USA > Connecticut > The records of convocation, 1790-1848 > Part 2
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
On Thursday, August 4th, a service was held at eleven o'clock. The Rev. Mr. Parker read prayers and the Rev. Mr. Moore preached a sermon. After this the Bishop delivered his primary charge to the clergy.
The Convocation resumed its session and continued its delib- erations until Friday, when it adjourned to meet at New Haven in September, "after appointing Mr. Bowden, Mr. Parker and Mr. Jarvis as a committee to consider of, and make with the Bishop, some alterations in the Liturgy needful for the present use of the Church."
The committee continued to sit for two days in Middletown to perfect the changes then deemed most important.
They were announced to the Diocese by the Bishop in a pas- toral letter dated New London, August 12, 1785, in which he enjoined the clergy "to make the following alterations in the Liturgy and offices of our Church." He comprised them under eight heads. All the changes were in connection with the State prayers and mention of the King, Royal Family and British government.1
The other alterations proposed at Middletown and approved by the committee it was thought best to leave for consideration at New Haven.
In the meantime Mr. Parker had returned home and at the Convention held in Boston on September 7 and 8, which was attended by clergymen and lay deputies from Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, made his report of the pro- ceedings at Middletown and laid before the Convention the alterations which the committee had adopted. From the minutes of this Convention we learn that in addition to the State prayers it was proposed to abolish the services for November 5, January 30, May 29, and October 25 ; a phrase in the Te Deum
1 A copy of the original broadside is in the Archives of the Diocese. It is printed on pp. 29, 30, Bishop Seabury's Communion Office. Reprinted in facsimile, with an Historical Sketch and Notes, by the Rev. Samuel Hart, M.A. New York, T. Whittaker, 1883.
-15-
was to be altered; the words "He descended into Hell" to be omitted in the Apostles' Creed; the Creed of St. Athanasius to be omitted ; the use of the Nicene Creed left optional ; the minor Litany to be disused; the Lord's Prayer at the commencement of the Communion Office to be omitted, there were also several slight alterations proposed in other portions of that office.
In the rubrics in the office for Infant Baptism a change was proposed by which parents were to be admitted as sponsors for their children, the sign of the Cross might be omitted, and several changes were suggested in phraseology; the Committal in the Burial of the Dead was to be modified; the office for the Churching of Women, with the exception of the Introduc- tion and Collect, to be disused; the Absolution in the office of the Visitation of the Sick expunged.
The changes suggested in the Marriage Service were in the Address, the troth pledge, and the ceremony of the ring.
The use of the Collect for the Day more than once in the Morning Service was to be left to the discretion of the minister.1
The proper place for the reading of the "Ante-Communion," whether "in the reading desk or in the altar," was also to be discretionary with the minister.
Slight as many of the proposed alterations were, it is evident that the Boston Convention did not merely register and approve the conclusions of the Committee of the Connecticut Con- vocation.
Many laymen in Massachusetts were desirous that the Prayer Book should be so revised as to make it acceptable to the great body of Evangelical Christians.2 Laymen were in the majority in the Boston Convention and their views prevailed.
It is known the review of the Prayer Book undertaken by Bishop Seabury and his clergy at Middletown was entered upon
1 The English Prayer Book still enjoins its use as the first of the three Collects in Morning Prayer.
2 See the "Instructions" given by Messrs. John Tracy and Dudley Atkins, Wardens of St. Paul's Church, Newburyport, to the Hon. Tristram Dalton, lay deputy from that parish to the Boston Convention, on pp. 243- 248 of Life and Times of Edward Bass, First Bishop of Massachusetts, by Daniel Dulany Addison. Boston and New York : Houghton, Mifflin & Company, 1897.
-16-
at the suggestion of Mr. Parker.1 In announcing to Bishop Seabury the action of the Boston Convention and forwarding a copy of the alterations, he says : "You will see upon perusal of them that those proposed at Middletown are mostly adopted and some few others proposed. The only material ones that we have not agreed to are omitting the second Lesson in the Morning Service and the Gospel and Exhortation in the Baptismal Office. The additional alterations in some of the offices are such as were mentioned at Middletown but which we had not time to enter upon then."2 Before the time for the meeting of the Con- vocation at New Haven there had been many expressions of opinion by the Churchmen of Connecticut opposing any other change in the Book of Common Prayer than that made necessary by the transfer of civil authority.
