USA > New York > The centennial history of the Protestant Episcopal church in the diocese of New York, 1785-1885 > 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 | 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
And the origin of this idea is traceable, not to the infer- ences which some have been fain to draw from the fifteenth chapter of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles; nor to arguments based upon the exercise of an exterior jurisdiction by the civil authority in England over the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, in which the Sovereign is assumed to represent the inherent right of the people ; but rather to the peculiar training and position of those who were called upon to organize the Church in the American States as a body distinct from the Church of England.
I do not now argue for civil analogies in our American Church system-though I take leave to remark that it will be an evil day for the Church which claims a Divine mission to be the Church of the Nation, when its members either forget or erase the lineaments which the God of Nations and of Churches has, in His providence, stamped alike upon the face of Church and Republic-but I do affirm that the train- ing which the founders of our American Conventional sys- tem had received during the Constitutional controversies of the period of the Revolution, was such as to have profoundly impressed upon them the conviction that it was indispensable to a good government that it should be a government by chosen representatives of the whole body governed. Those who were not of this conviction were in that minority whose conservatism did not willingly ally itself, as did that of the majority, with the spirit which was fain to take what modern experience seemed to approve, and graft it in with that which
15
PROCEEDINGS AT TRINITY CHURCH.
had the warrant of an authority of more ancient recogni- tion.
And, apart from their training, the position of those to whom our Conventional system is traceable was such as in a manner to drive them to its adoption. Had the Church been provided with Bishops to whom the faithful had all along been accustomed to defer, there would have been no more need of these gatherings in the Church of that day and place, than there had been in the Church of any other age and country. The Episcopal government, qualified by the Dio- cesan Synod, and checked by the Provincial Council, would have come as naturally into operation as it had ever come when the Church had existed in its entirety and autonomy in any Nation. But the Church in this country, however au- tonomous, was not entire. Its Clergy and Laity were thrown together in the various States, upon their own resources. They were constrained to provide for themselves, and to arrange their own polity, as supposing indeed that Bish- ops would be supplied to them, but as conscious, also, that in point of fact Bishops had not been supplied 'to them. And so in the system which they adopted, while with true conservatism they held fast the necessary and essential prin- ciples of faith and order which were their rightful inheritance, they thought themselves at liberty to combine them with others, which, if they had not the sanction of Divine author- ity and immemorial tradition, they regarded as having at least the warrant of a sound reason and a just expediency.
We cannot indeed look to the Church in New York as the inaugurator of that system, which, combining the principles of Episcopal authority and of government by chosen repre- sentatives, was ultimately incorporated into the constitution of the general Ecclesiastical Union. But certainly the example and influence of this Church was such as to further the estab- lishment of that system. That it cordially adopted the system, and made it its own, is apparent from the fact that laymen as well as clergymen composed its first Convention ; and that it was, from the beginning, of that number which sought to organize a union between the Churches in the States, founded
16
CENTENNIAL CHURCH HISTORY.
on the principle of the joint representation of Clergy and Laity, even before they sought their completion in the Episcopate. And the position of New York was such as to make its ex- ample and influence of essential importance to the accomplish- ment of that Union. This position was intermediate in more ways than one-I will not say between extremes, but-be- tween those who were seeking the same general objects of the settlement and unity of Christ's kingdom from quite different standpoints. On one side of it was Connecticut, the cradle of the American Episcopate; on the other, Pennsylvania, the birth-place of the American system of representative Church Government. And as, in 1783, New York was ready to yield one of her own Presbyters to the quest of Connecticut for its first Bishop,* so, within New York, in 1784, were assembled
* Bishop Seabury's name is always, and rightly, associated with Connecticut ; yet all of his ministry, as distinguished from his Episcopate (except a very short interval of service in New Jersey immediately after his ordination in 1753), was in New York. The first fourteen years of his life, and the last eleven as Bishop, were spent in Connecticut; during the rest, nearly two-thirds of the whole, he be- longed to New York. Any one who is curious in such matters may trace the proportion somewhat further in the ministerial work of this family ; a work which was indebted for its first planting, and part of its subsequent increase, to Connecticut, but which has for the most part been performed in New York. The Bishop's father, Rev. Samuel Seabury, A.M., ordained in 1730, was Rector of St. George's Church in Hempstead, Long Island, in the Colony of New York, for the twenty-one years preceding his death in 1764. The Bishop's ministry in New York from the time of his father's death until he embarked for consecration in 1783, was nineteen years. His son, Rev. Charles Seabury, ordained in 1793, was rector of Caroline Church, Setauket, Long Island, from 1814 until his death
in 1844, thirty years. The son of Charles, the Rev. Samuel Seabury, D.D., ordained in 1826, was, at the time of his father's death, a Presbyter of the Diocese of New York, and so continued twenty-eight years after until his death, in 1872, from which date up to this time, his son, the present writer, has also been serving Thus, of a period of one hundred and fifty-five
in New York, thirteen years. consecutive years, during which the Ministry has, by the singular blessing of God, been handed down through these five successive generations, one hundred and eleven years, or nearly three-fourths, have been spent in New York; nearly half of this one hundred and eleven having been in that part of New York which now constitutes the Diocese of Long Island. The proportion of service both in New York and Long Island would be larger if those years were counted during which the ministry of father and son was carried on contemporaneously. This note is, indeed, a digression from the subject of this part of the present paper, but may not be considered out of place in its relation to the whole. So remarkable an
17
PROCEEDINGS AT TRINITY CHURCH.
