USA > Connecticut > The story of the Diocese of Connecticut : a new branch of the vine (Espiscopal Church) > Part 14
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
The meeting broke up in a general atmosphere of confi- dence and hope, even though great difficulties still threatened to hinder the union of the American churches. There was still some fear that Seabury's resort to Scotland would cause a permanent break with the Church of England. Dibblee of Stamford expressed it in a letter to the exiled Peters: "I have no doubt of his Ecclesi- astical Authority, but wish we might preserve ... as close a Con- nection, and Uniformity with the Chh of England, as our present disjoynted state will admit." He soon discovered that Seabury had no idea of rejecting English associations, and wrote to Peters, "the Bp conducts with great wisdom and prudence, in the security he
·[ 141 ].
hath taken, of such as he hath ordained, of their conformity to the Liturgy of the Chh of England, except where it affects the civil State & Rulers ... Having set his foot down I hope it will remain immovable."20
In his first charge to the clergy Seabury intended to prepare them for the herculean task of organization and evangelism. He believed that with the presence of a bishop the Church was "com- pletely organized in all its parts," and he challenged the Church in Connecticut to make the precious gift serve the glory of God. At a time when many were deeply worried about financial support, he placed his reliance upon divine providence. He needed that unshaken confidence, for already events seemed to be pushing the American Church toward an early schism. To avert that dreaded event and place the Church on its present foundation, Connecticut soon took an important and, at times, decisive part in the vast labor of organization and recovery.
·[ 142 ].
CHAPTER ELEVEN
REORGANIZATION AND RECOVERY
EARLY GENERAL CONVENTIONS
T HE Connecticut clergy perceived that it would not be easy to unite the scattered churches and also preserve the strictly Episcopalian principles. They knew that other Churchmen shared their ideal of an independent and purely spiritual American church. But who would take the initiative in forming it, what would it be called, and what sort of government and doctrine would it have? The clergy in Maryland had suggested the way in 1780, by holding a state convention and assuming the name "Protestant Episcopal" - meaning an independent American episcopal church distinct from the Roman Catholic.
The succession of events leading directly to a national or- ganization was initiated by a native of Connecticut, the Rev. Abra- ham Beach, rector of Christ Church in New Brunswick, New Jer- sey. Alarmed by the imminent disintegration of the Church, he suggested immediate action in a letter to the Reverend William White of Philadelphia, who fully shared his fears. The result was a historic meeting at New Brunswick on May 11, 1784, consisting of clergymen and laymen from New Jersey, New York, and Penn- sylvania. Their important accomplishment was to promote union by calling another meeting of delegates from the states, at New York in October.
Beach was eager to enlist the Connecticut clergy but he must have been somewhat chilled, even though he sympathized, when Abraham Jarvis had replied that they would not attend the meeting in May, because they felt that the church could not be fully organized without a bishop. Jarvis clearly foretold their un- deviating attitude during the next few years. The Connecticut clergy wished "to retain the religious polity - the primitive and evangelical doctrine and discipline, which at the Reformation were restored & established in the Church of England." They were sus-
· [ 143 ].
picious of any political associations and would have said "Amen!" to Jarvis's tart statement that "the Christian Church is not a mere piece of secular manufacture, indifferently to be wrought into any shape or mould, as the Political potter fancies."1
The suspicion of cutting the Church's government to suit the political pattern seemed to be justified by William White's pamphlet, The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States Considered, published in 1782. He had proposed the con- tinuation of the ministry without the episcopate, on the ground that bishops could not be obtained from England. The Connecti- cut reaction to this was succinctly expressed by John Tyler's wrath- ful declaration, in a letter to Samuel Peters, that he would fight it with all his might.
Beach and two New York priests, who represented the New Brunswick convention, traveled to New Milford in June to plead with the Connecticut clergy in convocation. The latter were some- what reserved but agreed to correspond and to be represented in the autumn meeting in New York. But when the Reverend John Rutgers Marshall of Woodbury appeared as a delegate, he made it perfectly clear that Connecticut would take no part in adopting a liturgy and a constitution until Samuel Seabury set foot on American soil. The convention was composed almost entirely of delegates (including laymen) from the Middle States. They agreed upon certain basic principles of organization, including lay dele- gates in a national convention, and made plans for a more formal meeting at Philadelphia in September, 1785, with delegates from all the states.
