passing through, a broken and disordered condition, and we have
reason to be thankful to them for the aid they rendered us when we
were sorely in need. I believe we _are_ thankful. I believe
there is a growing interest among our people in the Scottish
Church, an increasing desire that Churches of the one faith--
English, Scotch, Irish, and American--should have a closer bond of
fellowship, and rejoice more heartily in each other's prosperity.
It is a good thing that we have come together on this centennial
occasion and mingled our congratulations. As we have met here face
to face, we have learned to respect ourselves more, and, I hope,
to love and respect each other more.
But let me leave these references, and draw your thoughts around
Seabury in his Episcopal character. On the morning of a bleak
November Sunday in 1784 we enter an "upper room" in Longacre,
built and fitted for Divine worship, and find there three of the
four bishops then administering the dioceses of the Scottish
Church; and after prayers and a suitable sermon, they proceed to
consecrate this self-sacrificing servant of God to the Apostolic
office. Though the penal laws enacted against the clergy of the
Scottish Church had not yet been repealed, their edge had worn
away, or they had ceased altogether to be enforced, so that the
service was in no manner secret. It was witnessed by a number of
respectable clergymen, and a large body of laity, "on which
occasion all testified great satisfaction." As the letter of
Consecration reads: _Presentibus tam e Clero quam e Populo
Testibus idoneis_. The occasion was a memorable and particularly
solemn one. Seabury himself said of it: "It was the most solemn
day of all my life--God grant I may never forget it."
He preached in the afternoon of the day of his consecration, and
his earnestness and manner of address, accompanied with
gesticulations, which appear not to have been common in Scotland
at that period, made a favorable impression. On his return to
London, he stopped at Edinburgh, where his friend and fellow-
sufferer in the trials of the American Revolution, Dr. Myles
Cooper, with others, welcomed him, and gave him hearty congratulations
on the accomplishment of his mission. From this city, he
wrote to the Rev. Jonathan Boucher, vicar of Epsom in Surrey,
who had interested himself in his application, to acquaint
him, as he had promised to do, with the success of his visit to
Scotland. "The Church in Connecticut," said he, "has only done her
duty in endeavoring to obtain the Episcopacy for herself, and I
have only done my duty in carrying her endeavors into execution.
Political reasons prevented her application from being complied
with in England. It was natural in the next instance to apply to
Scotland, whose Episcopacy, though now under a cloud, is the very
same in every ecclesiastical sense with the English."
He had grown up and lived hitherto under the influence of the
highest veneration for the Church of England, and his attachment
to her was still strong, notwithstanding he considered it bad
policy that his application for consecration had been rejected by
the English Bishops. He began to fear, however, that the Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel might cease to aid him, which
would be a result to be deplored for other than pecuniary reasons.
"Should the Society itself," said he, "be obliged to take such a
step, though I shall be sorry for it and hurt by it, I shall not
be dejected. If my father and mother forsake me, if the governors
of the Church and the Society discard me, I shall still be that
humble pensioner of Divine Providence which I have been through my
whole life. God, I trust, will take me up, continue His goodness
to me, and bless my endeavors to serve the cause of His infant
Church in Connecticut. I trust that it is not the loss of 50 pounds per
annum that I dread--though that is an object of some importance to
a man who has nothing--but the consequences that must ensue, the
total alienation of regard and affection."
His path was not yet cleared of trials and perplexities, for on
reaching London he found those high in authority so dissatisfied
with the step he had taken that they pronounced it _precipitate_.
"Since my return from Scotland," said he in his first pastoral
letter to the clergy of Connecticut, "I have seen none of
the bishops, but I have been informed that the step I have
taken has displeased the two Archbishops, and it is now a
matter of doubt whether I shall be continued on the Society's
list. The day before I set out on my northern journey I had an
interview with each of the Archbishops, when my design was avowed,
so that the measure was known, though it has made no noise. My own
poverty is one of the greatest discouragements I have. Two years'
absence from my family, and expensive residence here, have more
than expended all I had. But in so good a cause, and of such
magnitude, something must be risked by somebody. To my lot it has
fallen; I have done it cheerfully, and despair not of a happy
issue."
All his apprehensions in regard to aid were realized, though he
wrote a most admirable letter to the Venerable Society giving a
concise history of his mission to England, and making a pathetic
appeal for future remembrance and consideration. After a delay of
two months, it was acknowledged by the Secretary without
recognizing his official character, being addressed "To the Rev.
Dr. Seabury, New London, Connecticut." He was told that his case
was comprehended under the general rule, that the charter would
not allow the Society to "employ any missionaries except in the
plantations, colonies, and factories belonging to the Kingdom of
Great Britain."
