Bishop Mcilvaine, Slavery, Britain & the Civil War

Copyright © 2014 by RICHARD W. SMITH.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 09/10/2014

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

535661

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Personal Abbreviations

Preface

Acknowledgments

CHAPTER 1 The Early Years

CHAPTER 2 The Young Western Bishop

CHAPTER 3 The Maturing Bishop

CHAPTER 4 The Union Splinters

CHAPTER 5 They Will Be Overrun.

CHAPTER 6 The Division of the Union Is Now… A Fait Accompli

CHAPTER 7 In Their Darkest Hour

CHAPTER 8 In the Present Solemn Crisis

CHAPTER 9 The Trent Crisis Resolved

CHAPTER 10 Engaged on Several Fronts

CHAPTER 11 The Fully Committed Bishop

CHAPTER 12 Afterword

Epilogue

Bibliography

Notes

To Betty

PERSONAL ABBREVIATIONS

PREFACE

I n November 1861, Charles F. Adams, the United States ambassador to Great Britain, was a houseguest of Monckton Milnes, MP. The visit was not entirely for pleasure as he stated to the London consul. I have an idea that [an] extension of social acquaintance is not without its uses to our cause. Similar social occasions were utilized politically by all the leaders of the Federal administration. Indeed, President Abraham Lincoln had already asked Bishop Charles P. McIlvaine (Ohio) to undertake an informal mission in the United Kingdom. The bishop spent several months in England and returned to Ohio in June 1862. In a summation of his efforts, he wrote,

Having gone to Engld. at the request of the President & Secretary of State [William H. Seward] and Mr. Chase [Secretary of the Treasury], . . . to work a just influence on the minds of leading people, . . . in reference to our cause, . . . I was… enabled to do a good deal more that I expected to have an opportunity for… ; but I have the comforting… assurance of many… that my mission had been productive of great good. If I have been enabled to thus serve my beloved country, . . . I count it one of the greatest honors, of my life.¹

This volume is a study of Bishop McIlvaine. A little-known figure in the current age, he was an important person in the antebellum and wartime/postwar periods. After his death, several thousand items in his papers were destroyed. Generous support from descendants who had small collections of manuscripts enabled me to proceed with the research.²

During the post-Revolutionary years, the Protestant Episcopal Church had to reposition itself. Many associated it with the British monarchy. Its episcopal polity and the reputation for elitism helped stunt its growth. Following the Great Awakening, a Second Awakening commenced in 1796. The broad participation in the several bursts of revivalist energy paralleled the rise of a wider democratic society. As for the Episcopalians, the church splintered in 1811 when evangelicals gained a recognized position in the communion.

Charles McIlvaine was brought to the ministry by the 1815 revival at Princeton College. An honor graduate the next year, McIlvaine was committed to the evangelical stream in the church. "The power of godliness is the… reality of godliness… . Its only abiding place is the heart, he stated. That condition comes through a new… inward birth. God’s transforming power brings on the new creature."³

The Ohioan became a major leader among evangelical Episcopalians. This work also emphasizes his evangelical involvement with secular issues and the explosive slave-race controversy. The position of other midwestern religious bodies on the slavery issue is clarified. During those years, virtually all Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish leaders were, to some degree, fearful of their counterparts. It was incumbent on them to uphold the divine verities and the correct positions on socio-economic issues. ⁴

The bishop had undertaken four lengthy visits in England before the Civil War. He interacted with a number of significant lay and clerical persons and became the central figure in the evangelical, Anglican-Episcopal Atlantic community. One of the first Americans to receive honorary degrees from Oxford and Cambridge, he developed a surprisingly close friendship with the Prince of Wales in 1860. It was thus logical for Salmon P. Chase to suggest that he join Thurlow Weed on a dual mission to Britain. However, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s comment regarding the archbishop of Canterbury, I try to talk to him about religion, but he seems quite uninterested and reverts all the time to politics, is too sharp for McIlvaine. ⁵

This book aims to place McIlvaine in the dynamic and fluid societies that evolved through the years to 1873. While I hope that it will open new perspectives for professional historians, I also trust that laypersons will develop a more nuanced understanding of those times.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