The Convocation met in Trinity Church, New Haven, on Wednesday, September 14, 1785, under the presidency of Bishop Seabury with the Rev. Mr. Jarvis as secretary. The report of the Committee upon alterations was presented and action deferred. "The Church people in Connecticut were much alarmed at the thought of any considerable alterations being made in the Prayer Book; and, upon the whole, it was judged best that no alterations should be attempted at present, but to wait till a little time shall have cooled down the temper and con- ciliated the affections of people to each other."3
The Convocation duly considered the affectionate and frater- nal letter of the consecrators of Dr. Seabury "To the Episcopal Clergy in Connecticut in North America."4 The secretary was requested to answer it in behalf of his brethren, expressing the gratitude they felt toward the Church in Scotland and the desire they had always to maintain a friendly and brotherly intercourse
1 " It was at my Request that the Bishop with his Clergy agreed to make some alterations in the Liturgy and Offices of the Church and a Com'tee from the body of the Clergy was Chosen to attend him for that purpose."- The Rev. Samuel Parker to the Rev. William White. Boston, Septem". 14, 1785. p. 90, Bp. Perry's Historical Notes and Documents, being volume three of Journal of General Convention, 1785-1835. Also : p. 286, Connec- ticut Church Documents, II.
2 pp. 284, 285, Connecticut Church Documents, II. The Rev. Samuel Parker to the Rev. Samuel Seabury. "Boston, September 12, 1785."
3 Bishop Seabury to the Rev. Samuel Parker. "Wallingford, Nov. 28, 1785." p. 287, Connecticut Church Documents, II.
4 The original engrossed on vellum is in the Archives of the Diocese. The text is given on pp. 153-156, Dr. Beardsley's "Bishop Seabury."
-17-
with it. Mr. Jarvis wrote a letter to the Scottish Bishops in the polished English of which he was master which was grace- ful, grateful, and courteous. It is dated at "New Haven in Con- necticut, September 16, 1785," and signed "Abraham Jarvis, secretary to the Convocation of the Episcopal Clergy in Con- necticut."1
During the session of the Convocation three candidates from other states were made deacons2 and three deacons ordained priests3 in Trinity Church, New Haven on Friday, Septem- ber 16.
The Rev. Dr. Ezra Stiles, President of Yale College, in his "Literary Diary" alludes to the Convocation under date of September 15, 1785. "Four important Transactions in this City this Week: the Commencement, a meeting of the Consociation of the Cº of New Haven in order to divide themselves into two Consociations, the Ordina of Mr. Holmes-& lastly a meets of the few Episco Clergy with Dr. Seabury their Bp. for Ordina of Deacons and Presbyters accords to the Chh of Engld. The Con- sociation concluded not to divide: they held their Meets in the Coll. Chapel the day of ordination there. The day follow" viz. friday 16th Sept. the Ordinations were pformed at Chh. of Englª by the Imposition of hands of Bp. Seaby, Mr. Leaming & Mr. Mansfield."4
There is no contemporary or other notice of a meeting of the Convocation until September 22, 1786, when the clergy attended the Bishop at Derby. The Bishop now seriously considered the subject of the Communion Office of the Church in Scotland as the "Concordate" and his personal pledges to the Bishops of that Church required. In the unsettled state of the Church in America to the "southward," Dr. Seabury as the Bishop of a free
1 A copy of the letter is on pp. 239, 240 of Dr. Beardsley's "Bishop Seabury."
2 Samuel Spraggs, of Mount Holly, New Jersey. Samuel Roe, of Burlington, New Jersey.
Samuel Armor, of Queen Anne, Maryland.
3 The Rev. Henry Van Dyke, of West Haven, Connecticut. The Rev. Philo Shelton, of Fairfield, Connecticut.
The Rev. Thomas Fitch Oliver, of Providence, Rhode Island.
4 pp. 188, 189, III, The Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles, D.D., LL.D., President of Yale College, edited under the authority of the Corporation of Yale University, by Franklin Bowditch Dexter, M.A. Three volumes. New York : Charles Scribner's Sons, 1901.
2
-18-
church in a free state thought he could exercise his right as a Bishop of the Catholic Church and set forth such services as might be necessary or expedient. After much deliberation he drew up "The Communion Office," based upon the Liturgy of the Church in Scotland but with some slight variations from it.
