USA > Connecticut > The history of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut, Vol. I > Part 28
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33
The Convention reassembled at Philadelphia on the 3d Tuesday in June, 1786, and the same States were again represented. The Rev. David Griffith of Vir- ginia was elected President; and the Hon. Francis Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration of Indepen- dence, and a grandson in the maternal line of the
390
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Bishop of Worcester, was chosen Secretary. The let- ter of the English prelates was read, and the draught of an answer adopted, engrossed, and signed by the members present, and delivered to the Committee of Correspondence to be forwarded to England. That Committee had power to call the Convention together at Wilmington, Delaware, when a majority of them should judge it to be necessary. They had learned that political obstacles no longer hindered the success of their application; for the Minister at the Court of St. James, the late President of Congress, and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had all furthered the pious design of securing the Episcopate, and shown to the Primate of England that it was not likely to receive any discountenance from the civil powers of our land. "It was a prudent provision of the Con- vention," says Bishop White, "to instruct the depu- ties from the respective States to apply to the civil authorities existing in them, respectively, for their sanction of the measure, in order to avoid one of the impediments which had stood in the way of Bishop Seabury."
In regard to the doubts of their continuing to hold the same essential articles of faith and discipline, they assured their Lordships that they neither had de- parted, nor proposed to depart from the doctrines of the Church of England. "We have retained," said the Convention, "the same discipline and forms of worship, as far as was consistent with our civil con- stitutions; and we have made no alterations or omis- sions in the Book of Common Prayer, but such as that consideration prescribed, and such as were calcu- lated to remove objections, which it appeared to us
391
IN CONNECTICUT.
more conducive to union and general content to ob- viate than to dispute. It is well known that many great and pious men of the Church of England have long wished for a revision of the Liturgy, which it was deemed imprudent to hazard, lest it might be- come a precedent for repeated and improper altera- tions. This is with us the proper season for such a revision. We are now settling and ordering the af- fairs of our Church, and if wisely done, we shall have reason to promise ourselves all the advantages that can result from stability and union." They added, in conclusion: "As our Church in sundry of these States has already proceeded to the election of persons to be sent for consecration, and others may soon proceed to the same, we pray to be favored with as speedy an answer to this our second Address, as in your great goodness you were pleased to give to our former one."
At this June session of the Convention it was found necessary to review the Constitution proposed in 1785; and, besides other changes, the Eighth Article, the tenor of which had been particularly excepted to by the Eastern clergy, and, as we shall see, by the Eng- lish prelates, was so altered as to restrict to a Bishop the power of pronouncing upon any one in Holy Orders sentence of deposition or degradation from the ministry. The different State Conventions had given such instructions to their delegates, in regard to some of the former proceedings, that prudence dictated the propriety of leaving the General Consti- tution and the proposed Liturgy for future settlement. They had indeed no authority to ratify the one, or revise and adopt the other. But the Convention went
392
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
out of its way to strike an unhappy blow at Connec- ticut, a blow which she keenly felt, and which threat- ened to be productive of lasting discord and disunion. The session had no sooner opened than an attempt was made to require "the clergy present to produce their letters of orders, or declare by whom they were ordained;" and, though unsuccessful, it was renewed on the same day, in a more offensive shape, by the Rev. Mr. Provoost, who had already been the originator of a similar movement in his own State. His motion, "That this Convention will resolve to do no act that shall imply the validity of ordinations made by Dr. Seabury," was defeated: New York, New Jersey, and South Carolina voting in the affirmative; and Penn- sylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, in the negative. Then it was "resolved unanimously, That it be recommended to this Church in the States here represented, not to receive to the pastoral charge, within their respective limits, clergymen professing canonical subjection to any Bishop, in any State or country, other than Bishops who may be duly settled in the States represented in this Convention." So good a man as Dr. White was the mover of this reso- lution, which he afterwards explained as intended to reach the alleged fact that those ordained under the Scottish succession and settling in the represented churches were understood by some to be under ca- nonical subjection to the ordaining Bishop. But the only clergyman in the Convention (Joseph Pilmore) who had received his Orders from Dr. Seabury, de- nied that any such canonical subjection had been ex- acted of him; and Dr. White himself, though offering the resolution as a prudent precaution, professed to
393
IN CONNECTICUT.
