sailed for his native land "in the ship _Triumph_, commanded
by Captain Stout." He was, however, detained in London, and from
that city he addressed what has been called "his first pastoral
letter" to the representatives of the clergy of Connecticut. His
detention was largely, probably not wholly, due to the necessity
which came upon him of making, if possible, some provision for the
future maintenance of the clergy. What little property he had
acquired had all been expended in his two years' absence from his
family and his residence in England; and the question whether or
not the Venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel would
or could continue the stipends hitherto appropriated to the clergy
in Connecticut was a very pressing one. His admirable letter to
the secretary of the society--a letter which thoroughly reveals
the man--is too long to be given here, while it cannot be
adequately represented by any quotations. He does not attempt to
conceal the fact that the continuance of his own stipend would be
a great relief to his anxieties, but he frankly adds that if it is
"not continued" he "can have no right to complain." And then
putting himself, as he always did, entirely to one side, and
saying, what seems to have been ever in his mind, that "the fate
of individuals is of inferior moment when compared with that of
the whole Church," he draws attention to the calamity it will be
"if proper steps be not taken to secure to the Church various
property of lands, etc., in the different States (now indeed of
small value, but gradually increasing), to which the society alone
has a legal claim."
Under the terms of their charter, the society could employ
missionaries only in "the plantations, colonies, and factories
belonging to the kingdom of Great Britain"; while they seem not to
have been ready to consider the question touching the lands. The
timidity or the lack of appreciation of the purely spiritual and
ecclesiastical character of the Episcopate as such, which then
prevailed, is painfully noticeable in the fact that, in the letter
which communicated the decision of the society, the secretary
addressed the bishop as he would have done before his consecration--
"the Rev. Dr. Seabury."
On other trials and difficulties which he met in London I do not
care to dwell. They all grew out of political jealousies, confused
notions concerning connections of Church and State, or fears,
which proved to be groundless, that the consecration sermon, to
say nothing of the consecration itself, might somehow be
disadvantageous to the Scottish Episcopate. One charge alleged is
to us in this day simply amusing; namely, that the bishop had been
"precipitate" in his application to Scotland. A precipitancy which
patiently waits and labors for more than thirteen months to obtain
the Episcopate in England, and only when all hope of so obtaining
it is at an end applies for it in Scotland, is, to say the least,
a very deliberate sort of precipitancy. And now we may pass from
the old world to the new.
"Bishop Seabury landed at Newport, R. I."--where Berkeley had
landed more than half a century before--"after a voyage of three
months,[Footnote: This period, however, includes some stay in Nova
Scotia.] on Monday, June 20th, 1785, and the next Sunday he
preached in Trinity Church the first sermon of an American bishop
in this country." [Footnote: The text was Heb. xii. 1, 2. The
sermon was afterwards published in the Bishop's _Discourses on
Several Subjects_, vol. ii., serm. xvi., "The Christian Race."
] On the 29th he reached New London, which from that time was to
be his home. While he was still at sea a Boston newspaper, which
had received the intelligence of his consecration, exclaimed: "Two
wonders of the world, a Stamp Act in Boston and a Bishop in
Connecticut!" [Footnote: _Boston Gazette_, May 30, 1785. ]
Two things instantly demanded the most careful attention and most
earnest efforts of the one American bishop: the condition and
needs of his own diocese, and the all-important question as to the
future of the scattered congregations of what had been the Church
of England in the thirteen colonies. The stoutest heart might well
quail before the difficulties that rose up before him on every
side. But Seabury's principle of action was ever found in the
twofold rule always to "do the next thing," and when all cannot be
done that one fain would do, then to do the best one can. And that
twofold rule will enable any man who acts under it, in the fear
and strength of God, to overcome difficulties by patient
perseverance or to accept disappointments in unrepining
submission. Faith and patience may not make their voice heard much
in the streets, but they accomplish results at last.
