area most hostile to any effort
to impose Anglicanism was certainly the Queens County area of Long
Island. The early Anglican ministers described this area to their superi
ors: "The Inhabitants of this County are generally Independents @ [sic]
what are not so are either Quakers or of no professed Religion at all the
generality averse to the discipline of our holy mother the Church of
England & enraged to see her Ministry established among them. And it was this area that became the battleground in the government's drive
to establish the Church of England in the province.
The newly appointed governor, Edward Viscount Cornbury (1701 to
1708), arrived in the colony in 1702.^4 Soon after his arrival, Cornbury
began an uncompromising campaign to establish the Church of England
in the colony. In the winter of 1702-03, the newly established Anglican
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Lands dispatched a
missionary/minister, the Reverend Mr. John Bartow, to the colony. The
morning that he arrived at the church at Jamaica, Long Island, to con
duct his first service, he was surprised to find that the Presbyterian min
ister, Reverend Hobbart (a.k.a. Hubbard), was already conducting a
service for his dissident followers. Not willing to be outdone, that after
noon Reverend Bartow arrived first at the Church and began his servic es, so that when Reverend Hobbart arrived, he was the one who was
surprised. This contest between the ministers quickly degenerated into a
riot as the Anglican members of the congregation fought to prevent
82. William E. Nelson, Americanization of the Common Law: The Impact of Legal Change on Massachusetts Society, 1760-1830 (Athens, G A: University of Georgia Press, 1994), x.
83. "Letter from Reverend Messrs. Urquhart and John Thomas to the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 4 July 1705," Documentary History, 3: 209.
84. Governor Cornbury has not fared well at the hands of historians. He has generally been depicted as an intolerant, abusive, cross-dressing tyrant. In the most current work, the allegations of cross-dressing have been called into question. Patricia U. Bonomi, The Lord Cornbury Scandal: The Politics of Reputation in British America (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998).
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
324 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY
their Presbyterian brothers and sisters from removing the benches to a
nearby orchard where Rev. Hobbart had retreated to hold services for the dissenters.^5
The riot of July 1703 was more than a local battle between Anglicans
and Presbyterians; it represented an attempt by the state to impose the
Anglican church on the colony and break the people's expectancy of
religious freedom.86 Governor Cornbury's order to the colonial
Attorney General May Bickley to investigate the disturbance appeared
neutral on its face, but his ensuing actions left no question as to his
intent.^ In the months that followed, Cornbury summarily ordered the
sheriff of Queens County to eject the Presbyterian minister from the
parsonage at Jamaica and hand it over to the new Anglican minister,
Reverend William Urquhart.88 The governor followed this appropria tion of the dissenters' church property with orders to the church war
dens and vestrymen of the Jamaica church to pay the Anglican minister
with the taxes that had been collected for the parish minister pursuant
to the Ministry Act of 1693.^9 The church wardens and the vestrymen
refused to comply, and the governor fined them for their resistance.90
In January 1707, Cornbury's efforts to effect religious conformity
focused upon the city of New York. The population of the city "con
sisted, at this time, of Dutch Calvinists, upon the plan of the Church of
Holland; French refugees, on the Geneva model; a few English Episcopalians; and a still smaller number of English and Irish
Presbyterians.'^1 It was to this small group of Presbyterians that two
ministers, Francis MaKemie and John Hampton, came to serve. The Dutch Calvinists offered the use of their church to the new Presbyterian
ministers and their congregation, but Cornbury denied the ministers
85. "Letter from Reverend Mr. Bartow to the Secretary of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 1 December 1707," Documentary History, 3: 211—12.
86. For references to this incident as a riot, see Bonomi, Lord Cornbury Scandal, 216-17; Balmer, A Perfect Babel of Confusion, 84.
87. "Order to the Attorney Geni to Enquire into a Riot at Jamaica, 27 July 1703," Documentary History, 3: 202.