M y grateful thanks are extended to the many persons who helped with the research for this volume: Ms. Rose Van L. Burnham and Koert Burnham, Keeseville, New York, along with Mrs. Edward McNair, Marysville, California, and Mrs. Reaford Haney, Altadena, California, gave me the necessary encouragement as they opened their family archives to me; Justus Doenecke, New College; Paul Burnam, Methodist Theological Seminary, Delaware, Ohio; Richard Spall, John Reed, Hilda Wick, Bernard Derr, Martha Zavar, Danielle Clark, Jillian Maruskin, Dee Peterson, Tom Green, Theresa Byrd, Courtney Hahn, Colin Grenig, Andrew Howard, Austin Wickliffe, Ohio Wesleyan University; Carol Marshall, Lynn Manner, Kenyon College; Pamela Clark, Royal Archives, Windsor Castle; Richard Carwardine, David Sim, Oxford University and John Bolton, London, England; Harold E. Robling, George Williams, Rev. A. T. K. Zadig, Rev. Michael Lumpkin of South Carolina; Bette M. Epstein, New Jersey State Archives; Glenn Metzdorf, Christ Church, Georgetown, DC; Betsy and Jim Hughes of Dayton; Valerie Hudson, Nina Couch, Matthew Keith, Martha Garland, Joanna Anderson, Peter Hahn, Michael L. Benedict, Ohio State University; Richard Blackett, Vanderbilt University; Rod Clare, Duke University; Elaine McConnell, USMA; Carolyn Garner, Huntington Library; Gail Striver, Occidental College; Tom Keller and Doug Jackson supported the research in many different ways. Frank and Margaret Szasz, Hugh Davis, Gary Gallagher, Evan and Anita Bukey, Tony Stoneburner, Bob Jaccaud, Joe Glatthaar, and Jean H. Baker made suggestions regarding the ms; other friends have asked stimulating questions.

The research was facilitated by the cheerful library personnel at The Ohio State University; The Library of Congress; The British Library; Lambeth Palace; Collinwood Newspaper Library (Collinwood, England); Historical Society of Pennsylvania; Oberlin College; Gettysburg College; Harvard University; Yale University; University of Rochester; Duke University; Cambridge University; Oxford University; College of Wooster; Xavier University; Colgate-Rochester Seminary; Wittenberg University; Diocese of Connecticut Archives (Hartford); Diocese of Northern Ohio Archives (Cleveland); Archdiocese of Cincinnati Archives; the Church Historical Society (Austin, Texas); Garrett-Seabury Seminary (Evanston, Illinois); Episcopal Seminary (Alexandria, Virginia); Huntington Library (Pasadena, California); Ohio Historical Society; and Wisconsin State Historical Society.

Thanks to the several members of the staff at Xlibris who worked me through the publication process.

An author cannot be too fulsome in thanking his family for their support. My wife, Betty, helped me with every conceivable dimension of the work. Our children, Kathryn, David, and Rebecca have offered suggestions, aided in the research and asked for progress reports. Nor can one ignore the contributions of our dogs.

Richard W. Smith

Delaware, Ohio

CHAPTER 1

The Early Years

C harles Pettit McIlvaine was a descendant of the prominent Makilvanes of Ayrshire, Scotland. A great-grandfather, William McIlvaine, was a merchant in Philadelphia before the French and Indian War. Charles McIlvaine’s father, Joseph, moved from Bristol, Pennsylvania, to Burlington, New Jersey, as a young man. He began the practice of law in 1791. Two years later, a yellow fever outbreak in Philadelphia induced his uncle, William, to join him. The two men eventually had their homes on the Green Bank by the Delaware River. Founded in 1677 by Quakers, Burlington was an important town in colonial and early national New Jersey. The McIlvaines were able to gain acceptance by the local social and political elite. Those leaders conducted themselves in the most respected manner. Elias Boudinot, the noted patriot, president of the Continental Congress and leading Federalist, moved to the town in 1805. His national reputation and his philanthropy increased the prestige of Burlington.