Did he look at his own diocese? There he saw many obstacles and
few, very few, encouragements. Five, at least, of the small number
of the clergy and considerable numbers of the laity had
"emigrated, or were soon to emigrate, to Nova Scotia and the
adjoining territory." Aside, then, from those whom he might
ordain, not more than eleven clergymen, and with them not more
than two hundred and eighty families, composed the diocese. It is
due to this ancient State, and it should ever be remembered to her
praise, that the loyalists within her borders suffered no
political oppression after the war of the Revolution had ended.
Nor can we forget that she sent as a delegate to the Continental
Congress in 1784, and afterwards, in 1787, to the convention which
framed our federal constitution, one who in 1779 had been, however
unreasonably, arrested for treason to the United Colonies, William
Samuel Johnson. Still it is none the less true, and it can
occasion little wonder, that loyalists, and therefore Churchmen,
"were not in good repute with the public authorities, and scorn
was likely to attend many of them for years to come."
To these diminished numbers of clergy and people must be added the
loss of the stipends hitherto allowed by the Society in England,
and the poverty which made it next to impossible to replace them.
Add, moreover, to these things the doubts and uncertainties, the
break-up of old associations and habitudes, the manifold
perplexities of which we now know nothing, and which we could not
enumerate if we did know them, and what a troubled scene was that
on which our first bishop, who stood alone in his order in these
United States, cast an anxious eye! "The children were come to the
birth," but would there be "strength to bring them forth"?
One discouragement--and that would have been greater than all the
others--Seabury was not called to meet. He did not come to a
disunited and divided body. His diocese stood together as a unit.
They stood where they did because of convictions, than which none
could be stronger or more abiding. When they said: "I believe in
the Holy Catholic Church," they uttered no unreal words, no words
that habits of careless utterance had made unmeaning. They meant
just what they said. And that strong and united conviction gave
hope and comfort for the future. Clouds and darkness were about
them. But on those clouds there was seen the bow of promise, while
beyond them stood--what they might obscure but could not remove--
the "city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God."
On Wednesday, the third day of August, the bishop met his clergy
at Middletown, received their address of congratulation and
recognition, and made his reply to it. On this day was also held
the first ordination administered by a bishop within the limits of
the United States. On the day following, the Rev. Samuel Parker,
who came as the appointed representative of the clergy in
Massachusetts, [Footnote: The Rev. Dr. Moore of New York was also
present, but not, apparently, in any representative capacity.]
made a communication which, we are told, "was received with the
warmest expressions of welcome," setting forth his instructions
"to collect the sentiments of the Connecticut clergy in respect of
Dr. Seabury's episcopal consecration and the regulation of his
episcopal jurisdiction," and intimating the intention of those who
sent him to connect themselves with their brethren here by coming
under the charge of their bishop.
On this day, also, Bishop Seabury delivered his first charge. In
it, after rehearsing with earnest expressions of gratitude to the
bishops of Scotland the steps which he had taken to secure the
Episcopate, and modestly referring to his own new position,
declaring that next to the grace of God he relies, in carrying on
the work committed to him, on the "advice and assistance" of his
brethren, he dwells on three important topics. First, he urges on
himself and them the duty of taking "heed unto the doctrine" as
well as to themselves, saying, in words which are not unneeded
how: "The first instance of fidelity is, that the pure doctrines
of the Gospel be fairly, earnestly, and affectionately proposed,
explained, and inculcated, and that we suffer nothing else to
usurp their place and become the subject of our preaching." Next,
he presses carefulness in recommending persons for ordination,
enlarging not so much on "literary accomplishments, though these
are not to be neglected, as aptitude for the work of the
ministry." And, lastly, for obvious reasons, he treats, at length,
"of the old and sacred rite, handed down to us from the apostolic
age by the primitive Church--the laying-on of hands." The document
shows, so far as a document can, that its writer possessed in
himself the qualifications which he regarded as necessary "to make
a useful clergyman--good temper, prudence, diligence, capacity,
and aptitude to teach."