Reports of the "Fundamental Principles" struck consternation into the New England clergy. Samuel Parker of Boston, the dele- gate from Massachusetts and Rhode Island, said flatly that they would undermine episcopal authority. John Tyler exploded again and told Samuel Peters that he and his brethren would look "total- ly askew at their lay-Delegates, and will never I believe, admit those Tobacco-cutters with them." Bela Hubbard sounded an ominous note of schism by suggesting to Peters that if Connecti- cut should be "so happy as to have a bishop," the Church there would decently go its own way.2 During the next few years it often appeared that such an event was only too likely.
Seabury and his brethren were not unwilling to unite with
·[ 144 ].
the Middle and Southern States, once episcopacy was accepted without reservations. The new bishop had scarcely settled in New London when Jeremiah Leaming invited William White and Churchmen from other states to attend a clerical convocation at Middletown in August, 1785. "We must all wish for a Christian Union of all the Churches in the thirteen States, for which good purpose we must allow private convenience to give way to public utility."3. The Philadelphia clergy replied by inviting Bishop Sea- bury and his priests to attend the General Convention in Septem- ber. But to them it seemed disturbing, as Samuel Parker pointed out, that the leaders of that meeting gave no hint of recognizing Seabury or respecting episcopal precedence. That was intolerable to men who felt that, with a bishop, Connecticut now had a fully organized church. Eventually, they won a victory for episcopal precedence, but the "Tobacco-cutters" kept their lay delegates. Both parties were to travel a long road before the Church be- came content with a government compounded of episcopacy and republicanism.
Disturbing reports were soon reaching Connecticut that the approaching Philadelphia convention would make sweeping changes in worship and government. Lay delegates would sit in state and national conventions. Bishops would not only be elected by conventions but they and all other ministers could be tried and deposed by them. The Nicene and Athanasian creeds would be excised from the Prayer Book, the Apostles' Creed would be altered, and many other changes would be adopted.
During the anxious weeks before the convention, Seabury poured out his disturbed feelings in frank letters to William White and others. He deplored depreciating the powers of bishops, who, he believed, should not only ordain priests but appoint them to parishes. He objected to the admission of laymen into synods, particularly to judge bishops and priests and depose them, "be- cause they cannot take away a character which they cannot con- fer." But he admitted that under proper conditions the laity should share in the choice of their bishop. "In short," he declared, "the rights of the Christian Church arise not from nature or compact, but from the institution of Christ; and we ought not to alter them, but to receive and maintain them, as the holy Apostles left them. The government, sacraments, faith and doctrines of the Church are
·[ 145 ].
fixed and settled ... If we new model the government, why not the sacraments, creeds and doctrines of the Church?" To White he protested that the proposed constitution would deprive the bishop of all government, and lower the prestige of the clergy so much that the Church would "fall into parties, and dissolve, or sink into real Presbyterianism."4
Seabury and his brethren could rely upon the New York and New Jersey clergy, headed by those High Church Yankees, Abra- ham Beach and Thomas B. Chandler of Elizabeth Town. The latter, suffering terribly from cancer, bravely fought with his pen on Seabury's side, although he conceded that the laity ought to be consulted. Watering down the government, he informed White, would lose the Church more friends than it would gain. He wished that other states would adopt Connecticut's constitution, "for I do not believe that the Christian world affords one more conformable to the Primitive pattern, all things considered, than the Church in Connecticut." He maintained that no tradition favored entrusting the laity with purely ecclesiastical authority, and begged White not to consent "to robbing Episcopacy of its essential rights."5
Another ally was Samuel Parker of Boston, who wanted all the New England churches united under Seabury, with the Prayer Book altered only to agree with the change from monarchy to republicanism. He informed Seabury that the convention of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island would not send a delegate to Philadelphia, and that he would oppose any further revision of the Prayer Book until it could be done by several American bishops acting with the clergy. To White he confided Seabury's unwillingness to appear at a convention where he would not be recognized as presiding officer.