Charles was born in 1799. Joseph and his wife, Maria Reed McIlvaine, had eight children. The young boy grew up in a town, which numbered about 2,500 inhabitants. Joseph, a Jeffersonian Republican, was the Federal district attorney for New Jersey from 1801 to 1820. He then served in the Federal Senate from 1823 to 1826. There were also several notable persons in Charles McIlvaine’s larger family. His grandfather McIlvaine was a colonel in the Pennsylvania line in the revolution. A maternal great-uncle was Joseph Reed. Reed was George Washington’s military secretary early in the Revolutionary War; later he was the first president of the Executive Council of Pennsylvania. Joseph Bloomfield, a Revolutionary War officer, a governor of New Jersey, and a brigadier general in the War of 1812, was related by marriage. The Pettit name came from Charles Pettit, once the secretary of the Pennsylvania provincial governor, William Franklin. He was assistant quartermaster to the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War and later a leading Federalist. Pettit was a maternal great-uncle by marriage. One can only speculate about the topics and personalities discussed by the extended family during the bishop’s formative years. Nurtured in that high-level political and military milieu, Charles McIlvaine moved into positions of leadership with the ease of one to the manner born. ⁶

As a graduate from Princeton, Charles was described as ungallant in the sense of being smart in his dress. An older brother also declared that Charles seemed to want to be useful to his fellow citizens. Unaware of Charles’s decision, he urged him to consider a career in medicine or divinity. Continuing, he opined that Charles would become distinguished in either. ⁷

Charles began to read theology in 1816 with his hometown rector, Charles Wharton. They followed the prescribed Episcopal curriculum. At the same time, he organized a Sunday school in Burlington. That endeavor brought a commendation for his work with the poor whom you informed, the sick whom you visited, and the wretched whom you consoled.

In the fall of 1817, he entered the Princeton Seminary, which had no distinctive Presbyterian qualities linked with it. It did, however, bring him into the Reformed tradition. The extant family correspondence during his formative years is one-sided because Charles’s letters are missing. His practical brother, Reed, advised work at two churches because of the lasting benefit to you. No more endearing letter from a younger sister exists than that of Mary who wrote about the lack of sledding snow, reciting her French and sister Ellen’s fear she would grow down like a cow’s tail if she did not get to bed early. ⁸

In the spring of 1819, Bloomfield penned an appraisal that listed Charles’s thirst for knowledge, his basic liberality and affection for the family. He continued, In you it would not be even ambition to look higher. It is but justice to yourself to assume you station. His brother’s encomiums were sincere and served as a tonic for Charles. In view of his known medical history, he may have been exhausted from overwork or seriously ill. That same day, his mother, after a fervent wish for his recovery, suggested he return home for what mammy can do for you. Charles was compelled to withdraw at that time. ⁹

Another year at home completed young McIlvaine’s training. During those months, the slavery controversy erupted with devastating force. In February 1819, an enabling bill authorizing Missouri statehood was amended to prohibit slavery in the projected state. Bitter but inconclusive debate sent the issue to the next Congress. The deepening 1819 depression was the major concern in the North during the summer. Antislavery opinion was awakened, however, by a barrage of propaganda. The first Northern protest meeting was held in Burlington in August. Boudinot and his Quaker associates led it. A large second meeting in Trenton resulted in a wide distribution of circulars.¹⁰

The Missouri question represented the culmination of an increasingly tense argument over the multidimensional slavery issue. During the Revolutionary and Confederation years, the New England states and Pennsylvania moved to terminate slavery. Postnatus laws were seriously discussed in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The great turning point came in the Constitutional Convention. James Madison (Virginia) frankly said the different interests of the states flowed principally from… their having or not having slaves. The antislave members accepted slaveholder demands and saved the convention. Debates over the issue, however, erupted many times in the following thirty-two years. ¹¹

There were clumps of antislave sentiment in the Burlington area, but the total state was so moderate that it was the last to pass a postnatus law. The McIlvaines were directly involved. Joseph Sr. did not own taxable male slaves although his uncle owned female slaves. As a leading Jeffersonian Republican, he did not join the local abolition society; there is no evidence that any of the McIlvaine men attended or signed any of the documents associated with the Missouri protest gatherings.¹²