On the third day of its session, the convocation appointed a
"committee to consider of and make with the bishop some
alterations in the Liturgy needful for the present use of the
Church." [Footnote: Mr. Parker of Massachusetts was appointed on
this committee.] The matter was entered on with caution, and the
only changes then and there ordered were those which changed
political relations made necessary in the State prayers and
services. These were immediately set forth by the bishop in an
"injunction," by which he "authorized and required" the clergy to
follow them. Some other changes were proposed and reserved for
future consideration; but as nothing seems to have been done about
them in this diocese, they need no special mention.
The bishop, however, was not unmindful of his promise given in the
Concordate, and in the year following (1786) published his
adaptation of the Scottish Communion-office. This he did not, as
in the case of the alterations agreed to in convocation, "enjoin"
or "require." He simply "_recommended_ it to the Episcopal
congregations in Connecticut."
I am quite conscious that this is a very brief summary, a very
meagre outline, of acts and events each one of which is most
important and suggestive. It is all, however, that time and space
allow, and it brings into strong relief some things which ought
not to be forgotten.
The reverent care and caution with which the offices of sacred
worship are approached are apparent. These are no signs of a
hesitancy which is doubtful of its position. They indicate rather
the strength of assurance which hesitates to touch the gift
entrusted to it lest touching may end in tampering. In the same
year in which these careful steps were taken, another convention,
in six days, revised the entire Book of Common Prayer, with all
its Offices and with the "Articles of Religion"; the result being
a book which underwent amendments in four States, had its
ratification postponed in another, was rejected in still another,
and was not considered at all in five. The contrast in results is
quite as striking as that in spirit and methods of action.
We also see, unless I greatly err, in his action in regard to the
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 entire 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." When the first great
Bishop of New Zealand met his first synod, he uttered these noble
words: "I believe the monarchical idea of the Episcopate to be as
foreign to the true mind of the Church as it is adverse to the
Gospel doctrine of humility. I would rather resign my office than
be reduced to act as a single isolated being. It remains, then, to
define by some general principle the terms of our co-operation.
They are simply these: that neither will I act without you, nor
can you act without me." Of course, a bishop who takes this line
must lay his account with the charge that he seeks to avoid
responsibility. But he may comfort himself with the recollection
that had he taken the other line, the same persons who lament his
timidity would be sure to charge him with arrogant assumption. If
Seabury did not utter Selwyn's very words, he acted them. Nor is
it more or less than the very truth to say that in all his
Episcopate he exemplified the counsel of the Son of Sirach: "If
thou be made the master, lift not thyself up, but be among them as
one of the rest" [Footnote: Ecclus. xxii. I.]
The story of that Episcopate cannot be told here. It has been
written in a faithful record accessible to all, and with which
most of us must be familiar. For almost twelve years the parish
priest in New London did his pastor's work, the humble-minded
bishop went, in homely ways, [Footnote: In a book published some
years ago, it was said that all clergymen in Connecticut
travelled, at the period spoken of, on horseback, "except,
perhaps, Bishop Seabury, who rode in a coach," He may have
"ridden" in a stage-coach, or in a coach belonging to some wealthy
layman; but the only vehicle which he ever possessed was a "one-
horse chaise."] in and out among his people, feeding the flock
"according to the integrity of his heart, and guiding them by the
skilfulness of his hands." And when God took him to his rest, the
mourning of his diocese was like the "mourning in the floor of
Atad," and the poor and the suffering, the widow and the
fatherless followed him to his grave, and wrote his epitaph in
their tears.