believe that there was no ground for the allegation. The next morning the point was pushed yet farther, on the motion of a clergyman from South Carolina, when it was again unanimously resolved, "That it be recommended to the Conventions of the Church, represented in this General Convention, not to admit any person as a Minister within their respective limits, who shall receive ordination from any Bishop residing in America during the application now pending to the English Bishops for Episcopal consecration." "What a ridiculous figure must they make," wrote Mr. Bass of Newburyport to a brother clergyman, after hearing of their action, "in the eyes of every sectary or anti- Episcopalian! In the name of wonder, what objec- tions can be made against the validity of Dr. Sea- bury's ordinations, that may not as well be made against those of the English Bishops?"
Thus matters stood upon the reassembling of the Convention at Wilmington, Delaware, in the ensuing October, to hear the answer of the Archbishops of England to their second Address. The answer, more favorable than had been expected, was framed at a meeting of the Bishops in London to take into con- sideration the whole of the communications which had been forwarded; and a brief extract will best show their sentiments of fraternal regard, and their solici- tude for the integrity of the Church. "It was im- possible," said the Archbishops, writing for all their brethren, "not to observe with concern, that, if the essential doctrines of our common faith were retained, less respect, however, was paid to our Liturgy than its own excellence, and your declared attachment to it, had led us to expect; not to mention a variety
391
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
of verbal alterations, of the necessity or propriety of which we are by no means satisfied, we saw with grief that two of the Confessions of our Christian faith, respectable for their antiquity, have been en- tirely laid aside; and that even in that called the Apostles' Creed, an article is omitted which was thought necessary to be inserted, with a view to a particular heresy, in a very early age of the Church, and has ever since had the venerable sanction of uni- versal reception. Nevertheless, as a proof of the sin- cere desire which we feel to continue in spiritual com- munion with the members of your Church in Amer- ica, and to complete the Orders of your ministry, and trusting that the communications which we shall make to you, on the subject of these and some other alterations, will have their desired effect, we have, even under these circumstances, prepared a Bill for conveying to us the powers necessary for this purpose. It will in a few days be presented to Parliament, and we have the best reasons to hope that it will receive the assent of the Legislature. This Bill will enable the Archbishops and Bishops to give Episcopal consecra- tion to the persons who shall be recommended, with- out requiring from them any oaths or subscriptions inconsistent with the situation in which the late Revo- lution has placed them; upon condition that the full satisfaction of the sufficiency of the persons recom- mended, which you offer to us in your Address, be given to the Archbishops and Bishops."
This "full satisfaction" had reference as well to good learning and doctrinal soundness as to purity of man- ners; and under the head of subscription they re- marked: "We, therefore, most earnestly exhort you,
395
IN CONNECTICUT.
that, previously to the time of your making such sub- scription, you restore to its integrity the Apostles' Creed, in which you have omitted an article merely, as it seems, from misapprehension of the sense in which it is understood by our Church; nor can we help add- ing, that we hope you will think it but a decent proof of the attachment which you profess to the services of your Liturgy, to give to the other two Creeds a place in your Book of Common Prayer, even though the use of them should be left discretional. We should be inexcusable too, if at the time when you are re- questing the establishment of Bishops in your Church, we did not strongly represent to you that the eighth article of your Ecclesiastical Constitution appears to us to be a degradation of the clerical, and still more of the Episcopal character. We persuade ourselves, that in your ensuing Convention some alteration will be thought necessary in this article, before this reaches you; or, if not, that due attention will be given to it in consequence of our representation."
All the matters so earnestly and affectionately rec- ommended by the English prelates received the prompt attention of the Convention, and the cherished forms which had been omitted from the Liturgy were at once replaced, except the Athanasian Creed, which it was resolved not to restore. In the full conviction that the negotiations were now satisfactorily con- cluded, a third, but brief address was adopted by the Convention, and the members proceeded to sign tes- timonials in the form prescribed by the Archbishops in favor of Rev. Dr. Samuel Provoost, Rev. Dr. Wil- liam White, and Rev. David Griffith, Bishops elect, re- spectively, of New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
.
