USA > Connecticut > The story of the Diocese of Connecticut : a new branch of the vine (Espiscopal Church) > Part 13
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 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51
By a peculiarly ironic twist of fate, the agent in 1766-1771 was Doctor Johnson's son, William Samuel, Connecticut's leading Episcopalian layman. Although a good Churchman, he frankly told his sire that the dissenters' determined enmity left little room for hope. By raising fear of more trouble in restless America, the dis- senting leaders controlled the politicians. Johnson himself could not abide the notion of any bishop with a particle of civil authority. He found himself in company with the dissenters, and with the mass of Southern Episcopalians, particularly in Virginia. There the House of Burgesses thanked a professor at the College of Wil- liam and Mary for refuting the pro-episcopal argument of Myles Cooper, rector of King's College, New York.
If such was the attitude of Whig Churchmen, one may readily imagine the fears of New England Puritans. They would join hands with anybody to ward off the great calamity. For years before the Revolution the Connecticut Congregationalists held con- ventions with Middle Colony Presbyterians to fight the "plot." One of the meetings was held in Elizabethtown, New Jersey, within a stone's throw of Chandler's rectory. They kept in touch with the influential London Dissenting Committee, and appointed standing committees of correspondence like the later Revolutionary bodies with the same title. They won over weighty sections of English public opinion, and flooded the magazines and newspapers with anti-episcopal propaganda. Such unrelenting pressure affected the clique of Whig politicians who governed England for fifty years. They took the easy way of viewing with alarm and surrendered to the clamor. They agreed with the Virginia clergy that an episco- pate was not "expedient," and nodded assent when the House of Burgesses called it a "pernicious project."
Although some writers have doubted the reality of colonial
·[ 131 ].
fear of a bishop, all evidence points in the other direction. Lack of opposition after the Revolution, when bishops came as purely spiritual leaders, indicates that the earlier hostility was inspired by the English prelates' secular functions and royalist connections. It is now generally believed by historians that the episcopate contro- versy was a contributing cause of the Revolution. This view finds ample confirmation in the statements of such well-informed con- temporary observers as the Loyalist Maryland rector, Jonathan Boucher, author of the thoughtful View of the Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution.
THE ELECTION AND TRIALS OF SEABURY
The outbreak of war obviated, for nearly a decade, any hope of obtaining a bishop. Many clergymen became Loyalist exiles, and those who remained often were isolated and concerned only with the problem of mere survival. But even during the war English Churchmen formed a committee of bishops, priests and laymen to consider establishing episcopacy in America.
One of those friends was the Rev. Doctor George Berkeley, Canon of Canterbury and son of the philosopher Bishop of Cloyne. Toward the end of 1782 Berkeley anticipated events in a letter to John Skinner, Bishop Coadjutor of Aberdeen, in the independent Scottish Episcopal Church. Berkeley suggested that the oppressed Church of Scotland might confer upon the disorganized Church in America the gift of a purely spiritual episcopate. He argued that a prelate consecrated in Scotland would meet with a more friendly welcome than one from the English or the Irish Church, whose bishops were nominated by George III. With almost uncanny fore- sight he opined that a Scottish consecrator "might now sow a seed which, in smallness resembling that of a mustard, might also re- semble it in subsequent magnificence and amplitude of production. I humbly conceive that a Bishop at Philadelphia, who had never sworn to King George, would be very well placed."4
Caught by surprise, Skinner took time to reflect. He replied that enemies of the Church might stir up trouble, and that nothing could be done until American independence should be recognized. Berkeley dwelt upon the advantages of a secret consecration by the Scottish Church, and the probability of American toleration for a bishop without legal establishment. He feared that delay would
·[ 132 ].
sink the Church. Berkeley's foresight was accurate in all respects except the place where the bishop would be. Even as he wrote, in March 1783, men and events were moving to designate the inevitable man.
The architects of history were ten priests who quietly gath- ered at St. Paul's rectory in Woodbury - the now famous "Glebe House." They kept no minutes and the full story of their meeting was told only after many years. It is said that even their number became known only from a fragment of a letter rescued from a pile of kindlings. Alarmed by the Church's depression and disorgani- zation, they unanimously elected Connecticut-born Samuel Sea- bury, the S. P. G. missionary on Staten Island, to seek consecration in England. He was not their first choice. They had turned first to the crippled Jeremiah Leaming, who declined from fear of his frail health and a modest underestimate of his own abilities.