After the new Congress opened in December 1819, Henry Clay reported the Missouri question monopolizes all our conversation. The passion unleashed in Congress included talk of disunion and civil war. The frank letters exchanged in the McIlvaine family did not allude to any of those developments. ¹³

Meanwhile, Charles was called to Christ Church in Georgetown, DC, in early 1820 with the understanding that he would be ordained deacon that summer. The salary was fixed at $1,200 a year. In the letter that conveyed his appointment, the church official jolted the young man with a reminder that the Federal district was the epicenter for the volatile Missouri debates.

The Missouri bill yet occupies the attention of both Houses of Congress… . How the question of restriction [and abolition of slavery in Missouri] will be decided, it is impossible to say… . From the spirit manifested on both sides of the question, there is reason I think to fear, whatever may be the decision. ¹⁴

After the new rector arrived in Georgetown, his father worried about his son’s health and yet signaled Charles’s independence with the statement that the world would be the arbiter of his actions. That summer, the major Missouri Compromise was passed. One wonders if McIlvaine slipped into the congressional galleries to listen to the third round of vituperative debates over the question in 1820–1821. In the end the struggle was so divisive that many participants realized it weakened the Union.¹⁵

As for McIlvaine, his study at Princeton, particularly with Archibald Alexander, influenced his approach to the ministry. To report that young McIlvaine showed promise as he began his work would be a gross understatement. His parents received word that his first service was viewed as extraordinarily effective. Some weeks later, his parents were in the congregation as he preached in Philadelphia. His sermon was regarded as an exceptional effort. Joseph Sr. reminded Charles that he already had a solid reputation. A solicitous father advised his son, Your rise to that station to which your talents lead is certain provided your approaches are made with… caution… . Early applause has ruined… many a man… [please] pursue a modest unassuming course. From Lexington, Kentucky Reed informed his father that an eastern clergyman described our ‘peculiar’ Bishop as the best young pulpit orator, he had ever heard.¹⁶

After hearing from Charles, Reed also wrote to him. Citing Philadelphia friends, he was certain Charles would be called to a major Quaker city church. I am not anxious that this [projected] vacancy should occur under a year or two. Charles could gain more knowledge and the necessary experience at Christ Church. Yet, should the offer be made you, I pray accept it.¹⁷ In 1821, McIlvaine made another trip to Philadelphia. Reed indicated, I have heard… of the attention your sermons attracted in Phila. He and Joseph Sr. pressed Charles about a relocation. Rumor of a call to St. Paul’s became a reality in August of that year. Both men were pleased when Charles refused the offer. ¹⁸

The language used by the members of the family indicated their sense of confidence. They were among the elite of the republic. With their classical education, they labored to better, to improve American society. As they pushed ahead, they achieved their proper station in that society. Guided as he was, Charles McIlvaine was ascending that path.

Having decided on Christ Church, McIlvaine’s ministry broadened as he used prayer meetings to supplement his preaching. It was a revival technique in line with that employed by other evangelical Episcopalians. His leadership of the parish caught the attention of several Federal officials and the other young evangelicals in the area. Among them were Ethan Allen, William Meade, John Johns, and Stephen H. Tyng. McIlvaine was a leader in pushing evangelical theology. There were High Church complaints. The High Church group held that participating in the liturgies and receiving the sacraments prepared men and women for salvation. They advocated a personal piety. Moderate devotional practices, but no zeal or religious enthusiasm, were in order. ¹⁹

At the age of twenty-three, in 1822, the man from New Jersey was elected chaplain of the United States Senate. On the personal level, it was a wonderful year for Charles and Emily Coxe of Burlington as they were engaged to be married. The two families had been close for four generations. It was a natural match. The wedding, however, was delayed until the fall at the request of the Coxe family. After the couple was at home in Georgetown, the young bridegroom made a mandated trip to Baltimore. Writing to his mother-in-law, Charles declared it went against the grain to leave his wife. He happily assured her that Emily fits my measure for clergyman’s wife.²⁰