Bishop Seabury received from the British Government 50 pounds per
annum half-pay as a chaplain in the King's American regiment during
the War of the Revolution; and a few of his fast friends in England--
among them Dr. Horne, then Dean of Canterbury, Rev. Jonathan
Boucher, and William Stevens, Esq.--associated themselves together
and engaged to send him annually 50 pounds from the date of his arrival
in Connecticut. This engagement was faithfully kept to the day of
his death, and was an equivalent for the stipend which had been
withdrawn by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.
His preparations for returning to America were now completed, and
early in March, 1785, he embarked in a ship commanded by Captain
Dawson, which sailed from London for Halifax. His main object in
going by the way of Nova Scotia was to see the situation of that
part of his family then resident in that neighborhood. He is
recorded as officiating at Annapolis Royal, April, 1785, and was,
therefore, the first bishop of our Church who preached in the
Dominion of Canada. Mention is also made of his preaching several
Sundays in St. John, New Brunswick, where a daughter with her
husband was living at the time.
He landed at Newport, Rhode Island, after a voyage of three
months, including his stay in Canada, Monday, June 2Oth; and the
next Sunday he preached in Trinity Church in that place, the first
sermon of an American bishop in the United States, from the text
(Hebrews xii. I, 2): "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about
with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight
and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with
patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the
Author and Finisher of our faith."
More than half a century prior to this, a great dignitary of the
Church of England, Dean Berkeley, after a voyage of nearly five
months from Gravesend, arrived at the same port, and preached many
times in the same church, which is still standing. The missions of
these men had many points of resemblance; but while one, after a
trial of more than two years and a half, failed to accomplish his
heroic object, and returned to the land of his birth to be honored
with a mitre in the see of Cloyne, the other was blessed in his
work, and lived to behold the Church in America united in the
adoption of a revised liturgy, and settled upon the old
"foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself
being the chief corner-stone."
The next step of Bishop Seabury was to arrange for a meeting with
his clergy, and he wrote immediately to the Rev. Mr. Jarvis, who
had acted as their secretary, and invited him to New London to
consult with him on the time and place. It was held in Middletown
on the 2d of August, 1785--a meeting full of joy to both parties--
and the clergy, in their address of congratulation and formal
recognition, said among other things: "We, in the presence of
Almighty God, declare to the world, that we do unanimously accept,
receive, and recognize you to be _our Bishop_, supreme in the
government of the Church, and in the administration of all
ecclesiastical offices. And we do solemnly engage to render you
all that respect, duty, and submission, which we believe do belong
and are due to your high office, and which, we understand, were
given by the presbyters to their bishop in the primitive Church,
while in her native purity she was unconnected with and
uncontrolled by any secular power."
The Bishop opened his reply to this address with hearty thanks to
the clergy for their kind congratulations on his safe return, and
cordially united with them in their joy for the accomplishment of
the important business which he had been excited to undertake. His
first ordination was held on this occasion, and steps were taken
to make such changes in the liturgy as might be necessary to adapt
it to the use of the Church in the new civil relations. But what
added to the interest and significance of the occasion was the
charge which he delivered to the clergy, so valuable both in its
teachings and its connection with American Episcopacy. The three
points which he enlarged upon in it were the obligations they were
under to be very careful of "the doctrines which they preached
from the pulpit or inculcated in conversation"; to be cautious
about giving recommendations to candidates for Holy Orders, whose
moral character, learning, and abilities were not only to be
exactly inquired into, but their good temper, prudence, diligence,
and everything by which their usefulness in the ministry might be
affected. "A clergyman," said he, "who does no _good_ always
does _hurt_; there is no medium." The third point of the
charge was upon the necessity of immediate attention to that old
and sacred rite handed down by the primitive Church, the laying-on
of hands in Confirmation--a rite which, for want of the proper
officer to administer it, had hitherto been unused in the American
Church.
Seabury had the double work of a bishop and a parish minister,
being rector of the church in New London, and meeting its demands
with the aid of one of his newly-ordained deacons. His entrance
upon the public duties of his Episcopal office in Connecticut had
been looked forward to with much curiosity and some prejudice by
those outside of the Church. The old Puritan dread of a hierarchy,
instilled into the popular mind before the independence of the
Colonies, still lingered, and helped to foster the expectation
that he would assume great dignity, and appear in a degree of
external splendor. There was disappointment in this respect when
he began the visitation of his diocese in the simplest and most
primitive manner, riding on horseback or in a sulky over rough and
circuitous roads, and through regions sparsely inhabited. A plain
yeoman, who had never seen a bishop in his robes, and knew not how
he would appear in officiating, took an early opportunity to
gratify his curiosity and attend a service where he was to preach.
The next morning a neighbor, who had not the boldness to follow
his example, met him, and asked him what he thought of Bishop
Seabury. "Was he proud?" he inquired. "Proud! Bless you, no!" was
the reply. "Why, he preached in his shirt-sleeves!"