Modern American Episcopalians who deeply love the Prayer Book can readily understand the New England dismay at a general remodeling of the liturgy. And they may well ask: if the Church is to be truly episcopal, why should it not have bishops with enough authority to make them more than figureheads? On the other hand, the objection to lay representation in conventions now seems incredible.
The great power of laymen as vestrymen and as delegates to conventions was indeed a radical departure from practice in the Church of England, where pastors were nominated by patrons.
·[ 146 ].
But it was also a return to the custom of the Primitive Church. It originated in the isolation of colonial churches from English ecclesiastical authority, and in the scarcity of clergymen. Lay readers often performed services in homes, especially in New England, when public Episcopalian worship was forbidden or un- popular. This extensive practice sometimes provoked protests from the clergy, like The Sacred Dignity of the Priesthood Vindicated, published in 1751 by Dr. James McSparran of Rhode Island. Mr. Samuel Bevan replied in brochures significantly entitled The Religious Liberty of the Christian Laity Asserted and Lay Liberty Reasserted. Lay power in church affairs was also encouraged by frequent vacancies in the parochial ministry, and by lack of episcopal supervision. Laws in Maryland and Virginia asserted the right of vestries to elect ministers, and the legislatures regulated the Church in colonies where it was established. The trend toward lay control was favored by the rise of representative government, and by the flight of many Loyalist priests in the Revolution, which left control entirely in lay hands.
The natural result was recognition of the principle of lay representation in the postwar conventions to organize the Church. Lay delegates from parishes attended the Maryland convention of 1780 and the first meeting for organization in Philadelphia in 1784. A "Declaration of Certain Fundamental Rights," adopted by the Maryland Church in 1783, asserted the principle of lay rep- resentation in meetings. This prevailed in the meeting at New Brunswick in May, 1784. The convention at New York in October, in its "Fundamental Principles," asserted that clerical and lay dele- gates should sit together but should vote separately and agree to make any measure valid.
William White defended this ideal by appealing to Richard Hooker's classic, Ecclesiastical Polity. He believed that the parishes would never accept purely clerical legislation, and that lay repre- sentation would remove prejudice against the Church and adapt it to republican ways. Plain evidence of lay resentment against clerical domination was a strenuous protest from the laity against the purely clerical election of Edward Bass as bishop of Massa- chusetts and New Hampshire. Men accustomed to the New Eng- land town meeting, or to the freedom of Maryland and Virginia vestries, moulded the government of the American Church, closely
·[ 147 ].
following the model of the representative civil governments which they had helped to frame. The American Church naturally became the first branch of the Anglican Communion with laymen wielding authority in matters of doctrine and worship.
From that position it was a short step to participating in the election of bishops, which was another return to the practice of the Primitive Church. The idea that such was the layman's right had been in the atmosphere for some time. It was boldly asserted by a letter which was published in the Virginia Gazette in 1778 and apparently was widely circulated and discussed. The writer, evidently a lawyer, founded his argument upon Justice William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. He attacked the nomination of bishops by the king as an encroachment upon popular rights, and cited Blackstone's authority for election by the clergy and laity. Many lay delegates to the early American Church conventions were lawyers who knew their Blackstone practically word for word.
Opposition to lay representation came mostly from the New England clergy, headed by Bishop Seabury, who declared that it was "incongruous to every idea of Episcopal government." They were too settled in English and Scottish ways to interpret rightly the republican genius of the American People. Fortunately, they fought a losing battle, and within a few years Connecticut and the other New England states had conventions with lay delegates.
Although the Yankee High Churchmen lost the field with respect to lay delegates, they won their battle for a conservative liturgy and episcopal precedence. At first they were struck aghast by the proceedings of the convention at Philadelphia in September, 1785. Letters to their friends reveal grief and alarm at the al- terations made in the Prayer Book and the constitution. The con- vention had acted without Bishop Seabury, fearing the English hierarchy would doubt that he would be received. Seabury would not attend because, as he wrote to Bishop Skinner, the fundamental rules "set the Episcopal Character so low." Skinner confided to Seabury his apprehensions about "loose, incoherent notions of Church government", and his hope that Seabury would be "the instrument of frustrating the mischievous devices of the late Convention." Skinner and the Reverend Jonathan Boucher of Maryland shared an exaggerated dread of "some wild purpose"
· [ 148 ].