Another person who was drawn to McIlvaine was the British ambassador, Stratford Canning, later Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. He advised McIlvaine to give up memorization and develop an extempore style based on prepared ideas. Regarding slavery, the parish records did not distinguish slaveholders among the communicants. McIlvaine did not have any comment that has been preserved on his work in a slave society.²¹

One of the most important members of the parish was Francis Scott Key. In addition to his stirring song, he was known in the villages of Washington and Georgetown for his dignity and wealth. His leading role in organizing and promoting the American Colonization Society would not have been ignored by McIlvaine. Especially, since Princeton men and a significant cluster of Episcopal laymen and clergy were pivotal in the society. As the editor of the first evangelical Episcopal paper in the Union, it was obvious that McIlvaine would support the Society. Whether he envisioned the group doing more than relocating free African Americans in Africa was not clear. Established in 1817, the Society’s endeavors were hampered by the conflicting motives that its members brought to the project. Regardless, at the time, hopes were high as Liberia was established in 1822. ²²

At that time, the evangelical Philadelphia Recorder featured developments bearing on the ACS. Even depressing news of local tribal attacks on the Liberian colony were covered. The paper noted that Rev. James Milnor was director for Life. A life membership for McIlvaine was provided by the DC Female Bible Society. The Reverends Stephen H. Tyng and Charles Wharton were likewise life members.²³

In 1823, McIlvaine was ordained as a priest. He was proving to be an impressive figure in a politically sensitive position. By that summer, the post-1812 nationalism and the one party period in the country’s development had been supplanted by sectionalism. Ambitious sectional candidates splintered the Republican Party as they vied for the presidency. Joseph McIlvaine Sr. was so far into the camp of John C. Calhoun, secretary of war, that he could not visit Charles in 1821. The East Jersey Republicans would suggest the trip was made to heighten Calhoun’s appeal.²⁴ When Samuel Southard (New Jersey) gave up his Federal Senate seat in 1823, Calhoun insisted that his successor must be sound and vigorous. Joseph McIlvaine Sr. was one of two men he recommended. In the legislative election, McIlvaine won the seat. ²⁵

In the summer of 1823, Charles and his wife experienced the overwhelming heartbreak that resulted from the death of an infant daughter. As with all who had the same experience, they stumbled along with their lives. In November, however, McIlvaine wrote to Ethan Allen, We must not lose it [control of the West Point chaplaincy] altogether. Sensing an opening was imminent, his plan was for Allen to get the position. Allen was urged to scout around about his chances. If Allen concluded in the negative, McIlvaine indicated, I [will] think of standing myself. The young cleric also mentioned that he commanded one vote for the post, namely that of his father.²⁶ Allen did not press the matter. In early 1824, the Academy’s Board of Visitors complained that there was an inadequate philosophic foundation for the facts learned in the Ethics program. At the same time, Charles McIlvaine gathered fourteen senatorial signatures for his petition to be assigned the post. Unfortunately, in June 1824, the vestry of Christ Church noted that, at intervals, he had been too weak to consider or continue his work. As a consequence, he returned to Burlington in early summer. He told a friend that he wanted to visit the spring at Saratoga for his weakened condition. ²⁷

The indirect evidence indicated that he did so. His weakness pointed to the involvement of the McIlvaine family with health issues. In 1828, Maria Reed McIlvaine wrote that Mary and I have had aguish feelings—aching bones, headache—etc. Her statement was congruent with malarial symptoms, and it put a new light on the family. Malaria was so widespread in that latitude west of the Alleghenies that it was not reported as an illness.

As expected, Maria was frequently known to be ailing. With regard to Charles, Joseph Sr., thinking of his 1819 illness, informed him in 1821 of the sickly condition around Burlington; he added, You have been unwell and I dread a relapse which is generally worse than the first attack. That warning was appropriate for a malarial victim. There is no direct evidence as to his condition in early 1824, but malaria recurred in that fashion. ²⁸

Among the other sons, Joseph Jr. was never regarded as a man of robust health. Emerson and Henry were younger and were sickly. Bloomfield died after a severe illness at twenty-nine; the senator went into a physical decline in 1825 and died in 1826 a few hours after Bloomfield.