396
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Two of these gentlemen, (Drs. Provoost and White,) on the second day of the ensuing month, embarked for England; the other was too poor to bear the ex- pense of the journey, and the Church in the State over which he was to preside had not raised the requi- site funds to relieve him of the burden. On their arrival in London they were introduced to the Arch- bishop of Canterbury by Mr. Adams, the American Ambassador, "who, in this particular, and in every instance in which his personal attentions could be either of use or an evidence of his respect and kind- ness, continued to manifest his concern for the inter- ests of a Church of which he was not a member." After some delay, they were consecrated in the Chapel of Lambeth Palace, on the 4th of February, 1787, by the two Archbishops, assisted by the Bishop of Bath and Wells and the Bishop of Peterborough; and to- wards the end of the same month they returned to America, arriving in New York on. the afternoon of Easter Sunday, having had a long and tempestuous voyage, during which Bishop Provoost was so ill that serious apprehensions were felt for his recovery.
No General Convention was again held until the summer of 1789, when, in obedience to the require- ments of the first article of the Constitution, Delegates from the States previously represented reassembled in Christ Church, Philadelphia, - Bishop White being present, and presiding by the right of his office.
But before we look into their deliberations, let us come back to Connecticut, and examine the progress of the Church here during this critical period under the Episcopate of Seabury. No canons and no con- stitution had been adopted, and the ecclesiastical ar-
397
IN CONNECTICUT.
fairs of the Diocese were wholly managed by the Bishop and his clergy, who assembled at stated times, as had been the practice of the Missionaries before the Revolution. At such meetings all differences be- tween clergymen, and all troubles in parishes were, if possible, adjusted, and candidates for orders were examined, recommended, and approved, and ordina- tions frequently held. The Legislature of the State had enacted a general law to protect all societies and congregations instituted for public religious worship; and the Church, in the absence of anything specially fitted to her rules and customs, was obliged to pro- ceed under this enactment in organizing and estab- lishing her parishes. As yet the number of clergymen was insufficient to supply the old cures, and another vacancy was created in February, 1787, by the death of Newton, so long the honored Rector of the church at Ripton. Zealous efforts however were made to ex- tend the influence of Episcopacy, and churches soon arose at Chatham (now Portland), East Haddam, and Middle Haddam, on the Connecticut River; at Granby and Southington, in Hartford County; at East Plym- outh, Harwinton, and Northfield, in Litchfield County; and at East Haven, Bethany, Hamden, and Meriden, in New Haven County. The organization of the parishes in Southington, Meriden, and Hamden was due to the ministrations of the Rev. Reuben Ives, who, in the be- ginning of 1788, had accepted the Rectorship of the church in Cheshire, his native place, for two thirds of the time, with the privilege of occupying the re- maining third in Missionary duties in the neighboring towns. The church in New Cambridge (now Bristol), which had been occupied for thirty years, was aban-
398
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
doned upon the erection of the edifice at East Plym- outh, then more conveniently located for the major- ity of worshippers. But a new parish was organized in Bristol in 1834, which has outstripped its neigh- bor in prosperity, and has the promise of vigorous continuance. On the 28th of August, 1785, the Rev. Mr. Hubbard "opened the Episcopal Church at Beth- any by the name of Christ Church," and preached, and administered the Sacrament of Baptism to seven in- fants. The church at New London (St. James's) was consecrated September 20, 1787, Bishop Seabury hav- ing previously held his services in the Court-House; but he administered the Holy Communion, usually every Sunday, in the large parlor of the parsonage.
