Columbia ®nit)twitp intlifCttpofStttigork THE LIBRARIES Bequest of Frederic Bancroft 1860-1945 ^^/^^n^a^^A^ /Zwu^dM>.^ ffi^^x MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY BY WILLIAM JONES SEABURY, D.D. PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY AND LAW IN THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK NEW YORK EDWIN S. GORHAM, PUBLISHER 251 Fourth Avenue, Cor. Twentieth Street LONDON RIVINGTONS 34 King Street, Covent Garden 1908 6/. /^ Copyright, 1908, William J. Seabury ( LD un CD '•4J \n ^ ca ^ '^ '^ l^ ^ -^ PREFACE. THE life of Bishop Seabury published by Dr. Beardsley in 1881, gives the only extended account of him which has yet appeared; although there have been very many commemorations of him in casual, and therefore in some sense ephemeral publications, some of which, never- theless, have been of great and permanent value. Notwith- standing, however, the undoubted excellence and faithfulness of Dr. Beardsley 's book, it has seemed to many that it was not in all respects such as to preclude the usefulness of another treatment of the subject; for which, indeed, there has of late been all the greater need from the fact that Dr. Beardsley 's book has been long since out of print. These considerations, and the urgency of some whose wishes could not be other than influential with me, have led me to undertake the present Memoir. Now that it is completed I am conscious that the Memoir has not accomplished all that I could have wished, nor all that is due to the subject of it. In the marshalling of the materials at my disposal I have often been deeply impressed with the value of what I could not possibly use without ex- tending the book beyond readable limits; and I confess that what I have proposed to myself has been above all to give such an account of Bishop Seabury as should at least be readable, and thus tend to promote the more general knowledge of a man really worth knowing. How to do this, and at the same time to treat fully and fairly those grave topics and important prin- ciples without the understanding of which the subject of the Memoir could not be understood, has been the problem which V VI PREFACE. I have tried to solve. Whether I have succeeded in this effort the reader will, of course, judge fur himself, but my aim has been to keep the life of the man always in view, so that the story might have a personal interest which would add some zest to the treatment of the more abstract matters which were necessary to be considered. In the performance of my work I have had the benefit of the traditions imparted to me by my father, Dr. Samuel Seabury ; and, as a part of these, of the considerable collection of papers inherited or gathered by him, and also of memoranda made by him, relating to the earlier part of the life of his grandfather, which it was always his purpose to complete, but which, unfortunately, he did not live to accomplish. I am greatly indebted to my brother, the Rev^. Henry Ainsworth Parker, of Massachusetts, for an arrangement and classifica- tion of the collection of papers referred to, without which it would have been next to impossible for me to utilize them. I have also been indebted to him, and to the Rev^. Joseph Hooper, of Connecticut, for several valuable additions to my stock of material. My many obligations to various writers are, of course, noted in the text; but I ought, I think, to express my particular sense of the benefit of having had Dr. Beardsley's treatment of the subject before me; and of having had also the knowl- edge of those invaluable Memoirs, for which the Church in this country is profoundly indebted to the venerable Bishop White. No one can know the history of that Church with- out knowing Bishop White's Memoirs; and to the knowledge of Bishop Seabury they largely contribute, describing him and his position not only with great fairness, but with an affec- tionate appreciation which is truly gratifying. As to the need, or usefulness, of a work of this kind there may perhaps be a difference of opinion. M}'' own feeling, of course, is that there is much in the life of the subject of this PREFACE. Vll Memoir which may profitably be considered and applied by anyone who is open to the influence of salutary personal example. But apart from that, I am disposed to think it a very wholesome thing to import into the consideration of the existing order of things in Church and State, the contempla- tion of a life which may be regarded as a fair exponent of principles recognized as fundamental in those Institutions at the time of their original establishment in this country. If the work shall prove in any degree serviceable in promoting the better appreciation of these principles, it will not be with- out a usefulness to which I shall be glad to have contributed. W. J. s. 8 Chelsea Square, New York, 1908. MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. CHAPTER I. EARLY YEARS, AND ORDINATION. 1729-1753. THE story of Bishop Seabury seems, so far as con- cerns the survival of materials out of which it can be constructed, to begin soon after the completion of his college course at Yale in 1748, v^^hile he v^as in the nineteenth year of his age. For the answer to questions of interest as to the influences under which he grew up, we are thus left somewhat to our imagination. We are not, however, altogether without facts on which it is safe to encourage the imagination to work. The character of his father, the Rev^. Samuel Seabury, M. A., seems to have been such as to entitle him to universal respect, and to make him especially fitted to influence the son. From his mother, all that the Bishop could have derived must have been by inheritance rather than by personal influence. Abigail Mumford, his father's first wife, died in 1730, or 173 1, after a married life of about four years, during which she had given birth to two sons — Caleb, born February 2^], 1728, and Samuel, the subject of the present Memoir, born on the Feast of St. Andrew (November 30), 1729. She was the daughter of that Thomas Mumford who was Warden of the Church of St. James, New London, of which her husband was the first Rector, and who belonged to 2 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. a family of some eminence in the history of the Colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut. This family was connected with the Church of England ; while the colonial line of Sea- bury, down to the date of the conformity and ordination of the Bishop's father (1731), seems to afford no instance of any but the staunchest Puritans of the Congregational type. The blending is not without its significance in this connection, but it need not now be dwelt upon. All of maternal influence that the Bishop could have been conscious of was derived from the second wife of his father, who was Elizabeth, daughter of Adam Powell, and grand- daughter of Gabriel Bernon of Rhode Island. Of this mar- riage there were three sons, Adam, Nathaniel and David ; and two daughters, Jane, and Elizabeth Powell who became the wife of Dr. Benjamin Tredwell of Hempstead. A youth spent amidst such associations as are thus indi- cated, in a well ordered Christian and Churchly home; with the best influences of parental example and guidance, and the affectionate intercourse of brothers and sisters in a loving family life, was certainly a good preparation for a useful man- hood. The Bishop was born at Groton, a place on the Thames river, opposite New London, in Connecticut. His father was, at the time of the birth, still acting as a licensed preacher among the Congregationalists in Groton, not having as yet conformed to the Church of England. It was natural, under these circumstances, that the child should be baptized by a Congregationalist Minister. The record of the Congregational Society in Groton is, " Samuel son of Samuel and Abigail Sea- bury baptized 14 Dec. 1729 by Rev. John Owen," — the said John Owen being the Congregationalist Minister in South Groton.^ I. Ms. letter of Rev. Dr. T. W. Coit to Rev. Dr. Samuel Seabury of April 3, 1851, and cf. Caulkins' History of New London. EARLY YEARS, AND ORDINATION. 3 The ground taken by the recipient of this baptism in his later Hfe, as to the invahdity of baptism without authority derived in due succession from the Apostles, upon whom only it had been originally conferred by Christ," renders it more than probable that he was afterward baptized by a clergyman of the Church of England. It is possible that his father per- formed the ceremony after returning from ordination in Eng- land: but, so far as has yet appeared, there is no record or other direct evidence of any such baptism. The elder Samuel Seabury, the father of the Bishop, was, on his return from England, settled in charge of St. James' Church, New London, and to this place he transferred his residence ; continuing there until his removal to Hempstead in 1742. The boyhood of the Bishop until his thirteenth year would thus appear to have been spent in New London. At Hempstead he completed, probably under the tuition of his father, his preparation for Yale College, which he entered in 1744, graduating Bachelor of Arts in 1748. From this col- lege he afterward received the degree of Master of Arts, which degree was also conferred upon him at a later period by King's College in New York. The only tale which appears to have survived in regard to the Bishop's boyhood, is that being once sent by his father to drive some cows out of the garden, he threw a stone which struck one of them with such force as almost to cause her death — an incident which served as a caution to him to use his uncommon strength with more moderation in future. Soon after his graduation he was appointed by the English Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts to serve as a Catechist at Huntington, a station within the cure of his father, and some twenty miles distant from Hempstead. The stipend of £10 per annum, which he received from the 2. Bp. Seabury's Sermons, I. pp. 97-99 and 183. Ed. 1793. 4 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Society with this appointment, enabled him to reside at his home in Hempstead without being burdensome to his father. He rehnquishod this appointment in 1752; and during the three or four years in which he held it, all the time which he could spare from its duties he used for the study of Medicine and of Theology. His father had applied himself to the study of Medicine in order to minister to the bodily as well as to the spiritual needs of his parishioners; and he himself was probably at first led to the study from the same desire to make it auxiliary to the missionary labours to which he pur- posed to devote his life. But he lacked, upon the completion of his college course, some five or six years of the age at which he could be admitted to priest's orders; and as he could not well take the double journey to England, first for deacon's orders at twenty-one, and then for priest's orders at twenty- four ; and as he appears from the beginning, as well as throughout his life, to have been of a very practical turn of mind, it was most natural that while he was steadily pursuing his theological studies, and at the same time gaining experi- ence in the exercise of his function as a Catechist, he should also be disposed to supplement his study of the theory of medicine by medical practice as occasion afforded opportunity. His course in this respect, however, in no way interfered with his theological studies, which he continued to pursue with his father until 1752 when he set out for his ordination in England. It appears from the letter of introduction which his father gave him to the Bishop of London that, as he would not attain the age requisite for Priest's Orders until 1753, it had been determined that he should spend a year at the University of Edinburgh " in studying physic and anat- omy," before going to London for ordination ; and the year 1752-3 was accordingly spent by him in diligent attendance upon the lectures of professors eminent in that day at that University. EARLY YEARS, AND ORDINATION. 5 It is related that while he was a student in Edinburgh, as he was walking one day along the street, his attention being suddenly aroused by shouts of excited spectators, he saw rush- ing toward him in full career a horse, bearing a lady whose power of control seemed to be exhausted, and whose danger was obvious and imminent. This situation the young man, with mingled activity, strength and skill, instantly changed; and with a dextrous grasp, and masterfully firm hold of the bridle, he so steadily checked the progress of the steed as not to unseat the rider. It is manifest that this anecdote is charged with romantic possibilities; which, however, one grieves to record were not realized. For though the father, outstripped in the race, came soon upon the scene, and both the gentleman and his daughter were profuse in their grateful acknowledgments, yet nothing seems to have come of so fruit- ful an incident beyond a pleasant extension of the young stu- dent's acquaintance during his stay in the city — which, after all, was enough; and certainly more than he had anticipated when he started on his lonely stroll. The Scottish Episcopal Church, " the Catholic remainder of the Ancient Church of Scotland," was at that time in a sad state of depression. Some years had elapsed since the defeat of the young Pretender had extinguished the hopes and aspirations of the adherents to the Stuart Succession : but the severe penal laws against the Churchmen who had earned their title of non-jurors by their refusal to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary and their later successors of the House of Hanover, were still in force; and these men were accustomed to meet for religious worship, if not like the primitive Christians in dens and caves of the earth, yet in places so obscure and comparatively inaccessible, as to tend to their better concealment from the observation of their enemies. Our student does not appear to have had (either then or at a later period of his life) any predilection for their poHtics; but 6 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. he was drawn to them by the stront^er sympathies of a com- mon Christian profession. He did not, therefore, hesitate, dur- ing his abode in Edinburgh, to seek out the sorrowful and dispersed members of the ancient Church, and attach himself to their Communion. The secrecy which they found it neces- sary to maintain was new to him; and he used afterward to describe with much interest the winding streets and alleys through which he was taken until, having entered a house which had no exterior appearance of a church, and passing through a blind way to a room in the rear, he found himself unexpectedly in the midst of a small band of worshippers. Little did he then think that he was afterwards to seek and receive the highest gifts in the power of the same Church to bestow, and thus to become in an important measure instru- mental in raising her from the obscurity which he then felt it his privilege to share. Having finished the course of study which had been planned for him at Edinburgh, he repaired to London; and with the approbation of Bishop Sherlock, then Incumbent of the See of London, on whom he had waited, agreeably to his father's direction in the July previous, he was on Friday, December 2ist, 1753, admitted to Deacon's Orders by John, Bishop of Lincoln, acting at the request and in the stead of the Bishop of London, in his Lordship's Palace at Fulham. The requirement of the usual interval between the con- ferring of Deacon's and Priest's Orders appears to have been relaxed in favour of candidates from the distant Colonies; and hence one is not surprised to find that on the Sunday fol- lowing, December 23d, 1753, the Deacon of Friday's Ordina- tion was admitted at the same place to the Order of Priests, by Richard, Bishop of Carlisle, acting at the request, and in the stead of the Bishop of London. It was probably a dis- appointment to him that Sherlock was unable to officiate in person at either of these Ordinations. He always cherished a EARLY YEARS, AND ORDINATION. ^ high veneration for Bishop Sherlock, was accustomed to study his sermons with great care; and, in the opinion of his son (Rev. Charles Seabury) used them to some extent as a model upon which to form his own style in writing of the same kind. He was fond, afterwards, of repeating a saying common among the younger Clergy of that day in reference to the two Sherlocks, William, Dean of St. Paul's, and his son, Thomas, Bishop of London, " that the father was the soundest Divine in England, except the Son." The witty Dr. South seems to have thought that the elder Sherlock would not be disposed to admit this or any other exception. He dedicated his answer to Dr. Sherlock's treatise on the Trinity — " To the admirers of Dr. Sherlock, and to himself the chief of them." ^ 3. Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's book entitled " A Vindica- tion of the Holy and ever blessed Trinity," etc. London, 1693. CHAPTER II. FIRST YEARS OF MINISTRY. 1753-1756. CHRISTMAS DAY in 1753 fell on the Tuesday which was but two days after the ordination to the Priest- hood just mentioned. The newly ordained priest on the morning of that day, was sent with a note of introduction from the Chaplain of the Bishop of London to the Incumbent of one of the Churches in that city, apparently with the view of assigning to him some duty for the day. The Incumbent gave him but a surly reception, sternly demanding upon his entrance to the vestry-room, who he was, and what he wanted ; in silent reply to which demands he presented his note; the comment upon which was, " Hah ! Well, if the Bishop has sent you, I suppose I must take you. Give him a surplice, and show him into the desk" (to the Sexton), "and do you, Sir, find your places, and wait there till I come." A younger clergyman, of more amiable appearance, meanwhile seemed much amused at this splenetic reception. Coming back into the Vestry after the service, the Doctor turning fiercely upon the neophyte, exclaimed, " What is the reason, Sir, that you did not read the Litany ? " *' Because, Sir, it is not a Litany day." " And don't you know that if the Ordinary chooses to have it read on Festival days, it is your duty to read it ? " " That may be. Sir, but it is the Ordinary's business to let me know that." The old man's face was black with passion, but before he had time to explode, the younger clergyman came to FIRST YEARS OF MINISTRY. 9 the rescue, saying : " Doctor, you won't get much out of this young man ; you had better turn him over to me, for I see you don't want him : come, Mr. Seabury, will you go with me to — Church and preach for me ! " " 1 never preached a sermon in my life." *' Well, of all things I should like to hear a virgin preacher ! " So the young men took themselves off, and after dinner the virgin sermon was preached; though concerning its subject, and the place where it was broached, tradition is silent : as it also is in respect to any further official acts of the preacher during the remainder of his stay in England. In the year following, 1754, having received his appoint- ment as a missionary of the Society for Propagating the Gos- pel, he set sail for his native land, and soon after began the regular exercise of his ministry at New Brunswick, in the Province of New Jersey. One of his relatives, writing about this time to another, observed : '* Mr. Samuel Seabury has returned to America again; an excellent physician, a learned divine, an accomplished gentleman and a pious Christian ; " a record which indicates the reputation which he had in the small circle within which he was then known, and which it was anticipated that his future life would verify. Not much is known in regard to his work during the short time of his charge at New Brunswick, but the period is interesting, both on account of the evidence of his doctrinal principles afforded by his sermons, and also on account of the evidence of the extension of his influence and reputation in a somewhat wider sphere, afforded by contemporaneovis events with which he was associated. Among his manuscripts are several of the sermons which he preached at New Brunswick. " These discourses," observes my father (from whose memoranda I have derived much of the information which I have in regard to this part of the story in hand), "while they exhibit substantially the same theological opinions, and the same vigour and compression of 10 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. style, which distinguish his later productions, yet differ from them as to certain minor shades which it is not easy to describe. They certainly give no ground for the imputation, commonly cast upon the Church at that period, of inculcating the morality of the Gospel to the neglect or disparagement of its distinctive doctrines. Holiness of life flowing from holi- ness of heart is indeed the end which is kept steadily in view ; but the motives and influences by which the heart is to be renewed and the life reformed, are unreservedly referred to the redemption of the world by Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Spirit Whom He sent from the Father; while at the same time the enthusiasm which in that age perverted the Gospel is guarded against, and its weakness and artifices are exposed with a firm and cautious touch. The discourses are written in a bold round hand with scarcely a mark of erasure or interlineation ; and though the style is smooth and natural, yet to a skilful observer it will appear, I think, to be more studied and care- fully finished than that of his published discourses. Indeed I have heard that at this time of life he used, after laying out the plan of his sermon, to write each paragraph with pencil and slate before he transferred it to paper. And I think it not improbable that this exceeding care in early life laid the foun- dation for that habit of combined precision and fluency to which his pen afterwards attained." ^ This slate and pencil detail may perhaps provoke a smile: but it certainly goes to prove what it was intended to establish, viz., exceeding care in composition. It indicates something else, too, which is significant of the small economies made necessary by narrow incomes. I wonder how many of us re- alize what the temptation to a poor preacher in those days might be to extemporize, considering how ill he could afford the expense of paper for written sermons. Still extemporaneous I. Ms. Mem. Dr. Samuel Seabury. FIRST YEARS OF MINISTRY. II preaching was not then the mode, either in the Church, or yet in the ordinary ministrations of the sober divines of other communions : and since the sermon, and a good deal of sermon, too, as we should think nowadays, had to be written, it behoved not to waste paper in experimental excursions. A few years ago, at the request of my venerated friend, Dean Hoffman, I gave to the library of the General Theological Seminary a specimen manuscript sermon of Bishop Seabury: and it was matter of interest to us both to observe that several pages of this sermon were written on the blank sheets of old letters received, and some of them cross written over the faces of such letters — insomuch that, according to the way in which the paper was turned, it appeared to throw light on things temporal as well as on the things eternal — the devout moni- tions, in one instance, being counterbalanced by advices of a certain barrel of cider forwarded by the preacher's friend, Mr. Moore of Newtown. The reader will be willing perhaps to accept the assurance that these New Brunswick sermons, as indeed the whole man- uscript collection, are well worthy of perusal, and afford opportunities for many interesting selections, without detailed evidence of the truth of the statement. Such a literary and theological repast, as this would involve, would be much too bountiful; but there are considerations of some importance in the estimate of Bishop Seabury's theological position, which make a somewhat particular reference to one of these dis- courses desirable, if not necessary. This discourse is based upon the passage of I Cor. xi, 23 to 26, which it will be remembered contains St. Paul's account of the Institution of the Eucharist, being that account which is embodied in what is called the Prayer of Consecration in the Communion Office. It is marked by the author as " Sermon preached at Brunswick 21 P. A 1754, A. M.," and its introductory passage is here quoted entire, because it not only 12 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. sliows the purpose then in the view of the author, hut also very well indicates the twofold ohject which appears in all his sermons ; that, namely, of clearly stating ( i ) the revealed will of God, and (2) the rational nature of that will considered as a rule of human action : " I have read the whole passage of the Institution of the holy Sacrament, not with a design to consider every particular contained in it; nor to take notice of every thing that might he made subservient to the most excellent purposes, but with an intention to collect from it the end of the Institution of the blessed Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. For by considering the end of the Institution we shall be led more perfectly to understand it, and to use it with greater advantage to ourselves. And though the positive appointment of our Savior be suf- ficient to command our utmost respect, and most unfeigned obedience; yet to be convinced that it is a most reasonable service, answering the most excellent designs, will not only engage our rational natures to comply with it, but will also kindle the flame of our devotion, and mightily contribute to the cheerfulness of our obedience, and entire resignation to the Divine Will." The reason for quoting from this particular discourse I cannot better express than in my father's words, extending the reference above noted: " The sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist is ex- pressed in our Prayer Book more clearly and fully than in the English Prayer Book, and made, as is well known, to conform to the view of the Liturgy of the Scottish Episcopal Church. . . . At present I wish merely to remark that considering that our Communion Service in those features in which it differs from the English service had been adopted in com- FIRST YEARS OF MINISTRY. I3 pliance with the wish of Bishop Seabury, and had been copi- ously explained and defended by him in a volume of sermons pubhshed after his consecration in Scotland, and considering also that a majority of English divines, particularly in the Georgian era, regarded the sacrificial character of the Eu- charist, as explained by Bishop Seabury, with no favour, I was led to suspect that the Bishop had imbibed his opinions on this subject during his last visit to Scotland; a suspicion which was strengthened by a remark of Bishop White in his Memoirs. ... I once stated my suspicion to my father and asked him if it were correct. He assured me to the con- trary, and remarked that he had heard his father say that the opinions expressed on this subject in the first volume of his published Discourses were substantially those which he had always entertained, only that they were in his later years more clearly defined and matured." The remark attributed to Bishop White occurs in that part of his Memoirs wherein he gives an account of proceedings of the General Convention of 1789. Referring to the change in the consecration prayer which took place at that time, and to the conformity in this respect to the usage of the Scotch Epis- copal Church, Bishop White remarks that this change '' lay very near to the heart of Bishop Seabury ; " and he adds, '' Bishop Seabury's attachment to these changes may be learned from the following incident. On the morning of the Sunday which occurred during the session of the convention, the author wished him to consecrate the elements. This he de- clined. On the offer being again made at the time when the service was to begin, he still declined ; and, smiling, added — * To confess the truth, I hardly consider the form to be used; as strictly amounting to a consecration.' The form was of course that used heretofore; the changes not having taken 14 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. effect. These sentiments he had adopted, in his visit to the bishops from whom he had received his Episcopacy." - Knowing the sentiments on this point of the Scottish Bishops referred to, and not knowing what the sentiments of Bishop Scabury on the same point had previously been, it is perhaps natural that Bishop White should have come to the conclusion which he here expressed, but which seems hardly to be justi- fied : since Bishop Seabury's above cited sermon of 1754 clearly indicates that " even at this early period he had pondered the teachings of Joseph Mede and other great lights of the An- glican Church on the Christian Sacrifice, and weighed them in the balance with those of Tillotson and his revolutionary fol- lowers ; " ^ with whom the Scottish Bishops certainly had little sympathy. The passage from the sermon referred to is as follows : " The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was instituted to be the Christian Sacrifice; and an emblem of the Sacrifice our blessed Redeemer made, when he offered himself upon the cross a price and atonement for the sins of the whole world. Bread, the staff of life and emblem of strength, the grand sup- port of the humane kind ; and Wine, the emblem of joy and thankfulness, are chosen for the materials of this Sacrifice and of commemorating the death and passion of our Redeemer; and of expressing our gratitude to Almighty God for the wonderful work of Man's Redemption. And they mightily express the temper and design of the Christian Religion. The Law of Moses represented all men to be under the curse of death. And accordingly the sacrifices of this law were all made by shedding of Blood, for without this there was no remission. But now Christ our Sacrifice being offered 2. Bishop White's Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church, pp. 154-5. Ed. 1836. 