Somehow Joseph Sr. died intestate. His death made Maria McIlvaine a grieving widow sustained by her younger children and the solicitous letters of her grown sons. Although prepared for the inevitable, the two deaths added a crushing burden on the entire family. The fragility of life stood out for them. The mentality of the romantic age, however, enabled Charles, Emily, and the others to talk about it. Charles could give assurance of Christian redemption. And the eternal cycle was evident in the toddler, Joseph. Emily and Charles’s son brightened lives in the family.²⁹

#### ####

With his strength renewed in the summer of 1824, Charles was reelected to the Senate chaplaincy. He pushed ahead, on the West Point project; a key factor for him was relief from the muggy heat of the Potomac valley. ³⁰ Having formed a friendship with Calhoun, the rector was in a strong position. The South Carolinian had smoothly altered his campaign and was assured of the vice presidency. The presidential contest concluded with a splintered popular and electoral vote that mandated a run-off election in the House of Representatives. As the nation waited for that vote, the West Point chaplain resigned. Calhoun calmly suggested that McIlvaine consider the post. The young cleric wrote to him on January 14, 1825,

I have at length made up my mind to become an applicant for the… station… at West Point & will thank you to take the proper steps in my behalf. I suppose it would be well to send my name as soon as possible to the President, for the sake of… [fixing] the President’s mind… . My wife is delighted at the prospect.

Just as Calhoun delivered McIlvaine’s nomination to President James Monroe, letters arrived from Archibald Alexander and Samuel Miller of the Princeton Seminary. At the same time, John Quincy Adams, the secretary of state and one of the three men contending for the presidential chair, talked of another candidate. Nonetheless, McIlvaine was named and confirmed. In the total situation, Senator McIlvaine’s influence was significant. It was important for the family and a victory for Calhoun. It was also a small contributing factor in the tension that would soon arise between President Adams and Calhoun. ³¹

McIlvaine accepted the position knowing that he might encounter an irreligious hostility. He understood he would also be teaching geography, history, and ethics. He became a leading faculty person at the Academy and formed close ties with Sylvanus Thayer, the superintendent.

Whether he ever discussed the art of military warfare is a matter of speculation. He had already displayed promising talent in flanking maneuvers, mobilizing his troops and striking at the opportune moment in his quest for the Academy post. After several months of preaching, his efforts brought on a small religious awakening. In one of the few extant letters from the period, he described the events to his brother, Bloomfield.

About three weeks ago, the Lord in his great mercy, began to show me that… in due season we shall reap if we faint not… . I was rejoiced by the coming of one of the… most intelligent of the Cadets [Leonidas Polk] . . . . In a few days, two similar cases appeared… . The work is extending.

Two staff members were also converted. Those events caused a controversy and McIlvaine was informally advised to leave the Academy. ³²

He did, however, remain at West Point for another academic year. In December 1826, Peter Force, editor of the National Calendar and American Archives, printed an editorial which purported to quote the Report of the Board of Visitors. It declared the work in McIlvaine’s field was superficial because the position was imperfectly filled. The report suggested the abolition of the Department. Thayer responded quickly and asked for a correction. He asserted that imperfectly filled was a phrase not found in the report. As printed, Force’s remark was very injurious to the learned professor holding the chair. Thayer dropped the matter in January 1827, apparently satisfied with the final result. ³³

McIlvaine’s resignation was not registered until November 1827. He had interacted with the faculty and many cadets. They all knew of the threats of secession and the talk of a civil war. Years later, he singled out the following for special recognition: Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, J. B. Magruder, W. N. Pendleton, A. S. Johnston, A. T. Bledsoe, Robert Anderson, Charles F. Smith, Samuel Heintzelman, Silas Casey, Napoleon Buford, Philip S. Cooke, Ormsby Mitchell, Thomas A. Davis, Horatio Van Cleve, Samuel Curtis, and C. P Buckingham; among the faculty, William Worth, T. Mansfield, D. H. Mahan, D. B. Douglass, John Torrey, W. H. C. Bartlett, A. E. Church, and Alexander Bache. ³⁴