Everything seemed to have been done by the South- ern Conventions to alienate the affections of the New- England clergy, especially of those resident in Con- necticut, where the parishes were now even stronger than in New York. A breach once made in a family or a church is more easily widened than healed, and the fast friends of the American Episcopate on the other side of the Atlantic watched the threatened rupture with evident anxiety. The civil disabilities of the Scottish Church had not yet been removed by Act of Parliament, and it was therefore impossible, without conflicting with the State, to recognize in England the Orders of Bishop Seabury. "But with you" in America, wrote the Rev. Jacob Duché, a ref- ugee clergyman from Philadelphia, then in London, and accustomed to the friendly ear of the Archbishop of Canterbury, "there can remain but one point to be settled, and that is the validity of his consecration from proofs adduced of the uninterrupted succession
399
IN CONNECTICUT.
in the Church of Scotland." No one manifested such personal hostility, and persisted in such uncourteous acts towards the Bishop of Connecticut, as the Rev. Dr. Samuel Provoost. He accused him of intriguing to defeat the application for the English Episcopate, and was prominent among the "few people in New York, who, from old grudges on the score of politics, had determined to circumscribe, as far as they possi- bly could, his Episcopal authority."
The Connecticut clergy, alarmed for their situation, and bent on vindicating their own rights, prepared to counteract the preposterous measures which were leading inevitably to a schism in the Church. They met at Wallingford on the 27th of February, 1787 and, apprehensive that they might be compelled to fall under the defective Southern establishment, should the providence of God deprive them of their Episcopal Head, they decided to send another Pres- byter to Scotland for consecration, as coadjutor Bishop to Dr. Seabury. The able and faithful Leaming was first selected to undertake the voyage; but the same reasons which had caused him to decline the former election operated now in still greater force. Then the guileless and godly Mansfield was chosen; but he shrunk from the burden as one too oppressive for him to bear;1 and finally the Rev. Abraham Jarvis was elected, and deputed to proceed to Scotland for con- secration. "It was intended," said his learned son, re- marking on the transaction, "to obtain the canonical number of Bishops in New England of the Scottish line, and thus preserve a purely primitive and Apos- tolic Church, holding fast the form of sound words, and the faith once delivered to the saints."
1 Church Documents, Vol. II. p. 306.
400
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
These steps were taken with due precaution. Dr Seabury, who had kept up a correspondence with Bishop Skinner of Scotland, informed him at once of the action of the clergy, and spoke of it not only with approval, but with the hope that it might have "the full approbation of his good and highly respected brethren in Scotland," whose answer would be awaited before the person fixed upon departed for the voyage. Delays are not always dangerous; and when Bishop Skinner, for himself and the Scottish prelates, re- plied to this communication, the summer had come, and "the English Consecrate" had arrived in Amer- ica. He suggested that they could hardly refuse their brotherly assistance in the measure desired, or yet take upon them to impose their own Liturgy as the sole condition of compliance. "Should this be the case," said he, "and these new Bishops either refuse to hold communion with you, or grant it only on terms with which you cannot in conscience comply, there would then be no room for us to hesitate. But fain would we hope better things of these your Amer- ican brethren, and that there will be no occasion for two separate communions among the Episcopalians of the United States.
"We are well persuaded that neither you nor your clergy would wish to give any unnecessary cause of disgust on either side of the Atlantic; and prudence, you must be aware, bids us turn our eyes to our own situation, which, though it affords no excuse for shrink- ing from duty, will, at the same time, justify our not stepping beyond our line any farther than duty re- quires."
This was a truly catholic letter, breathing a most
401
IN CONNECTICUT.
benevolent spirit; and Bishop Seabury, in answering it, expressed his fears that the suggestion could not be immediately acted upon, and then remarked: "The public papers have announced that the Episcopal clergy in Scotland now [November 7, 1788] pray for the King by name. I hope it is true, and flatter myself it will free them, ere long, from many embarrass- ments. I shall still pursue measures for uniting with the Southern churches, and shall acquiesce in any terms consistent with sound ecclesiastical principles. But I cannot give up what I deem essential to Epis- copal government, by admitting laymen into any share of it, farther than the external or temporal state of things may require. To subject a Bishop to the censure of a consistory of Presbyters and Laymen, even with a Bishop at their head, I cannot consent. From that thraldom the Church in Connecticut must, if it please God, be preserved." 1
Nor was he slow to put in execution his good pur- poses. Before the prudent reply of Bishop Skinner was written, and before a month had passed away after the arrival of the new American prelates, Bishop Seabury addressed a letter of friendly congratulation to his most unscrupulous opponent, and kindly in- vited him to be present at a stated convocation of the clergy of Connecticut, to be held at Stamford on the Monday in Whitsun week. "You must," said he in this letter, "be equally sensible with me of the pres- ent unsettled state of the Church of England in this country, and of the necessity of union and concord among all its members in the United States of Amer- ica, not only to give stability to it, but to fix it on
1 Annals of Scottish Episcopacy.
VOL. I.