As the Bishop never intended to act in diocesan matters without consulting the clergy, he submitted his draft to the Con- vocation at Derby. It was received with approval and enthu- siasm and the Bishop was requested to set it forth for use.1 Commenting upon its publication, Bishop Williams says : "This he did not, as in the case of the alterations agreed to in Con- vocation, 'enjoin' or 'require.' He simply 'recommended it to the Episcopal Congregations in Connecticut.' We also see, unless I greatly err, in his action in regard to changes in the State prayers and his own Office for the Holy Communion, Bishop Seabury's ideal of the position of a bishop in the Church of God. And this view is confirmed by the active course of his Episcopate. What was established by competent authority he 'required.' What was not so established, however much his own heart might be set upon it, he 'recommended'."2
The Convocation considered further the State Prayers and ordered the substitutes to be incorporated in their proper places in the Prayer Book. For the petitions in the Litany referring to the Royal Family and British Government there was adopted a petition for the protection of "the United States in Congress assembled." When the Litany was not read there was to be used a special Collect for civil rulers, both the Congress and the State officials. This action of the Convocation was communi- cated by Bishop Seabury to "his Excellency, Samuel Huntington, Esquire, Governor of the State of Connecticut," in a dignified letter in which he expresses this sentiment: "We feel it to be our duty, and, I assure your Excellency, it is our willing dis- position, to pray for, and seek to promote, the peace and happi- ness of the Country in which we live, and the stability and
1 This Office was published in a small pamphlet under the title : The Communion Office or Order for the Administration of the Holy Eucharist or Supper of the Lord. With Private Devotions. Recommended to the Episcopal Congregations in Connecticut. By the Right Reverend Bishop Seabury, New London : Printed by T. Green, MDCCLXXXVI.
pp. 98, 99, The Seabury Centenary. The Wise Ruler. Bishop Williams' Convention Sermon. Hartford, June 9, 1885.
-19-
efficacy of the Civil Government under which God's providence has placed us."1
Before the clergy present at this Convocation the Bishop delivered his second and last charge. It dealt with the incon- venience and suffering which the withdrawal of the Propagation Society stipends would entail upon the clergy, praised that Society for its good work and urged the Clergy to economy, frugality and the arousing of the laymen in the several congre- gations to "benevolence." The Bishop said: "He has cut off one resource and He can open others : and He will open others should He see it best for us." He then considered the spread of Deism, Arianism and Socinianism and set forth lucidly the doc- trine of the Holy Trinity. He noticed briefly the "Continental Convention" held in Philadelphia in September, 1785. He com- mented on the deficiencies of the "Proposed Book" and criti- cised those who presumed to act upon doctrinal and liturgical matters without Bishops. He gave his opinion upon the true method of liturgical revision and the principles which should govern it. From this topic he proceeds to the interpretation of Holy Scripture, which should always be done with due regard "to the interpretation of the oldest Christians and of the Universal Church." His last topic is the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Holy Communion, whose doctrinal character was dwelt upon. He closed with an exhortation to his reverend brethren to exert themselves "in support of the Holy Catholic Faith," particularly in their own land, where grave dangers menaced it.2
The conduct of some of those who apparently were leaders among the Churchmen who organized the Philadelphia Con- vention was the reverse of conciliatory to the Bishop, clergy and laymen of Connecticut. The New England character was not fully understood; the firmness and stability of those who had by conviction become Churchmen, or whose faith and devo- tion to principle had been tested by persecution, were not appre- ciated. The defects of the "fundamental principles" of 1784,
1 The letter is dated "New London, October 14, 1786." It is printed in full on p. 266 of Dr. Beardsley's "Bishop Seabury," from the Bishop's Manuscript Letter Book, in possession of the Rev. Professor Seabury.
2 The charge is reprinted in full on pp. 267-282, Dr. Beardsley's "Bishop Seabury."
-20-
the failure to revise them, the changes in the Prayer Book which to very many seemed to weaken its doctrinal character, witness to catholic truth, and fidelity to the ancient liturgies, were keenly felt in Connecticut. There was at that time not even a strong bond of civil union. Each state felt absolutely independent.