88. "Lord Cornbury's Order, 4 July 1704," Documentary History, 3: 205-06. 89. "An Order to the Sheriff, 4 July 1704, " Documentary History, 3: 206, 207. 90. "The Church Wardens and Vestrymen Fined, 31 March 1705," Documentary History, 3: 208. 91. Smith, The History of the Province of New Yorf{, I: 125.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740 325
permission to preach. This proved no obstacle to either MaKemie or Hampton, for they simply began to preach without the governor's
approval. Within days the governor issued a warrant for the arrest of
the ministers, and the sheriff apprehended the two.92
The governor ordered Attorney General Bickley to prosecute
MaKemie for "contemning and endeavoring to subvert the Queen's ecclesiastical supremacy, unlawfully preached without the Governour's
licences first obtained, in derogation of the royal authority and preroga tive; that he used other rites and ceremonies, than those contained in the
Common-prayer book."93 At the trial, the attorney general argued that
the governor's "Instructions relating to church matters, had the force of law."
Despite Bickley's belief that MaKemie would be convicted, "the jury
found no difficulty to acquit the defendant."94 The jury, drawn from
the multi-religious population of the province, represented an expectan
cy of religious freedom that was held by the general population. The
jurymen considered Cornbury's efforts as unlawful persecution of a dis
sident group, but more importantly, the actions of the governor repre
sented another attempt to establish a state church.
Robert Hunter succeeded to the governorship of the province in 1709,
but did not arrive in New York until 1710, and served in this capacity
until 1720. Under Hunter, the advancement of Anglican interests suf fered, not from any lack of commitment on his behalf, but because of his
commitment to the law. The battle for the Jamaica church continued.
In 1709 the Anglican minister died, and before his replacement, the
Anglican Reverend Thomas Poyer, could arrive and take possession of
the church and parsonage, the Presbyterians reclaimed their church.
Reporting the loss of the church, a neighboring Anglican minister wrote
to the secretary of the society: "There is a clause in the Act of Assembly
for settling the Ministry in this Province, which empowers the people to
call their Minister, accordingly the Dissenting Party of Jamaica have
called a Dissenting Minister and entitle him to the parish salary."95
92. Smith, History of the Province of New Yor}{, I: 125-26; Bonomi, Lord Cornbury Scandal, 71. 93. Smith, History of the Province of New Yor\, I: 127. 94. Ibid., I: 127, 128. 95. "Reverend Mr. Thomas Poyer to the Secretary of the Society for Propagation of the Gospel in
Foreign Parts, 3 December 1710," Documentary History, 3: 221.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
326 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY
Soon after Governor Hunter's arrival in New York, the new
Anglican minister, Reverend Poyer, sought redress from the governor.
The Anglicans certainly expected that Hunter would follow in the steps of Cornbury and summarily order the dissenters to surrender the
Jamaica property. The governor inquired of Chief Justice Roger
Mompesson as to how to proceed. The Chief Justice "gave his opinion in writing that it could not be done otherwise than by due course of law
with a high crime and misdemeanor."96 By this, the chief justice meant
that summary action, as had been taken by Cosby, was not proper, and
that the governor or representatives of the church must take the appro
priate legal action. In conformity with this opinion, Hunter refused to
take any summary action to displace the Presbyterians and settle the
minister's salary question. Instead the governor "begged him [Rev. Poyer] to commence a suit at my [Governor Hunter's] cost."97
Eventually, Reverend Poyer did bring an action for his salary, but
the court denied it.9^ In part, the failure of Poyer's action was the result
of the confusion that surrounded the decision to bring the action. Many
Anglican ministers, including Reverend Poyer, believed that no action
should be brought until so directed by the Bishop of London.99 The combination of these elements, the governor's refusal to act illegally, the
uncertainty of the Anglicans as to how to act, and the initial refusal of
the court to rule in favor of Reverend Poyer on the salary issue, fired the resistance of the dissenters.
In November 1718, Reverend Poyer complained to the Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in London that even
though the court had ordered the taxes to be collected to pay his salary,
the people of the town were saying that "if the Constables offer to collect
it upon the Warrants the Justice have given pursuant to the Writ afore
said, they will scald them; they will stone them; they will go to Club law
96. "Letter from Governor Hunter to the Secretary of the Society for Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 25 February 1711," Documentary History, 3: 251.
97. Ibid. 3: 251; Mary Lou Lustig, Robert Hunter, 1666-1734, New York's Augustan Statesman (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1983), 107—108.