26
402
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
its true and proper foundation. Possibly nothing will contribute more to this end than uniformity in wor- ship and discipline among the churches of the differ- ent States. It will be my happiness to be able to promote so good and necessary a work; and I take the liberty to propose, that, before any decided steps be taken, there be a meeting of yourself and Bishop White and me, at such time and place as shall be most convenient, to try whether some plan cannot be adopted that shall, in a quiet and effectual way, secure the great object which I trust we should all heartily rejoice to see accomplished. For my own part, I cannot help thinking that the most likely method will be to retain the present Common Prayer Book, accommodating it to the civil Constitution of the United States. The government of the Church, you know, is already settled. A body of Canons will, however, be wanted, to give energy to the govern- ment, and ascertain its operation,"
In a like spirit of fraternal regard he addressed overtures for peace and union to Bishop White, who met them with all the gentleness and placability of his nature, and expressed himself as ready to join in any plan, with a view to this noble end, not materially different from that set forth in the pro- posed Ecclesiastical Constitution. Other persons be- sides the prelates became engaged in discussing the points at issue. Parker of Boston, alive to the ne- cessity of union, that the Church throughout the country might be one in all the essentials of doctrine, discipline, and worship, wrote frequent and pacifica- tory letters to Bishop White and to the Bishop and clergy of Connecticut. His prominence had marked
403
IN CONNECTICUT.
him out for a mitre in the minds of New-England churchmen in case the Episcopate should be given to Massachusetts,1 but he was much more anxious to see the schism which was threatened avoided than to at- tain this high distinction. The beloved and venerated Leaming, always watchful for the true interests of the Church, availed himself of a private opportunity to open a correspondence with the Bishop of Pennsyl- vania and urge the same great ends. Dr. William Samuel Johnson, the distinguished statesman, had been appointed one of the Delegates from Connecti- cut to attend the Convention in Philadelphia, which was charged with the business of framing the Fed- eral Constitution; and he was not only a medium of conveying the letters and messages of his Pastor to him, but he must have impressed Bishop White with · the truth and justness of what Dr. Leaming had writ- ten in closing his first communication, that "The Church in this State would be pleased to have the old forms altered as little as may be; but for the sake of union, they will comply as far as they possibly can. And I do not see how a union can be more advan- tageous to us than it will be to you. If it is recipro- cal, both ought to give way, and not to be too rigid."
Another letter, written three weeks later, indicated the nature of the response to his suggestions, and re- newed the subject with increased zeal and earnest- ness. What he wished, as a first step towards the union, was to bring the three Bishops together for
1 Upon the decease of Bishop Bass, he was elected his successor, and was consecrated Bishop of Massachusetts, at the General Convention in New York, on Friday the 14th of September, 1804. He died on the 6th of December in the same year, and before he had discharged a single duty of the Episcopal office.
404
HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
friendly conference, and he saw no impediment in the way unless Bishop Provoost persisted in his refusal to have any Christian fellowship with one towards whom he appears to have cherished a deeply seated animosity. Clear in his conviction that the clergy of New York did not share in the prejudices of their chief Pastor, Leaming urged the personal interview as a measure that would raise him in their estimation, and "fix their willing obedience to him all his life after." On this ground he solicited the interposition and good offices of Bishop White, and then added: "I hope you will not esteem me over-officious in this business; if you do, my apology is this, -I have been forty years in the service of the Church, and I believe I am the oldest clergyman in America, and I am very desirous to see it complete before I die. God bless your labors for the converting of sinners and the building up of -
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.