In the spring of 1827, Bishop Philander Chase (Ohio) confidentially recommended McIlvaine for the presidency of Transylvania University. Chase assured Henry Clay, He is decidedly the most eloquent man in our section of the community… and a most excellent scholar. Nothing came of the suggestion, however. Later in the year, McIlvaine rejected an offer to assume the presidency of William and Mary College. ³⁵

Rather than continue an academic life, McIlvaine’s expectations were centered on a return to the parish ministry. During the spring of 1827, the members of St. Paul’s in Rochester, New York, and St. Ann’s in Brooklyn let it be known that they wished to call the popular cleric. In early June, the High Churchman, Rev. Henry Onderdonk, invited McIlvaine to slip down the Hudson and preach at St. Ann’s. Although relations may have been formal, the candidate stayed overnight with the Onderdonks, and the entire visit went well. ³⁶

Through those early years of the century, several theologians modified the teachings of Jonathan Edwards. Joseph Bellamy, Samuel Hopkins, Timothy Dwight, and Nathaniel W. Taylor pushed Calvinist theology into an Arminian mode. The new thinking stressed human agency in one’s acting on the need to be born again. Moreover, Samuel Hopkins was the critical person who altered the concept of Christian virtue or benevolence from worship and service to God to humanitarian, good works for everyone. That structure of beliefs led many evangelicals to move immediately with social reforming activities. One prominent divine urged his listeners to be useful in their religious life. More conservative evangelicals limited their appeals to individual improvement. ³⁷

At the same time, a stunning sequence of technological and engineering advances altered the society of the nation. The evangelical linkage with those developments helped drive modernization. All evangelicals advocated a full, well-disciplined pattern for living. That discipline was essential in a society that stressed the deliberate choice of goals and the rational selection of means. ³⁸

That McIlvaine would consider Rochester was undoubtedly due to the completion of the Erie Canal. It opened that fertile area around the falls of the Genesee River to development that was destined to grow into a substantial urban center. Meanwhile, having heard rumors from the town, Onderdonk tried to turn the Rochesterians against McIlvaine. Educated at Princeton, he was evangelical or rather [a] half churchman. As that letter was being discussed, McIlvaine arrived to inspect the area and the church. He made a positive impression, for William Atkinson told Onderdonk that the vestry found him to be an attractive candidate. While in Rochester, McIlvaine wrote Ethan Allen. Having been given a report on secret criticism sent to the vestry of St. Ann’s, he was told that Bishop John Hobart (New York) would give him St. Ann’s.³⁹

An invitation from St. Paul’s forced McIlvaine to reconsider. Acceptance of that position, however, could put him into competition with Charles G. Finney, a popular, new figure in Protestant circles. A New England-born Presbyterian licentiate, his reading and independent thinking were supplemented by theological discussions with persons who were committed to the New Divinity of Dwight and others. Methodist revivals also influenced him. Sent to preach in Jefferson County, New York in 1824, he had already conducted very successful revivals in Rome, Utica, and Troy by 1827.

A broad segment of the thoughtful public obviously reacted favorably to the New Divinity. At the time of the call from St. Paul’s to McIlvaine, Finney was in New England at a small conference with Lyman Beecher and other critics of his new measures. More agreement emerged than was expected. McIlvaine was unaware of those details, but Finney’s possible return to complete a sweep across upstate New York was a dampening contingency for him.⁴⁰

In the completion of the strange twist of events, Onderdonk left prestigious St. Ann’s to become a bishop. A divided parish called McIlvaine on August 13. After some prayer and advice from Milnor, he informed Allen, I rather think I will accept. McIlvaine was incensed by the tactics of the High Church faction. A letter of protest was penned by Milnor. Gregory Townsend Bedell was urged to write, but warned to be casual and not reveal that McIlvaine was consulted. ⁴¹