Beyond the labor of regulating and settling the Church in
Connecticut upon right principles, Bishop Seabury was especially
anxious that the whole Church in the United States should be so
guided as to prevent any division in government, doctrine, and
discipline. A Convention was about to be held in Philadelphia to
adopt an ecclesiastical constitution and make application for
bishops in the English line of succession; and he asked, through
Dr. Smith, and renewed the expression of his sentiments in a
letter to Dr. (afterwards Bishop) White a few days later, that
that body would reconsider certain measures which it had hastily
adopted, and which seemed to indicate a forgetfulness that "the
government, sacraments, faith, and doctrines of the Church are
fixed and settled." Among his words of wisdom and kindness to Dr.
Smith were these: "My ground is taken, and I wish not to extend my
authority beyond its present limits. But I do most earnestly wish
to have our Church in all the States so settled that it may be one
Church, united in government, doctrine, and discipline--that there
may be no divisions among us--no opposition of interests--no
clashing of opinions. And permit me to hope that you will at your
approaching Convention so far recede in the points I have
mentioned as to make this practicable. Your Convention will be
large and very much to be respected. Its determinations will
influence many of the American States, and posterity will be
materially affected by them. These considerations are so many
arguments for calm and cool deliberation. Human passions and
prejudices, and, if possible, infirmities, should be laid aside. A
wrong step will be attended with dreadful consequences. Patience
and prudence must be exercised; and should there be some
circumstances that press hard for a remedy, hasty decisions will
not mend them. In doubtful cases they will probably have a bad
effect."
The action of the Convention in setting forth what is known in
American ecclesiastical history as "The Proposed Book" only made
him adhere more resolutely to the convictions of his intelligent
mind; and his clergy stood by him, and supported him in the sound
principles which he maintained. "Depend not on rumors," said one
of them, writing to a friend; "the clergy in Connecticut are well
pleased with their bishop, and will run the risk of a disunion
with the Southern gentry rather than forsake him, if he will stay
with us. We hope, however, better things than that." And better
things did come to pass. Attempts to cast discredit upon the
validity of his consecration, initiated and persisted in mainly by
those opposed to him on political grounds, were met in a manly and
Christian spirit, and he took the necessary steps to frustrate
them without using harsh words or doing more than state simple
facts. His second and last formal Charge to his clergy, delivered
September, 1786, whether considered in reference to the unbelief
of the times, or to the movement of the clergy and laity in the
Southern States to revise and alter the liturgy and government of
the Church, is a production of remarkable forecast and wisdom. At
this time he set forth a Communion-office, agreeably to the terms
of the Concordate made with the Scottish bishops, which gradually
went into use in the diocese, and traces of this particular office
lingered in Connecticut for half a century. When the union of the
Church in all the States was consummated in 1789, and the first
real General Convention held in that year, consisting of a House
of Bishops and a House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, entered upon
a review of the Book of Common Prayer, the proposition to insert
the Scottish form of consecration was accepted and approved, the
words only "That they may become the Body and Blood of Thy most
dearly beloved Son," being omitted, and those in the English
office substituted.
There were now three bishops in the American Church, and efforts
were made to bring them together in the consecration of a fourth,
but without avail. Bishops White and Provoost considered
themselves under an implied obligation not to join in any
consecration until there should be the actual number of three in
the English line of succession. Provoost was absent from the
Convention of 1789, when the Prayer-Book was revised, and Seabury,
being the senior, was made the President of the Upper House. He
and Bishop White spent no time in speeches, but looked carefully
at each point as it came into view. With minds and characters
differently constituted and moulded, they were just the men to be
brought together in such an emergency. One was frank and fearless
in adhering to his settled convictions, and resolute in upholding
the faith and preserving the ancient landmarks of the Church, but
not so self-willed and tenacious of his opinions that he could not
gracefully relinquish them where no essential principle was
involved. The other had a less rigid temperament, and from natural
kindness of heart, and perhaps personal inclination, he might have
been led without this check to yield to the pressure of
circumstances at the expense of a true conservatism. Bishop White,
however, was not more gentle and generous than capable of
appreciating the character of his Episcopal brother; and the
testimony which he bore long years after was that he "had ever
retained a pleasing recollection of the interviews of that period,
and of the good sense and Christian temper of the person with whom
he was associated."
In 1792 another General Convention was held, and Bishop Seabury
preached the sermon, which was printed by the request of both
Houses, and glowed with the true spirit of Christian love, with
that perfect and comprehensive charity which tends to preserve the
peace and unity of the Church under all possible circumstances.
By this time James Madison had been sent over and consecrated, in
the Chapel of Lambeth Palace, Bishop of Virginia; and thus the
question of having three bishops in America of the English
succession before proceeding to consecrate, was put to rest.