The inherent weakness of the Articles of Confederation and the disregard by the States of any request of the Congress, were rapidly causing political discontent. It was a time of uneasi- ness and perplexity both in Church and State. Where there was suspicion instead of trust and cold respect instead of brotherly affection, there was little hope of concerted action, and plans for such action proposed by Churchmen of New England were either ignored or received with scant courtesy and little consideration. The passage of the Enabling Act by the British Parliament and the embarkation of the Bishops-designate of New York and Pennsylvania to receive consecration at Lam- beth, did not promise to bring about a change in the attitude of the Church in New York and the more southern states toward the Church in New England. The brotherly words of Dr. White and the statesmanlike overtures of Dr. William Smith did not seem to prevail upon their brethren in the Con- vention. The conviction had been constantly growing since September, 1785, that there was no desire for a "Continental union" and that New England must obtain the canonical number of Bishops and be a branch of the Church in America by herself. When the Convention of 1786 adjourned without taking any measures for union, and when even insult was offered to the Bishop of Connecticut by imputations of invalid- ity in his consecration and refusal to recognize those ordained by him, Bishop Seabury and his clergy thought the time had come to perpetuate the New England succession.
Under the influence of such occurrences and alarmed at what might take place should he be removed by death, Bishop Seabury summoned the clergy to meet in Convocation at Wal- lingford on February 27, 1787. The specific purpose of this meeting was the selection from among the Connecticut clergy of a godly and well learned man to be presented to the Bishops of "the Catholic remainder of the Church of Scotland" to be consecrated Bishop and serve as coadjutor to Bishop Seabury.
-21-
It was expected that Massachusetts and New Hampshire would unite in electing the Rev. Mr. Parker, and thus New England secure the canonical number of three Bishops to perpetuate the Church.
When the Convocation met the clergy chose with great unan- imity that worthy confessor, Jeremiah Leaming. Again he put aside the mitre, as his infirmities and advancing age warned him he could not fulfil the onerous duties of the episcopate. Then all turned with one consent to the Rev. Richard Mansfield, whose work at Derby and the whole region round about showed him wise, prudent, humble, and holy. With an instinctive modesty and distrust of himself he declined. Again the lot was cast, and it fell upon the Rev. Abraham Jarvis, Rector of Middletown and for many years Secretary of the Convention as then of the Convocation.1
No hasty action was intended. It was earnestly hoped that the Church in the United States would not be divided. Every effort was to be made for unity before the Bishop-designate proceeded to Scotland. Bishop Seabury wrote from Walling- ford on March 2, 1787, after the adjournment of the Convoca- tion, to Bishop Skinner, of Aberdeen, informing him of the alarm of the Clergy "at the steps taken by the Clergy and Laity to the south of us," and that they "will send a gentleman to Scotland for consecration as soon as they know that the measure meets with the full approbation of my good and highly respected brethren in Scotland."2 Before an answer could be received from the Episcopal College of Scotland, the newly consecrated Bishops of Pennsylvania and New York arrived at New York on Easter Day, April 7, 1787, after a wearisome passage of seven weeks. In an effort for unity of action and with the courtesy natural to him, Bishop Seabury wrote to them letters of welcome and congratulation in which he invited his brother Bishops to a personal conference. In his letter to Bishop Provoost he says :
1 p. 306, Connecticut Church Documents, II. These particulars are taken from a letter of the Rev. Roger Viets to the Rev. Samuel Parker. It formed a part of the Bishop Parker Correspondence which was in the possession of the late Bishop Perry, Historiographer of the Church, and is now dispersed.
2 p. 294, Dr. Beardsley's "Bishop Seabury."
-22-
"A stated convocation of the Clergy of this State is to be held at Stamford, on the Thursday after Whitsunday. As it is so near to New York, and the journey may contribute to the estab- lishment of your health, I should be much rejoiced to see you there; more especially as I think it would promote the great object, the Union of all the Churches. May God direct us in all things."1
Bishop White replied courteously but cautiously, expressing however a desire for union. Bishop Provoost does not seem to have replied. Neither Bishop accepted the invitation for a personal meeting. There does not appear to be extant any record of the proceedings at Stamford. Referring to this meeting Dr. Beardsley says: "The Convocation at Stamford could do nothing, under the circumstances, beyond what had been already attempted. The clergy were inclined to leave the matter very much in the hands of their Bishop, in whom they had entire confidence, and let time work the changes necessary to reconcile discordant opinions."2
It is stated that when the new St. James' church, New London, was to be consecrated, Bishop Seabury "convoked his clergy to be present."3 The deed of consecration gives the date as September 20, 1787. A letter of the Rev. Ashbel Baldwin to his friend, the Rev. Tillotson Bronson, then in Vermont, says: "I mentioned in the inclosed of the 14th instant, of our convening at New London. The clergy were not in general present. The Bishop preached the consecration sermon and was universally applauded: he has a most excellent talent at sermonizing."4 Mr. Baldwin says in a letter written later in the same month: "Convocation agreed there might a Christian agreement take place so far as to establish the Church in America, if they could not agree on the particular mode of exercising the right of that Church. . . I forgot when speaking of Convocation to say anything of their church in New Lon- don; it is a pretty one, I think the neatest building in the state,
1 p. 307, Connecticut Church Documents, II. pp. 299, 300, Dr. Beards- ley's "Bishop Seabury," from Bp. Seabury's MS. Letter Book.