The secrecy of the meeting arose from fear that the old hos- tility to episcopacy might revive and defeat the cherished design. An air of secrecy pervades the letters describing the event, written to the Rev. Samuel Parker of Boston, later Bishop of Massachu- setts, by the Rev. Daniel Fogg of Brooklyn, who did not dare to trust the mail and sent a messenger. Fogg did not break the seal of silence until Seabury was already in England, with high recom- mendations from the Connecticut and New York clergy, and from Sir Guy Carleton, the last royal Governor of New York. In reply to Parker's doubts, Fogg suggested that if Seabury's loyalism was too obnoxious to American patriots he could live in Nova Scotia, and excused the hasty election on the ground of urgency.
The Connecticut clergy wanted a bishop, no matter what the difficulties. They made this point clear in a letter which they gave to Seabury to present to the Archbishop of Canterbury, re- questing his consecration. They wished to retain the religious polity of England and to avoid a nominal episcopate. This was proposed by William White, later Bishop of Pennsylvania, in his pamphlet, The Case of the Episcopal Churches Considered, which he published in 1782 and later withdrew. The Woodbury meet- ing had already protested to White, declaring episcopacy to be Christ's own ordinance.
As Seabury was preparing to sail, the New York clergy gave him a letter to the Archbishop of York, after writing also to the
·[ 133 ]·
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London. They be- lieved that the Connecticut clergy had taken the only way to pre- serve the Church in America, and that independence had removed the fear of bishops with temporal powers. Somewhat naively, they thought that the King himself could remove any legal obstacles to consecration, and that legacies to support bishops in America could be used to maintain Seabury.
Equally high hopes were cherished by Seabury when he arrived in London in July, armed with letters and testimonials. His first reception was a cool warning of maddening delays. The Arch- bishop of York was out of town. Bishop Lowth of London was cordial but not disposed to take the initiative, although he obtained an act of Parliament enabling bishops to ordain priests without oaths of allegiance. The Archbishop of Canterbury was polite, but merely hoped that the difficulty of the episcopal oath of allegiance would not be insurmountable, and said that he would consult the bishops. Later he secured a law to permit consecration of Ameri- can bishops without oaths, under which Bishops White of Pennsyl- vania and Provoost of New York were consecrated. Seabury soon warned his American brethren that his business would demand "a great deal of time and Patience and Attention."5 He feared that the dissenters would thwart him, and asked the clergy to seek the good will of the Connecticut Assembly.
Fortunately, he could not fully foresee the time and energy he would spend in vainly butting his determined mind against dila- tory officialdom. For months he lived in constant apprehension, as obstacle after obstacle appeared. A journey to see the Archbishop of York merely started a correspondence between him and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Both prelates balked at the idea of send- ing a bishop without Connecticut's consent. They feared that he would not be received, that he would not be adequately supported, and that the King's Council would not dispense with the oaths of allegiance without Connecticut's permission to live there. They could not imagine an episcopate without the support of civil gov- ernment. Seabury urged the Connecticut clergy to apply to the state government for permission to live in his native land as a bishop.
His patience and courage were worn thin by weeks of fruit- less letters and interviews, and he frankly confided to Leaming his
· [ 134 ].
doubts of success. "Nobody here," he groaned, "will risk anything for the sake of the Church, or for the sake of continuing Episco- pal ordination in America. Unless, therefore, it can be made a ministerial affair, none of the Bishops will proceed in it for fear of clamour; and, indeed, the ground on which they at present stand, seems to me so uncertain, that I believe they are obliged to take great care with regard to any step they take out of the com- mon road."" Seabury's position was becoming painful, for his funds were running low. He even suggested that he would yield to another man to make it easier for Connecticut to swallow episcopacy.