of a coalition with the Presbyterians, and exchanged letters about their own scheme to consecrate episcopal colleagues for Seabury in the Scottish succession.6
THE DANGER OF SCHISM
The constitution and Prayer Book that emerged from the convention were utterly unacceptable to the New England con- servatives and their friends. The constitution appeared to make bishops and clergy subordinate to the laity. The proposed Prayer Book, which was actually printed and distributed, omitted the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, and greatly altered the prayers. The general reception of the book was chilly, as White freely ad- mitted, and protests poured in from state after state. Jeremiah Leaming wrote to Abraham Beach that Connecticut Churchmen regarded the old Prayer Book as "next to inspiration, if not actually such."7 Bishop Seabury was unwilling to make any changes except those required by American independence. Sympathy for his conservatism came from an unexpected source, President Ezra Stiles of Congregational Yale, who regarded the friends of the reformed liturgy as really Deists "who are ready to honor Jesus as they would Plato or Socrates."8 The climax of disapproval came when the English prelates announced that they could not con- secrate bishops for any church that would depart so far from primitive and accepted Christian doctrine.
Some Connecticut Churchmen objected even to the name of the American Church - Protestant Episcopal. Leaming told Abraham Beach, "The Church of England is not called a Protestant Church, but a reformed Church ... they reformed as a Nation." He added a prophecy of uncanny accuracy: "Perhaps this may be little thought of, but if we commit any mistakes now, we must bear them forever."9
So great was New England disapproval that the idea of a separate regional church gained favor. Seabury boldly expressed his disappointment to White, who retreated so far as to admit that only a bishop should depose a clergyman. He assured Seabury that he believed that the convention had intended not to surrender the Church's episcopal principles, but only to adapt them to cir- cumstances. Doctor William Smith, a prominent leader in the Convention, also tried to soothe the ruffled New Englanders. He
·[ 149 ] .
suggested to Parker that anything they disapproved might be changed in "future editions," after the Church had been fully organized, so that the book could be reviewed by conventions with bishops, "as the primitive rules of Episcopacy require."10 No doubt this conciliatory attitude was inspired largely by the disapproval of the English bishops. Of this Seabury was informed by Jonathan Boucher, who considered the reformed liturgy "amaz- ingly weak" and the constitution practically presbyterial. "I humbly beg pardon of the Bishops in England," he confessed. "They are not so low in principles as I feared they were."11
More difficulty arose from the reluctance of Churchmen in other states to recognize Bishop Seabury's consecration or to let him preside in convention. Edward Bass of Massachusetts considered this "unpardonable" and "very unepiscopal conduct!"12 It almost reconciled Seabury to the idea of a separate New Eng- land church. He was hurt also by the enmity of the Reverend Samuel Provoost (later Bishop of New York) who disliked him as a former Loyalist and referred to him as "Cebra," as if he were a queer animal or monster. He accused Seabury of depreciating the Convention and of trying to prevent consecrations in England, and even of being hostile to American independence and to civil and religious liberty. Provoost's influence persuaded the New York convention, in July, 1786, to instruct its delegates to the General Convention not to favor any act implying the validity of Seabury's ordinations.
But wiser and cooler minds prevailed, after English Churchmen became frightened by rumors spread by Samuel Peters and other hotheads that the American Church would split. They pressed the English Church and government to recognize Scottish orders. Jacob Duché, an exiled Loyalist priest from Philadelphia and a friend of the Archbishop of Canterbury, urged White to acknowledge Seabury's consecration and invite him to the con- vention. Parker urged him to avoid any measures tending to sep- aration. Peters passed the word that the King and the English hierarchy would do anything for the American Church, provided that it would not differ substantially from the English in doctrine, discipline and worship.