2 p. 305, Dr. Beardsley's "Bishop Seabury."
3 p. 315, Dr. Beardsley's "Bishop Seabury."
4 This letter is dated November 15, 1787. p. 315, Dr. Beardsley's " Bishop Seabury."
-23-
elegantly finished. The Bishop had on his royal attire. The Crown and Mitre were refulgent. The reading Psalms were beautifully chanted. The most of the clergy present were clothed in their robes, and the whole day was pleasing."1
It was probably at this meeting that Bishop Seabury com- municated the letter of Bishop Skinner in answer to that he had written from Wallingford. Bishop Skinner had waited until he could collect the opinions of the Bishops before answering the very grave question of Bishop Seabury. He counselled patience and expressed his opinion that the "English conse- crate" would not stand aloof from the Bishop of Connecticut. If they did, then the Scottish College could not hesitate. "But fain would we hope better things of these your American brethren, and that there will be no occasion for two separate communions among the Episcopalians of the United States."2 The discussion of this letter is probably referred to in the allusion to the Convocation in Mr. Baldwin's letter.
Dr. Seabury and the parochial clergy of Connecticut were quietly awaiting overtures of sympathy and union from their brethren. No formal action could be taken by those associated in a general convention until the spring of 1789 when the Convention was to meet. It was, then, with no expectation of friendly overtures that the Convocation met in St. John's Church, North Haven, on Wednesday, October 22, 1788, when the Rev. Samuel Nisbett and David Foot were advanced to the priest- hood. Only routine business seems to have been transacted. The divided state of the Church in America was a matter of anxious concern to thoughtful Churchmen both in New Eng- land and in the other parts of the Union. As the differences and discontent in the State had been composed by the adoption of the Federal Constitution, many hoped that the Church would also adopt measures for godly union and concord. The amiable Bishop of Pennsylvania, the devoted Rector of Trinity Church, Boston, and the active President of Washington College, Maryland are the three men who saw most clearly the
I p. 318, Dr. Beardsley's " Bishop Seabury." This is said to have been the first occasion on which Bishop Seabury wore his mitre. It is now in the Library of Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut.
2 p. 297, Dr. Beardsley's "Bishop Seabury." The whole letter is on pp. 295-298.
-24-
sin and folly of permanent separation, who contributed by their personal influence with the delegates to the General Con- vention and by their wise plans which did not compromise any principle, by their ready willingness to give up any notion incon- sistent with soundness in the faith and ancient customs of the Church which might thoughtlessly have been temporarily enter- tained, or been embodied in conventional action, to a more Chris- tian and brotherly attitude on the part of the Convention. To them should be added of our Connecticut clergy the venerable Dr. Leaming, whose letters to Bishop White are strong and convincing.1
Early in the Spring of 1789 it was evident that much of the bitterness against Bishop Seabury and his clergy was subsiding. While the attitude of the Bishop of New York was still unfriendly, the Diocese under the leadership of Dr. Benjamin Moore looked with favor upon the complete union of the Church. This acceptable change was soon known in Connecticut and caused much rejoicing. A letter of Bishop White to Bishop Seabury written in December, 1788, was so cordial and expressed so fully a desire for unity, that in writing to Dr. Parker on April 10, 1789, Bishop Seabury says: "I believe we shall send two Clergymen to the Philadelphia Convention, to see whether a union can be effected. If it fail, the point I believe will here be altogether given up."2 It was under these encour- aging circumstances that the Bishop and Clergy met in Convo- cation at St. Paul's Church, Norwalk on June 3, 1789. A letter from Bishop Seabury gives clearly their attitude: "The clergy supposed that in your Constitution, any representation from them would be inadmissible without Lay delegates, nor could they submit to offer themselves to make a part of any meeting where the authority of their Bishop had been disputed by one Bishop, and probably by his influence, by a number of others who were to compose that meeting. They therefore must consider themselves excluded, till that point shall be set- tled to their satisfaction which they hope will be done by your Convention."3
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.