The power and value of an Episcopate like his cannot be measured
by immediate results--though such results were not lacking--which
are visible along its progress and at its close. Not only was it
not his peacefully to build on undisturbed foundations; it was not
even his to lay in peace original foundations. His was the harder,
the more hopeless task, to re-lay foundations which had been torn
up and scattered, and then begin to build upon them. And under
what discouragements was the task to be undertaken and prosecuted:
with diminished and diminishing numbers of fellow-workers; with
narrow resources and restricted means; amid manifold and
unexpected difficulties; amid jealousies that not infrequently
deepened into scornful enmity! How often must he have cried from
the depths of his heart: "Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is
offended, and I burn not?" Only a brave and genuine man, a man of
prayer and faith and love, could have borne up under such wearying
burdens. But he was all that, and even more than that. And,
therefore, to us who look back upon our history as a diocese from
the close of one century, to those who shall look back upon it
from the close of another, nay, in all time, its central figure
must be that massive one with which the limner's skill has made us
all familiar, as it stands facing wind and storm, supported by the
Word of God, which, in its turn, rests on the everlasting rock;
the figure of him by whom the God of our fathers said to our
"Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation
shall be laid." [Footnote: Isaiah xliv]
But it is time to turn to the second of the two things of which
mention was just now made; the future, namely, of the scattered
fragments of what had been the Church of England in the thirteen
colonies. To unite and consolidate these into one national Church
was the difficult problem to be solved; a problem, we may say with
reverent thankfulness, that never could have been solved had there
not come to the solution a stronger than any human strength, and a
wiser than any human wisdom. To bring about this blessed
consummation, the first two bishops consecrated for America
labored, if not always with accordant views, yet ever with united
hearts. The time has long gone by. and it ought never to have
been, when to give his due meed of praise to Bishop Seabury, and
to recognize his share in the great work accomplished, could be
thought in any way to carry with it disparagement to the eminent
services of Bishop White. Nothing can ever change or obscure his
prominence in the history of this Church. Surviving as he did the
darkest days of her trial and depression, living to see her enter
on wider lines and vaster fields of action, and enter on them with
a deepened spiritual life, he went to his rest in an old age that
was brightened with the reverent love of "all the churches," and
from which there was shed upon those churches the gracious light
of a gentleness, a meekness, and a charity, the memories of which
will never pass away. He is, he always must be, our St. John.
The two great obstacles in the minds of Bishop Seabury and his
clergy--and I think I may add the clergy of New England generally--
to the union and consolidation so earnestly desired, were found
in certain omissions in what was known as "The Proposed Book,"
adopted at a convention composed of deputies from seven States in
1785, [Footnote: The seven States represented were: New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South
Carolina. No deputies were present from New England.] and
published in 1786; and in certain provisions of an "Ecclesiastical
Constitution" first agreed to in the same convention of 1785, and
afterwards altered in some particulars in 1786.
The insurmountable difficulties which arose out of the Proposed
Book were the entire omission of the Creed commonly known as the
Nicene Creed, and the equally entire omission of the article, "He
descended into hell," in the Apostles' Creed. I do not at all mean
to say that these omissions constituted the only objections in the
minds of Bishop Seabury and those who acted with him. But these
were fatal. As long as these omissions remained, it was useless to
consider any other matters. Our fathers could never have united
with any body which deliberately rejected the Catholic Faith. For,
as has been well said, "a Church is not Catholic merely from
having an Apostolic ministry; the Catholic Faith is as essential
as Catholic Institutions." Nay, I think we may say even more than
that; namely, that to put the ministry first and the faith next is
to reverse the order established by the Lord. For surely, of those
to whom was given the commission to "make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost," it can never be said that the Name,
which is the original and the summary of every Catholic Creed, was
given for and because of them, but rather it must be said that
they were instituted for and because of it. To reverse this order
is to make the messenger of more importance than the message; is
to make the vase that holds the perfume of more importance than
the perfume held.
Happily the difficulty was not long in its continuance. In the
course of the negotiations for the Episcopate, which began in
October, 1785, it became very evident that the bishops of England
were not inclined to accede to the application for it so long as
the omission and mutilation just mentioned were adhered to.
Accordingly, on the 11th of October, 1786, in a convention held at
Wilmington, Delaware, the omitted clause was restored in the
Apostles' Creed, and the Nicene Creed was reinstated in its proper
place.
The other obstacle, however, remained untouched; and, in fact, it
was twofold. In the Constitution agreed upon by the representatives
from seven States in 1785, there was not only no provision
for a House of Bishops, but it was not even provided that
the one House should be presided over by a bishop, if one of
that order were present. The Episcopate was utterly ignored.