3. Ms. Mem. Dr. Samuel Scabury. FIRST YEARS OF MINISTRY. 1$ for US, He hath slain the enmity and made our peace with God, through the Blood of his Cross. There is therefore now wanting, only strength to persevere; and thankfulness to God Almighty, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost for the inestimable hopes of eternal life. Instead therefore of shedding of Blood, which under the Law was necessary to strengthen the Jews in the Faith of the future Sacrifice of the Messiah; our Savior has instituted the Christian Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to be the emblems of his grace, and of our joy and thankfulness; that we receiving the creatures of Bread and Wine according to his appointment and in remembrance of his Death and Pas- sion, might by faith be made partakers of his most precious Body and Blood. And thus is his Flesh Meat indeed and his Blood drink indeed. Thus the Sacrament is a continual Sacrifice to God. And our blessed Savior hath chosen these things to be the materials of this Sacrifice and Symbols of his Body and Blood, which have the greatest analogy to the Graces which we need; and which should shine brightest in the Christian life, namely perseverance in well doing, and continual increase in the di- vine likeness; and sincere gratitude, and unfeigned joy and thankfulness to Almighty God, and our adorable Savior for the innumerable benefits which his precious Blood shedding hath obtained for us. And by the consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine we figure unto God the Father, the Passion of his Son, that according to the tenor of his Covenant, he may be gracious and propitious to us miserable sinners." The comparison of this language used in 1754 at the very beginning of the preacher's ministry, with that used in his sermon "Of the Holy Eucharist " included by him in the collection of discourses which he published in 1793, some three years before his death, and which he undoubtedly de- signed as a statement and explanation of principles underlying l6 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. the American Prayer of Consecration, cannot fail to establish the fact that his sentiments upon the changes which are said to have lain so near his heart in 1789, were not of any recent adoption, but had been woven into the texture of his faith and teaching throughout his whole priesthood.* Before the conclusion of the Missionary's stay at New Brunswick, an episode occurred with which he became to some extent connected ; and which is of interest both on this ac- count, and as indicating the adverse nature of certain influ- ences which operated against the Clergy of the Church in the Colonies, particularly those of them who were the rep- resentatives there of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign parts. The Rev. Mr. Beach who, about the time of the conformity of Mr. Seabury's father, had left the Congregational Ministry and received Orders in England, returning as a Missionary of the Society, had settled in Newtown, Connecticut; where for many years he had with great diligence laboured, both to the edification of his people, and to the increase of the respect and confidence of his brother Missionaries and of the Society. Mr. Beach, however, notwithstanding his general rectitude, seems at one time to have given some just cause of offence, by certain teaching in regard to the state of the faithful departed, which excited no little disturbance among those who were aware of it. Suffering great affliction on account of the death of his wife, his grief seems to have led him into error : for not content that she should await the time of the Resurrec- tion, he insisted upon it that she had gone immediately into happiness and glory eternal. Nor was he disposed merely to cherish this conviction for his own personal comfort, but he undertook to instruct his people in the same notion, and even attacked all the clergy he met with on the same subject, going 4. Discourses on several subjects, by Bishop Seabury, vol, I, pp. 175-7. Ed. 1793. FIRST YEARS OF MINISTRY. I7 to the further extent of publishing a sermon designed to estabHsh a doctrine which by this time he beHeved to be essen- tial for the acceptance of all Christian believers. The matter of Mr. Beach's defection being brought to the attention of the Rev. Mr. Wetmore, of Rye, the Bishop of London's Commissary, was by him laid before a Convocation of the Clergy who considered the case, and took such measures as were proper for the satisfaction and instruction of the people on the point involved; and by their action Mr. Beach appears to have been led to reconsider the position which he had unadvisedly taken; and he seems to have pursued his course as a Missionary thereafter without giving further grounds of exception to his teaching in this or any other respect. The Commissary appointed the Missionary of New Brunswick to preach the sermon before the Convocation on this occasion. " I thought it hard upon me," said he, " and I told him that I was the youngest Clergyman in the Prov- inces." " I do not care for that," was the reply, " you are better able to do it than anyone else, and I shall insist upon your doing it." Many years after, at the conclusion of one of his Episcopal functions, an old man accosted him, saying, " I have not seen you. Bishop, since you preached at the trial of old Mr. Beach : and I remember that, as I saw you go up into the pulpit, I said to myself, " These Ministers must be very careless about their business, when they send that boy to preach for them at such a time ; but in a few minutes I owned that if you had a boy's face, you had a man's head." The fulfilment of this duty seems to have been all, or at least the chief concern of the New Brunswick Missionary with this episode : but Mr. Beach's temporary defection gave occa- sion to the Congregational watchers to point out to the venerable Society what they considered to be its duty in the premises ; and gave them also the pleasure of overtaking in a fault one about whose loss from their ranks there had been l8 MEMOIR OF BISIIOr SEABURY. considerable soreness of feeling, and whose course in the Ministry of the Church they were apparently not sorry to discover to be worthy of blame, so that they might safely indulge themselves in reading the Church Clergy a lecture in regard to soundness of doctrine. It is evident from what has been related, that if their real had been the same as their professed motive, they would with a little patience have been satisfied with the care taken by the Provincial Missionaries for the preservation of the faith; and might have spared themselves the trouble of appealing to the Society for its condemnation of Mr. Beach ; since the Mission- aries themselves proved equal to the emergency without its special interposition. But then the following correspondence would not have taken place, and we should have been deprived of the instruction which it appears to furnish as to the temper of the times, and the feeling in the Colonies against the Society; which in this instance, although veiled under the form of very creditable diplomatic expression, is not altogether difficult to be dis- cerned. The correspondence referred to consists of a letter to the Rev. Dr. Bearcroft, the Society's Secretary, from the Rev. Messrs. Mather and Wells, toward the end of 1755, and of Dr. Bearcroft's answer in the early part of 1757. The Manu- script preserved among the Bishop's papers, appears from its superscription to have been a copy made for him June 26, 1760, and gives the letters as follows: " Stamford, Connecticut, December 24th, 1755. Rev. Sir: As the Honorable Society of which you are a member, in the Annual Abstract of their proceedings, desire their friends in America to be so just to them, when any person appears there in the character of a Clergyman of the Church of Eng- FIRST YEARS OF MINISTRY. I9 land, but by his behaviour disgraces that character; to ex- amine, as far as may be, into his letters of Orders, his name, etc. ; and if he appears to be one of their Missionaries, they intreat their friends in the sacred name of Christ to inform them that they may put away from them that wicked person ; And as heresy or false doctrine in a Missionary is as truly subversive of the great designs of the Gospel Ministry, as an immoral life, we presume an information on this head would be equally acceptable to your Honorable Board. In this con- fidence and from a sense of duty as Ministers of Christ whose business it is to guard against errors in doctrine, it was that the Reverend Association to which we belong came into the following resolve, which you will see we were ordered to transmit to you ; viz. At a meeting of the Association at the Western district in Fairfield County at Canaan October 28th, 1755; The Association taking notice of a sermon that was preached and published by the Rev. Mr. Beach, Missionary of the Society for propagating the Gospel, in which are promulgated some errors subversive of the Christian faith ; in the great and important doctrines of a future resurrection and General Judg- ment: and considering the unwearied pains Mr. Beach has taken to propagate these errors, his success in gaining prose- lytes among his own people, and others, and that the other Missionaries do not take such public measures as the case seems to require, to convince the people of the fatal tendency of such errors, and considering ourselves as having a special concern in the affair, as the Rev. Mr. Beach lives in our near neighborhood, and frequently preaches within our bounds, or- dered that the Rev. Messrs. Moses Mather and Noah Wells, two of our members, do write a letter to the Sect, of the Society, and transmit one of Mr. Beach's sermons to him, with a copy of this resolve, that the Honorable Society may have an opportunity to take such measures, as they in their 20 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. wisdom may think proper, to discountenance such danj^erous principles, and prevent for the future the bad consequences of them. A True Copy — Signed, Noah Wells, Register to the Association. Agreeable therefore to the trust reposed in us, we now send you the above resolves, together with the sermon of Mr. Beach's referred to therein. 'Tis needless for us, we apprehend to point out to the So- ciety the errors it contains, and the forced glosses and misrep- resentations of sundry texts of Scripture adduced in support of the same. By a perusal of the piece, they themselves, will be able to judge how far the notions it contains are agreeable to the doctrines of your Church respecting the resurrection as contained in the Creeds, Homilies, and Burial Office she uses, their consistency with the writings of the Evangelists and St. Paul and the general sentiments of the Christian Church upon that important article of faith, in every age since the Apostles' time. We are sorry we were not able to present you with a fresh copy of ]\Ir. Beach's sermon, but as the im- pression was speedily taken off, and by reason of the nov- elty of the doctrine, the book was much sought after, and soon passed through many hands we are not able to obtain one, this we trust will excuse us in sending one somewhat defaced. That your Honorable Society may be directed to the most proper and effectual measures, to guard against heresy and error of every kind — that they may be much more extensively useful in prosecuting the truly noble designs of their original incorporation, that agreeable hereto they may be made instru- ments of carrying the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ to the remotest heathen nations, and spreading the joyful news FIRST YEARS OF MINISTRY. 21 of salvation to the most distant and barbarous lands is the sincere wish and earnest prayer of your very humble servants, etc. Moses Mather Noah Wells To the Rev. Dr. Bearcroft Sect, to the Hon. Society. From the Rev. Dr. Bearcroft. London Charter House, Feb. 28th, 1757. Rev. Sirs. I write this by the express order of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel in Foreign parts to thank you and your brethren for your letter in relation to the doctrine con- cerning the resurrection published by Mr. Beach in a sermon entitled a modest enquiry into the state of the dead, a copy of which you were pleased to transmit. The Society having maturely considered this sermon are much concerned to find that so learned and able a Missionary from them should have fallen into error in the great articles of the Resurrection of the Dead, and of a future judgment. And the requisite steps are taken to set Mr. Beach and all his followers right in this most important point — if this be not already done by his discours- ing with his brother missionaries and his consequent mature thoughts on the subject. The Society are obliged to you for your sincere wish and earnest prayer that they may be useful and successful in the designs of their original incorporation ; which was and is in the first place, to provide a maintenance for our orthodox clergy, for the public worship of God, in our Plantations, Colonies and Territories beyond the seas ; and then to make such other provision as may be necessary, for the propagation of the Gospel in Foreign parts — That God may bless all our endeavours to propagate the Gospel of His dear 22 MEMOIR OF P.ISIIOP SEABURY. Son is the sincere wish and hearty prayer of your faithful and affectionate Servant in Christ Philip Bearcroft, Sect. To the Rev. Mr. Obadiah (sic) Mather & Mr. Noah Wells, New England. Superscribed To the Rev^ Mr. Obadiah Mather & Mr. Moses (sic) Wells, probably at or near Stamford Connecticut etc." There is much that is suggestive and interesting in this cor- respondence, but nothing more so, I think, than the most polite intimation of the deputation that the Society should, in ac- cordance with " the truly noble designs of their original incor- poration," occupy themselves with sending their Missionaries " to the remotest heathen Nations " " spreading the joyful news of salvation to the most distant and barbarous lands ; " that is to say, keeping them as far as possible from what they called their " hounds-'' whereas they very well knew, as Dr. Bearcroft with equal politeness reminds them, that the design of the original incorporation " was and is in the first place to provide a maintenance for the orthodox clergy, for the public worship of God m our Plantations, Colonies and Territories beyond the seas ; and then to make such other provision as may be necessary for the propagation of the Gospel in Foreign parts," CHAPTER HI. TRANSITION PERIOD. 1756-7. THE cure at New Brunswick beginning in 1754, was succeeded by the cure at Jamaica beginning in 1757: but the Missionary would appear to have taken up his residence in the neighborhood of Jamaica, before entirely giving up the care of New Brunswick. The parson of those days was wont to supplement the scanty stipends arising from his proper vocation with what he could gather from other occupations; and so was sometimes doctor, and schoolmaster, and farmer also, as well as parson: and the missionary ap- pears to have made provision for his support by the purchase of a small farm at Jamaica in 1757. There is some reason to suppose that he had previously made a similar purchase in Newtown, a village not far from Jamaica, which perhaps he may have exchanged, or otherwise parted from, in acquiring the farm at the latter place. At all events, his affairs seem to have required about this period of 1756-7, frequent journeys from New Brunswick to Long Island, or Nassau Island as it was then named, and also to New York; and these journeys, belonging to what may be called the transition period between the settlements in New Brunswick and Jamaica, were not without important influences upon his life. It may be difficult for those who associate the idea of the journey from New Brunswick to New York, with that of an hour's ride in an express train, to realize what was involved in 23 24 MEMOIR OF EISIIOP SEABURY. that journey at the time of which we are speaking. As nearly as I can make out the process, it was by a ferry down the Raritan and across to Staten Island ; and by ferry from Staten Island to New York; and then if the journey were to be con- tinued to Nassau Island there was another ferry trip from the Battery to Brooklyn, succeeded by the drive from Brooklyn to Newtown or Jamaica, or other place on the Island as the case might be. The ferry boat from Staten Island to New York was a small sloop operated by a man with a couple of boys as help- ers; and one day our young Missionary using this mode of transportation found himself in a position involving serious risk to the vessel and to those on board. The Skipper proved to be sufficiently intoxicated to be very reckless in the manage- ment of his boat ; and after expostulating with him in vain on the danger of his course, the passenger pushed him away from his place and took the helm himself; and finding him still fractious and troublesome he laid him down in the boat, and with the help of the boys tied him with ropes, so that he could no longer interfere, and then brought the boat safely to the landing. A number of people who had gathered on the Bat- tery, watching the proceedings from a distance, and anticipat- ing some serious result of the difficulty, gladly welcomed him on his arrival, and took pleasure in escorting the Skipper to the nearest pump, where by cooling streams he was duly sobered, if not refreshed. At a later period of the Bishop's life, while he resided in New York during the Revolutionary War he served as the Society's Missionary at Staten Island,^ but his personal asso- ciations date back to the times which we are now considering, while he was in the habit of passing through that region, some- times no doubt tarrying there long enough to become ac- quainted with resident families. Among these was the Hicks I. Bishop Perry; History Episcopal Church, II, 50. TRANSITION PERIOD. 2$ family, a branch of that which gave name to a division of the Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers. One of this family, Mr. Edward Hicks, had been a merchant in Phila- delphia, and some time previous to the period under consid- eration, had retired from business and settled on Staten Island. This gentleman married Violetta Ricketts, a daughter of Wil- liam Ricketts, and Mary Walton, his wife. The name of Ricketts appears in the Colony of New York as that of a family of good social standing, and is an instance of one of those changes in form which one sometimes observes to have taken place in course of time rather disadvantageously, having been originally Ricard. At the time we speak of Edward Hicks seems to have been a widower, and to have had his residence on Staten Island with his daughter Mary Hicks, and his son William. Another son of Edward and Violetta Hicks was Edward, a Colonel in the British Army, and there seem also to have been three other children of this marriage whose names I do not know. It is easy to imagine that acquaintance with this family might have come to the Missionary of New Brunswick through representatives of the same family on Long Island, where so large a part of his life had been spent. But, in whatever way, the acquaintance was in fact established ; and the result was the growth of an attachment between him and Mary, the daughter of Edward Hicks, which led to their marriage on the 12th day of October, 1756. To this marriage Mr. Hicks was opposed — so far opposed at least as apparently to refuse to sanction it; and this led to its being performed not on Staten Island where Mr. Hicks resided, but in New York, and probably at the house of Col. William Ricketts, the maternal uncle of the bride. The mar- riage was solemnized by the groom's father, the Rector of St. George's, Hempstead. With regard to her who thus bravely cast in her lot with the subject of this Memoir, the tradition which my father told 26 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. nic he had derived from her children in Ihcir maturity was, that she was " a lady of good sense, of cultivated taste, and of refined and generous feelings; and that both as a wife and mother she was all that husband or children could desire." I feel the more bound to perpetuate this tradition, as there is little else now known of her to whom it relates, and also as remembering how little there is of conspicuous action in the life of many a woman whose unseen influence nevertheless is the potent source of the strong and good living for which her husband has become known ; and whose unselfish devotion, hardly noticed perhaps in life, is all the more deeply realized when it has passed away beyond recall. - With regard to the ground of the opposition of Mr. Hicks to the marriage of his daughter there is, so far as I am aware, no direct evidence to be adduced. It may have been based (i) upon some personal feeling against the young man, or (2) upon the belief that the connection was imprudent, or (3) upon the conviction that he himself would thereby be involved in complications which it would be inconvenient to meet and impossible to avoid, or (4) upon mere caprice. To the young people it probably seemed that the objection was based upon the fourth of these supposed grounds. From the history of the subsequent relations of Mr. Hicks with his son-in-law, I am inclined to infer that the real solution of the problem is furnished by the third supposition. There are two facts, of which the young people at the time of their marriage appear not to have been aware, which lead me to this infer- ence: one of which is that Mr. Hicks was under certain pecuniary obligations to his daughter ; the other being that his 2. Bishop Perry notes the death of Mary (Hicks) Seabury, which is not mentioned in Bishop Seabury's record in his family Bible, as of October 12, 1780 — the 24th anniversary of her wedding. History Episcopal Church, H, 446. TRANSITION PERIOD. 27 affairs were in such condition as to make it inconvenient for him to discharge these obHgations. The subsequent claim for the settlement of these obliga- tions, and the discussion of issues raised by the failure of Mr. Hicks to meet certain other obligations into which he had entered after the marriage ; with the alleged reasons for not ful- filling any of these obligations, and the answers to those reasons, appear to have furnished materials for a protracted controversy which dragged on for several years, and would seem to have been either litigated, or submitted to arbitration, probably the latter. The series of papers, more or less formal in character, which has come down to me is not sufficiently complete to enable me to state the final result of the controversy. My father's impression in regard to the Arbitration was that Mr. Seabury obtained the award, and the lawyers obtained the property: but my father was not a lawyer. Without giving positive information as to the result, however, the papers very fully and clearly show the position taken by^ach of the dis- putants ; and their manner of presenting their respective claims throws much light on their several characters. It does not seem worth while to go into a full account of this controversy. The main facts, stated by Mr. Seabury and admitted by Mr. Hicks, were that two legacies from their grandfather and grandmother Ricketts to the children of Mr. and Mrs. Hicks, amounting together to some £1700 — had been received by Mr. Hicks, and that the one-sixth share of this, belonging to Mary, wife of Samuel Seabury had not been paid over to her; that Mr. Hicks had promised to Mr. Sea- bury, at the time he was about to purchase his farm, the sum of £400, — and that instead of fulfilling that promise he had agreed to go on a bond for that amount if borrowed, and to pay the interest thereon; and that although Mr. Hicks had in fact executed such bond to Mr. Nathaniel Marston who had loaned the money, yet that after the lapse of three years, no 28 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SIiABURY. interest having been paid thereon Mr. Seabury had to pay it himself; that Mr. Hicks had empowered Mr. Seabury to recover for him certain monies in the hands of his son WilHam Hicks ; and, while directing the public sale of his own per- sonal property, Mr. Hicks had reserved from it certain plate, furniture and servants, which he duly transferred to Mr. Seabury. With regard to this transfer, Mr. Seabury claimed that it had been made to him as security for amounts to be paid to him; which view of the case Mr. Hicks repudiated, as he did also the transfer. Nothing was collected by Mr. Seabury from William Hicks ; and Mr. Edward Hicks, having become recon- ciled to his son William, took occasion to deliver to him part of the property which he had previously transferred to Mr. Seabury, and then demanded the remainder from Mr. Seabury as having been long injuriously detained from him. With regard to the £400, while denying that he had in- tended it as a gift to his son-in-law, Mr. Hicks admitted that he had designed to pay the interest on it without carrying it to Mr. Seabury's account ; and claimed that he had told his son William to pay the first year's interest, and that William had once called on Mr. Marston for the purpose, but had not found him at home — which he seems to have considered quite as much effort as the case required. With regard to the claim for the one-sixth share of the legacies, amounting to some two hundred and eighty odd pounds, Mr. Hicks frankly admits the legality of the demand ; but, having several charges to offer in reduction, he says, ** I would have the balance to be settled by a jury or an impartial arbitration, and not by a man so intent upon promoting his own private interest as Mr. Seabury is." The formal statement of these several charges Mr. Hicks appears to have made, though it is not among the papers which have come to me. The nature of some of those charges. TRANSITION PERIOD. 29 and the grounds upon which Mr. Seabury objected to them were set forth in a paper, a fragment of which has been pre- served among his papers, and which affords information in regard to various details of the controversy, viewed, it need hardly be said, from a dift'erent standpoint from that of Mr. Hicks. It would be tedious to go particularly into these de- tails, and could serve no good purpose. But it has seemed proper to give some account of the controversy, as one of the experiences of the life which we are following, and to put on record the statement that the extant papers appear fully to justify the position which Mr. Seabury held in it. In closing this chapter, however, and taking leave of the subject, I am disposed to think it well to give a brief extract from Mr. Seabury's statement, as showing the manner in which he con- ducted his side of the controversy ; and as illustrating not only the calm and temperate way in which he handled it, but also his characteristic habit of falling back upon sound general principles as affording the best guide for action in practical affairs. The extract is as follows : " Mr. Hicks has charged me £250 for my wife's board and clothing from her Mother's death 'till her marriage, and in justification of this charge, says it is supported by the laws of his country. The laws of his country I know oblige him and every man to maintain and support his own children. It can therefore be only in some particular cases, that the laws will permit a man to charge his children for board and clothing, viz. : when the man is unable to provide it for them, and they have ability to provide it for themselves. But Mr. Hicks can- not say this was his case. During the whole period for which this charge is made (which Mr. Hicks has overrated by 14 months), he supported the character of an opulent merchant, and lived in a fashionable and genteel manner. Those laws of his country therefore which oblige him to take care of his children and maintain them ought here to take place. To 30 MExMOlR OF BISHOP SEABURY. these laws of his country may be added the law of Nature, which is prior to all laws of civil Society ; and binds all par- ents by the stronger ties of reason and instinct, to provide for the support of their offspring. The laws also of justice and humanity require that we should support those to whom wc have given being. The laws of the Christian Religion lay men under the same obligations ; one of its greatest Preachers having declared that parents ought to provide for their chil- dren and not children for their parents. Besides — The duty, obedience, submission, and service of a child are due to its parent only on account of the maintenance, protec- tion and education it receives; for no one that considers the matter will suppose that a child is under any obligations to a father for its being, when perhaps the being of the child was never once thought of. It is therefore for its well being that the child is under any obligations ; and the father that provides best for his children, lays them under the strongest obligations of obedience, service and gratitude. The child therefore that is obliged to pay for its maintenance is under no greater obli- gations to its parents, than to strangers; for strangers would have taken care of it and maintained it upon the same terms. The principles therefore upon which Mr. Hicks proceeds, will cancel all obligations of children to their parents, and ought not to be admitted." CHAPTER IV. ACCESSION TO THE JAMAICA PARISH. ^757. THE New Brunswick Missionary, with the consent of the Venerable Society, transferred his labours to Jamaica; becoming there the Minister or Rector of Grace Church in the early part of 1757. His official connec- tion with that Parish was described at different times by each of these titles.^ There are a number of things in this Jamaica settlement which are not a little perplexing; and in view of these perplexities, one is not surprised that serious differences in regard to it existed at the time, and that the appointment of Mr. Seabury should have been afterwards described as having given occasion to the revival of an old feud between the Churchmen and the Dissenters of the place.