The Church in Maryland elected the Rev. Dr. Thomas John Claggett
its bishop, and deputies from that State appeared with him at this
General Convention, and, with the necessary documents in hand,
presented him to the House of Bishops, "requesting that his
consecration might be expedited." It was a movement intended to
unite Episcopalians more closely together by blending the two
lines of succession and for ever preventing the possibility of a
question arising in the American Church as to the relative
validity of the English and Scotch Episcopacy. For the application
to consecrate Dr. Claggett was not made to those only who received
their authority in the Chapel at Lambeth, but the whole four were
requested to join in the act, which was solemnized in Trinity
Church, New York, Monday, September 17, 1792; and from that day
not a bishop has been consecrated in this Church who cannot claim
the succession, in part at least, through the Scottish Episcopate.
An incident connected with the consecration ought not to be
withheld here, for it shows the man and his Christian spirit. It
had been agreed at the last General Convention that the eldest
bishop present--to be reckoned from his consecration--should be
President of the House, and this rule, if unchanged, would have
left Seabury to preside at the consecration. But the agreement
seemed to be displeasing to Bishops Provoost and Madison, and it
was proposed by them that the presidency should go by rotation,
beginning from the north, which would take it away from him and
give it to Provoost. "I had no inclination," says Seabury, "to
contend who should be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, and
therefore readily consented to relinquish the presidency into the
hands of Bishop Provoost. I thank God for His grace on this
occasion, and beseech Him that no self-exaltation or envy of
others may ever lead me into debate and contention, but that I may
ever be willing to be the least when the peace of His Church
requires it."
Great duties were now resting upon him, for besides Connecticut he
virtually had the oversight of all the Episcopal parishes in New
England; and in 1790 those in Rhode Island met in Convention and
formally declared him to be the bishop of the Church in that
State. This necessitated long journeys and long absences from his
home, and the only compensation for lack of speed and comfort in
the modes of conveyance at that period was the cheerful
hospitality which everywhere awaited him. In moving about from
place to place he was the Christian bishop and the agreeable
companion as well. His familiarity with subjects outside of
theology, and his ready retort upon those who attempted now and
then to draw the Church or his office into ridicule, were pleasant
features of his life, treasured and handed down to us by the
generation to which he belonged.
On the occasion of his first visit to Boston he called on Dr.
Mather Byles, then living in retirement, who, though a Congregational
divine, was yet a sturdy loyalist during the Revolution,
and had a son who entered the ministry of the Church of
England and was proscribed and banished for entertaining the
political views of his father. Dr. Byles was a noted wit, and so
ready with his puns and sarcasms that seldom did anyone try to
match him in this line without coming off the worse for the
conflict. When Seabury paid him the compliment of a visit, he
received him very cordially, and said, with a mixture of irony: "I
am happy to see in my old age a bishop on this side the Atlantic,
and I hope you will not refuse to give me the right hand of
fellowship." To which the Bishop replied: "As you are a
_left_-handed brother, I think fit to give you my _left_
hand," which he accordingly did. The conversation soon turned upon
the general subject of the Church, and it being St. Mark's day,
and public service as usual, the doctor inquired: "Why is it that
you churchmen still keep up the old Romish practice of worshipping
saints?" "We do not worship saints," was the quick reply; "we only
thank God that the Church has had such worthy advocates, and pray
Him to give us hearts and strength to follow their example."
"Aye," exclaimed the other, "I know you are fond of traditions;
but I trust we have now many good saints here in our Church, and,
for my part, I would rather have one living saint than half-a-
dozen dead ones." "Maybe so," rejoined the Bishop, "for I suppose
you are of the same mind with Solomon, who said that 'a living dog
is better than a dead lion.'"
Enough has been said in this paper to show the admirable spirit of
Seabury all through his Episcopate. "Forgetting those things which
were behind, he reached forth to those before"; and if assailed
for the part he took in the war of the Revolution, he let his
conscientious pursuit of what he believed to be right at the time
pass into history without apology or vindication. He aimed to
promote peace among his brethren, and was lenient in dealing with
their prejudices. One venerable presbyter of his diocese,
supported by his people, was reluctant to adopt the revised
Prayer-Book, and he wrote him a kind letter, and said in it: "The
question is not which book is the best in itself, but which will
best promote the peace and unity of the Church. Such was the
temper of the people to the southward, that unity could not be had
with the old book. Is not, then, the unity of the whole Church
through the States a price sufficient to justify the alterations
which have been made, supposing (and in this I believe you will
join with me) that there is no alteration made but what is
consistent with the analogy of the Christian faith? Let me,
therefore, _entreat you as a father_ to review this matter,
and I have no doubt but that you will join with your brethren, and
_walk by the same rule_ in your public ministrations. This
will rejoice their hearts, and mine also. May God be your director
in all things, and grant that we may meet together in His own
heavenly kingdom."