the Clergy and Laity, from whom issued the first call to the Churches in the several States, recommending the Union, afterwards represented by the General Convention .* And al- though for a short time, under the influence apparently of po- litical antagonisms not yet expired, New York seemed to be- grudge the use which Connecticut had made of the gift which it had received in trust for the establishment of the Epis- copate, yet that feeling, short-lived as it was, was not of a nature to hinder its promotion of the Ecclesiastical Union as designed to further the best interests of the Church in all the States. +
In the course thus pursued by the Church in New York, there is plain evidence of its recognition of these principles as fundamental in the Ecclesiastical system-the necessity of the Episcopate in order to the perpetuation of the lawful Ministry of the Word and Sacraments; the substantial unity in doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church with the Church of England, whence it was derived; the right of the Clergy and Laity to share representatively in such powers of government as are distinguishable from the power to exercise the spiritual functions of the Ministry; and the right of the Church in this State to a co-equal representation with the Church in every other State, in an Ecclesiastical Union con- stituted for the regulation of matters of common interest to the Church in all the States represented in it.
Of the last of these principles, however, there has been an
association with the Church in New York seems not unworthy of notice in a paper illustrative of the history of that Church.
* Bishop White's preface to Bioren's edition of reprint of early Journals of General Convention.
It is merely an incident, but surely not uninteresting, that also in New York, took place that first consecration in this country through which every one of our Bishops traces his succession, and in which were united not merely the Episcopates of Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, but, through them, the lines of the Scottish and English Churches, involving the reunion also of the some- time divergent lines of Sancroft and Tillotson. The Rev. Dr. Claggett was con- secrated for Maryland in Trinity Church, New York, September 17, 1792, by Bishops Provoost, White, Madison, and Seabury.
+ New York Journal, 1786. See also Bishop White's Memoirs, 2d edition, page 161.
2
18
CENTENNIAL CHURCH HISTORY.
important modification, which, resulting as it has from the history of the Church in New York, is of peculiar, though not exclusive interest to us.
As the Church increased, there came up first in this State the problem of the division of Dioceses, involving some ques- tions gravely affecting the Ecclesiastical system. Hitherto, not alone in New York, but in the other States as well, the Church in the State and the Church in the Diocese had been identical. For although there had been instances of tem- porary union of Churches in different States under one Episcopal jurisdiction, yet the Churches in those States were related to the Union not in groups, but individually, each acceding as such to the general Constitution ; which, while it provided for the admission of the Church in any State, made no provision for the recognition as a constituent member of the Union, of any Church that was not the Church in a State. If the Church in a State should be divided into two or more Dioceses, each of these would be as much a Church as the whole body within the State had hitherto been. Which of these Churches would occupy the position of a constituent member of the Union ? How could that position be held by them all except on the theory that the Union was one of Dioceses, rather than of the Church in States? Yet the Union was not professedly a union of Dioceses, and only practically so because the Dioceses were conterminous with the States. The precedent made in the division of New York, however, settled the principle that every Diocese within the Union, whether new or old, and spreading over the whole State or not, stands on the same footing with every other Diocese ; each one being an integral part of the whole: and following the lead of this principle, the Union has become both nom- inally and actually a union of the Church in Dioceses, instead of a union of the Church in States .*
Yet the fact that the Church within a State, although ex-
* In the wording of the Constitution Diocese was substituted for State, as a part of the amendment of 1838, under which the Church in the State of New York was divided into two Dioceses. Journal Gen. Conv., 1838, pp. 24-26, 90, and pp. 70-106.