^ Without going into all the details of that feud (which may be gathered from the valuable Parish history of the late Mr. Henry Onderdonk, Jr.)^ it seems nevertheless necessary to give an account of this Jamaica settlement, and of the condi- tions under which it was accomplished. And as the under- standing of the situation thus to be indicated may well affect 1. In the petition for a charter, as given by Onderdonk (Antiquities of Parish Church of Jamaica, p. 59), Mr. Seabury signs as Rector. In the copy of this Petition in Documentary History of New York, III, 324, the signature is followed by the word Minister. 2. Riker's Annals of Newtown — p. 248. 3. Antiquities Parish of Jamaica. 31 32 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. not only onr interest in the subject of the present memoir, but also in some degree our appreciation of the position of others in analogous cases, it will perhaps be worth while to look a little into the history of the Ecclesiastical system of which the Provincial Clergy were a part, and into the nature of the difficulties encountered in the application of it at Jamaica. It is very probable that the title of Missionary is among the oldest of those terms by which the Clergy in their several orders have been from time to time designated. At all events, whether by that title or not, the Clergy were in early times in fact sent by their Bishops to preach the Gospel and dispense the Sacraments to such people, and in such places, as to those having the Episcopal Authority seemed most convenient; and so long as the inhabitants of a country were not yet generally converted to Christianity, this might well continue to be the most desirable arrangement. But when the number of Chris- tians increased, and men began to have settled places of Christian worship, it became convenient that they should have their own clergy resident among them ; and this again led to their having something to say in regard to the choice of those who were to minister among them. Naturally a different plan would prevail in consequence of such a change in circum- stances; and the settlement of the Clergy in parochial dis- tricts would bring about, what has ever since in one form or other been required, that there should be not only the authority to exercise the Ministry, but also the consent of those among whom that authority was to be exercised. So that although ministerial authority as such was not derived from the people, yet the consent to have that authority exercised among them in the particular case was derived from them, or from those who spoke for them. And whereas when the Mission was solely from Episcopal designation, the support of those who were sent was the Episcopal care ; so, on the other hand, when the ministry acquired a settled residence they derived their ACCESSION TO THE JAMAICA TARISH. 33 support no longer directly from the Bishop, but from the place wherein they were settled.* Considering the circumstances of the settlement of this Country, the comparatively small number of members of the Church of England and their wide dispersion throughout the Colonies, their non-conforming, and also heathen, surround- ings, and the absence of any resident Bishop among them, it seems natural that the Missionary idea should preponderate; and that the jurisdiction of the English Episcopate in this Country (in effect devolved upon the Bishop of London) should resemble in its exercise that of those early Bishops who sent out their Clergy to preach to the people as they saw occasion. To aid in the effective exercise of this jurisdiction, and to provide some measure of that support for which under the earlier arrangement the Bishop would have been respon- sible, there was organized in 1701 the Society for the Propaga- tion of the Gospel in Foreign parts (of which mention has so often been, and so often must be, made) which comprised nearly all the Bishops, and many wealthy and influential lay- men of the Church of England ; and thus the analogy between the mission of the Society, and the Episcopal mission of earlier times became most manifest. Still the parochial idea was so far recognized as that the Missionaries of the Society were ordinarily sent into those places only where Churchmen had grouped themselves together, either with a Church build- ing, or in the hope and effort to attain one. The appointment of a Missionary of the Society, however, while it ordinarily presupposed some organization or association among the peo- ple to whom he was sent, did not so much establish him in properly parochial relations, as it helped to sustain him in such relations as might be established in a manner provided 4. Cf. Burns' Ecclesiastical Law: Tit. Parish, III, 60. Ed. Lon- don, 1809. Blackstone's Commentaries, Intr., pp. 79-81. Ed. N. Y., 1836. 34 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. by the law, or as the contract of the parties concerned might settle. Hence it was that many of those sent by the Society were not merely Missionaries, but also Rectors, or Ministers put in charge of particular parishes, in accordance with the agreement made or call given by such parishes or their cor- porate representatives. Here then were parishes growing up in the new Country much in the same way and largely from the same causes as had been operative in the old Country; and so far as the Church congregations were concerned, it was antecedently probable that their proceedings in the forma- tion of parishes and calling and settling of Ministers would be modelled upon the pattern prescribed by the English law — although such proceedings would necessarily be modified ac- cording to the circumstances of the residence of those who carried them on. In the matter of the settlement in a parish of a Rector or Minister in charge, the provisions of the English Ecclesiastical law could not be entirely complied with in any case, and in most cases could only be approximated. Those provisions were of a very precise and formal character. The substance was a presentation on the part of those who had the right of designation of the Clergyman who was to be settled in the parish, and the acceptance of that presentation by those who had under the law the right of appointment of him who had been presented. No doubt in the simplicity of earlier days all this would be accomplished by the designation of the lord of the Manor or other person having the legal right to present, and the appointment by the Bishop of the person designated. But the passing of time produced a great extension of technical formalities designed to uphold both the rights of the patron, and the laws of Church and State in which those rights were founded. The Clergyman who was duly presented had the right to the position for which he was named, but he had thereby no right in it. The right in it had to be secured by ACCESSION TO THE JAMAICA PARISH. 35 the approval of the authorities : and as this right was of two kinds, it was not completely established without a double process; whereby, in the first place, the person presented was put in charge of the spiritualities, or the cure of souls — which was termed Collation or Institution; and, in the second place, was further endued with the legal capacity of receiving and administering the temporalities, or the recovery and dis- position of the property connected with the position — which was termed Induction. The right of presentation which belonged in the old Country to the lord of the Manor or others in analogous position, was the same kind of right as belonged in the new Country to those who by voluntary association had grouped themselves into a parochial organization, or in accordance with legal provisions represented such grouping — the people, or their corporate representatives, holding the place of the Patron of the living. This presentation in England being made to the Episcopal authority, there followed by that authority the In- stitution. And this although an act of spiritual authority for spiritual ends, yet so far included temporalities as to make the recipient capable of the use and enjoyment of the pro- vision for his support lawfully attendant upon his position.^ 5. Between Institution and Collation, there are certain technical dis- tinctions applicable in subsequent contingencies, but so far as the act itself is concerned there is no difference. Collation is the proper word where the living is in the gift of the Bishop himself, and ap- plies to his act of instituting his own nominee. Where a patron presents to the Bishop, the Bishop institutes the person presented. Where the Bishop presents his own Qerk, he collates him — that is to say he institutes him of his own motion without formal presenta- tion. (Burns' Ecclesiastical Law I, 164, 171.) The apparently inter- changeable use of these terms of Collation and Institution in Ecclesi- astical documents in the Colonies, as where a Governor collates, when he means to institute; or both collates and institutes, is a little con- fusing. It is perhaps in part to be accounted for by the fact that the Royal Instructions authorizing the Governor to do what the 36 MEMOIR OK BISHOP SEABUKY. After Institution, however, " the Clerk is not complete In- cumbent, till Induction, or as the Canon law calls it, corporal possession. For by this it is that he becomes seised of the temporalities of the Church, so as to have power to grant iicin or sue for them;" and he who has received the mandate to induct the instituted Clerk takes his hand and lays it on the i.cy or ring- of the Church door, and declares that by virtue •jf the mandate he inducts him '' into the real, actual and cor- poral possession of the Church of — with all the rights, profits and appurtenances thereunto belonging." ^ And by acts of Parliament it was provided that every Incum- bent was to assent to the Articles of Religion, and publicly in the Church read the Morning and Evening Prayer, and declare his assent thereto in a form which covered also the Sacra- ments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church ; and that he should receive a certificate of such conformity under the hand and seal of the Archbishop, Bishop or Ordinary of the Diocese.'' Bishop would have done in England, both terms were used by the Governor so as to cover both kinds of cases in which the Bishop might act. It is interesting to note that the American Book of Common Prayer provides (for permissive use) an "Office of Institution," which is a formal authorization of a Presbyter by the Bishop to enter upon the cure of souls in a parish or Church to which he has been legally admitted. Thus the process in our practice seems to be transposed the legal contract of the Clergyman with the Vestry being equiva- lent to Presentation and Induction under the English system, and the spiritual authorization of Institution following Induction instead of preceding it as in that system. The delivery of the keys of the Church may have been suggested by the practice at an Induction: but they are explicitly received as pledges of Institution, and with the promise of a faithful Pastorate. 6. Gibson's Codex Tit. XXXIV. Cap. IX : vol. II, pp. 859-^0. Ed, London, 1713. 7. lb. II, 861-23. ACCESSION TO THE JAMAICA PARISH. 37 The observance in the Colonies of all the legal provisions which have now been partially recounted was not, as has been said, practicable. Yet some provisions were fulfilled, such as the certifying by the Bishop of the promise of conformity, which could be made at the time of ordination ; and the public reading of the prayers, and declaration of assent on the part of the Clergyman newly admitted to his cure. And other provisions were observed in principle, if not in form. The right of choice on the part of the parish, or the legal represent- atives of the people, was not only recognized, but in New York Province the endeavour was made to provide by law for its exercise. And it was the care of the Kings, in their role of Nursing Fathers to obviate the want of a resident Bishop as far as they could, by instructing the Governors whom they commissioned, to exercise the Episcopal right of appointment, and to some extent, in respect at least of exterior jurisdic- tion, the rights of oversight and discipline. In 1686, for example, James II authorizes and empowers Governor Dongan to collate any person in any Church or Chapel, or other Ecclesiastical Benefice as often as such shall happen to be void in the Province of New York and dependent Territories ; and to supply the best means for removing such as appear to give scandal by their doctrine or manners.^ But remedies are proverbially worse sometimes than dis- eases, and it is seriously to be questioned whether the means taken in the Province of New York to uphold by statute the right of choice or presentation to a parish, were not produc- tive in some respects of more harm than good. New York being in Colonial times of the nature of a Pro- vincial Establishment, it would appear that its constitution depended upon the Commissions or Instructions of its Gov- ernors, and that its legislative power, so exercised as not to 8. Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New York (compiled by Hugh Hastings, State Historian), vol. H, p. 918, 38 MEMOIR OF EISIIOP SEABURY. be repus^nant to the laws of England, resided in the Provincial Assembly, in which an elective House of Representatives acted in connection with the Governor and his Council." In the year 1693, Governor Fletcher, reporting to England, says of the Provincial Legislature — " I have gott them to settle a fund for a Ministry in the City of New York and three more Countys which could never be obtained before, being a mixt people and of different perswasions in re- ligion." ^^ The Act referred to is entitled " An Act for settling a Min- istry, and raising a maintenance for them in the City of New York, County of Richmond, Westchester and Queens County passed Sept. 22, 1693 ;" and it provides " that in each of the respective Cities and Counties hereafter mentioned and ex- pressed, there shall be called, inducted,^^ and established, a good sufficient Protestant Minister, to officiate, and have the cure of souls;" in the City of New York, one; in the County of Richmond, one; in the County of Westchester, two; in the County of Queens, two — one for Jamaica and adjacent towns and farms, the other for Hempstead and adjacent towns and farms; that there should be annually assessed, levied and paid, for the maintenance of these Ministers, in New York one hundred pounds; Westchester, one hundred (fifty for each of two); Richmond, forty; Queens, one hundred and twenty (sixty for each of two) ; that ten Vestrymen and two Church Wardens were to be annually chosen by the Freeholders ; that the Justices and the Vestrymen were to lay the tax for the Minister and poor of their respective places ; that the Church 9. Blackstone's Commentaries. Intro., p. T]. Ed. N. Y., 1836. 10. New York Ecclesiastical Records, ut supr. II, 1084. 11. Observe the survival of these terms in the Act of 1813 of the Legislature of New York in regard to Incorporation of Churches, wherein the Wardens and Vestrymen are empowered to " call and induct" a Rector, as often as there shall be a vacancy. ACCESSION TO THE JAMAICA PARISH. 39 Wardens were to pay the maintenance to the Ministers; that each of the Ministers was to be called by the respective Vestry- men and Church Wardens ; and that former agreements with Ministers throughout the Province were not to be affected by the Act.i2 Whatever Fletcher's influence may have been in procuring the enactment of this law, it was insufficient to induce the lower House to consent to an Amendment which he proposed to it; which consisted in inserting, after the direction that the Ministers should be called by the Vestrymen and Church Wardens, the provision that those so called be " presented to the Governor to be approved and collated." This amendment they refused to make upon his request : for the which he rates them very soundly; faulting them for positively denying his proposed amendment though only of " three or four words," and " very immaterial," and saying, " I must take leave to tell you, if you seem to understand by these words (calling the Minister) that none can serve without your collation or establishment, you are far mistaken; for I have the power of collating or suspending any Minister in my government by their Majesties letters patents; and while I stay in the gov- ernment I will take care that neither heresy, sedition, schism nor rebellion be preached amongst you, nor vice and profanity encouraged." ^^ This episode indicates very clearly the different views which might be taken as to the interpretation of this Statute, and as to the extent of the rights which it conferred upon the Vest- ries for which it provided; and the history of the Jamaica Parish at least is the history of disputes, litigated and un- litigated, resulting in large part from its adoption. The Act was absolutely vicious in principle as providing for the taxa- tion of people whether Churchmen or Dissenters for the sup- 12. New York Ecclesiastical Records, ut snpr. II, 1076-9. 13. Ibid., II, 1075-6. 40 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. ])ort of a ]\liiiistry which was no doubt originally intended to be a Church of England Ministry ; and it was so faulty in its wording as not to make that intention clear beyond cavil, but on the other hand to give ground for argument that dissenting Ministers were within its provisions. The House of Representatives which Fletcher *^ gott " to pass it, was no doubt shrewd enough to see the bearing of the amend- ment which he afterwards proposed to it, thinking to make his original intent more clearly expressed in it; and their refusal showed what they for their part designed in passing it. The Act required the election of Vestries after the manner of civil elections ; endued them with power to call Ministers ; and provided for raising the maintenance by civil taxes collectible by civil process. Hence a Vestry elected by v^hat Fletcher called " a mixt people and of different perswasions in re- ligion," would presumably be equally " mixt," and the person called might be of any of the " different perswasions," as the Dissenters were not slow to urge. On the other hand it was insisted that the Minister to be called must be, in the language of the Act, " a good sufficient Protestant Minister," and that these adjectives were not applicable to one who was not duly qualified by the Church's Ordination and the corresponding certificate of the Bishop of London. The contention that a good sufficient Protestant Minister meant a Minister of the Church of England, some Churchmen of the present day might be loath to make, but it was entirely natural then, in view of the common enough practice of discriminating the Church of England from the Church of Rome by calling it the Protestant Church. In the Charter of Trinity Church, New York, for example, are several instances of this usage ; the " good sufficient Protestant Minister " of the Act of 1693, being quoted in connection with provision for worship " ac- cording to the Rites and Ceremonies of our Protestant Church of England;" the Church building to be dedicated to such ACCESSION TO THE JAMAICA PARISH. 4^ worship " according to Rites and Ceremonies of the Protestant Church of England;" and the body corporate to be named *' The Rector and Inhabitants in communion of the Protestant Church of England as now established by our laws." ^* But in fact this meaning of the limitation was disputed by the Dissenters, who persistently claimed the control of the Church property, asserted their right to the nomination of the Minis- ter, or, failing that, endeavoured to prevent the payment of the Minister's dues for which in several instances suit had to be brought. Notwithstanding the determined claim of the Dissenters, however, that the Act established their rights, it would seem as if they were not always at ease as to their construction of the Act, since they tried to procure other legislation which would be less open to question. In one of his reports to Eng- land, in 1699, Governor Bellomont says — " The House of Representatives sent up a bill to me and the Council for settling a Dissenting Ministry . . . but it being contrary to His Majesty's instructions, and besides having been credibly in- formed that some of these Ministers do hold strange er- roneous opinions in matters of faith and doctrine, I would not give the assent to that Bill, but rejected it." ^^ And again, in 1700, " I find in looking over my papers and notes, I had for- got to acquaint your Lordships of a petition of the Inhabitants of Suffolk County, and another of those of Queens County, in this Province for the settling of a Dissenting Ministry among them, ... I gave no countenance to those Peti- tions then nor will I recommend them now. I think the best way is to forget them." ^^ The only thing in fact that hindered the appointment of 14. Charter Trinity Church ; New York Ecclesiastical Records, ut stipr. II, 1 136. 15. New York Ecclesiastical Records, ut supr. II, 1331. 16. Ibid. II, 1392-3. 42 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABUKY. Dissenting Ministers under the Act, when the Dissenters were a majority in the Vestry, was that the Governors constantly took the ground that such a course was contrary to their in- structions from the Crown, and therefore could not be per- mitted. These Instructions were given with particularity in the earliest history of the Province, and several times re- peated; and, even if not so specific in the case of every Gov- ernor, would doubtless constitute a tradition to which each in succession would conform. Those given by William and Mary to Governor Sloughter show the substance of the re- quirements as to religious matters ; and the following extracts from them will enable us to understand the control which the Governors had and exercised over the Ecclesiastical situation. " You shall take care that God Almighty be devoutly and duly served throughout your Government: The Book of Common Prayer as it is now established, read each Sunday and Holyday, and the blessed Sacrament administered accord- ing to the rites of the Church of England ; You shall be care- ful that the Churches already built there, shall be well and orderly kept and more built as the Colony shall by God's bless- ing be improved ; and that besides a competent maintenance to be assigned to the Ministers of each Orthodox Church, a convenient house to be built at the common charge for each Minister, and competent proportion of Land assigned to him for a Glebe and exercise of his Industry. You are to take care that the Parishes be so limited and settled as you shall find most convenient for the accomplishing this Good work. Our Will and Pleasure is. That no Minister be preferred by you to any Ecclesiastical Benefice in that our Province, with- out a certificate from the Right Reverend, the Bishop of Lon- don, of his being conformable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, and of a good life and conversion. And if any Person preferred already to a Benefice shall ACCESSION TO THE JAMAICA PARISH. 43 appear to 3^011 to give scandal either by his Doctrine or man-- ners you are to use the best meanes for the removall of him, and to supply the vacancy in such manner as we have di- rected. And also our Pleasure is, that in the direction of all Church affairs, the minister be admitted into the respective Vestrys. And to the end the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the said Bishop of London may take place in that our Province as far as conveniently may be ; We do think fitt that you give all countenance and encouragement in the exercise of the same, excepting only to the collating to Benefices, Granting Licenses for marriages and Probates of Wills, which we have reserved to you our Governor, and to the Commander in chief for the time being." ^^ Such was the footing upon which the Governors stood in reference to presentations made under the law of 1693 ; and in view of the history and terms of this law it is not diffi- cult to understand either the course pursued by the Dissenters, or the attitude of the Governors in respect to it. The Dissent- ers claimed rights under the letter of the Statute : the Court party, the Governor and the Churchmen assumed to construe the Statute, and to impart a meaning to its literal terms. Their construction was probably correct, and at any rate har- monized with what had been the original purpose of procur- ing the passage of the Act: but it was quite contrary to the purpose of those who had passed it, and who had said in it what they intended for the preservation of their previously existing rights. For apart from this law as interpreted by their opponents, it does not appear that the Dissenters were wholly without justification. At least it is true that they were originally in possession of some buildings for purposes of worship which had been erected by general taxation: so that, 17. New York Ecclesiastical Records, lit super. II, 991. 44 MEMOIR OF r.ISlIOP SEABURY. with respect to these, they first held the position which was afterwards held by the Churchmen. Upon the settlement of Jamaica in 1656 mostly by Presby- terians and Independents, action was taken by town authority for the building of meeting house and parsonage.^^ Later they laid aside the plan of building by town vote, and pro- ceeded under the Church Building Act of 1699, " by virtue of which the Church was built and distress made on Church- men, Quakers and Baptists, people of the Dutch Congrega- tion etc. promiscuously for payment of the rates toward the same. The other dissenters who were forced to comply were very much dissatisfied at this procedure of the brethren and many of them appeared in the interest of the Church, think- ing no way so effective to defeat their adversaries; and this was the beginning of the Church of England in Jamaica." ^^ The first regular Church services appear to have been in 1702, under Lord Cornbury's Government. Afterwards in 1704 he established and inducted Rev. Mr. Urquhart, and upon the representation that the Church and House having been built under Public Act could belong to none but the Church of England, he gave his warrant to dispossess the Dissenters.2<^ In Newtown in 1704 was a Church built and lately repaired by tax levied on the inhabitants, which, for- merly possessed by a dissenting Minister, was now occupied by Mr. Urquhart under sanction of Cornbury. Flushing had no Church, being chiefly inhabited by Quakers.^^ The explanation of these proceedings given by Mr. Urquhart to Governor Lovelace in 1709, was that " by virtue of an Act of General Assembly of this Province, " a Church " was 18. Onderdonk's Antiquities Parish of Jamaica, p. 5. 19. New York Documentary History, III, 244, cit. Onderdonk's Antiquities Parish of Jamaica, p. 9. 20. Onderdonk's Antiquities Parish of Jamaica, p. 17. 21. Ibid., p. 21. ACCESSION TO THE JAMAICA PARISH. 45 built at Jamaica. . . . It is so called by them, and a very great many of the principal builders have always de- clared that they intended it for a Church of England. Be- sides, the very words of the first Act for settling the Min- istry itself, (viz. " That in each of the respective cities . . . there shall be called, inducted and established a good, sufficient Protestant Minister, etc.") can mean no other; for it was never known that any sect of dissenters ever called the place appointed for the public worship " a Church," or that they elected *' Church Wardens " or " Vestrymen," or that their Ministry ever received " induction," as by that Act is particularly expressed.^^ To this line of argument the Dissenters did not easily recon- cile themselves: and at town meeting 1726-7 a majority of the freeholders voted that the stone building or meeting house, with the ground whereon it stands, now in the occupation of Mr. Thomas Poyer (who had been inducted in 1710) be granted in trust for the town to certain persons " some of the surviving trustees by whom it was built, to be disposed of according to the first intention of the builders." On the strength of which vote '* the Presbyterians brought suit for the recovery of the stone Church," ^^ in which they were suc- cessful, and it subsequently remained in their possession.^* 22. Onderdonk's Antiquities Parish of Jamaica, p. 27. 23. Ibid., p. 41. 24. The account of this suit given by Governor Cosby to the Duke of Newcastle in a letter of May 3, 1733, affords interesting reading and illustrates the contemporaneous Church feeling on the subject, as may appear from the following extract given by Onderdonk in his Antiquities of the Parish Church of Jamaica (pp. 44-5). " Some years ago the dissenters of the parish of Jamaica brought an ejectment against the Church minister for the Church he preached in and was possessed of. Wlien the trial came on, the defendant's counsel demurred to the plaintiff's evidence. Morris, the Chief Jus- tice, desired them to waive the demurrer, telling them that if the jury 46 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. The Cliurchincn were thus left in their turn without a place of worship, but instead of seeking to regain that which they had lost they proceeded to build a new Church with such help as they could obtain. In the meantime they worshipped in the Town Hall under Rev. Mr. Colgan who had been inducted by Governor Cosby in 1732-3, and the new Church was opened April 5, 1734, under the name of Grace Church; and in 1735 a Church was also erected at Newtown.'