Besides this extraordinary omission, every clergyman, of whatever
order, was made amenable to the convention of the diocese to which
he belonged in regard to "suspension or removal from office,"
while, for all that appeared, the sentence of suspension or
deposition must have been pronounced by the convention itself. In
a Church regulated by rules and ordinances like these, there might
be a nominal Episcopate, but it would be only nominal. The Ordinal
might be retained, but it would cease to have any meaning. The
Primitive Church might be spoken of, but every trace of primitive
order and administration would have disappeared.
It has often been said that Bishop Seabury objected to any
admission of the laity to the councils of the Church. But this is
one of the cases in which, unless we distinguish things that
differ, we shall certainly go far astray. Legislation is one
thing; the judicial exercise of discipline in the Church is quite
another thing. Now, I do not find that Bishop Seabury was set
against recognizing the right of the laity to a share in the
legislation of the Church, on the principle laid down by Hooker,
that laws which are to bind all orders should have the consent of
all orders. On the contrary, he admitted the principle when he set
his name to the Constitution of 1789 which provided for this very
thing; a provision the value of which has been fully demonstrated
by the first century of our history as a national Church.
Touching his views concerning the judicial exercise of discipline,
I need only cite his own words: "I cannot conceive that the laity
can with any propriety be admitted to sit in judgment on bishops
and presbyters, especially when deposition may be the event;
because they cannot take away a character which they cannot
confer. It is incongruous with every idea of episcopal government.
That authority which confers power can, for proper reasons, take
it away. But where there is no authority to confer power, there
can be none to disannul it. Wherever, therefore, the power of
ordination is lodged, the power of deprivation is lodged also."
Concerning the absolute irrecognition of the Episcopate, as
entitled to any share in either legislation or discipline, by the
Constitution of 1785, I need only cite, again, the bishop's words:
"In so essential a matter as Church government is, no alterations
should be made that affect its foundation. If a man be called a
bishop who has not the episcopal powers of government, he is
called by a wrong name, even though he should have the power of
ordination and confirmation."
The position assumed by our first bishop in regard to both these
matters was justified and sustained by the action of this Church
in 1789, when the Constitution, as amended, was made to provide
for a House of Bishops, "with power to originate and propose
acts," and also for the administration of discipline by the
Episcopate alone. This was the Constitution to which--"on a dingy
half sheet of paper"--Bishop Seabury and Drs. Jarvis and Hubbard,
as representatives from Connecticut, and Dr. Parker, as deputy
from Massachusetts and New Hampshire, set their hands in October,
1789, and by their act effected the consolidation of our Church.
I will not say that a victory was thus gained, for it was not
victory that was sought. But we may say that something far better
than a victory was attained, in that a great principle was
accepted. Nor has the lapse of time raised any doubt as to the
rightfulness and wisdom of the acceptance. [Footnote: It is worth
while to state the steps by which final action was reached:
1. The Constitution adopted in 1785 took no account of the
Episcopate as a possible component part of the General Convention.
In 1786 provision was made that "a bishop should always preside in
General Convention, if any of the episcopal order were present."
In August, 1789, it was agreed, with certain limitations and
restrictions, that "the bishops of this Church, when there shall
be three or more, shall, whenever a General Convention shall be
held, form a _House of Revision;_ and when any proposed act
shall have passed in the _General Convention_, the same shall
be transmitted to the _House of Revision_ for their concurrence."
Obviously the House of Revision is not here regarded as
a component part of the General Convention. Finally, in
October, 1789, it was ordered that "the bishops of this Church,
when there shall be three or more, shall, whenever General
Conventions are held, form a separate house, _with a right to
originate and propose acts_ for the concurrence of _the House
of Deputies_, composed of clergy and laity." Certain restrictions,
which have since been modified, were added. But clearly
the great principle contended for by Bishop Seabury and
those who acted with him is here admitted.