How absurd the prelates' fears were appeared when Leam- ing and Hubbard met the leaders of the General Assembly. They were cordially received, and told that if the English bishops would go ahead, all would be well. After Seabury had returned as a bishop, only one Congregational minister published an attack upon episcopacy, and Leaming wrote to Peters in London: "A Bp is no objection here. And the Dissenters applaud the great zeal of the Church in their perseverance to obtain one."7 The committee be- lieved that legal establishment was not essential to the principle of episcopacy, and that the good will and zeal of Churchmen would provide for the bishop's support. "A Bishop in Connecticut must, in some degree, be of the primitive style. With patience and a share of primitive zeal, he must rest for support on the Church which he serves, as head in her ministrations, unornamented with temporal dignity, and without the props of secular power."8 Such a view of the episcopal office must have startled the English prelates, but to an American Episcopalian no other was or is possible.
Assurances from Connecticut effected little change in the attitude of the English hierarchy, who still doubted and hesitated. Seabury had already resolved to present his personal petition to Parliament for a dispensation from the oaths of allegiance. After finding the Archbishop of Canterbury still "cool and constrained," and insistent upon legal permission from Connecticut, he was com- pletely irritated. "This is certainly the worst country in the world to do business in," he wrote to Jarvis. "I wonder how they get along at any rate ... I assure you if I do not succeed, it shall not be my fault."9
The last straw to break the back of Seabury's patience fell
·[ 135 ].
after the arrival of a letter from Leaming, enclosing a copy of the Connecticut law of 1783 for liberty of conscience. The Archbishops conceded that it removed all objections, but again pointed to the legal stone wall. They could not consecrate without the King's leave, and doubted that he alone could dispense with the oaths. The matter had been referred, for an opinion, to the Attorney and Solicitor General. Seabury must have wondered how many more months or years that would take.
Already his mind had turned toward the road to Scotland, as Doctor Berkeley had suggested, for he had been assured that nobody in England would object. It was formerly assumed that the Connecticut clergy instructed him to resort to Scotland if he should be rebuffed in England. It is now known that they gave no such order, and that the advice came rather from an English priest, Martin Joseph Routh, later president of Magdalen College, Oxford. In a social gathering at the town house of Bishop Thur- low, Routh impressed the validity of the Scottish episcopal succes- sion upon Doctor Myles Cooper from New York, who in turn in- fluenced Seabury. The Scottish line originated in the consecration of four bishops in 1661, by Bishop Gilbert Sheldon of London and three other English bishops.
In his anxiety Seabury briefly considered an appeal to the frail remnant of the Non-juring Church in England, which had two bishops. Jonathan Boucher, the exiled Loyalist parson from Mary- land, had suggested the idea to Bishop Cartwright, who communi- cated with Seabury through Thomas B. Chandler. Seabury, who already had decided to go to Scotland, merely penned a letter of thanks. His decision was fortunate, as Cartwright's succession was irregular and would have made Seabury's position very vulnerable.
SEABURY'S CONSECRATION
The ever-thoughtful Doctor Berkeley had tried to open the road to Scotland by informing Bishop Skinner of Seabury's fruitless waiting in London. He thought that many eminent persons in England would rejoice at a Scottish consecration, and appealed to Skinner's pride in being able to perform so great a service for the Church.
The idea delighted the Scottish prelates, one of whom wrote: "The very prospect rejoices me greatly . . . I do not see how
· [ 136 ].
we can account to our great Lord and Master, if we neglect such an opportunity of promoting His truth, and enlarging the borders of His Church."1º Their eagerness appealed to Seabury, who wrote, "I have been amused, I think deceived."11
No Scot was more pleased than Bishop Skinner of Aberdeen, who with his father had suffered imprisonment for loyalty to his church. He attended Marischal College in Aberdeen, where George Keith had studied, and rose from the humble office of tutor to such great popularity as a pastor that the two upper floors of his house were converted into a chapel. He had been in correspondence with Doctor Berkeley about Seabury, and was well prepared to play a founder's part in the history of the Diocese of Connecticut. In 1788 he was elected as Primus of the Scottish Church, and in 1816 he died, after doing much to revive it.