^ It seems plain that whatever justification there might have been for the claim of the Dissenters to the old Church, there could be none to the new Church which had been built by voluntary contributions for Church of England use, except such as might be based upon the law of 1693. This ground, however, they insatiably sought to occupy; and after the de- cease of Mr. Colgan in 1755 the '' mixt " vestry elected by " a mixt people," in which the Dissenters were a majority, proceeded to present to the Governor, Sir Charles Hardy, one Mr. Simon Horton, a dissenting teacher, for induction into Grace Church. " But the Governor, in obedience to his instructions from his Majesty, would not admit him into that cure, because he could not produce a certificate under the Episcopal seal of the Bishop of London of his conformity to found for the plaintiff he would grant the defendant a new trial. The defendant's counsel were very unwilling to do it; but, however, knowing the man and fearing the worst from him if they refused, did consent, and the jury found for the plaintiff. The defendant's counsel moved, the next term before judgment, for a new trial, and urged his promise. He denied at first that he gave any; but, when they offered to make oath of it, he said a rash promise ought not to be kept, and never would grant them a new trial ; whereby they lost their Church, and the dissenters have ever since had it. It is talked, and believed too, that he was bribed to it; but, as I have had no proof offered me, I have made no inquiry about it. His partiality, however, is evident." 25. Onderdonk's Antiquities Parish of Jamaica, pp. 51-54- ACCESSION TO THE JAMAICA TARISH. 47 the Liturgy of the Church of England; and when no person thus quaHfied, had been presented to the Governor after more than six months, His Excellency was pleased to collate the Rev. Mr. Samuel Seabury, Jr., Missionary at New Brunswick, to the cure of the Church at Jamaica town." -^ That this appointment was in accordance with the desire of the major part of the Congregation in regular attendance upon the serv- ices of the Church is understood to have been the case, the tradition being that the Governor would not act until such desire had been expressed. The Instrument by which the settlement was made one would expect to have declared, or ordered, the Induction of the Clergyman designated. This had been very distinctly ex- pressed in the case of Mr. Colgan, the predecessor of Mr. Seabury, by Governor Cosby, who ordered him to be collated and inducted into the real, actual and corporal possession of the Church, zvith all its rights and appurtenances; ^^ but Hardy, in the present case, uses the terms " collate, institute, and es- tablish," instead. The reason for this is not apparent. It is possible that in view of existing sensitiveness in regard to the matter of temporalities, he thought it more prudent to use the words collate and institute which related to the spiritualities, and to trust to the efficacy of the additional word establish, to secure to the Clergyman appointed any such temporalities as might happen to have remained unappropriated by the dissenting claimants. The original document reads as follows : ** I, Sir Charles Hardy, Knight, Captain-General, and Gov- ernor-in-chief, in and over the Province of New York and the territories depending thereon, in America, and Vice-Ad- miral of the same, do, in pursuance of the power devolved 26. Onderdonk's Antiquities Parish of Jamaica, p. 57. 27. Ibid., p. 48. 48 MEMOIR OF r.ISIIOP SEABURY. upon me, collate, institute and establish you, Samuel Sea- bury, Jr., minister of the parish church of Jamaica, in Queens County, on Nassau Island (commonly called Grace Church), and the adjacent towns and farms thereunto belonging, to have the care of the souls of the parishioners of the said parish church, towns and farms, and take your care and mine. Given under my hand and the prerogative seal of the Pro- vince of New York, the 12th. day of January, 1757. L. s. Charles Hardy." The compliance on the part of the person appointed with all the Statutory requirements made of him appears to have been scrupulously exact, as is evidenced by a document signed by S. Clowes, Junr., and William Sherlock, attesting his pro- fession of conformity as certified by the Bishop of London, his assent to the Articles, and Rites and Ceremonies, his public reading of the required Services, etc.^^ It does not appear that the process of accession to the parish had involved much trouble to the Parson himself.-'* As a resident, now, for some months, either in Jamaica or the neighbouring village of Newtown, he would doubtless be familiar with the disputes which appear to have developed immediately upon the decease of Colgan, the former Incum- bent. Dr. Chandler of New Jersey, and other Missionaries of the Society had agreed to take care of the Church, of- ficiating in turn until the disputes should subside, and a new appointment to the cure be made. He would naturally be 28. Onderdonk's Antiquities Parish of Jamaica, p. 56. 29. I am not informed as to the date of his entry upon the dis- charge of his duties. Mr. Henry Onderdonk, Jr., in a note from Jamaica, Sept. 20, 1879, tells me of a tradition in that place that he commenced services there on Easter Day, 1757; but he refers to Hawks and Perry's Connecticut Church Documents (I, 325) as stat- ing that he was inducted January 12, 1757. There is, however, noth- ing necessarily contradictory between the tradition and this statement, ACCESSION TO THE JAMAICA PARISH. 49 aware of this agreement, and perhaps partaker in it. He would be more or less known to the inhabitants and cog- nizant of the position of affairs: and so far as I am aware there is no evidence to show that there was in any quarter a personal opposition to him; though there might have been among the attendants at the Church services some who had dissenting sympathies, or who perhaps were personally addicted to Horton. But the pushing of Horton for the place, and the whole movement, seem to have been outside the Church congregation, and indicate an organized effort on the part of the dissenting majority of the legal Vestry to to procure for the dissenting interest in the Community the control of the new Church, as the old Church had already been secured for that interest. This effort happily was unsuc- cessful; and though there were still some unsettled questions which we may meet later, yet, so far as the possession of the Church and the choice of its Incumbent were concerned, the effort seems to have been the last in the proceedings which have now been reviewed. It has been one object of this review, as already intimated, to contribute something to the better understanding of the position of the Provincial Clergy in the complicated Ecclesi- as he might have actually begun services some time after his formal Induction. The reference to his " Induction " as of January 12, 1757, seems to be inaccurate. That is the date of Hardy's letter in which, as above observed, he does not use the word " Induction " ; though it is possible that a formal Induction might have followed the Gov- ernor's Institution, as indeed it would have been orderly that it should. In that case, however, it should have been later than January I2th. Mr. Onderdonk further remarks — "The Mandate for his In- duction and certificate of its performance must be recorded in the Secretary of State's Office, Albany: but being in Latin none of the clerks were competent to the task of copying it." The curious reader who is familiar with that tongue is referred to that Office for further information. 50 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. astical system in which they were involved. But the sketch has, moreover, a certain significance in its bearing upon po- htical questions which engaged the interest of the subject of our story at a somewhat later period in his life. The Jamaica controversy in itself was narrow and merely local. But men took their sides in it nevertheless on principle ; and the principles on which they stood were capable of being ap- plied in a wider sphere, and in matters of larger interest than such as pertained to parochial difficulties, and in fact were afterwards so applied. On one side we have seen men de- voted to the maintenance of laws which they thought were being perversely evaded or broken: on the other side we have found men deeply conscious of rights which those in authority seemed to them to be tyranically overriding with laws and interpretations of laws. But the same thing was, in one way or other, taking place in other Colonies; and by degrees this was producing the state of mind which led men into more and more sharply defined parties for and against Government. And as the Churchmen, both from pre- disposition and interest were apt to be found in all those issues on the Government side, this tended to widen the breach between them and the dissenters who were the preponderating influence in many quarters in the popular party, and who were hereditarily among the aggrieved, and were nothing if not solicitous for their rights. This again intensified the opposi- tion to the introduction of the Episcopate, the coming of which seemed likely to strengthen influences which, in the view of the opponents, were already sufficiently strong. And so the in- terests of the Church became entangled with the more strictly political issues of the times, and the movements of Church- men in behalf of a resident Episcopacy were regarded with jealous apprehension, and subjected, directly and indirectly, to constant and determined opposition, some evidences of which will appear as we proceed. CHAPTER V. RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA. 1757-1766. THE Rector of Grace Church would appear to have entered upon his pastoral work in Jamaica under circumstances very favourable to his successful prosecution of it, and very conducive to his own personal hap- piness. Being twenty-eight years of age and of a good con- stitution, he rejoiced in youth, strength and health. He pos- sessed a devout and earnest spirit, and an excellent mental capacity and equipment for the duties of his calling. He had overcome many and serious obstacles in the attainment of a position which, by comparison with other positions of the same kind at that period, appears to have had a recognized eminence. He had a home of his own, situated upon a good farm, of a sufficient but not burdensome extent, and within easy reach of his Church. He had the incomparable satisfac- tion of having a congenial wife who graciously presided over the conduct and hospitalities of his home. He lived within a short distance from his father and other relatives and friends at Hempstead, and within about equal distance from almost equally agreeable associations in New York. He had also reasonable expectations of the moral support of the people over whom he was appointed, and of such cordial apprecia- tion of him on their part as would tend to make his labours among them agreeable and edifying. For all these elements of happiness he was no doubt duly 51 52 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEACURY. grateful. There was, however, another side to the picture; and the contemplation of it may well have afforded some grounds of apprehension to his prudent foresight; as in the retrospect it appears to us to have been overcast with the shadows of trouble to come. He found in fact as time went on that his worldly prosperity was more apparent than real ; and that in his spiritual work in the parish he was sore let and hindered by the apathy and indifference of some, and the jealousies and discontents of others. On the whole it would seem that, with all its compensations, which were many and blessed, his incumbency at Jamaica was not upon a bed of roses. Yet adversities are not always wholly adverse; and trials and troubles have, when rightly used, their resultant benefit in the development of strength and prudence, and a serenity of mind not inconsistent with an industrious energy. The whole life at Jamaica may be well regarded as a severe training manfully endured, and profitably completed. The references which have been made to Mr. Seabury's unfortunate differences with his father-in-law would seem to indicate that he entered upon the purchase of his farm under expectations which he had been justified in entertaining, but his disappointment in which had involved him in embarrass- ments which he had not anticipated. And while the farm might to some extent have afforded him a means of support in his otherwise not very lucrative position, yet it is probable that he was from the start hampered by debts which he had in good faith contracted in its purchase. The income from his parish might, if it had been duly paid, have been sufficient for the modest support which was all that could be expected in even the better parishes of the period ; but it would appear to have been greater in right than in fact: and, on the other hand, as many a righteous man has doubtless realized, it is not for nothing that one experiences the Psalmist's promised semblance of the fruitful vine upon the walls of his house. RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA. 53 Of the seven children of his marriage five were born within the nine years of his residence at Jamaica. It is perhaps not remarkable that he should sometimes have alluded feelingly to the expenses of a large and growing family. From the best estimate which I am able to make, the income to which the Incumbent of Jamaica, with its " adjacent towns and farms," was entitled must have been equal to about four hundred dollars per annum of our money. This is counting the stipend from the Venerable Society at £50 sterling, equal to about $250, and the salary from the parish at £60 currency, equal perhaps to $150. It will be remembered that, under the act of 1693, the amount to be paid to the support of ministers in Queens County was ii20, of which £60 fell to the share of Hempstead, and £60 to Jamaica. But whether this sum would be paid by the town vestry under that law after the Church people had been evicted from the old Church building, and had erected the new Church by voluntary sub- scription is doubtful to say the least, and much more than doubtful after the incorporation of Grace Church with a Vestry of its own, distinct from the town Vestry. It may well have been, however, that the salary of the Rector of Grace Church would be understood to be at the figure fixed by the Act, and that this amount would be apportioned between Jamaica, New- town and Flushing. My father's notes state that the sum of £20 was paid by Flushing, but give no information as to the payments of Jamaica and Newtown. Supposing the same undertaking from each of these, the Incumbent would have the right to about $150 from the Parish: that he always got it is more than I am able to affirm. Several years ago, in a discussion as to the extent of farm land which could be worked with profit (or without loss) to the farmer, a publication appeared which attracted some attention, entitled '* Ten acres enough ;" which was shortly followed by a counterview of the situation, entitled " Five 54 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. acres too much." What the Rector's experience would have enabled him to contribute to the solution of the problem in- volved, I have no means of knowing. Whether he found his farm in itself unprofitable, or was merely hindered by other obligations from realizing any benefit from it; or whether again he began to think it unlikely that he should continue to make his home in Jamaica, and that it was wiser to be free from cares of permanent ownership there; or by whatever considerations influenced, he seems not to have held the prop- erty longer than four or five years. The absence of any traditions in regard to this land holding experience, would lead one to think that it was not among the pleasant memories which in later life he was wont to recall in converse with his children. Bishop Perry, somewhere in his extraordinarily voluminous historical and biographical contributions, alludes in his graceful way to this farm as the home centre of the hos- pitable and useful life of the Rector of Jamaica; and a few years ago there was still pointed out to the curious observer a venerable barn standing a little way east of the railway sta- tion, marking the site of the farm and said to have been used by him, although the house which he had occupied as a dwell- ing had given place to another building erected by a subse- quent owner.^ The advertisement for sale of this property, reprinted by Mr. Henry Onderdonk, Jr., gives a good idea of its nature and extent. " February i, 1762. To be sold and entered on when the purchaser pleases, a small plantation half a mile east of Jamaica Village, on which Mr. Seabury, Rector of the Church, now lives. It contains twenty-eight acres of good land, a good dwelling house (one end new) a genteel building, a I. So stated by the late Rev. Beverley Robinson Betts, sometime Librarian of Columbia College, and a most learned and careful An- tiquary; New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, April, i88q. RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA. 55 dry cellar under the whole house, a well of good water, new barn, hovel and smoke house. There is a fine orchard that makes fifty barrels of cider; also a screw-press and cider mill of a new invention that grinds fifty bushels of apples in an hour. Also fourteen acres of woodland two miles from the farm, and eight acres of salt meadow that cuts twenty loads of salt hay. Apply to the above said Samuel Seabury, Jr., who will give a good title." ^ As already mentioned the Incumbent of Grace Church was both Rector of the parish and Missionary of the Society for Propagating the Gospel. In the latter capacity he reported about twice a year to the Secretary, giving some account of his work and of the parish interests. Several of these reports are contained in the Documentary History of New York.^ There are nine of these letters thus printed, ranging in date from October lo, 1759 to April 17, 1766. No allusion is made in them to the disputes referred to in the last chapter, nor to the Governor's rejection of Mr. Horton's presentation. Keeping to the matter of the Missionary's work among the people they report Baptisms, and the number of Communi- cants, and give general information in regard to the condi- tion of the Church in Jamaica and also in Flushing and New- town, neighbouring places which were under the writer's juris- diction as Rector and Missionary. They seem to indicate a good deal of discouragement in regard to the interest of the people in the Church in all three of these places, and constantly refer to the influence of Quakerism as the chief cause of that want of interest. In five of the nine letters this allusion is made wnth earnest conviction. In the first he writes, " Flush- ing in the last generation the ground seat of Quakerism is in 2. Onderdonk's Antiquities Parish of Jamaica, p. 64. Mr. Onder- donk notes that " Mr. Seabury's mark for his creatures is recorded in the town book, 1758, as * a crop of each ear.' " 3. Vol. Ill, pp. 321-330. 56 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. this the scat of infidelity ; a transition how natural." In the second he writes, " Such is the effect of the Deism and In- fidelity (for the spreading of which Quakerism has paved the way) which have here been propagated with the greatest zeal and the most astonishing success that a great indifference toward all religion has taken place and the too common opinion seems to be that they shall be saved without the mediation of Christ as well as with." In the third he is somewhat en- couraged by the attendance at Flushing " (which has ever been the seat of Quakerism and Infidelity) " *' of many young peo~ pie of both sexes . . . whose parents are either Quakers or Deists," and whom he allows to have " behaved with great decency." In the sixth he remarks, *' The cause of Infidelity in this Country seems to have had some early and zealous advocates and the conduct of the Quakers has very much fa- voured its increase . . . hence it comes to pass that in those villages where the Quakers were formerly most numer- ous, there is now the least appearance of any religion at all." And in the eighth the same inference is drawn, with a par- ticular application to the people of Hempstead who notwith- standing their ability had shown great backwardness in the support of their Minister ; they having " learned from the Quakers to consider it as a mark of an avaricious and venal spirit for a minister to receive anything of his people by way of support." In the seventh of these letters, of October 6, 1764, the writer alludes to a long visit of Mr. Whitfield in the Colony ; to his preaching frequently in the City and on the Island; to his having had more influence than formerly, and his having done, as he fears, a great deal of mischief. The letter concludes thus : " his tenets and method of preaching have been adopted by many of the Dissenting Teachers, and this Town in particu- lar has a continual I had almost said a daily success of strolling Preachers and Exhorters, the poor Church of England is on RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA, 57 every occasion misrepresented as Popish and as teaching her members to expect salvation on account of their works and deservings. I have in the most moderate manner endeavoured to set these things in their true Hght and I think not without success, none of my own people have been led away by them, tho' I have not been without apprehensions on their account, and I hope that friendly disposition and mutual intercourse of good offices which have always subsisted between the Church people and Dissenters since I have been settled here and which I have constantly endeavoured to promote will meet but with little interruption." The last letter of this series, or rather the extract printed from it in the Documentary History is, in view of its bearing upon succeeding developments, worthy of being reproduced in full. "Jamaica, April 17, 1766. ReV^, Sir: We have lately had a most affecting acct. of the loss of Messrs. Giles and Wilson the Society's Missionaries; the ship they were in being wrecked near the entrance of Delaware Bay and only 4 persons saved out of 28, their death is a great loss in the present want of Clergymen in these Colonies, and indeed I believe one great reason why so few from this Continent offer themselves for Holy Orders, is because it is evident from experience that not more than 4 out of 5 who have gone from the Northern Colonies have returned; this is an unanswerable argument for the absolute necessity of Bishops in the Colonies. The poor Church of England in America Is the only instance that ever happened of an Episco- pal Church without a Bishop and In which no Orders could be obtained without crossing an Ocean of 3,000 miles in ex- tent, without Bishops the Church cannot flourish in America and unless the Church be well supported and prevail, this whole Continent will be overrun with Infidelity and Deism, 58 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Methodism and New Light with every species and every de- gree of Scepticism and enthusiasm, and without a Bishop upon the spot I fear it will be impossible to keep the Church herself pure and undefiled. And that it is of the last conse- quence to the State to support the Church here, the present times afford an alarming proof. . . ." What particulars may have been adduced by the writer in the part unprinted I have no means of knowing ; but certainly what has been quoted shows the convictions which led not long after to his strenuous advocacy of the need of the Episco- pate as a means of safeguarding the interests of religion, and of perpetuating the influence of the Church in the effort to protect the State against the attacks wdiich were then gradu- ally maturing, and which finally culminated in the Revolution. The troubles of the Rector, however, were not merely the fruit of mental anxieties in regard to the tendencies of thought and action which seemed to menace the continued peace and welfare of both Church and State, but were sometimes of a more personal character, involving in one instance an in- trusion upon his parochial jurisdiction, and leading to a con- troversy of considerable acrimony between himself and one of his Flushing parishioners who had as he thought abetted that intrusion, and resented the Rector's natural and proper ob- jection to it. It will be better to defer the account of this controversy to the next chapter, and to conclude the present chapter with a reference to the fact that during the time covered by the letters to the Society, application was made to the Civil au- thority in the Colony for a Charter incorporating the parish Church. The application is addressed to the Honourable Cad- wallader Colden, President of his Majesty's Council and Com- mander in chief of the Province of New York and the Terri- tories depending thereon in America; is dated April 8th 1761, and is signed by Samuel Seabury, Jr., Minister, and by twenty RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA. 59 laymen who are described as " Sundry of the Inhabitants of the Town of Jamaica on Nassau Island Communicants and professors of the Church of England as by Law established ;" recites the erection of the Church by voluntary contributions, the present need of repairs thereto, and the danger that moneys contributed for that and other Church purposes may be im- properly applied for want of persons appointed with legal authority to superintend its affairs, and therefore prays for the Charter.* 4. New York Documentary History, III, 324. CHAPTER VI. RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA — CONTINUED. AMONG the parishioners of Mr. Seabnry during this period was Mr. Jacob Moore, a brother of Bishop Benjamin Moore, residing in Newtown; who, Hving to be upwards of ninety, long survived his Rector. A con- versation with him in 1825 my father records in his notes, relating how with great emotion and admiration Mr. Moore had described the Incumbent of Jamaica as a man much be- loved and revered by his people not only in his public minis- trations but in his private intercourse; and as a man of ex- tensive and various information and ready to converse on every subject that was introduced, his conversation being very instructive. Upon this the observation is justly made that, a glimpse like this being all that can now be obtained of the general tenor of the life which we are following, we are obliged to derive our chief information from surviving records of events which varied from the general tenor. Of this character is the episode referred to in the last chapter, resulting in the con- troversy with Mr. Aspinwall, a Flushing parishioner; and, of the same character, it may be remarked in passing, are sev- eral other events resulting in controversies to which reference will be made in their order. The extant evidences of the difficulty between Mr. Seabury and Mr. Aspinwall, so far as I am aware, are two letters of the former to the Society,^ and two communications of his I. Documentary Annals S. New York, III, 323, 325. 60 RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA CONTINUED. 6l to Holt's New York Gazette and Weekly Post Boy ; and three letters of Mr. Aspinwall to the same paper. The last of Mr. Aspinwall's three letters seems to indicate the publication of another letter of Mr. Seabury to which it is a reply, but this letter has not come under my observation. The relations between these combatants appear to have been friendly enough in the beginning, and Mr. Seabury makes grateful mention of Mr. Aspinwall's liberality and efficiency in the Flushing congregation ; but later, regarding Mr. Aspin- wall as the abettor of an intrusion into his jurisdiction by Mr. Treadwell, another Missionary, Mr. Seabury experiences a decided change of heart towards Mr. Aspinwall, reflecting strongly upon him in his report to the Society, and resenting very deeply certain derogatory remarks of Mr. Aspinwall in regard to him. Under the influence of this resentment he published a demand upon Mr. Aspinwall for the specific state- ment of whatever he had to say against him, with any proofs that he might have to offer. Mr. Seabury's resentment against the course pursued by Mr. Aspinwall in the Treadwell mat- ter, and against the remarks concerning himself, credibly as he thought reported to him, may have been very just and was very natural : but he would seem to have been ill advised in the mode by which he sought redress ; and in his onslaught upon Mr. Aspinwall he certainly caught a Tartar. Unfor- tunately too, the Rector lost his temper and used language: Mr. Aspinwall keeping his temper met the demand for speci- fications and proofs with the request that the Rector would inform him what he had said that was objectionable; and met the language by reading the Rector an unctuous lecture on the proprieties of Christian and Clerical behaviour. Upon the evidence of the papers the Rector seems to have had the worst of the controversy : but it does not follow that he was wrong in his main contention that he had been injured by the influence and words of Mr. Aspinwall. Mr. Aspinwall, 62 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. however, assuming the innocent attitude of asking what he had done or said, was of course under no necessity of deny- ing that he had done or said anything, and is apparently quite careful not to do so. All of this may possibly have been as Mr. Aspinwall intended it to appear; but, on the other hand, his attitude is exactly that which a clever man in control of his temper wouhl take when charged with what it was not convenient to deny. Air. Scabury's first allusion to Mr. Aspinwall appears in his letter to the Society of IMarch 26th, 1761, in which he re- ports the progress nearly to completion of the Church at Flushing. *' The principal expense of this work," he says, " is defrayed by Mr. John Aspinwall and Mr. Thos. Grennall two gentlemen who have lately retired thither from New York. Mr. Aspinwall has besides made them a present of a very fine bell of about five hundred weight and I hope the influence and example of these gentlemen in their regular and constant attendance on divine service will have some good effect on the people of that town. Thro' Mr. Aspinwall's means also that Church hath been constantly supplied the last half year with a Lay Reader one Mr. Treadwell a young gentleman educated at Yale College in Connecticut of an amiable character and disposition and who intends to offer himself to the Society and with their permission to go to England next autumn." It ought perhaps to be noted in this connection that in May, 1761, a petition for a Charter was filed in behalf of the Flushing congregation, and that a similar petition was filed on behalf of Newtown in September of the same year, which petitions were subsequent to the date of the foregoing letter. Also subsequently, and in the following year, it appears that Flushing and Newtown joined petitions to the Society for Treadwell as a Missionary ;2 but that he had been appointed 2. Onderdonk's Antiquities Parish of Jamaica, p. 63. RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA — CONTINUED. 