98. "Letter from Governor Hunter to the Secretary of Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 25 February 1711, Documentary History, 3: 251—52; "Governor Hunter's Speech to Clergy," Documentary History, 3: 257—58.
99. "Letter from Governor Hunter ...," Documentary History, 3: 260.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740 327
with them."100 These were no idle threats. In December 1718, Deputy Constable Combs went to the home of Daniel Bull in Jamaica to collect
"the Minister's Rate for Jamaica." When Bull refused to pay the assess
ment, Comes threatened to seize his property to make the required pay
ment. Bull then took up an axe and "said in very great hast he [Bull]
would split his [Combs] brains if he touched anything there."101 The
deputy constable withdrew and went for assistance. Although he
returned with some "Sixteen or Seventeen people" to aid in the execu
tion, Combs found that he was still outnumbered. A crowd had gath ered to help Bull, and "[LJifting up their Clubbs bid him come if he
durst and gave him a great deal of Scurrilous Language and the said
Bull advanced two or three steps from his Company towards this
Deponent [Combs] and lifting up his Clubb told him if he came one
foot forward he would knock out his Brains."102 Realizing that this
was not a fight that he could win, Combs and his supporters withdrew.
Daniel Bull and six of his supporters were eventually tried and convict
ed of rioting, based upon their threats to Deputy Constable Combs and
were fined twenty-six pounds ten shillings each.
The Jamaica Riot of 1718 is evidence of the continuing expectancy of
religious freedom that was fiercely held to by many people, especially
among the non-conformist majority such as Daniel Bull and his neigh
bors. These men did not belong to the Anglican church, and they were prepared to oppose any attempt to bring them into conformity.
Furthermore, these men understood that their prosecution was part of
the religious persecution that was being carried on by the government
and the Anglican church. In their appeal to Governor Hunter to reduce their fines, they argued that their convictions rested on the fact that the
prosecutor had empaneled a jury largely composed of Anglican church
men.1^ This allegation was accurate, for in their response to the defen
100. "Letter from Reverend Mr. Poyer to the Secretary of the Society for Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 4 November 1718," Documentary History, 3: 281.
101. "Affidavit of Richard Combs, Deputy Constable of Jamaica, 8 October 1718," Documentary History, 3: 287.
102. Ibid., 3: 287-88. 103. "To His Excellency Robert Hunter Esqr. Capt. Gen. & Governor in Chief of His Majesty's
Provinces. . . . The Petition of Daniel Bull . . .Documentary History, 3: 284.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
328 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY
dants' petition, the justices of the peace of Queens County admitted that
"[T]his Jury consisted of some of the most principal men in the County,
as well for Estates as Honesty; and if many of them were Church-men,
we cannot think them the Less Capable of the office for that reason."I04
It is difficult to determine with any accuracy the exact state of the
expectancy of religious freedom that existed in the province of New
York at the mid-point of the eighteenth century. Surely the official
position of the government favored the Church of England and its sup
porters. But the government-favored Anglican church did not control
religion in the colony. The religious condition was best summarized by
Reverend Poyer in his 1731 letter of resignation to the society:
. . . I have struggled withal amongst the Independents in this
parish having had several lawsuits with them before I could have
the Salary which the Country has settled upon the Minister of the
Church of England several other lawsuits for some Glebe lands which we have lost and at last even the Church itself of which we
had possession 25 years is taken from us by a trial at law (with
what justice I can't pretend to say). .. ,I05
This description of Poyer's twenty-five years in the colony shows that
not only did the dissenters—the majority of the population—continue in their expectancy of religious freedom, but that they also utilized
established social institutions, such as the courts, to protect and further
their religious freedom.
The events outlined here make several important points about reli
gion in the province. Between 1624 and 1750, New York was the most
religiously diverse colony in British North America. The religious
spectrum ran from the conservatives, such as Catholics, Lutherans, and
Anglicans, to those of the reformed tradition, the Dutch Reformed,
Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, to the more radical, such as
Baptists, Quakers, and Moravians. This divergence was particularly pronounced because each sect
fought to continue its existence. To some extent, the presence of most
104. Ibid., 3:285. 105. "Letter from Reverend Mr. Poyer to the Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts, 16 June 1731," Documentary History, 3: 310.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Carney New York Religious History, 1624-1740 329
sects was fostered by a combination of law and fuzzy official policy. In
the first days of the colony, despite the presence of the state-recognized Dutch Reformed Church, the need for the Dutch to establish and con
solidate their colony of New Netherland resulted in a limited freedom
of conscience. This policy attracted the English Puritans and Scottish
Presbyterians who had come to North America to escape the religious
persecution of the Old World. In 1664, the colony changed hands and
for the remainder of the colonial period (except for a brief period of
Dutch rule from 1673 to 1674), England controlled the colony.