Late in July, 1784 Seabury decided to take the long, hard road to Scotland. He told Myles Cooper that he was ready to start "at twenty-four hours' notice," because he had abandoned hope of accomplishing anything in England. He wanted to settle the mat- ter forthwith, to avoid a dangerous and uncomfortable voyage and more drain upon his purse. Cooper helped gladly through a friend in Edinburgh, the Rev. John Allen, and began arrangements for Seabury's consecration by the Scottish bishops at Aberdeen. They understood that he would agree with them in doctrine and disci- pline, and that the churches in Scotland and Connecticut would be in full communion "on catholic and primitive principles." In October Seabury informed Skinner that he would be in Aberdeen by November 10 and promised: "As far as I am concerned, or my influence shall extend, nothing shall be omitted to establish the most liberal intercourse and union between the Episcopal Church in Scotland and in Connecticut . . . "12
On the very eve of winning his dearest desire, Seabury en- countered obstacles in the doubts and jealousies of American Churchmen. Leaming feared "a huge cry" that Seabury was a Jacobite, and suspected that the Puritans would try to split the American Church, by favoring bishops in the English line for the Southern states. There was a plot, prompted by envy and ambition, to secure the consecration of the Rev. William Smith of Maryland, who attempted to thwart Seabury's consecration by prejudicing the Scots against his loyalism. Bishop Charles Rose of Dunblane
·[ 137 ].
also opposed the consecration, because he thought that Seabury should have come first to the Scottish prelates.
The other bishops decided to persist in their course and brushed aside all these petty objections. On November 13, 1784 they convened at Aberdeen: Robert Kilgour, Bishop of Aberdeen and Primus; his coadjutor, John Skinner; and Arthur Petrie, Bishop of Ross and Moray. They read Seabury's testimonial letters from the clergy of Connecticut and New York and an attested copy of Connecticut's law of 1783 to secure rights of conscience in religion. After a long confidential interview, they decided to proceed. On Sunday, November 14, after Morning Prayer and a sermon by Skinner, they consecrated Seabury in Skinner's chapel, in the pres- ence of a large and rejoicing congregation. The sermon, The Nature and Extent of the Apostolical Commission, was published in 1785. It was reprinted in the Episcopal Church's Historical Magazine for September, 1934. The Latin certificate of consecra- tion, which Seabury brought with him to America, is preserved at the General Theological Seminary in New York City, where for many years it was kept in a sealed room.
On Monday Seabury and his consecrators signed an agree- ment or "concordat" between the Churches in Scotland and Con- necticut. They declared their complete loyalty to the Gospel as set forth in the Bible, their resolution to preserve "the common faith once delivered to the saints," and their belief in the Church as the mystical body of Christ, governed by bishops independent of civil power, and declared their churches to be in full communion. They wished to be as nearly alike in worship and discipline as national circumstances would allow, especially in celebrating the Holy Eucharist, "the principal bond of union among Christians, as well as the most solemn act of worship in the Christian Church."13 The Scots wanted Connecticut to adopt their form of the Communion Office, which was that of the Prayer Book of 1549, and Seabury solemnly promised to persuade his churches to adopt it. Finally, the four prelates agreed to continue correspondence between their churches - and the pledge has ever been respected.
On the same day the Scottish bishops wrote to the Connecti- cut clergy, requesting them to continue the Church's good work under the auspices of their bishop, and commending him and their people to God's blessing. Again they sounded the note of inde-
·[ 138 ]·
pendence from the state, declaring that they had "no other object in view but the interest of the Mediator's kingdom, no higher am- bition than to do our duty as messengers of the Prince of Peace. In the discharge of this duty, the example which we wish to copy after is that of the Primitive Church, while in a similar situation, unconnected with, and unsupported by, the temporal powers."14 A copy of this letter, inscribed upon vellum, was brought to Con- necticut by Bishop Seabury, and is now in the Diocesan Archives at Trinity College, Hartford.
The bishop fondly lingered in Edinburgh, enjoying much polite attention and planning to return to London. He wrote to Boucher and Chandler, disclaiming any idea of a breach with the Church of England. He frankly expressed his dread of being dis- charged by the S. P. G., which he believed would cause a schism, a "total alienation of regard and affection."15 The Society had to stop his salary but happily the schism never came.