19
PROCEEDINGS AT TRINITY CHURCH.
isting in several Dioceses, has a community of interest differ- ent from that of the Churches existing in distinct States, has not been ignored ; and while the principle has not been form- ally expressed in the written Constitution, it has none the less been constantly recognized in the tradition and practice of the Church, that Dioceses are to be kept within State lines, and are not permanently to infringe upon or disregard them, upon any plea of proximity, or other ground of convenience. In no respect is this community more important than in its relation to the law-making power of the several States; and never has it been of more solemn consequence than now in the State of New York, if we are to continue in the enjoyment of that freedom which depends upon the principle that the civil authority shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. If the Canon on Federate Councils-also growing out of the position of the Church in New York-has done no other good than this, it has at least emphasized, with the concurrence of the whole Church, the principle of the com- munity of the work and interest of several Dioceses constitut- ing the Church within a State. Whether these two principles -that the Diocese is the unit in the Ecclesiastical system, and that the grouping of Dioceses, so far as may be consistent with their relations to the National Church, is to be within the limits of the States which compose the Nation-do not indicate the true solution of that other problem of the re- adjustment of the representation in the General Convention, which must bye-and-bye, for good or evil, be settled, remains to be seen. But standing as we do to-day, on the border line between the two centuries, it may perhaps be permitted one to remark that the abandonment of the original principle of the representation in the General or National Council, of the Church in the several States, has been unwittingly the cause not only of an increase of that Council, but of an indefinite and illimitable increase ; and that a return to that principle, coupled with the recognition of the right of the several Dio- ceses within a State, both individually and as a province, to govern themselves, within Constitutional limits, while it might be made the occasion of all needful reduction in the numbers
20
CENTENNIAL CHURCH HISTORY.
of the General Convention, and would involve no more in- equality than now exists, would also lead to the establishment of such a Patriarchate as the world has never yet witnessed.
But to refrain from speculation, and to return to the prin- ciples upon which our fathers have set up the houses of our Holy City, have we not a just right to regard them as a part of our inheritance of which the test of time has proved the value? There is room indeed for the varying of individual judgments as to abstract questions involved in them ; but the process by which they were settled seems plainly to disclose the hand of Providence; and he will be a rash man, whatever may be his private judgment, who will venture to withhold his thankful acknowledgments. Particularly may we be grate- ful for the moderation which has marked the application of these principles. Some tendencies to the forgetfulness of what was due to the principle of an authority existing in the Church, irrespective of human constitutions, undoubtedly there were. But these were in part checked in the beginning, and in part have been so overruled that looking back through the century, we cannot point to any serious conflict which has arisen in the administration of a government whose powers are derived partly from the Episcopate, and partly from the Clergy and people. It has been considered by some to be the weak point in our system that it permits the Laity to legislate in regard to doctrine. If you take into account, however, the absolute negative of the House of Bishops, and the even bal- ance of clerical and lay representation, you can hardly fear that the Laity can ever usurp the right which by the Divine commission belongs to the Apostolic Ministry. . In fact we have the Catholic Faith ; and we can never lose it except on the extravagant supposition that the Bishops and Clergy should combine to throw it away. The very utmost that can be alleged against us here, is that the teaching body cannot legis- latively formulate doctrine without the concurrence of the lay representation ; and whether this amounts to anything more than the salutary check of the practical upon the intellectual, the spiritual, and the professional, is at least a fair question for the judgment of reasonable men. Certainly it is but sim-
2I
PROCEEDINGS AT TRINITY CHURCH.
ple justice to our Laity to say that their active part in our system has generally been, of their own free will, confined to the care of such temporal matters of administration in the Church, as must concern even a spiritual society of men. And in regard to this power in the Church, while in strictness it is as much inherent in the Episcopal office as is the power purely spiritual, yet it is not so exclusively tied to it as, like the other, to be incapable of cession or of waiver. And, apart from the most primitive times, it has commonly been ceded or waived in a greater or less degree under one form or an- other. And, for the rest, is it not certain that the very pecu- liarities of our system have enlisted in it the most active in- terest of all classes of its members; have procured for it the growing respect of foreign branches of the same Communion, and even the attention of thoughtful men out of that Commun- ion ; and have thus not only increased beyond all precedent its strength and usefulness in its own immediate work, but have also greatly enhanced its influence in the community wherein it dwells, and have given it a singular fitness for the furtherance of that Divine mission of Christian unity which it should be the prime object of all Ecclesiastical systems to promote.
It is easy, I know, on an occasion of this sort, to confuse thankfulness with mere self-congratulation. I have no wish however to fall into this strain. Let me then remind you that the great advantage of these occasions lies in the oppor- tunity which they naturally afford, not only for thankful com- memoration of the past, but also for careful consideration of the lessons which it teaches, and for watchful observance of the tendencies likely to affect the future. If we are to mark well our bulwarks, this is not merely to note how admirably fitted for usefulness they have hitherto been ; but also to ob- serve their aptitude to sustain such attacks as may hereafter be made upon them. If we are to set up our houses, it is not merely that they may remind us of the comfort and shelter which they have afforded to our fathers and ourselves ; but also that we may leave them in such condition that our children may with advantage occupy them. That is but a
22
CENTENNIAL CHURCH HISTORY.
selfish doctrine which teaches that the world in every age belongs to the passing generation, and that those who inherit the treasures and the wisdom of the past have no responsi- bility for the happiness of them that come after; for the chil- dren ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. And we are to take heed to the bearing of our influence in the transmission of those principles which we have inherited.