63 as Missionary at Trenton, New Jersey. It is as well to ob- serve further that the Rector, as intimated in his letter of October lo, 1759, was in the habit of officiating once in three weeks at each of the three places under him, which arrange- ment was not wholly satisfactory; and that the discontents as to this led sometime later, September 3, 1764, to a confer- ence of parties interested at Comes' Inn at which an engage- ment was made with the Rector as to the distribution of his services,^ and that this meeting had taken place about a fort- night prior to the date of Mr. Seabury's first letter to Mr. Aspinwall. In possession of these facts the reader perhaps may have a better understanding of the situation of affairs in which the controversy took place. Two years after the letter above cited, that is on March 26, 1763, Mr. Seabury, reporting again to the Society, calls its attention to trouble existing in his Mission of which he gives the following account: " About eight weeks ago Mr. Treadwell the Society's Missy at Trenton New Jersey, came into this Parish and passed thro' Jamaica, (within three quarters of a mile of my house) to Flushing on a Saturday, without letting me know that he was in the Parish, nor did I know till two days after that he was even in the Colony. The next day the Church at Flushing was (as 'tis said) violently opened and occupied by Mr. Treadwell, the key being in my possession. Mr. Treadwell I am also told continued there some time, preached the next Sunday after, went to New York, preached on a week day, came to Jamaica and baptized a child within a little more than a mile from my house, the child being well and several weeks old, and I had not been out of the Town for more than a day for six months; all this was transacted without giving me the least notice; either by visiting me, or by message, or by letter; nor have I yet either seen him 3. Onderonk's Antiquities Parish of Jamaica, p. 64. 64 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. or heard from him. I am utterly unable to guess at the mo- tive of Mr. Treaclwell's conduct, unless he acted under the influence and direction of Mr. John Aspinwall of Flushing, . . . who has really done very considerably towards finish- ing the Church and gave it a good bell, but who is disgusted with me for declining to give Newtown and Flushing to Mr. Treadwell, tho' I readily consented and am willing to re- ceive Mr. T. or any other person that shall be agreeable to the Society into the Parish in an amiable manner; but the expenses of a growing family will not permit me to relinquish any part of the Salary. Nor do I conceive that I have any right to give up any part of the Parish to the entire manage- ment of another person, unless it should be divided by the same public authority which first established it. Had Mr. Treadwell made me acquainted with his being in the Parish, I should readily and gladly have invited him to preach at all the three Churches, and am very sorry he did not give me the opportunity, as it would have prevented all disputes and a great deal of talk and noise and ill blood. I am told that I can have my remedy at common law and have been much urged by my warmer friends to make use of it, but I would on no account have an affair of this kind litigated but choose to submit it entirely to the Venerable Society, knowing that while I discharge my duty to them, they will protect me in the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of my Mission, which I am sorry to acquaint them is a good deal disturbed and un- settled by this behaviour of Mr. Treadwell's." Ready as Mr. Seabury was, however, to defer to the judg- ment of the Society in regard to his rights in his Mission, he does not appear to have been willing to submit silently to individual endeavours to undermine his personal character, and influence in his work; and upon information received that such endeavours were being made by Mr. Aspinwall he in- serted a card in the Gazette and Post Boy of September 20, RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA CONTINUED. 65 1764, stating that whereas it had been represented to him that Mr. Aspinwall had at various times traduced and aspersed his character, especially in New York, to his very great detri- ment and disadvantage, therefore he asks the favour of that gentleman that if he hath anything to object against him, he would be honourable enough to do it in one of the public papers, so that opportunity of vindication might be afforded; and that he would name all at one time ; and, if not too much trouble, would present also the proof of his allegations. It probably did not occur to the writer that Mr. Aspinwall could not reply in the manner desired without committing him- self in print to what might be libellous ; nor without abandon- ing his comparatively safe position of being merely reported to have made verbal statements; which it would be difficult to have proved against him, and which, again, the writer could not allege without giving the name of his informants, which would have embroiled others. Mr. Aspinwall, however, had apparently no difficulty in seeing this. At any rate he saw clearly that Mr. Seabury's demand could not touch him, un- less he should be so indiscreet as to comply with it. Promptly therefore, in the next issue of the paper, September 27th, he parries, as follows: " Mr. Holt, By an advertisement in your last weeks Paper I find myself charged by Mr. Seabury, with having traduced his character, much to his disadvantage, and he desires me to insert my objections to him in one of the publick Papers, with my proofs to support them ; in answer to which I shall say no more at present, than that if anything I have declared con- cerning him, has proved so detrimental to him as he pretends, he doubtless must have been informed what those declara- tions were, and had he been desirous to wipe off the aspersion he might have done it without calling on me to repeat the charges; or he might have had his remedy at law, which lies 66 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. open to him. Mr. Scabury may be assured that I shall be ready to answer him in sui)port of my allegations, whenever he shall think proper to charge me with them in a course of law. John Aspinwall. Flushing, September 19, 1764," Not a word here of denial of any injurious statements — only the fencing plea that // he had made them the injured party must be aware of them and was at liberty to prove them. This attitude naturally exasperated the Rector who replied with considerable acrimony in the issue of October nth, 1764, quoting Mr. Aspinwall's answer, and appending the following address: " To the Public. As I have been told there are several Gentlemen in the City (whose friendship I very much value, and whose good opinion I shall ever be solicitous to retain), who have been kind enough to express their regard for me on account of the unhappy dispute I have been obliged to enter into with Mr. Aspinwall ; and who may perhaps think I have been too hasty in calling upon him in the public manner I have done, — I beg them to consider, that the character of an honest man, will suffer less from being critically examined by ten thousand persons, than from having slanderous reports of him, received without examination, by ever so few. While Mr. Aspinwall confined his misrepresentations to my own Parish, I had fre- quent opportunities of obviating them, and setting matters in their true light; but when it was told me he industriously as- persed me at New York, where I could seldom if ever, have the opportunity of saying a word in my own defence ; I knew no way to check the liberty he gave himself, but by calling publicly upon him to avow openly, what he privately reported. RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA — CONTINUED. 67 — and this I hope will be thought some apology, if not a sufficient one for my conduct. The regard I have to my own character, as a Clergyman, prevents my making those severe remarks upon Mr. Aspin- wall's advertisement, to which he hath fairly exposed himself. — Thus much however I must observe, that many of the most atrocious crimes are often not recognizable in a court of law ; so that in a dispute of this nature, for Mr. Aspinwall to say the law is open, is I think to give up all pretensions to the character of a gentleman, which cannot be supported without integrity and honour ; — it is descending for security to the level of the midnight rogue, who breaks open and robs your house, or the more detestable villain who corrupts your wife or debauches your daughter; and because circumstances in neither case will always admit of a legal prosecution, the wretch hugs himself in his security from a course of law. — Thus Mr. Aspinwall, having by more open slander, where he dared; and by sly insinuations and partial representations, endeavoured to ruin the reputation of a defenseless Clergy- man, whose only crime was that of asserting, perhaps too warmly his own rights and the privileges of his Parish ; — having as much as in him lay destroyed his usefulness and influence, and even laid schemes to drive him out of his living, — when called upon publicly, to avow openly, and justify his assertions, answers, the law is open. The law is open Sir! 'Tis true, but at present it suits ill with my purse, worse with my inclination: Rest therefore in full security from a legal prosecution, and rest as much at peace as your own conscience will let you. But Sir! Remember, your evasive advertise- ment, can give no satisfaction, either to myself or the Pub- lic. If you will support the character of a gentleman, I hope you will think yourself obliged either to deny the charge, and say you have not represented me to my disadvantage ; or that you be particular in your charge against me, and support 68 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. your allegations with proper proof; and not evade the mat- ter either by general or unsupported accusations, nor by put- ting it off to some future time. Samuel Seabury. Jamaica, September 25th, 1764." Notwithstanding the strong language in which the Rector here indulges himself, it is manifest that he defends with some dignity the position which he has taken, and that he keeps close to the point that he had been injured by words of Mr. Aspinwall, which was not denied but only evaded by his adversary. Mr. Aspinwall, on the other hand, keeps close to his point that it was incumbent on the Rector to allege specifically what he had said. Obviously therefore the contro- versy is really narrowed to the debatable question as to what the proper mode of procedure was under the circumstances; and on this plane Mr. Aspinwall is very careful to keep it in the two letters which he subsequently contributed to the dispute. In the issue of October i8th of the same paper appears the first of these, as follows : " To the Public. I do not think it necessary to make any observations on Mr. Seabury's apology for his former advertisement; in which he called on me to publish what I had to say against him: Neither do I think it at all consistent with the character of a Christian, to render railing for railing, or in other words to retaliate the indecent scurrility with which his Appeal to the Public so plentifully abounds. On reading his advertisement first published, I concluded that he had heard of my reporting something to the disad- vantage of his character, that was without foundation ; and as I knew that the laws of the land are ever careful in guarding RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA CONTINUED. 69 the subject's interest and reputation, I therefore said, the law zvas open, supposing that a more prudent way for him to obtain satisfaction, if he was injured as he pretends, than to enter into a controversy in the pubHck papers, where both parties meet with blame; especially when the dispute abounds with abusive language. But he says the laws of his Country will not give him satisfaction, and endeavours to make the world believe that I would take shelter under that refuge — No; this was not my view : for I now declare, that if I have said anything against Mr. Seabury that has been so detrimental to him as he would insinuate, which I cannot maintain, I shall not only be ready and willing, upon the principles of honour, to make him every acknowledgment that can be due to him, but am equally ready to submit the matter to the most publick examination. After this candid declaration, I expect that Mr. Seabury will descend to particulars in his accusations, with proper proofs, to support them; as I hope I shall be excused for not taking his word for anything he is pleased to charge against me, I say, I expect he will now descend to the par- ticulars, wherein he conceives I have abused and injured him; and not unreasonably insist on my surmising what those par- ticulars are, that he is pleased to insinuate to the publick; he says he has been told, and has heard them ; if so, why need he call on me? The world must see that it lies upon him, at least, to suggest what he has heard, and not to fill up a paper, with an imaginary something, set off in language little becoming the dispassionate temper of a Minister of Christ. If instead of this, he had pointed out the particular instances of slander that he complains of, I should have had an opportunity of answering him ; which if I could not have done, he undoubtedly must be justified and I stand condemned 70 MEMOIR OF r.ISIIOP SEABURY. — This, however I am not at all apprehensive of, as I am con- fident I have never said anything against him unjustly, or that he did not deserve. John AsriNWALL. Flushing, October i6th, 1764," What Mr. Aspinwall calls his *' candid declaration " is ex- actly of the same character as that of his first answer. It all depends on the word if: ''if I have said anything so detri- mental to him as he would insinuate, I shall not only be ready, etc." That is to say — far be it from me to deny that I have said anything so detrimental : and this must suffice the man who conceives himself injured, and who will neither go to law with me, nor embroil his friends who have reported me. And so he concludes, hedging as before, '* I am con- fident I never have said anything against him unjustly, or that he did not deserve;" quite ignoring the right of an in- jured party to have the issue of justice or desert determined not in the ex parte tribunal of the injurer's mind, but upon a fair discussion involving the hearing of the injured one also. Obviously a controversy on such lines as these might be endless, and it was hardly to be wondered at that each party should claim that the advantage lay with him; Mr. Aspinwall on the ground that his opponent had failed to establish that anything had been said against him ; Mr. Seabury on the ground that his opponent had never explicitly denied that he had disparaged him, and when challenged to bring out pub- licly what he had against him that there might be opportunity of vindication, had evaded the demand by demurring to the form in which it was made. Mr. Aspinwall apparently has the last word in the contro- versy, which is dated November 4, 1764. The letter is very long, and, controversially viewed, very able and effective — on the whole the best piece of writing which the controversy had RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA CONTINUED. 71 produced. But apart from the personalities, which are some- what varied and extended, the letter goes over at greater length the same ground as before, and holds fast to the same if as had previously been so discreetly pressed. The copy which is before me is printed on a fragment of a sheet which contains no title nor date of issue, but which I presume to have been a part of the Gazette and Post Boy of the issue of November 8th, 1764. It does not seem necessary to reproduce the whole letter, as for the most part it is merely an iteration and elaboration of what had been said before, and an en- deavour with controversial cleverness to fix upon the writer's antagonist that evasiveness which, from the opponent's point of view, he was himself chargeable with. There is, however, one passage which touches upon a matter which he had not before noticed; and this seems to be worth recording for the light which it throws upon his desire to transplant his Rector, or prune his branches; which desire, after all, goes far to account for his attitude in the case, and is very likely to have produced the strictures of which the Rector had been in- formed, but which the weakness of his memory or the strength of his discretion made it impracticable for Mr. Aspinwall to recall. Referring to the Rector's course in the discussion the writer observes that " he vouchsafes to say, that I have traduced his character at New York, endeavoured to destroy his usefulness and influence in his own Parish, and laid schemes to get him out of his living. The first of these is indeed very general, for I am still to ask in what I have traduced his character there. As to the second it must be confessed he has by some part of his conduct, in a great measure, destroyed his usefulness among many in his own parish ; I should have been glad to have rendered him more useful than he is — with respect to his living, it is true that I lately favoured the scheme, of getting him into a better, that was vacant, and that for my 72 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. sake as well as his ; for, as on the one hand, I am sure he would have had no objection to a better salary, so on the other hand, I would have been willing to have received in his stead, a minister with whom I could live in harmony and friendship." Mr. Aspinwall's caution in attributing impaired usefulness to the Rector is admirable, and, after all, allows him to say but little. " Some part of his conduct," ** in a great measure," '* amongst many/' are very guarded expressions indeed. The same might be said of numerous good and successful Rectors before and since without being exactly libellous. Equally de- lightful is the solicitude displayed for the promotion of the Rector's usefulness, and in a higher sphere. It is true that this was not wholly unselfish : but then, how few human actions are uninfluenced by mixed motives ! The passage, ' however, is particularly notable as exhibiting the nearest approach to frankness which the writer permitted to himself throughout the controversy : and, as such, is a conspicuous instance of fair dealing in the midst of a mass of special pleading; and not less is it valuable as containing the admission of an adverse feeling which, to say the least, was capable of producing ad- verse remarks ; as out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Whether it did have this effect may be matter of conjecture. But Mr. Aspinwall never denied that it did. If no disparaging remarks had been made it had been a very simple matter to say so; and, unless one charged with such remarks had enjoyed playing with controversial letter writing, he would be apt to say so, if he could. In taking leave of this episode I am wondering whether I am giving the reader ground to think that I have made too much of a small matter, and in so doing have made conspicu- ous a phase of Mr. Seabury's life which might better have been left in the obscurity of musty manuscripts and forgotten RESIDENCE IN JAMAICA CONTINUED. 73 publications ; or that I have dealt more hardly with Mr. Aspin- wall than I should. As to the first of these doubts, however, I assure myself that having in view not the presentation of a flattering but rather of a truthful picture of my subject, it is right that I should present him so far as possible as he was : and not seek to conceal what I may imagine some reader may condemn. And as to the unimportance of the matter I think that the questions of a Clergyman's living, and of his fitness to retain it, are much the reverse of unimportant, and justify a very considerable warmth of feeling and strength of language on the part of the Clergyman against whom they are broached. With regard to Mr. Aspinwall, while I am not his biogra- pher, I should on the other hand be sorry indeed to seem un- just to one who from all that I have heard was undoubtedly worthy of great respect both as a Churchman and as a Citizen ; and whose name has ever since his time been honourably conspicuous both in the commercial and social history of New York. But I do not think it unjust to him, nor inconsistent with the respect due to an otherwise exemplary life, to say that in the present instance he amused and protected himself by substituting a diplomatic diversion for the straightforward frankness which would have been, I am disposed to believe, more in keeping with his character and position. CHAPTER VII. THE RECTORATE OF ST. PETER'S, WEST CHESTER. 1766. THE tenure of the Jamaica Parish appears to have been terminated about two years after the Treadwcll in- trusion. In 1764 occurred the death of Mr. Sea- bury's father, the Rector of St. George's, Hempstead, to be near whom had been one of his inducements to settle in Ja- maica ; and this loss of a sustaining association, together with the great discouragements he was conscious of in his work at that place, led him to accept the offer of the Rectorate of St. Peter's, West Chester. His settlement as Rector appears to have been accomplished with perhaps somewhat more formality than was always observed in such cases. Whether this ap- pearance is due to the precision of Sir Henry Moore, the then Governor of the Province, or to the fact that in some other cases there has not been the same preservation of records, I cannot say; but it is certain that in the present instance the papers extant seem to be more specific in their provisions than in others which we have met. There are four documents ex- tant in relation to the matter, three bearing date December 3, 1766; and the fourth dated March i, 1767. In the first three Sir Henry Moore under his hand and the prerogative seal of the Province of New York, respectively — ist, institutes Sam- uel Seabury clerk, Rector of the Parish Church at West Chester commonly called St. Peter's Church, including the Dis- tricts of West Chester, East Chester, Yonkers and the Manor 74 THE RECTORATE OF ST. PETER'S, WEST CHESTER, 75 of Pelham; 2(1, admits him to be Rector of said Parish with the same territorial inclusion; 3d, declares that he has Col- lated, Instituted and Established him to be Rector of said Parish Church with the same territorial inclusion, and charges all Rectors and Parish Ministers within the Province, and the Church Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Peter's Church that in due manner him the said Samuel Seabury into the real actual and corporal possession of the said Rectory and Parish Church they induct or cause to be inducted, with all its rights and appurtenances, and him so inducted do defend. The fourth document is a certificate signed by the Rev*^. Dr. Myles Cooper, then President of Kings College, that by virtue of the above Mandate he had on the date above mentioned inducted Samuel Seabury into the real actual and corporal possession of St. Peter's Church with all its rights, privileges and appurtenances whatever.^ In addition to his settlement as Rector of West Chester, Mr. Seabury was also transferred by the Society as Missionary to that place.^ From one of his reports to the Society, written in the course of his first year in the new station, which is printed by Dr. Beardsley,^ it appears that St. Peter's was then a small old wooden building, with an average attendance of about two hundred — his communicants numbering twenty-four. At East Chester, about four miles distant he reports the congre- gation as generally larger than at West Chester ; and that their present building being insufficient they had completed the roof 1. The two last cited of these documents I had the honour to give to St. Peter's Church on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the Parish, and reference is now made to them through copies furnished to me by the courtesy of the Rev. F. M, Gendenin, D.D., the pres- ent Rector; the other two documents are still in my possession. 2. Beardsley's Life of Bp. Seabury, p. 21. 3. Ibid., pp. 22-24. 70 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. of a large well built stone Church, further work upon which was suspended for want of funds ; that he preached every other Sunday morning at West Chester, and after prayers in the afternoon catechized the children and explained the Catechism to them. He reports having baptized at West Chester six white children and one mulatto adult; at East Chester eight white, and at New Rochclle seven white and two negro chil- dren ; also that he had made two visits to Jamaica since leaving there, baptizing one adult, and two white and three black children. Passing to temporal affairs he notes, among other things, that the people at Newtown had sent him £20 currency, which probably sustains the suggestion in a previous chapter in regard to the apportionment of salary in the Jamaica Parish. The salary in the West Chester Parish he says is by act of Assembly '' £50 currency — the exchange from New York to London being generally from £70 to £80 for £100 sterling." The parsonage house he reports as needing an outlay of £100 currency to make it comfortable, and adds that the glebe has cost him near £20 to repair the fences. This glimpse of the pastoral life at West Chester may per- haps suffice for the general understanding of the course of that life during the period of his active ministry in that Parish. There is little diversity in that kind of life, which involves the regular recurrence of services and sermons, visitations upon parishioners, and application of the teachings of the lessons and means of Grace of the Gospel to the individual needs, as well of the sick as of the whole, as opportunity may offer. And so far as I am aware there is nothing in the strictly pas- toral life of the Rector of St. Peter's that was particularly worthy of being commemorated. The same faithfulness and diligence which he had previously manifested in other cures, and which throughout his life he continued to manifest in the exercise of the Pastoral function, was manifested here, and TPIE RECTORATE OF ST. PETER S, WEST CHESTER. 'J'J while the results of his work were of momentous importance to those who experienced the benefits of it, yet there has not come down, to me at least, the knowledge of any particular event which would be of general interest in that aspect of his career. On the other hand in respect to points at which the life of the Rector touched the life of the Church beyond the Parish, or of the people of the Colonies, the time spent at West Chester was very full of incident, and produced events which were of pervading interest then, and are very worthy of re- membrance now: and it will be desirable to consider some of the steps by which the Rector became engrossed in interests which though not inconsistent in principle with the ordinary duties of the parish priest yet were practically incompatible with the regular discharge of them; and which reached far beyond them, appealing as they did to his convictions of duty both to the Church as a whole, and to the Country of which he was a citizen. This consideration will lead us through the period of his active ministry at St. Peter's, and beyond that into the time when the political controversies of the day cul- minated in the war of the Revolution ; and will bring into view his connection with the efforts which were being made to procure the Episcopate, and also certain personal controversies in which that connection involved him. It will lead us also to take a view of his attitude toward the Civil Government, and against those principles which he deemed subversive of it, and calculated to work to the injury of the Church as well as of the State: and though the process will bring us into a somewhat diversified range of topics, it will be interesting to note how naturally one position followed another in his course of life, and how his simple devotion to the principles for which he stood seems to have necessitated his choice of actions in the complications in which he was involved. In the last year of Mr. Seabury's stay at Jamaica an associa- 78 MEMOIR OF RISIIOP SEABURY. tion was made by the Clergy of the Province resulting in their organization as a Convention. This association was de- signed in general for the benefit of mutual counsel, and for the promotion of the welfare of the Church in the Province, and particularly for the furthering of the movement for a Colonial Episcopate. It was, of course, a voluntary union, and was therefore styled a Convention, as distinguished from a Convocation which involves the idea of a superior authority by which the body is called together. But the body was duly organized by the consent of its members, and it provided by the same consent laws for its own government, and a Standing Committee for the administration of affairs between its ses- sions. It was in its inception, properly speaking, a Convention of the Church in the Province of New York as represented by its clergy ; and was thus the forerunner of that Convention of the Church in the State of New York which was organized, with the addition of lay representatives, some twenty years later. Notwithstanding its particular connection with New York, however, the body received into it individuals among the Clergy both of Connecticut and New Jersey; men, for example, like Dr. Johnson of Connecticut and Dr. Chandler of New Jersey, of whose counsel and co-operation its members were glad to avail themselves. There seems also to have been a similar Convention in New Jersey, whether originating be- fore or after that of New York I am not informed, but which was afterwards associated with that of New York, in a volun- tary union, which was styled " The United Convention of New York and New Jersey, or New Jersey and New York, accord- ing to the Province in which they meet," an association which seems again to have foreshadowed the later voluntary associa- tion of the Churches in these and other States of the Civil Union, and which established the General Convention. Of the body thus organized in 1766 Mr. Seabury was the Secretary, and the Minutes of the Convention of New York, THE RECTORATE OF ST. PETER'S, WEST CHESTER. 