By January, 1785 the bishop was back in busy London, pen- ning his first official letter to his clergy and informing them of his consecration. "It was the most solemn day I ever passed; God grant I may never forget it!"16 Expressing his wish to live in New London, he requested them to look for a young man to be ordained as a deacon to assist him, and expected several men to be ready for ordination when he arrived. He opened his fears that he had dis- pleased the Archbishops by going to Scotland. But when he called to say goodbye to them, he delightedly discovered, instead of an imagined episcopal frown, an admission that he and the Scottish prelates had acted from the best motives. How little could they foresee that the plain Yankee who bowed before them would be the first of over five hundred American bishops! The S. P. G. wished him well and expressed a sincere longing to keep in touch with him.
It is hard today for an American Episcopalian to imagine the huge excitement caused by Seabury's consecration. Pious Eng- lish Churchmen were delighted, although some, including even Doctor Berkeley, feared that portions of the concordat and the pas- toral letter might offend some American Low Churchmen. Sea- bury's courageous action caused the English bishops to ponder more seriously their own position regarding the American Church. They used all their influence with the King and Parliament, and
· [ 139 ].
in 1786 secured an act for consecrating bishops without the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. It was approved by George III on the Fourth of July.
The good Methodists were pleased to see a bishop in America. Some of them were unhappy because the American Methodists had withdrawn from the Episcopal Church in 1784 and formed their own church. John Wesley's brother, Charles, was dis- tressed because they had not waited for Seabury's consecration, so that their preachers could be ordained by him. "What," he wrote to Chandler, "will become of those poor sheep in the wilderness, the American Methodists? How have they been betrayed into a separation from the Church of England, which their preachers and they no more intended than the Methodists here?"17 He had talked with Seabury, whom he called "truly apostolical," and been as- sured that Seabury considered the American Methodists as sound Churchmen and would ordain any of their duly qualified preach- ers. Seabury fully respected this pledge and never rejected any Methodist preacher who came to him properly qualified for orders.
SEABURY'S FIRST CONVOCATION
In April, 1785 Seabury trusted himself once more to the stormy Atlantic. After stopping at Halifax to visit members of his family, he arrived at New London late in June. Almost at once he wrote to Jarvis in Middletown to arrange for his first meeting with the clergy.
The gathering, on August 3-7, consisted of only nine priests from Connecticut, two from Massachusetts, and one from New York. Its lack of numbers was more than made up by its astonish- ing amount of accomplishment. In an address to Seabury the clergy recognized him as their bishop and pledged their support to him as one representing the character of bishops "in the Primitive Church, while in her native purity, she was unconnected with, & uncontrolled by any secular power." The address and Seabury's reply remarkably expressed the present-day philosophy of the American Episcopal Church. The clergy declared the Church's independence of secular authority in spiritual concerns, and that it is not truly prepared to do God's work unless it renounces worldly connections and advantages. Seabury's reply stressed the fact that he owed his office to their voluntary and free election, and that his
·[ 140 ] .
authority was founded upon "the true principles of the primitive Church, before it was controlled and corrupted by secular connec- tions & worldly policy."18 It was natural, he declared, that where the Church was bound to civil authority, even the best dispo- sition on the part of its leaders to do good might be thwarted by governmental interference.
In a gracious letter to the Scottish bishops, the clergy antici- pated the modern ecumenical note of the American Church. The concordat and the prelates' letter were most agreeable, and they regarded the gift of a bishop from their hands as one from God himself. They pledged their efforts to "make the Church of Con- necticut a fair and fruitful branch of the Church Universal," united with the Scottish Church in faith, doctrine, discipline, and wor- ship.19 In this pledge one hears the ecumenical voice of the Lam- beth Conference, which in 1867 began to draw together the scattered branches of the Anglican Church.
Besides suggesting the broad attitude of the American Church, the meeting accomplished much toward its practical or- ganization. Bishop Seabury performed the first ordinations of priests and deacons, and delivered the first episcopal charge in the American Church. A committee began to consider alterations of the liturgy in accordance with American conditions. The meeting agreed that while the old English Prayer Book should be adapted to Connecticut's new civil and ecclesiastical laws, there should be no radical alterations in the liturgy or constitution. This conserva- tive attitude guided Connecticut's policy respecting the forthcom- ing general conventions of delegates to organize the Church in America.
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.