I say to the bearing of our influence; for surely the in- fluence of the Church in New York is not a power which has been felt once for all a hundred years ago, but rather one which has been steadily in operation, and which to-day is, and hereafter will be felt throughout the Union, unless it be un- true to itself. And although we now commemorate in form the Centennial of the Diocese of New York, yet, after all is it not in substance, the Centennial of the Church in New York ; since throughout the century that Church has been in effect one; and since for more than half the century it was one in form also? And what just influence cannot be predicated of the substantial unity of that Church with its five Bishoprics, and as many Conventions of men who, from their very posi- tion, may be presumed to possess capabilities of influence in- ferior to none? May the Church in New York never forget to cherish and cement, not merely as a sentiment, but practi- cally, that unity in which it has always lived, and in which it possesses a power which is in itself a sacred trust, and vast responsibility !
God forbid that thus speaking I should seem to be stimu- lating the spirit of local pride and jealousy! When we urge men individually or in families to be mindful of the high privilege of their vocation, and to devote their energies to the extension of their influence in the community wherein they dwell, this is not for rivalry, but for the good of all. And so we look upon the Church in the Diocese as an individual in the Commonwealth of Dioceses; and upon the Church in the State, as it were upon a family in the same Commonwealth; and we urge the devotion of its common and united power to the best interests of that Commonwealth ; and bid it, in God's
23
PROCEEDINGS AT TRINITY CHURCH.
name, increase both its power of influence, and the influence itself, not for the attainment or exhibition of a superiority over the other members of the Commonwealth, but in aid of those members, and for their good as well as its own.
It would not come within the privilege of my present commission to propose measures for the adoption of the Church either within the Diocese or the State. But I am sure it will be allowed to fall far short of such presumption, if, keeping still to the line of observation which we have been pursuing, I press upon your attention not only the privilege of entering on the work of another century on the basis of principles which have been found to work successfully in the past, but also the duty,of bearing in mind in our application and transmission of those principles, the tendencies likely to affect them, and particularly the qualifying influence which the public opinion of the Church seems to have been exert- ing upon them.
When I speak of the public opinion of the Church, I do not mean the volatile fancy which is veered about by every passing wind of words, but rather that deliberate judgment which an intelligent community is capable of forming, and which, in the long run, is sure to settle down upon the con- clusions which legitimately follow from those premises upon which, whether right or wrong, it has been taught to reason. In a system like ours, in which not only the authority of office, but also the power of the popular will is represented, it is manifest that the tendencies of such an influence cannot be too carefully watched ; and the change which has taken place in the common understanding of some of the principles to which I have referred is certainly worthy of our notice.
How very much more, for example, seems now to be involved in the principle of our substantial unity with the Church of England in doctrine, discipline, and worship, than was generally realized in the beginning. Membership in the Church of England was, of course, the birthright of an English colonist ; and when English colonists became citi- zens of independent States their ecclesiastical birthright was by no means lost, although it came under different condi-
24
CENTENNIAL CHURCH HISTORY.
tions. That the Church here was the same Church after, as before the Revolution, was a never to be doubted or forgot- ten truth; and while the members of this Church, in their new organization, were free from obedience to such laws and judgments as might, by the Church of England, be afterward imposed, yet they could not be deprived of that inheritance of Catholic faith and order to which that Church itself had been born. And among those who asserted the substantial unity of the Church which they were organizing, with the Church of England, there were some who had light clearly to discern, and who held high amid the surrounding darkness the lamp of their testimony to the fact and the value of this inheritance. But for the most part, no doubt, those who made this claim were capable of no retrospect into the Catholic inheritance of the past. The change which has come about is that those who realize what is involved in this principle are no longer the few, but the many. The danger is that the solidity and strength of that appreciation may be thinned and weakened in its diffusion, and that men may learn to be in love with that which they do not rightly understand. It were well to remember that there are two parts in the privilege of this principle, of which one is the share in the Catholic inheritance, and the other is the means by which we have attained that share. The Catholic inher- itance has not, indeed, been limited to the line of English descent. It has gone out through the world, and come down through the generations, with more or less of accretion or diminution. But it is our right and duty to remember that it has come to us in the same line as that from which we have derived our Anglo-Saxon race, and language, and habit of thought ; and to have our horizon enlarged by such a regard to the world-power and mission of that race and language, that we may be narrowed by no slavish adherence either to insular prejudices or to Continental notions, whether the offspring of German inquisitiveness or of Italian effusive- ness. So may we use and hand down a doctrine wherein faith is neither transformed into reason nor deformed into superstition, but is cherished as the Divine light and guide 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.