79 and of the United Convention of New York and New Jersey, were written and signed by him as such, in a book which is now before me, for the period of a year, from May 21, 1766, to May 21, 1767. From the fact that the Minute book remained in his possession, and that it contains no entry of Minutes after the latter date, I infer that the meetings of the body ceased from that time, though I have no further information as to this point. The fact that this Convention, not only in the choice of its Secretary but also in certain other of its acts, is connected with the subject of this memoir; and the intrinsic interest of the record of its proceedings, have led me to give some account of its history. I extract from these Minutes such passages as bear upon the present story. In a letter of the Convention to the Secretary of the Society, adopted May 2.2, 1766, in New York, after referring to the loss of Messrs. Wilson and Giles, and the loss of one-fifth of the Missionaries sent over by the Society, mention of which has already been made, the letter continues — " This we consider as an incontestable argument for the necessity of American Bishops ; and we do in the most earnest manner beg and intreat the venerable Society, to whose piety and care under God, the Church of England owes her very being in most parts of America, that they would use their utmost influence to effect a point so essential to the interest of the Church in this wide extended Country. As we esteem it our duty to give the Society every informa- tion relative to the state of religion in this Country, we are now to inform them, that there are now a great many Inde- pendent and Presbyterian teachers assembled at this place, to the number of above sixty, and many more expected, who call themselves a Synod; and we are credibly informed that the grand point they have in view is to apply to the General As- sembly of the Kirk of Scotland, to use their utmost influence with his Majesty and the British Parliament, that they may be 80 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. incorporated and established, and endowed with the most ample privileges and immunities. As we foresee the greatest mis- chief from this scheme, should it succeed, we humbly assure ourselves the Society will use such methods as they think proper, to prevent these aspiring men from accomplishing their pernicious designs." At the meeting of January 21, 1767, " Dr. Chandler having read to the Board a letter of his to the Ld. Bishop of Oxford, containing some animated and just strictures upon the Bishop of Glocester's unaccountable sermon before the Society anno 1766, which we apprehend will be attended with the most fatal consequences; it was resolved . . . that he be requested to forward it as soon as possible in its present shape ; . . . Mr. Cooper having produced a letter from Dr. Durell, Vice Chancellor of Oxford, and Principal of Hartford College, in answer to the address upon the subject of American Bishops, which was sent to the University of Oxford, from the Clergy of New Jersey and New York; it was resolved that Mr. Cooper be desired to return the thanks of the Convention to the Doctor, for his kind letter; and to beg the continuance of his countenance and protection." At the meeting of May 20, 1767, " On a motion made it was agreed unanimously, That no copy of any minute or minutes of the Convention, be given to any person except a member, without a particular order of the Convention." At the adjourned meeting May 21st, the Convention adopted and signed a letter to Horatio Sharp, Esqr., Governor of the Province of Maryland introducing to him *' the Rev*^. Doctor Myles Cooper, President of the King's College in this city, and a member of the venerable Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, and the Rev^. Mr. Robert Mac- Kean, Missionary at Amboy, New Jersey, whom we have de- sired to wait upon and confer with your Excellency, on an affair we have much at heart, namely an American Episcopate ; THE RECTORATE OF ST. PETER'S, WEST CHESTER. 8l with this the interest of the Church is so closely connected, that not only her welfare, but probably her existence in a short time — we apprehend — will depend upon our obtain- ing it. The Rev^. Gentlemen who are to present this, and in whom we repose entire confidence, will lay before your Excellency the plan of such an Episcopate as is proposed, which in our opinion, will remove every reasonable objection that can be made against it, either by the members of the Church of Eng- land, or Dissenters of any denomination ; as none of the rights, privileges, or immunities of either will be in the least affected, or any ways affected by it." A letter to the same effect was given by the Convention to Dr. Cooper and Mr. McKean for the Clergy of the Province of Maryland. It appears from these references that the appeal so often made by individuals for the gift of a Colonial Episcopate was now formally made by the united action of the Clergy of New York and New Jersey, to the Society, and to the University of Oxford, in the hope doubtless that from these sources effectual influence might be brought to bear upon the Civil Authority, the consent and authorization of which were essen- tial to the accomplishment of the object; and also that an effort was made to secure the co-operation of the Governor and Clergy of Maryland in this enterprise. It was the rumour of the day that appeals had also been presented in other direc- tions, but if such were the case the minutes afford no evidence of it. It will be observed, moreover, that exception was taken to the Bishop of Glocester's sermon of 1766; that the influ- ence of the Society is earnestly invoked for the counteraction of the scheme to procure an incorporation of Dissenting Min- isters in the Colonies, and that in the Maryland letter refer- ence is made to a certain plan of the proposed Episcopate as designed to remove any reasonable objection to It. All of these points obviously bear directly upon the effort to procure 82 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEADURY. the Episcopate, and it may be imagined that those to whom for any reason that project might be disagreeable would find ground for offense in the action taken by the Convention so far as it was known to them. Nor is it to be supposed that the alert intelligence of more than sixty of the unepiscopal ministry in New York, at the time that the Convention was held there, would fail to acquire some information as to the general nature at least of its proceedings in regard to a matter to which they were vehemently opposed; nor that this infor- mation would fail to spread, with more of increase than diminution, throughout the ranks of those in the Colonies who were jealously apprehensive of any movement toward the ac- quiring of the Episcopate. It is not surprising therefore to find so distinguished and influential a Divine as the Rev'^. Dr. Ezra Stiles, of Newport, Rhode Island, much disturbed by rumours which had reached him in regard to the actions of the Convention, and very desirous to trace them to an au- thentic source.* For this purpose he addressed himself to the Secretary, in a letter which, with the answer to it, will now be laid before the reader. Before giving room to this corre- spondence, however, it should be stated that the proposed plan for the Episcopate, which is referred to therein, and also in the Maryland letter above noted, is that which had been set forth by the Rev. Dr. Thomas Bradbury Chandler, Rector and Missionary in Elizabethtown, New Jersey, in a paper pub- lished under the title of an " Appeal to the Public in behalf of the Church of England in America," not long before the date of Dr. Stiles' letter. It should also be stated that the letter of Dr. Stiles to the Secretary was not the only animadversion made upon the 4. Dr. Stiles was born in 1727; graduated at Yale College 1746; Minister of Congregational Church, Newport, Rhode Island, October 22, 1755; President of Yale College from 1777 to his death in 1795. Blake's Biographical Dictionary. THE RECTORATE OF ST. PETER'S, WEST CHESTER. 83 course pursued by the Convention. An attack had been pub- licly made upon the Convention, which had drawn out a letter in its defence from the Secretary, published in Mr. Gaine's Gazette of Monday, March 28, 1768, being as follows : ^ " AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE PUBLIC. Whereas an anonymous writer who styles himself The American Whig in his last Monday's publication viz. No. II hath accused " a certain Convention of the Episcopal Clergy here " of having transmitted " seven petitions to some of the most respectable personages in England earnestly soliciting Bishops for America ; representing the deplorable condition of an Unmitred Church, &c, and not sparing very injurious re- flections upon our other denominations as seditious Incendiar- ies and disaffected to King and Government," I beg leave to observe that I have acted as Secretary to the Convention from its first formation, and have particularly attended to, and care- fully read every petition they have transmitted to England, ** soliciting Bishops for America ;" and I do affirm that the Convention have never made any " injurious reflection upon the other Denominations," or as " disaffected to the King and Government." I do moreover affirm and declare, that this assertion of the American Whig, is absolutely, utterly and entirely false and groundless and I hereby call upon him in this open manner, both as a member of, and as Secretary to, the Convention publicly to produce the authorities upon which he has asserted so infamous a falsehood. In this case the most positive proof is insisted on, nor will the respectable public be put off with a poor, simple, " We are told " which is nothing to the purpose. Should any person think I do not treat this writer with proper respect let him turn to the last paragraph of the 5. From a copy furnished to me by the Rev. Joseph Hooper. 84 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. .American Whig No. I, where Dr. Chandler and the Convention (Gentlemen at least as respectable as himself) are in fact accused of the grossest falsehood and deceit, in pretending to ask for a Bishop only upon the plan proposed in the Appeal while it is " not the primitive Christian Bishop that they want :" But &c " Such a piece of effrontery and Malice I think deserves and would justify worse treatment than a regard to my own character would suffer me to give him. S. Seabury. March 23, 1768." With this introduction we may come to the letter of Dr. Stiles to the Secretary of the Convention, and the answer of the Secretary thereto, which shall conclude the present chapter. " Newport, 8th Mar., 1768. Reverend Sir The letters addressed by your Episcopal Convention to the King's Majesty, Several Dignitaries in the Church, the two English Universities, and to the Society, relate to a matter of public consequence, and of too great importance not to be attended to by all America — by far the greater part of which is, and doubtless through all American ages will continue to be Dissenters — even should the whole expanded territory from the Mississippi to the Atlantic be covered with Epis- copacy and Episcopal reverence most assuredly projected for it. Dr. Chandler has asked our objections to an Episcopatei here. He finds we have as many as Holland, Germany, Swe- den, the whole protestant world except your church would have to the introduction of it within their territories respec- tively. The whole Dispute is now before the public. These letters gave us the first notice of a formal application. But the genuineness of the copies we have seen is disputed. I THE RECTOR.\TE OF ST. PETER's, WEST CHESTER. 85 therefore apply myself to you, Sir, as Secretary of the Con- vention, for authentic copies of each, at least of that to the King, certified under your hand as Secretary. In this age of truth and liberty, the records of all ecclesiastical bodies in the Protestant world, we presume lie open to public view and Examination; and extracts and copies of the proceedings thereof are freely permitted. But if any of the transactions of your Convention should be of a more restricted nature, yet those relative to Prelacy and the Imploring of Bishops cannot be such and least of all the letters in question. According to the copies we have seen, the Dissenters, that most respectable body in America, are represented by more than implication, as Revilers of the State, of perverse dispositions, as dangerous to Monarchy and unworthy the King's Clemency and Protec- tion. Our Loyalty to the Sovereigns of the House of Han- over, our Love and Reverence for the British Constitution have been so conspicuous that we cannot submit to be thus represented to the Parent State. You, Sir, have said in the public prints that no such representation has been made. It will be a pleasure. Sir, to find your declaration confirmed by an inspection of authentical copies of those seven Letters. It is. Sir, for this end I ask them and I am sure your candor and politeness will most freely, most readily grant my request. Though we differ in Sentiments as to the external Policy of the Church of Christ, yet I sincerely wish the Divine Blessing upon all your labors in persuading sinners to be reconciled to God and to become sincere disciples of the Blessed JESUS. I send you this through the hands of the Rev. Mr. Rodgers of New York. Be so kind as to commit your letter to his care and it will be securely forwarded to, Reverend Sir, your most obedient Very humble ser Ezra Stiles. Rev. Mr. Seabury." 86 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. To Dr. Stiles. " In answer to your letter of the 8th March which I did not receive till the 8th May I must inform you that I am precluded by a rule of the Convention from giving out any copies of Minutes or papers committed to my care without an order of the Convention. I have however shewed your Letter to two or three of my Brethren, and their Sentiments as well as my own are, that the manifest unaccountable want of can- dor in the opposers of an American Episcopate, upon the proposed plan, is so very great, that they cannot think it a proper time to make public any of those Letters which you mention. Several persons who were consulted with regard to the propriety of Dr. Chandler's publishing his appeal, at the time it was published predicted the very treatment, it, and its author, and the whole body of Clergy met with. I was, I confess of a different opinion : I had such favorable senti- ments of the Candor and friendly disposition of the Dissenters, that I imagined, they w^ould have calmly and soberly pointed out the disadvantages they apprehended from the proposed plan that they might have been removed. The consequence has been the plan is approved but the thing opposed. Now to suppose an American Episcopate upon any other plan than the one proposed, is fighting with a shadow, a mere non- entity. But to do this in such an illiberal, abusive, scurrilous manner as has been done here, argues so bad a disposition, that I have no inclination to give a name to it. The whole Body of the Clergy of the Church, have been represented by the American Whig, as Tories, that is in the estimation of that Faction, Traitors and Rebels to their King and country. The Convention has been represented as a number of false deceitful men, pretending to ask for one thing, while they really are aiming at another. When I denied publicly, that any accusation was made against the loyalty of Dissenters; I THE RECTORATE OF ST. PETER*S, WEST CHESTER. 87 was represented as a furious fellow, too much in a passion to know what he said — and that I really had affirmed a matter of fact, of which it was impossible I could be a competent judge. Consider these things, Sir, and judge yourself, whether there is that probability of Candour and moderation among the Dissenters, which is sufficient to induce us to a Compliance with your demand. Far be it from me to imagine that Dr. Stiles is thus void of candour and moderation — but. then it cannot be thought that Dr. Stiles wants those copies solely for his own inspection, and that no other person is to see them. With regard to the authenticity of those copies which you intimate are abroad, I can say nothing. Those per- sons who know from whom and by what means they were ob- tained are the best judges of that. And with regard to an '' Ecclesiastical Reverence most as- suredly projected for an Episcopate, which is to cover the whole expanded Territory from the Mississippi to the At- lantic," I really Sir, never heard, either of such an Episcopate, or of such a reverence. I must also express my doubts, relating to the proceedings of all ecclesiastical Bodies being so open to public view and examination, as freely to permit copies and extracts of their proceedings to be taken. If that is the case, I would propose an expedient, that possibly would satisfy all parties, viz. let the Convention and the Synod publish all their proceedings, letters &c and then the public would be competent judges, whether the Church or Dissenters entertained sentiments the most favorable to universal liberty of conscience. I have Sir, indulged the same liberty of thought and expres- sion, which you have in your letter, and which I conclude will not be disagreeable to you. I shall conclude with assuring you that the Episcopate for America which we have so much at heart, is upon the plan in the appeal and no other. If there are any inconveniences which they apprehend from this plan, 88 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. when they are coolly and candidly pointed out, we will join our endeavours to yours to get them removed. I am Sir your most obedient, humble servant Samuel Seabury. June 4th, 1768." CHAPTER VIII. THE B. W. CONTROVERSY. I 768-1 769. IT is evidence of increasing general interest in the political questions of the day, and in such Ecclesiastical questions as had a bearing upon them, that some of the Public Journals should have set aside columns for their particular discussion; and it is not surprising to find that private con- troversies sometimes grew out of these public discussions. In the paper published with the title of '' The New York Ga- zette or the Weekly Post Boy " there appeared for some time certain columns under the caption of '' The American Whig," the chief influence in which came from Governor Livingston; and in the " New York Gazette and the Mercury," printed by Hugh Gaines, certain columns were appropriated to a series of papers entitled " A Whip for the American Whig," these being under the Editorial supervision of " Timothy Tickle Esqr," a nom de plume of several associated writers, very active and conspicuous among whom was the Rector of West Chester. The efforts of the American Whig were supplemented, more- over, by the special attention to its opponent bestowed under the title of " A kick for the Whipper by Sir Isaac Foote." With such pleasing and suggestive metaphor were our an- cestors accustomed to divert themselves and the public of their day. In the Whip for the American Whig, of July 4, 1768, ap- peared a letter which animadverted rather severely, though it 89 li 90 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. must be admitted much in accordance with the manners of the times on all sides exhibited, upon the Rev. Dr. Chauncey, an eminent Boston Divine v^ho it v^ould appear had argued against the necessity of Bishops, on the ground that it was no in- superable hardship to go to England for ordination when the expenses of the voyage were provided for by the Society. The contributor to the Whip signs himself an Independent, and dates his letter from Philadelphia June 15, 1768. In his letter he charges that the Doctor *'has acted altogether be- neath the character of an honest man;" and he continues, *' Out of the many falsehoods he has published, I shall at this time select but one, which is this; that all the candidates for Holy Orders in the Church of England, have the expenses of their voyage home, paid by the Society, &c. The Society as I and every one else can see, publish every year an exact ac- count of the monies they receive, and of the purposes to which they are applied. If he can produce one instance, wherein the expenses of any one Candidate for Orders have been defrayed in the manner he mentions, it is more than I have ever seen ; and I think from my scrupidous inspection into the Society's abstracts, I may venture to affirm that none is to be found." It may appear from this extract, that the long and rather tart letter from which it is taken had for its motive to discredit Dr. Chauncey, and to make his utterances as to the Episcopate seem unworthy of attention; and it may be inferred that this was naturally and properly displeasing to him. If he had re- plied directly to it, and shown that it had misrepresented him, his action would have been unexceptionable. Unfortunately, however, he pursued a different course, and one that caused much trouble and anxiety to others, and certainly was very far from enhancing his own reputation. He allowed himself to be defended by another person who wrote a paper, which he himself forwarded to the American Whig; and to which he himself appended a signature not his own, nor only so but a THE B. W. CONTROVERSY. 9I signature that apparently indicated another person by whom it was afterwards distinctly repudiated. The defence set up by this paper was that Dr. Chauncey had not used the language attributed to him by Independent, and the paper alleged that what the Doctor had said was " that the Society has publicly given an invitation to all the Colony students, who desire Episcopal Ordination, to come to Eng- land, assuring them that their expenses in going to, and re- turning from thence, shall be defrayed by the Society;" that the Doctor had faithfully referred his readers to the very abstract and page, in which the invitation and promise are contained ;" that unless this undertaking can be disproved, or proved to have been revoked by the Society " they are bound in strict justice to defray the expense any young students, who go to England for Episcopal Ordination, are put to on this account, unless it is paid in some other way. This," continues the writer, " is all the Doctor wanted, or had in view, in order to a full proof of the point in debate, namely that the want of a Bishop in America was no great hardship to Candidates, on account of the expense that would arise from their crossing the Atlantic." The reason why the expenses of this kind had not in fact been defrayed by the Society for some time, the writer says, has been that there was no need of it, " as this expense has been paid not by the Candidates themselves, but by the communities, who expect the benefit of their la- bours, or by private donations ;" adding that he himself had been often appealed to for help in such cases, which he had always been free to afford. Now this certainly is a very good and sufficient answer to the offensive charge of *^ Independent," and unless he could impugn the truth of the answer, it would have been demon- strated that he had made an unjustifiable attack. If the Doctor had made this answer himself, or if his friend had been content to confine himself to this defence, nothing more 92 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. had needed to be said, or probably would have been said. But as they who take the sword perish by the sword, so the Doctor, in his readiness not merely to defend himself, but to wield the trenchant weapons of offence which were supplied to him, and which he even sharpened with the edge of his own inven- tion, involved himself in hopeless difficulty. The writer of the paper which the Doctor procured to be published in his defence, attributes the letter of " Independent " to Mr. Seabury in the following opening sentence : " I ob- serve that Mr. S — ^b — r — y, as I suppose, in his paper, printed in the New York Gazette of July 4th, very decently for a clergyman, gives Dr. Chauncey the lie;" and, having thus shown that he intends his remarks for Mr. Seabury, proceeds to impute to him the suppression of the truth known to him in regard to the charge against the Doctor while he de- claimed against falsehood ; and, after some other compliments, concludes as follows: " I shall not think it improper to let this over zealous writer know, that I am not only a son of the Church of Eng- land, a real and hearty friend to its growth and prosperity, but one who has the honour of being a member of the Incor- porated Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts. I am also a friend of decency, good manners, and a becoming treatment, especially, of respectable characters, and what is more I am a friend to truth and honest impartiality ; and as I am fully convinced that the representations the So- ciety have had from this side the water are, in many in- stances, not only unfair, but notoriously false; I am obliged to say, what I really think, that the greatest occasion we, at present, have for a Bishop in America is, to correct and keep in order such troublesome persons as this associate with the American Whig Whipper appears to be; who with some others of the like malevolent spirit, have impertinently dis- turbed the quiet of this Country for some time past." THE B. W. CONTROVERSY. 93 It is manifest from all this that the champion of Dr. Chaun- cey, not content with defence, was venting his anger upon Mr. Seabury, for what he characterizes as his rude and injurious reflections, and holding him up to the public as a troublesome person, of a malevolent spirit, who had impertinently dis- turbed the quiet of the Country for some time past. If his supposition that Mr. Seabury was the author of the letter objected to had been correct, no exception could be taken to his holding him responsible for it; though it would seem that to charge him with error, or even deceit in the presenta- tion of facts alleged against Dr. Chauncey would have been sufficient, without accusing him of so many faults, and of being so very troublesome as even to justify the importation of a Bishop to keep him in order — which, considering the aversion of Dr. Chauncey and his friends to such an importa- tion, was really going very far indeed. But in fact the supposition of the writer was entirely er- roneous. Of the charge that he was the author of the letter of " Independent," Mr. Seabury says, in his statement con- tributed to " The Whip for the American Whig " of December 19th & 26th, 1768, " I positively declare, that I was so far from being the author of the paper to which he refers, that I never saw it, heard it, thought of it, or dreamed of it, 'till it made its public appearance in Mr. Gaine's Paper of July the 4th." Mr. Seabury was then in this position. He had been held up before the public charged with an unjust and unseemly action for which he was in no way responsible, and severely condemned not only for a fault falsely alleged and wholly unproved against him, but also for the general course of his life and conduct both as to motive and act, which had been stigmatized in most odious and opprobrious terms. The weight of this unjustifiable attack, moreover, was greatly in- creased by the reputation of the source from which it had 94 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. apparently proceeded. The paper was signed with the ini- tials 13. W. ; and these initials, taken together with the writer's allusions to himself, seemed to point to one who was a man well known and highly esteemed, condemnation from whom was a matter of very serious import in the community. The inference was obvious : whether intended to be drawn or not, it could hardly fail to be drawn, and in fact actually was drawn. Yet, as the name was not printed, the authorship was still matter of inference and not of certainty. It was there- fore necessary for the object of the attack to trace it to its source, and place the responsibility for it where it properly belonged; and to this end, with characteristic acumen, force, and tenacity of purpose, he forthwith addressed himself. His first recourse was to James Parker the printer of the American Whig, who had introduced the publication of the B. W. letter in the issue of August 29th, 1768, with the fol- lowing preface : " The printer thought proper to inform the public that he received the following letter from a gentleman of figure in Boston, who has, several years past, been a member of the Society for propagating the Gospel in foreign parts ; and lest any person should doubt the genuineness of this letter, the Printer hereby gives notice, that the original is now in his hands, and ready to be shown to any person who is desirous of satisfaction on this head." The letter then follows, dated " Boston, August 5, 1768," and addressed to *' Mr. James Parker Printer of the American Whig." In describing his call on Mr. Parker, Mr. Seabury writes in his letter to the Whip above cited, that in response to his request to see the original letter, Mr. Parker showed him a paper signed only B. W., and dated at Boston ; that he noticed that the direction at the head of the paper and he thought also the date at Boston were in a different hand and ink. '' Upon my expressing my surprise, that he should produce this paper THE B. W. CONTROVERSY. 