Officially this political change made little difference in terms of reli
gion. The Articles of Capitulation of 1664 (reconfirmed in 1674) offi
cially recognized and guaranteed the continued public presence of the
Dutch Reformed Church. Considering the religious diversity already
existing in New York, the English monarchs had no choice but to con
tinue the Dutch practice of permitting freedom of conscience.
Despite the assurances provided by the Articles, actual practice dif
fered from governor to governor. Some governors-general, Benjamin
Fletcher, the Earl of Bellomont, and Lord Cornbury, were avid support
ers of the Anglican Church. These men sought to establish their church
as the officiai church of the colony, in a manner reminiscent of the
efforts of Pieter Stuyvesant to make the Dutch Reformed Church the
established church in New Netherland. These efforts led to a strong resistance among non-conformists that fostered the development of an
expectancy of religious freedom among the non-Anglican population of the colony. The earliest evidence of this expectancy was exhibited by
the colonial assembly in 1693 when it refused Governor Fletcher's
request for an amendment to the Ministry Act of 1693 that would have
given the governor complete control over the appointment of ministers
in the colony. In 1707, the jury in the MaKemie case refused to recog
nize Lord Cornbury's authority to licence preachers and freed the min
isters. Daniel Bull and his neighbors refused to pay the taxes to support
the Anglican minister in 1718, going so far as to intimidate the deputy
constable with physical force.
These events indicate that by the mid-eighteenth century, many (if
not most) non-Anglicans in the province of New York held to an
expectancy of religious freedom. This expectancy would later propel
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
330 ■ NEW YORK HISTORY
them to oppose the Anglican efforts to dominate the colony's first col
lege, King's College, in the late 1750s, and to oppose the proposal for the
appointment of an Anglican bishop in the North American colonies in
the 1760s. In the end, this expectancy would rise to the level of a
basic—constitutional—principle with the refusal of the framers of the
first New York state constitution to prefer any religious denomination
over any other.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 23:12:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
- Contents
- p. 301
- p. 302
- p. 303
- p. 304
- p. 305
- p. 306
- p. 307
- p. 308
- p. 309
- p. 310
- p. 311
- p. 312
- p. 313
- p. 314
- p. 315
- p. 316
- p. 317
- p. 318
- p. 319
- p. 320
- p. 321
- p. 322
- p. 323
- p. 324
- p. 325
- p. 326
- p. 327
- p. 328
- p. 329
- p. 330
- Issue Table of Contents
- New York History, Vol. 85, No. 4 (FALL 2004) pp. 301-425
- Front Matter
- þÿ�þ�ÿ���A��� ���T���r���a���d���i���t���i���o���n��� ���t���o��� ���L���i���v���e��� ���B���y���:��� ���N���e���w��� ���Y���o���r���k��� ���R���e���l���i���g���i���o���u���s��� ���H���i���s���t���o���r���y���,��� ���1���6���2���4�������1���7���4���0��� ���[���p���p���.��� ���3���0���1���-���3���3���0���]
- "A Cultural Stronghold": The "Anglo-African" Newspaper and the Black Community of New York [pp. 331-357]
- The St. Lawrence Seaway: A Bi-National Political Marathon, A Local and State Initiative [pp. 359-385]
- Review Essay
- The APA Era in New York's Outpost Wilderness: Thirty Years of Conflict and Progress [pp. 387-400]
- Book Reviews
- Review: untitled [pp. 401-403]
- Review: untitled [pp. 403-405]
- Review: untitled [pp. 405-407]
- Review: untitled [pp. 407-408]
- Review: untitled [pp. 409-411]
- Review: untitled [pp. 411-413]
- Review: untitled [pp. 413-414]
- Review: untitled [pp. 415-417]
- Back Matter