McIlvaine’s acceptance letter to the vestry declared, I accept… under the solemn belief that I do the will of God. In due time, he moved his wife and two children to Brooklyn. Other aspects of his mentality were evident at the time. In his journal, he stressed the importance of private prayer. On one occasion, he wrote, O Lord… forbid that I should alter one word of my ministry… out of the fear of man! After his daughter, Emily, was born, he explained that his children inherited a depraved nature as all humans did. Thus, they must be born again, or they cannot see the kingdom of God.⁴²

McIlvaine was active with his evangelicalism. His Bible classes at the Brooklyn church were part of an interest in controlled revivals. The Sunday school program was a major undertaking at the church. In 1829, he spoke at a Sunday school rally held at Milnor’s church in Manhattan. A month earlier, he, G. T. Bedell, Milnor and Benjamin Adydelotte were prominent at the second anniversary of the Episcopal Missionary and Education Society meeting.⁴³

An exceedingly versatile young cleric, he responded to the broad drive for personal and social reform. He found time to aid the American Bible Society, the American Tract Society, and the Seamen’s Friends Society. That ecumenical involvement was strongly opposed by Hobart. McIlvaine countered with a statement that Episcopalians should unite and mingle with… brethren of other churches in sustaining the bedrock doctrines of Christianity.⁴⁴ For McIlvaine and others, the ACS was not the center of interest as earlier. In 1829, however, he recommended Gustavus Caesar, an African American, to ACS personnel. The man wished to train for the ministry so that he could serve in Liberia. Obviously, McIlvaine pushed himself through a heavy schedule of commitments.⁴⁵

In February 1830, an attack of neuralgia of a violent kind struck him. Rest was required, and a long trip to England and France ensued. Sailing in March, he committed my beloved wife and my… children to God’s love. McIlvaine landed as the benevolent societies held their annual meetings. That year, there were sixty-seven meetings scheduled in London while regional sessions were held throughout the United Kingdom. His friend, James Milnor, arrived a few days later. Milnor was an agent for several American groups. A one-time Federalist congressman, he included McIlvaine in his endeavors. ⁴⁶

The Brooklynite could not slip into a quiet life. He was thrown into a mix of social fund-raising and business activities. He found himself absorbing and participating in English sociopolitical affairs. At that time, the post-Waterloo conservatism was under attack. There was much agitation about securing significant legislation. As regards the benevolent empire in Britain, had McIlvaine and Milnor checked the back issues of The Record, they would have been pleased with the laudatory reports on the work of the American Tract and Temperance Societies. ⁴⁷

McIlvaine apparently was an observer at several sessions including the Church Missionary Society gathering. Milnor participated and discussed missionary work in the States. The editor of The Record supported the entire operation, for the meetings represented what steps God has enabled us to take in the furtherance of the objects of the Societies. Nonetheless, he was concerned about the vanity evident in the endless speechmaking, the flattery of the bishops, and the cheers given to so many motions. He pointedly reminded that status-conscious society that many men held offices or committee assignments just for ornament [rather] than use. The secretary and six to seven other persons always did the work in each organization. There is no evidence on the impact of those editorial comments on the hundreds of delegate commuting about the city. ⁴⁸

On May 19, McIlvaine was among those who attended the Port of London and Bethel Society anniversary. Lord Gambier was the chairman. After learning of the indebtedness of the group, The Rev. Mr. Mackilvane (an American… ) moved a Resolution, declaring that the Meeting were… impressed with a sense of the religious ignorance of Sailors, and the obligation… to ameliorate their condition. He stated that the cause of the sailor was special work; to prove his point the Brooklynite related various anecdotes about seamen. Milnor added to the general discussion, and the session ended with several resolutions passed.

That same day, the Naval and Military Bible Society convened. Among those in attendance were Lords Bexley, Mount Sandford and Lorton; also Captain Gambier, RN; Captain Noel, RN; and Sir John Franklin, RN. In the midst of the proceedings, Rev. Edward Ward, a former naval chaplain, told of an experience in Jamaica. Continuing,

he had heard a Rev. American Gentleman, whose presence he hoped the Meeting was not