95 signed only B. W. as an original letter " from a gentleman of figure in Boston," and demanding of him who the author was, Mr. Parker after some shuffling and hesitation, named Benning Wentworth Esqr., late Governor of the Province of New Hampshire, as the author ; and affirmed that the written paper he then showed me, was his handwriting. Being asked by me whether he (Parker) had received the written paper signed B. W. from the late Governor Wentworth, he replied that he himself did not receive it; but that it was sent by Dr. Chaun- cey, of Boston, to some gentlemen of this City, to be published in his paper." Mr. Parker having in this and another interview repeatedly declared and offered to prove that Benning Wentworth was the writer of the letter, and having also made the same state- ment to others, a letter was written by a gentleman to a friend in Portsmouth who in his reply enclosed the following note : " Portsmouth, Sept. i8, 1768. In the short time I have had to consider of the letter signed B. W. which Mr. advises one Parker had printed in his paper of the 29th August past, I can only at present assert, that the contents and every clause therein contained is a villainous piece of forgery : and if any measures can be taken to obtain the original letter, the villains may be discovered : and if that cannot be effected, and a legal prosecution of Parker, will answer, or be serviceable, I will be at the expense. I am, Sir, Your most humble servant B. Wentworth." Unaware of this letter, Parker, reiterating his assertion that the letter was written by Wentworth, and being required to pro- duce the proofs which he had offered, referred Mr. Seabury to Mr, Thomas Smith an attorney who, he said, had them in his 96 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. hands. jNIr. Smith's testimony, on application to him, was that he had given the letter to Parker to be printed, having received it from Mr. Rogers, who received it enclosed in a letter from Dr. Chauncey, who received it from the gentleman himself in Boston; that it was not in Mr. Wentworth's hand- writing, as he was an old man and could not write, but that it was written by his order and by him signed B. W., and given by him to Dr. Chauncey, who enclosed it to Mr. Rogers, who delivered it to him (Thomas Smith) who put it into the hands of Parker, who printed it in his paper. Mr. Rogers being next visited, and affording some needed refreshment in the enquiry by behaving " with great open- ness and candour," readily gave Mr. Seabury a sight of Dr. Chauncey's letter to him, from which it appeared '' that the letter signed B. W. was written by an inhabitant of the town of Boston; an Episcopalian by principle and education, and for several years past a member of the Society for the propa- gation of the Gospel." The letter did not further identify B. W., nor had Dr. Chauncey mentioned the name of the writer to Mr. Rogers, who declared that he did not know and never had heard who he was. The range of inquiry was now, however, becoming more limited. Mr. Parker had described the writer as " a gentleman of figure in Boston " and a member of the Society. The writer, dating from Boston, had described himself as a mem- ber of the Society ; and Dr. Chauncey's letter to Mr. Rogers described him as an inhabitant of Boston and a member of the Society. Mr. Attorney Smith, claiming that the writer was Benning Wentworth, said that though Mr. Wentworth did not live in Boston, he was in Boston when the letter was written by his order, and signed B. W. by him: and Mr. Wentworth having been eliminated from the possibilities by his explicit disclaimer of the letter, it only remained to ascer- tain whether the other members of the Society in the capacity THE B. W. CONTROVERSY. 97 of gentlemen of figure in Boston, would take the same ground. Of these there were six, Governor Bernard of Massachusetts being one. To all of these application was duly made, and by them all except one a disavowal was made equally explicit with that of Governor Wentworth. This, however, was a development later than the publica- tion of Mr. Seabury's letter of December 19th, 26th, 1768, above cited, at which time he had no other knowledge as to the authorship of the letter than that it did not belong to Governor Wentworth. He, therefore, called upon Dr. Chaun- cey, who had caused it to be published, either to produce the name of the author from whom he received it, or else to be himself held responsible for it. Who B. W. is, he says, he knows not; but referring to the letter so signed he observes: " The author has declared himself a member of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel; and Dr. Chauncey says (if I remember right) in his letter to Mr, Rogers, " that he is an inhabitant of the town of Boston." I have carefully examined the list of the Society's members for the year 1767. I can find only four members who reside in Boston, viz. His Ex- cellency Francis Bernard, James Apthorp, Hugh Hall, and John Temple Esqrs. To all these gentlemen I am personally unknown. I am utterly at a loss to conceive that I have ever given occasion to them to treat me in so injurious and cruel a manner, as I find myself treated in that letter. I cannot therefore suppose, that any one of these gentlemen was the author of it. It remains then with Dr. Chauncey to produce his author or to take the letter, with all its fraud, forgery, villainy, scandal, falsehood, and baseness upon himself. To you therefore, most venerable Doctor, I now beg leave to address myself." Under date of January 30, 1769, Mr. Thomas Brown, a resident of Boston who describes himself as " an Episcoparian by principle and practice and a member of Christ Church in 98 MEMOIR OF BISIIOr SEABURY. this town," writes to Mr. Seabury referring to his letter which he had accidentally seen in a New York paper, and expressing his displeasure at the method used in the defence of Dr. Chauncey. " From many circumstances," he says, *' attending this affair according to your representation, I was led to think it would be impracticable for the Doctor to vindicate his con- duct to the satisfaction of any unprejudiced man; and as the York papers are read but by few people here, imagined I should in some measure serve the cause of truth and Epis- copacy by endeavouring to get your letter reprinted here. I . . . accordingly . . . got your letter inserted in Edes and Gills' Liberty Paper; and in the same paper of this day the Doctor has vouchsafed to reply : though I must say no ways satisfactory to me. . . . The piece signed B. which attends the Doctor's performance, I can pretty well assure you is fictitious." Dr. Chauncey's letter, including a note to Edes and Gill, and a reprint of the letter of " Independent ; " and accompanied by a letter purporting to come from the author of the B. W. Letter which is referred to by Mr. Brown as signed B., admits that he had dated and addressed the letter attacking Mr. Sea- bury, and that he had affixed the letters B. W. by way of signature; but claims that these actions were quite within his rights, and were devoid of improper motive. " Of what significancy is it," he says, " who directed, or who dated that paper ? Is there the least connection between '' villainously forging " a paper, and giving date and direction to it after it had been wrote? Did you see. Sir, any mark of a different hand in the paper itself, or any sign of adulteration? You don't pretend that you did ; nor indeed could you : for it was transmitted by me. as put into my hands, without the addition, or alteration, of a single word, letter or so much as point. The plain truth is that paper had originally neither direction, or date. But as it was given in vindication of my character, THE B. W. CONTROVERSY. 99 which had been attacked at New York, I tho't it quite need- less, when I had determined to send it there to be printed, to put myself to the trouble of going to the author to give it date and direction. I therefore did it myself. And any one else might have done it, without doing any harm. Most certainly it could have hurt nobody, unless the Author of it, and when he complains of being injured, I will give him all the satisfac- tion he desires." So much with regard to the heading of the letter, the pe- culiarity of which, by the way, seems only to have been noted by the object of attack as an unusual circumstance suggesting the need of a close scrutiny of the whole matter ; and then the Doctor refers to the statements that Parker had named Ben- ning Wentworth as the author of the B. W. letter and offered to prove that he was so; and that Wentworth had asserted that " the contents of that letter and every clause therein was a villainous piece of forgery :" " and," continues the Doctor, " well he might as fathered upon him. But what relation has all this to me? Did I ever say, or so much as distantly insin- uate to Mr. Parker, or to any other person at New York, that the late G. Wentworth was the author of the paper signed B. W. ? The Rev. Mr. Rodgers is the only person at New York I ever wrote to ; and the only letter I ever wrote to him, relative to this affair, is that which you saw. Was it there said that this honourable gentleman, or any other, pointing him out by name, was the author of the paper that occasioned such an outcry? Nay, have you not told the public yourself, " that Mr. Rodgers declared to you, that he did not know and had never heard, who wrote the letter signed B. W. ? How indeed should he as I had concealed the person's name from him ? The exact honest truth is this ; — The paper in contest was put naked into my hands. And I wrote the signature, as well as the direction to the printer; but for no other reason, than that it might appear as other printed papers do. Had 100 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. the author been at hand, I might have desired him to do it; though I know not that I should, as it was a matter of no importance at all who did it, nothing more being intended than to signify an unknown writer. I had no view in the choice of the letters B. W. but to avoid the name of a real author. I never once reflected whose name the letters could be applied to. And as to the honourable person mentioned to you at New York, I did not then know he was a member of the Society for propagating the Gospel, nor do I know it now but by your information; and I can uprightly say, he never once came into my mind, till forced in by hearing that the late Governor Wentworth had been wrote to upon this matter. 'Tis to me quite strange that you, or any one else, should imagine, that the real author of the Paper signed B. W. was intended to be marked out by these letters. Had this been the manner at New York in the long controversy " that has been carrying on there? Was this the manner of the Paper B. W. replied to? Did not that writer assume a feigned character, however awkwardly he appeared in it After all, if you were really led by anything that was said or done, by Mr. Parker, or any other person, to suppose that the late Gov- ernor Wentworth was designed by the letters B. W. I am no more accountable for it than you are, nor had any more hand in it, unless accidentally by making use of initial letters, which though applicable to his name, I never once tho't of, and no one had a right to apply to him, or any particular person whatever." That is to say. Dr. Chauncey admits the fact that he had signed the letter with the initials of a man not only well known but of public reputation, and pleads that he had no intention of leaving it to be inferred that those initials desig- nated the name of that man as the author ; although by one with no other knowledge of the Doctor's intentions than had ap- peared from his acts, it might naturally be inferred, and cer- THE B. W. CONTROVERSY. 101 tainly had been inferred, that B. W. stood and was meant to stand there for Benning Wentworth. So ingenuous an atti- tude it pains one to question ; and I, for my part, have no in- tention to question it. But as one of that " impartial public," to whom the writers of that day were so fond of appealing, and in whose infallibility they seem to have reposed such utter con- fidence, I venture to remark that in weighing testimony there are sometimes to be considered circumstances which affect the credibility of a witness in a particular piece of evidence, whatever may be his general reputation for veracity: and if this attack upon Mr. Seabury, which had been so wantonly introduced into a defence of Dr. Chauncey, were, as there is some reason to suspect, concocted in the counsels of partisan objectors to the Episcopate, there would be an obvious reason for leaving it to be inferred that the attack came from a source supposed to be favourable to Episcopacy, and not connected with the company who opposed it. " I am very suspicious," says Mr. Brown, the writer from Boston above referred to, under date of March 20, 1769, " that a knot of the Dissenting Clergy in this town were well acquainted with the B. W. letter before it was sent to New York, and am pretty confident, great pains will be taken in order to prevent a full discovery ;" and it was consistent with the desire to prevent such discovery that the act, with its inevitable inference, should now be pal- liated on the plea of a chance selection of initials made with no intention to suggest such inference. And it is fair also to ask how far we are called upon to accept the plea of absence of intention when we find it ad- vanced not only by Dr. Chauncey but also by his associate and champion. This man has the effrontery to say, and that in a very supercilious manner, that he had not said that Mr. S — b — ^y was the author of the letter of " Independent," but only that he supposed he was ; and he adds, " I here declare, that I had not the most distant thought or design to hurt 102 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Mr. S — b — y's character." This plea of absence of intent is made in the letter above referred to as appearing with Dr. Chauncey's, over the signature of B., and purporting to be by the author of the B. W. letter : and it would seem to indi- cate an idea of intention which is not entirely conventional in the present day. To stigmatize a man as a suppresser of truth, and as an over zealous, rude, malevolent, impertinent and troublesome fellow, and yet say there was no design to injure his character, is to use words in what, if the writer had lived a century or so later, he might perhaps have realized to be a Pickwickian sense. But with regard to the validity of Dr. Chauncey's excuse for his actual use of Mr. Wentworth's initials, the reader, as another member of the great impartial public, will of course decide for himself on his own judgment whether to believe him fully in this particular instance, or to accept his statement with some allowances. As a biographer, however, I am bound to say that Mr. Seabury seems neither to have believed him, nor to have made any allowances for him. In his reply, printed in Mr. Gaine's New York Gazette of February 20, 1769, Mr. Seabury refers to this point; but be- fore he does so, he denies that Dr. Chauncey's plea is an answer to him, and avers that he avoids the real issue by defending himself from a charge not made against him. '' And is it then true. Doctor, that you did write the direc- tion, and put the signature to the B. W. letter? This is con- fessing more than I charged you with. From some particular circumstances, I suspected fraud and forgery in the case; but I never charged you with either: Read over carefully the Papers that I wrote, and you will not find such a charge brought against you. The charge against you is contained in the last paragraph, and is that you had been at the pains of sending an anonymous — I may add false and scandalous let- THE B. W. CONTROVERSY. I03 ter, 250 miles from Boston to New York; that you had di- rected it to be printed in a common newspaper, that it might circulate far and wide, in order to injure my character — a man utterly unknown to you, who never did, nor intended to do you any injury. This is the charge brought against you ; — a charge, to which in your letter you make no manner of reply, but fall to exculpating yourself from an accusation that I never brought against you. Is this fair, Doctor? — In my apprehension, 'tis foul, 'tis basely foul ; but how it has hap- pened I know not. Did you not intend to draw the attention of your readers, from the merits of the cause, and to excite their indignation against me, for having accused you of forgery upon groundless suspicion? If you did not, produce the pas- sage in which you are charged with forgery; I challenge you to do it. ... I did say, that it remained with Doctor Chauncey to produce his author, or to take the letter, with all its fraud, forgery, villainy, scandal, falsehood and baseness, upon himself. This you call effrontery; your humble servant, Doctor Modesty! But is it not the common sense of man- kind, that when a scandalous report is traced, 'till it comes to a person who cannot ... or will not name his author, that he is to be looked upon as the author, and becomes ac- countable for the consequences ? . . . Besides, Doctor, you put the signature to the letter : though you did not write your name, you made your mark; it matters not who draws the instrument, the signer being bound to defend and make good the contents. You confess that you wrote the direction, and signed B. W. to the letter. The immodest paper, it seems, was " put naked into your hands," and you did not choose to send the shameful thing a journey of 250 miles, to make its appearance among strangers, 'till it was properly cloathed, *' that it might appear as OTHER PRINTED PAPERS DO." Pray, Doctor, did you never 104 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. see a printed paper without either direction or signature ? Are there none such printed in Boston? Or do you read nothing — except the Fathers — but what is printed at Boston ? Indulge me, Doctor, in one supposition, and remember it is only a supposition ; I affirm nothing — Suppose that you was a missionary from the Scotch Society for propagating the Gospel; and there was a gentleman in New York who was a member of the same Society; and that this gentleman should put a naked paper in my hands, importing that some thirty or more years ago. Doctor Ch — nc — y " very decently for a clergyman " preached a sermon, in which he attempted to prove, that prevarication or lying in a good cause where the Glory of God was concerned, was allowable, &c. and that I should suffix to it the initial letters of the name of a late Governor of some neighbouring Province, whom I am also to suppose a member of the same Society; and that I should di- rect and send it to the Printer of a common newspaper in Boston; and that the Printer should introduce it with in- forming the Public, that he received a letter from a gentleman of figure in New York, who was a member of the Scotch Society, &:c., that he had the original in his hands, and was ready to show it to any person that desired satisfaction on that head. And suppose you should apply to the Printer, and he should tell you that the letter was written by the late Governor ; but upon Governor 's being applied to, he should declare it a villainous forgery. And then upon trac- ing the letter, you should find that it came from me, and that I should refuse to name my author: — would you not think that I was accountable for all the fraud, forgery, villainy, scandal, falsehood and baseness in it ? Let conscience answer ; and conscience, even your conscience. Doctor, will determine in my favour. Such conduct is, beyond all dispute, villainous and base : and such has been your conduct to me. Remember, Doctor, the above is all supposition; and the THE B. W. CONTTiOVERSY. IO5 particular instance of preaching, I fixed upon possibly, by the same kind of chance that directed you to the two letters B. W. — But, by your leave. Sir, I must examine this same B. W. chance work. You say yoit had no view in the choice of the letters B. W. hut to avoid the name of the real author . . . Consider, kind reader, that twenty-six letters of the Alphabet may be so differently taken, two at a time, that there are many hundred chances against Dr. Chauncey, that chance did not lead him to fix upon B. W. — The celebrated Mr. Edwards says, that the mind, even in the most zvhimsical choices, is governed by motives. But I am utterly at a loss, Doctor, to conceive what motive could induce you to fix, in the first place upon B. the second letter in the alphabet, and then to reprobate twenty letters, in order to come at W. unless it was that these two letters were the initials of the name of Benning Wentworth, Eqr. . . . — it is all, it seems, a mistake of mine. There were no circumstances to lead any one to suppose that B. W. were intended for the initials of Mr. Wentworth's name, even after the letter writer had declared himself a member of the Society, and no other name on the Society's list of members had B. W. for its initials: even after Messrs. Parker, and Smith, had declared that Mr. Wentworth was the author, — though I must do Mr. Smith the justice to say, that he, within ten minutes, denied that he had ever said so. Nay, to you it is quite strange, that I, or any one else, should — be so stupid as to — imagine that the real author of the paper signed B. W. was intended to be marked out by these letters; altho' Mr. Parker had declared, and in print too, that he, the Printer, had received the said paper, which he called a letter from a gentleman of figure — and a queer figure he makes — in Bos- ton ; a member of the Society, &c., and that he, the Printer, had the original in his hands, ready to be shown to any person who was desirous of satisfaction on that head ; when behold I06 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. this same original letter, proves to be originally a paper put naked into your hands, and by you ornamented with a direc- tion at the top — To James Parker — with the superlatively honourable distinction of Printer of the American Whig in capitals; and guarded in the rear, by the initials of the name of the late Governor Wentworth. But how could yoii design B. W. for Benning Wentworth, when yoii did not know that he was a member of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel f — And have you, Doctor, with the critical eye of censure, been so many years examin- ing the Society's Abstracts, in which a list of their members is annually published, and never seen Mr. Wentworth's name? Never heard him mentioned as a member? 'Tis Strange 1 'Tis Wondrous strange ! especially seeing that he hath been so remarkably active and disinterested in promoting the cause of true religion, and of the Church of England in America. Let me now, Doctor, in a few words, state the matter be- tween us. — You confess that you wrote the direction and sig- nature to this same B. W. paper ; and that you sent it to New York, and had it printed. In that paper, I am as particularly pointed out, as tho' a letter of my name had not been omitted ; and am described as a " troublesome person," of a " malevolent spirit," — and as having " impertinently disturbed the quiet of this Country for some time past," &c. I have traced the scandalous performance, till it comes to you; you refuse to name your author ; and ask, What imaginable right I have to demand the knowledge of the author of that paper; or to suspend the honour of your character upon a compliance with that demand f ... To demand this, you say, is " to invert the order of Reason and Nature." Yours, Doctor, must be a very queer Reason, and a very perverse Nature, to suppose that an injured, abused person, has no right to call upon the man who has done him the injury ; but that he ought, on the THE B. W. CONTROVERSY, IO7 contrary, to make him open and public satisfaction, for being openly and publicly abused by him." I am not aware that Dr. Chauncey replied to the letter from which these extracts have been made. So far as appears from the letter, Mr. Seabury had at the time of its date come to no certain conclusion as to the name of the B. W. writer, except that it was not Benning Went- worth. Efforts, however, as already observed, were made to solve this mystery by procuring from each of the Boston members an answer to the question whether the letter had been written by him. But I find nothing to indicate that Mr. Seabury was aware of the answers respectively returned to the question when he wrote his last letter to Dr. Chauncey. A letter giving information on the subject was addressed to him by his Boston correspondent, Mr. Brown; but this was dated March 20, 1769, and was not received till April ist. It is interesting to observe, in passing, that this letter, di- rected " To the Rev^ Samuel Seabury In Westchester," is marked with the written words " Paid 3, 8," and is stamped with the words " Boston u^r)," — being the earliest instance of the stamp mark that I have m.et with in mailed letters. On the under side of this letter as folded is the stamp (J^, probably indicating the date of arrival in New York; and above that, in Mr. Seabury's handwriting, " N. B. paid 2d for this Reed Ap. i." It will appear presently that Mr. Seabury was writing on or about Feb. 13, to the Boston mem- bers aforesaid; but nothing shows that he had received answers before the date of his letter to Dr. Chauncey; and, judging from the length of time which elapsed before he received Mr. Browm's letter, that is eleven or twelve days, he could hardly have received answers from Boston to his letter of February 13th, before he wrote his letter to Dr. Chauncey, which is dated February 17th, and appears in print February 20th. The point is perhaps curious rather I08 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. than important, since his own knowledge as to this, if he had any, would not make Dr. Chauncey less responsible for his agency in the matter; but the tone of his letter to Dr. Chauncey plainly indicates his want of knowledge of the real author ; which is made the more probable by the considera- tion that if he had then had the information received later from Mr. Brown, he would have been extremely likely to write to some one else. Mr. Brown says, March 20th, " I don't know but the paper I have mentioned, has been, or will be transmitted to you: however it may possibly miscarry, therefore think it not amiss to acquaint you with its contents, of which the following is an exact copy that I took before I divested myself of the original. '' Whereas a letter dated Boston August ye 5th 1768, and signed B. W. was printed in Mr. Parker's New York Gazette or Weekly Post Boy the 29th of the said month of August and since in other Papers, containing besides other matters many injurious reflections on the Reverend Mr. S-b-r-y, &c. ; in which letter the writer affirms himself to be a member of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts ; and it has been asserted that the said letter was delivered by a member of the said Society, at Boston, to the gentleman who is said to have transmitted the same to New York to be published there. We whose names are hereunto subscribed being members of the said Society residing at Boston do de- clare (each speaking for himself and his own acts only) that he did not write, dictate, publish or deliver to be published the said letter, nor were any wise concerned in or privy to the same, nor had any knowledge of the said letter until after it was printed in the New York Gazette as aforesaid. Witness our hands at Boston the 30th day of January 1769. Fra. Bernard Jno. Apthorp Jas. Apthorp Jos^ Harrison. H.Hall." THE B. W. CONTROVERSY. IO9 The statement with which Mr. Brown prefaces this copy, and explains how the original came to be in his hands, ac- counts for the blank space among the signatures, and is other- wise interesting. " Not many days after your first letter appeared in the Boston Gazette, a gentleman put a paper into my hand, and desired me to present it to the Hon^^^ John Temple, Esqr., that he might sign it. Upon looking at it I found that all the members of the Society residing in Boston had signed it, save the gent, above named. I must say at first thought he was the last person I should have suspected of having any concern in this matter: but some people surmised, that from his con- nection by marriage, the probability was greater against him than either of the others. I had heard of this suspicion, yet could not bring myself to think he would have refused to sign with the rest. I readily waited upon him the same day that the paper was given me, and presented it to him: but how great was my astonishment and surprise at his looks and behaviour after perusing it. It would be needless for me to recapitulate what passed between us : therefore only add, that I treated him with as much complaisance as I could: he re- turned me the paper and declared he would not sign it, nor have any concern with it, and I left him without receiving any reasons from him for his refusing to sign it." With one more letter, a copy of which in Mr. Seabury's handwriting has been preserved among his papers, I may close an account which has covered more pages than I vainly supposed I could compress it into when I began, but which I have been unwilling to leave incomplete, nor without en- abling the reader to form some conclusion as to the real authorship of the B. W. letter — as to which I presume he can have no doubt in view of the evidence presented. no MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. *' W Chester March 28. 