Time brought a more general recognition of Seabury's con- secration, and applications for ordination streamed upon him
·[ 150 ].
from all parts of the nation. Provoost failed in his efforts to ex- clude his ordinands and to revise the Prayer Book radically. In the General Convention of 1786 Seabury's opponents tried to dis- credit his ordination of the Reverend Joseph Pilmore, a former Methodist preacher, and Provoost moved against the validity of his ordinations. These efforts were blocked by the skillful par- liamentary maneuvers of White and Smith. The Convention passed a compromise resolution, recommending that state conventions should not recognize ordinations by any bishop in America during the pending application for consecration of bishops in England. New England was indignant, and was hardly mollified by reports that Seabury had compelled ordinands to submit to his authority. It was said that he had tried to extend his jurisdiction beyond Connecticut, interfered with church government in other states, advised against acceptance of the revised liturgy, and altered the Communion service in "superstitious" (meaning Scottish) ways.
At last the slow ships from England brought the impatiently awaited reply of the English hierarchy to an "Address" of the Convention of 1785, requesting consecration of bishops. It was favorable but cautiously expressed a desire to see a Prayer Book without "essential deviations from the Church of England, either in doctrine or in discipline."13 The June session of the General Convention in 1786 addressed the hierarchy, expressing its in- tention not to depart from the doctrines of the English Church. The second session, at Wilmington in Delaware, restored the Nicene Creed and the clause "descended into hell" in the Apostles' Creed. That cleared the air, and the Reverend Benjamin Moore of New York wrote to Parker that the campaign against Seabury would fail, and that "Truth and Justice will, in due time, get the better of Prejudice and Partiality."14 Assured that they would be cordially received, White and Provoost sailed in November, 1786, to be consecrated by the English bishops.
But after the new bishops returned to New York on Easter Day, 1787, they did not seem eager to caress New England. The Connecticut clergy already were convinced that they would have to walk alone, and in February they had elected Abraham Jarvis to obtain consecration as a coadjutor to Seabury. The bishop, however, considered this only as a last resort, preferring not to stay aloof if unity could be achieved with honor to himself and
· [ 151 ].
the Scottish Church. He congratulated White and Provoost, and suggested a meeting with them to adopt canons and a plan of union, with the Prayer Book changed only to agree with the civil constitution. White was willing to follow Seabury's view of the liturgy if the Convention so desired, but would not budge on the legislative power of the laity.
THE TREND TOWARD UNITY
Parker again assumed the role of peacemaker, and his agile mind suggested to White a meeting of the three bishops to con- secrate one for Massachusetts. White sounded out the Connecticut clergy through Leaming, who was characteristically suspicious of a public meeting, with its danger of "evil angels" throwing "fire- brands of dissension." If only Provoost, he wrote, could really know the sentiments of his own clergy, he might be persuaded. The aged priest had served the Church for forty years, and wanted only to see it completely organized before he died.
The distrustful atmosphere in Connecticut even blew up a temporary coolness of Seabury toward Parker. The latter had used the altered Psalter in the "Proposed Book," and even accepted changes in the Prayer Book not required by the new civil gov- ernment. He hastened to say that he was not attached to the in- novations. Seabury insisted that they had been too hasty and without episcopal agreement, but practically admitted that his censure had been too sharp. The little cloud soon blew over, for both men saw that they had been quibbling.
The clouds really began to break when Bishop White ex- pressed his hope to see New Englanders and all three bishops in the General Convention at Philadelphia in July, 1789, and pointed to an accommodating spirit among the Southern clergy. Seabury at once saw the door ajar, and only wanted to "come into the union," as he wrote to Parker, "on even terms, and not as under- lings."15 Parker would go nearly any length to reconcile Con- necticut and Philadelphia - even to allowing diocesan constitutions and the liturgy to vary from state to state. Could not the Con- necticut clergy "relax a little" in their opposition to lay represen- tation, in return for abandoning laymen in the trial and deposition of a bishop?
White also saw the door ajar and ignored Provoost's pet-
· [ 152 ] .
ulance by cordially inviting Seabury and delegates from Con- necticut to the Convention of 1789, on terms honorable to both parties. Even Leaming became more sanguine and prophetically wrote to White that the Church should be united "in order that the line of succession of the English and Scottish bishops might unite in America, as they were derived from the same line orig- inally."16 It was not necessary to "agree in every little circum- stance," and he could not imagine that the omission of two creeds had been intended to deny the divinity of Christ.
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.