1769 Sir, On the 13th Feby, I took the Hbcrty of addressing a letter to you, requesting that you would inform me, whether you wrote the letter signed B. W. and published in New York by Doer. Chauncey's order. That gentleman's affirming the above mentioned letter to have been written by a member of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, and an inhabitant of Boston, made it necessary for me to apply to the members in Boston, and to you among the rest. The other gentlemen to whom I wrote on that oc- casion have honoured me with their answers, in which they deny that they had any knowledge of the letter signed B. W. till it appeared in print. I did not know that Mr. Harrison resided in Boston, and therefore did not write to him, but I have been informed that he has signed a declaration to the same purpose. As I know of no other member in Boston, but yourself who has not readily testified his ignorance of the B. W. let- ter, till it appeared publicly, I am under the necessity of again applying myself to you, desiring that you would inform me as soon as conveniently you can whether you did write the letter signed B. W. which was printed in Parker's New York Gazette. When you consider the many arts that have been used to ruin the credit of the Society's Missionaries in general, and the unprovoked undeserved treatment which I in particular met with in the letter signed B. W. you will certainly think me right, in using all lawful and reasonable means to discover the author of that iniquitous attack upon my character. Your answer will particularly oblige Your very humbl Serv't S. Seabury. To John Temple Esqr Boston/^ THE B. W. CONTROVERSY. HI If any answer was received to this, extremely polite but, under the circumstances, perhaps not entirely agreeable, epistle, I have never heard of it. CHAPTER IX. THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE. IN his letter to Dr. Stiles, given in a previous chapter, Mr. Seabury alludes to the *' Manifest unaccountable want of Candor in the opposers of the American Episco- pate;" and certainly the allusion seems not to have been groundless. The minds of men were much stirred about this question of a Colonia.1 Episcopate. The Clergy, particularly those of Connecticut, New York and New Jersey, were very earnest in their pursuit of the project. They contended very openly and honestly for the consecration of Bishops for America, in the exercise of all the influence they had both at home and abroad; and their contention was based upon the simple plea that it was necessary for the preservation of the Church. Their only additional plea appears to have been that the preservation of the Church was essential to the preservation of the existing order of civil government in the Colonies ; but this was subsidiary to the main point, which was that the Church would soon inevitably become extinct, and the work already done come to nought, without resident Bishops. And in all their movement toward the accomplishment of this end, which dated almost from the first planting of the Church here, they seem to have clearly and carefully discriminated between the English and the Colonial situation, and to have used their best endeavour to make it perfectly plain that they sought Bishops for purely spiritual purposes, and had no 112 THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE. II3 thought of introducing with them any of those temporal char- acteristics of Episcopal rule to which exception had been so strongly taken. As one of the evidences of the ground taken by the Church Clergy, may be cited certain proposals signed by Dr. Cutler and others, and forwarded to the Bishop of London by the Reverend Dr. Johnson of Connecticut in 1750. This paper, proceeding upon the presumption that the chief obstruction to the settling of Bishops in America has arisen from misap- prehension, gives a statement of the Objections made to the project, and endeavours to obviate them by explanation of its true purposes. The objections to which they refer are, 1. With respect to the coercive power such Bishops may exer- cise over the people in causes ecclesiastical. 2. With respect to the interest or authority of the Governors there. 3. With respect to the burthen that may be brought upon the people, of supporting and maintaining Bishops there. 4. With respect to such of the Colonies where the govern- ment is in the hands of the Independents, or other dissenters, whose principles are inconsistent with Episcopal government; and, they continue: '' As these objections are all founded upon a misapprehension of the case, it may be proper to have it understood, 1st. That no coercive power is desired over the laity in any case ; but only a power to regulate the behaviour of the Clergy who are in Episcopal Orders, and to correct and punish them according to the law of the Church of England, in case of misbehaviour or neglect of duty ; with such power as the Com- missaries abroad have exercised. 2dly. That nothing is desired for such Bishops that may in the least interfere with the dignity, or authority, or interest of Governor, or any other officer of State. Probate of Wills, licence for Marriage, &c., to be left in the hands where they 114 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. are, and no share of the temporal government is desired for Bishops. 3dly. The maintenance of such Bishops not to be at the charge of the Colonies. 4thly. No Bishops are intended to be settled in places where the government is in the hands of Dissenters, as in Nev^ Eng- land, &c., but authority to be given only to ordain Clergy for such Church of England Congregations as are among them, and to inspect into the manners and behaviour of the same Clergy, and to confirm the members thereof." ^ When it is considered that to the faith of the Churchman the Church of Christ is by Divine institution an outward and visible Society, endowed with appointed means of Grace en- trusted by the same appointment to a Ministry derived from the Apostles, through the Bishops who have succeeded into their office; and that therefore the want of Bishops not only involved incompleteness of organization, but also endangered <^the perpetuity of spiritual life, it would seem both that the urgency of the Colonial Churchmen for Bishops was simply their bounden duty, and that the paper just cited is an ad- mirable instance of candor and discretion exercised in the dis- charge of that duty. And of the same tone, and characterized by the same candor and discretion, so far as I have observed, were all the efforts made for the obtaining of the Episcopate, whether evidenced by the writings of the Colonial Churchmen, or by those of their friends and sympathizers in England — with possibly a casual exception to be mentioned later. Even the biographer of William Livingston in referring to the fa- mous '' Appeal to the Public in behalf of the Church of Eng- land," put forth by Dr. Chandler in 1767, as a sort of sum- ming up and representation of the case for an American Episcopacy, has nothing worse to say of it than that it is I. Life of Samuel Johnson, D. D., First President of King's College, by Thomas Bradbury Chandler, D. D., 169-171. THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE. II5 *' a heavy but mild and decorous production ;" and that it " is a laboured argument, not only in favour of the particular scheme in question, but of the Episcopalian system generally ;" and he adds that " the work also contains several sections go- ing to show that the episcopate prayed for was purely re- ligious, and could have no improper connection with the civil power." ^ That a plea so manifestly reasonable in itself, and presented with uniform dignity and good temper, should have failed to disarm prejudice in the Colonies, and to secure favourable reception in England, argues the existence of some influence other than its own demerit. That the apprehension of its suc- cess should have been one of the causes which produced the Revolution is, when one views it by itself, apparently in- credible. It seems absurd that with all the sincere apprecia- tion in the Colonies of the value of personal freedom in gen- eral, and with the so great profession of regard above all for religious liberty in particular, the right of the Churchmen to have their ecclesiastical system completed in all its essentials should be not only denied, but denied with resentful bitterness ; while the same kind of right was allowed and deemed to be just in the case of other religious bodies in the Country. Still more absurd does it seem that a matter, properly speak- ing of simply religious import, should have the slightest po- litical significance; that those who had the power to impart the desired gift should have been against their will precluded from the exercise of that power by Civil Rulers who had of right nothing whatever to do with it; and that those Rulers, strong enough in their policy of repression at home, should be so cowardly weak abroad as to refuse justice to some for fear of giving offence to others. Yet this is but a suggestion of the incongruities involved in the situation. 2. Memoir of William Livingston by Theodore Sedgwick, Jun., p. 131. Il6 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. The fact is that the question of the American Episcopate was compHcated with considerations which in the mind of the Churchmen were entirely foreign to it, and which in the mind of the objectors were the only considerations thought worthy of attention. Claims which were based upon a purely spiritual conception of the Episcopate were either honestly misunderstood, or wilfully perverted by designing men with the ulterior object of inflaming the minds of the people against the Mother Country. The general ground of opposition to the proposed Episcopate was that it would be an introduction into America of a part of the system of English Government from which the Colonists had heretofore been free, but which was associated in their traditions with memories of oppression from which their ancestors had suffered in England, and to escape from which they had emigrated. The Bishop was con- ceived of as a State official, empowered under pretence of spiritual jurisdiction to meddle with their customs of worship, and to sit in judgment upon their religious convictions ; as con- nected with a system of legal administrations which touched not only spiritual but also temporal rights ; and as possessing so exalted a station as to require costly and luxurious pro- vision for its maintenance, the expense of which was to be met by commensurate and general taxation. It was indeed often and patiently explained to those who entertained this conception that it was wholly inapplicable to such an Episco- pate as was desired; but whether not convinced, or convinced against their will, they still persisted in retaining it. It is easy to understand how such objections would take their place among the other contentions which were at the same time being made against what were claimed to be un- just impositions upon the Colonists on the part of the Mother Country, and that assaults upon the Episcopacy would come to be pressed not so much on religious as on practical grounds, and from political scruples. In short the Colonial Episcopate THE COLONIAL EPISCOrATE. II7 became conspicuous among the grievances real or imaginary, existing or anticipated which formed the pohtical capital of the opposition party in the Colonies; and war was waged upon it not only by controversial attacks in this Country, but also by influence brought to bear against it in England which effectually prevented the Civil sanction which its friends there vainly sought to procure for it. Under these circumstances too, it was only to be expected that a special animosity should be manifested and cultivated against the English Society for propagating the Gospel and the Missionaries who without its aid could not have sustained the work of the Church in the Colonies. It was plain that the Society had constantly maintained the desirability of set- tling Bishops in America, and hence those who conceived of that project as one of the many links of the chain of injury and oppression being forged for the Colonists found in the Society a ready object of attack. Dr. Mayhew/"^ largely shar- ing the disaffection which the temporal policy of England was then fast producing in the Colonies, and the belief that the Church was identified with the King and Parliament in their obnoxious policy, published in 1763 an attack proceeding upon this line, of which the Society formed the primary ob- ject. He was answered by Mr. Apthorp one of the Society's Missionaries, and also by Archbishop Seeker in a pamphlet, whose fairness of reasoning and charity of spirit even Mayhew himself commended.* Later again, in 1767, one of the annual preachers before the Society, Dr. Ewer, Bishop of Llandaff, became the object of 3. Jonathan Mayhew, D. D., b. 1720, Minister of West Church, Bos- ton, 1747 to 1766, the date of his death. "An associate of Otis and other patriots in resisting arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Blake's Biographical Dictionary. 4. Anderson's History of the Church of England in the Colonies, III, 412-416. II8 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. the censure of Dr. Charles Chauncey, Pastor of First Church in Boston, and was virulently assailed by William Livingston in a personal letter. Chauncey also about the same time re- plied to Chandler's Appeal ; in response to which appeared the Appeal Defended; Chauncey's reply to which produced the Appeal further Defended. It is not necessary particularly to describe this controversy, but it is worth noticing that the arguments of Dr. Chauncey as well as of others seem to be in accordance with the general policy of the opposition in re- spect of its censure upon things which the advocates of the American Episcopate uniformly claimed to have no connec- / tion with it. " The inexpediency of any establishment of re- ligion by law," says Mr. Sedgwick, referring especially to Dr. Chauncey's controversies, " the grounds for apprehension lest the vast and oppressive system of tithes, spiritual courts, and the canon law, should accompany or follow the Colonial prelates, furnished ready and popular topics of reply as well to Ewer as to Chandler. At the same time it was freely ad- mitted by the dissenters, that no objection could be had to the introduction of bishops unattended by any temporal power or dignity. But they destroyed the effect of that admission, by maintaining that it could not be safe to trust the encroach- ing disposition of a church which at home had distinguished \ itself for intolerance and oppression." ^ But the true spirit of the opposition, and its definite pur- pose cannot be better shown than in the language of the Presbyterian William Livingston, sometime Governor of New Jersey, one of the ablest and most brilliant of all the remark- able men who in that generation promoted the resistance of the Colonies. In a letter dated New York, 26th March, 1768, to Dr. Samuel Cooper of Boston, Mr. Livingston says: 5. Sedgwick's Memoir of William Livingston, pp. 131-2. THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE. II9 " I am glad to hear that Dr. Chaiincey has undertaken an answer to Dr. Chandler's Appeal. As the latter began already to construe our silence on the subject into an acquiescence in his project, it is high time the appeal was answered. But though your venerable brother may strip our Episcopalian champion of his triumphal trappings, I think it cannot have the same salutary effect towards defeating the scheme at home as a course of weekly papers inserted in the public prints. These are almost universally read, and from the greater lati- tude one may there give himself, will prove more effectual in alarming the Colonies. For I take it that clamour is at pres- ent our best policy, and that if the Country can be animated against it, our superiors at home will not easily be induced to grant so arrogant a claim, at the expense of the public tranquility. With this view a few of your friends here have lately begun a paper under the name of the American Whig, which they purpose to carry on till it has . . . universal alarm. A number of gentlemen will shortly open the ball in Philadelphia. I should be glad the same measure was pur- sued in Boston. . . . Without some such opposition, I am apprehensive the ministry may be prevailed upon to gratify the lawn sleeves by way of recompense for so often voting against their consciences for the court. As this Country is good enough for me, and I have no no- tion of removing to Scotland, whence my ancestors were banished by this set of men, I cannot without terror reflect on a bishop's setting his foot on this continent. Pray, my dear sir, bestir yourself at this critical juncture, and help us to ward off this ecclesiastical stamp-act, which, if submitted to, will at length grind us to powder. I beg your acceptance of the enclosed (the letter to the Bishop of Llandaff), which I wrote out of real affection for the New England Colonies, and a sincere regard for truth. Dr. Chauncey had, 'tis true, so fully refuted the bishop's 120 MEMOIR OF CISITOP SEADURY. calumnies that anything further might well have been dis- pensed with. But I thought he had treated that haughty prelate rather too tenderly, and that he deserved a little severer correction. . . . I must, dear sir, repeat my earnest solicitations that you exert yourself in this interesting cause. We are debtors to our Country — debtors to posterity — but, above all, debtors to Him who will not suffer a competitor in the supremacy of the church. . . . I am, dear sir, your most affectionate friend, and humble serv't. WiL. Livingston." • The omissions denoted by asterisks are those of Mr. Living- ston's biographer; otherwise the letter is here presented in full as printed. It is a very noteworthy epistle in several re- spects, but particularly as showing Mr. Livingston's connec- tion with the American Whig, and as revealing the position which the Colonial Episcopate occupied in the minds of those who singly and by association were working to the end of promoting by every means in their power the disaffection of the Colonists. It would seem indeed that hostility to the Episcopal plan was the chief motive for bringing into being the American Whig, though the complaints of the paper were not confined to that grievance. The policy to be acted upon too, in the promotion of disaffection is here most ingenuously unfolded by Mr. Livingston ; the end proposed being to alarm the Colonies, the means to that end clamour, whereby the Country being animated against the plan, the superiors at home, that is the Ministry, may be persuaded that concurrence in it would be at the expense of the public tranquility. And the policy thus outlined is that which in fact was so con- 6. Sedgwick's Memoir of William Livingston, pp. 136, 138. THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE. 121 sistently and efficaciously pursued as to be entirely successful. In the American Whig No. XLII, published in " the New York Gazette or the Weekly Post-Boy " of December 26, 1768, we have further evidence of the pursuit of that policy; and also, by the way, of that " Manifest want of Candor " to which Mr. Seabury calls the attention of Dr. Stiles; though perhaps, in view of Mr. Livingston's frankness, we can hardly now consider it " unaccountable." A letter is contributed to that paper, signed " Liberius," which covertly, and under the guise of one writing from within the Church and earnestly solicitous for its most ample Gospel-privileges, seeks to throw suspicion on the motives of the advocates for the introduc- tion of Bishops. That the letter is from the pen of Mr. Livingston himself appears to me probable from the style in which it is written, and from his connection with the paper ; and also from its keenness of irony, and malicious abundance of innuendo, of which the versatile pen of Mr. Livingston, when he might see fit to give himself that greater latitude al- lozved by the public prints, would be fully capable. But by whomsoever it was written it was a most insidious paper, and well calculated to promote the end which Mr. Livingston had in view, in the alarm to be given to the Colonies — which the writer proposed further to extend by the excitement of distrust in the minds of the Churchmen themselves. The let- ter is too long to quote here, but its purport may sufficiently for our purpose appear from the following extract: ". . . . A real friend of the Nation or its Colonies, ought therefore to be sensibly alarmed at everything which has the remotest tendency to increase the jealousy, or weaken the connexion between them. — Pardon me, then, my brethren, if it should appear to be without just foundation that the vigor- ous efforts lately made, to obtain an American episcopate, have excited my fears and prevailed on me in this manner to use my endeavours to awaken the attention of such as are r 122 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. united in the same religious interest with myself. My ap- prehensions on this occasion, I must confess, are various ; not being fully satisfied as to the true cause of those en- deavours, nor the end really aimed at. Altho' I must profess the sincerest regard for the Episcopal Church in America, and heartily desire to see it blessed with all its most ample Gospel- privileges ; yet, whether the late attempts to procure American Bishops, take their rise from friends to the Church, or secret enemies both to Church and State, appears to me an uncer- tainty. Whoever considers the jealousy of the nation re- specting its Colonies, as being desirous to throw off their de- pendence upon the Mother Country; and the mutual jealousies between the nation and its Colonies, so lately excited by the Stamp-Act, cannot fail of being alarmed, lest some evil de- signing men, taking the advantage of the credulity of some of our well meaning clergy, have stirred up their v/ell in- tended, but ill timed zeal, earnestly to solicit the obtaining Bishops among ourselves. An event, which, should it hap- pen, would so evidently lessen the dependence, and weaken the connection of these colonies with the crown. It is said, there are more than a million of subjects, dispersed through the plantations, professed members of our excellent Church, who are all connected with the nation, not only by civil ties, in common with those of other denominations ; but in addition thereto are strongly united by the sacred ties of religion, being in subjection to, and dependent upon the Bishops in the Mother Country. Of this the able statesmen of the Nation, cannot but be sensible ; and from principles of state policy they must oppose the design. — In what light then, will they view those strenuous efforts for an American episcopate, but as a secret design, cloak'd with the specious pretence of re- ligion, to ripen our circumstances for revolt? Nor will our warmest protestations of loyalty to the crown, avail to pre- vent such apprehensions concerning us, while the thing we THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE. I23 are aiming at, whether it be our intention or not, really has such a tendency. These my dear countrymen and brethren, were my appre- hensions till the late " Appeal " to the Public, fell into my hands ; on the reading of which, I was greatly surprised, more especially at the character there given of the Bishop sought after, and intended for us. A Bishop that should have power only to confirm, — to ordain, — and to govern none but the clergy! One that should have nothing to do with us who are in lay-communion, save only to confirm ! How different this from the character of a scripture Bishop, as we have al- ways been taught! . . . Are there none but our clergy, that stand in need of the godly discipline of the Church? . . . That the Bishop intended for us, should be such a maimed incomplete creature, was, to me, really surprising and unaccountable, till by a more attentive view of the whole dis- course, I was alarmed with shrewd marks of a covered de- sign in the scheme. — The reason which is there held up to public view, is to prevent our design of having Bishops from being opposed by our neighbours of other religious denomina- tions. But however plausible and catholick this, at first sight, may appear, yet I am persuaded any one who attentively con- siders the matter, will, with me, be fully convinced, that this is only used as a palliative, while a latent project is carried on, either against them or against us. If the secret aim is levelled against our neighbours of other persuasions, to lull them asleep, and prevent their opposing our scheme of getting an American episcopate, established in such an inoffensive and harmless shape, hoping afterwards to have him the more easily completely vested with a full character; if, I say, this is the secret aim, 'tis manifest the pious fraud is not so closely con- cealed as to escape their notice, as is evident from the " Ameri- can Whig," who so often appears in this paper, and whom I shall leave to manage his own cause. 124 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. But why, my brethren, should others take the alarm, and we sleep on serene? Is our cause invulnerable? Or is it im- possible there should be any evil imagination, and secret in- trigues carried on against us? . . . Is it not . . . de- signed to cajole us into a compliance with some secret design artfully concealed from public view? It is well known that many of those additional powers, conferred on Bishops at home, by the statutes of the nation, would be as grievous to us, as to our dissenting neighbours; and to which (were we apprised of it), we should be as ready to make opposition, as they. The payment of tithes, the probate of Wills the licence of marriages ; but above all, the spiritual courts, that disgrace of our Church, and intolerable grievance of the Na- tion; are things to which we can by no means consent, and against the introduction of which, we should be equally op- posed, were we but sensible any such things were intended. If our secret schemers can but lull us to sleep, and amuse us with the expectation of having Bishops amongst ourselves, from whom we may hope for signal spiritual advantages, and thereby prevail with us, to use our influence for facilitating their designs, in procuring to be set over us such, as instead of being agreeable to our wishes, will prove the very reverse of what we expected; and instead of being a blessing, will really prove a curse: How grievous will be our disappoint- ment ? And shall we not ever blame ourselves for that supine negligence, whereby we now suffer ourselves to be wheedled into their pernicious devices? . . ." This extract may suffice to show the purport of the letter, and its tendency to persuade men that the constant affirma- tions of the Churchmen that they desired only 'Such an Episco- pate as should be clothed with powers purely spiritual — in the proper, and not the legal and technical sense of that word, — and that they totally repudiated the desire for any other kind of Episcopal authority, were to be regarded as mere THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE. 125 pretence, and only a cover for the introduction of a spiritual Bishop who — once here — was to be transformed at con- venience into a temporal Bishop, clothed with all manner of objectionable attributes : to persuade men, moreover that the pressing of this scheme would be regarded by the Government of England as indicating either a desire to be independent of English connections, or a desire to establish an Episcopal au- thority over all the colonists — neither of which alternatives could the British Ministry countenance. The letter is really, in its kind, a masterly performance — as was also the address of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden — and partakes much more of the wisdom of that most subtle of all the beasts of the field, than of the harmlessness of the dove. It is remarkable to observe the harmony of tone in the utterances of the opposition; the general refusal to accept the assurances of those whom they opposed; the settled pur- pose to keep ever in view the objectionable features of the English Episcopate, and to stir men's minds against the American plan, as being merely another political encroach- ment ; the determined effort, first to disturb public tranquillity, and then to make that disturbance, or the apprehension of it, the ground of refusal to act on the part of the British Government. One can hardly avoid the inference that all of this was the result of a settled policy, concerted for the pur- pose of promoting the disaffection which by and by pro- duced separation: and one is sometimes inclined to doubt whether this policy were not aided, if not set on foot, in England; or whether it were inspired here, and industriously propagated in England, and thence returned again, supported by accounts of purposes formed there for the enslavement of the Colonists. Dr. Gordon, in his history of the American Revolution, records the outline of a plan understood to have been laid in England for the better mastery of the Colonies, in which 126 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. the supplying of the Episcopate plays an important part; a project to which he himself appears to have given credence — though the first news of it in this Country seems to have come from no less busy and untrustworthy a person than the emo- tional Whitefield. Whether this plan were really conceived in England, or were bruited about there so that it might be transported thence to the Colonies, to be utilized by the op- position party as a goad to the discontents of the people, it is impossible to say. But it certainly was used here and Gordon's account of it is of special interest as showing the political aspect of the controversy in regard to the Colonial Episcopate, and how the insistence upon that aspect of it added to the popular aversion to it here, and to the Ministerial aversion to it in England. Gordon relates that the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, before leaving Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on the afternoon of the 2d of April, 1764, sent for Dr. Langdon and Mr. Haven, the Con- gregational Ministers of the town, and upon their coming to him said, " I can't in conscience leave the town without ac- quainting you with a secret. My heart bleeds for America. O poor New England. There is a deep laid plot against both your civil and religious liberties, and they will be lost;" and of the plan referred to by Whitefield Gordon says: " Besides the general design of taxing the Colonies, the plan was probably, this in substance — Let the Parliament be engaged to enter heartily and fully into American matters ; and then under its sanction, let all the governments be altered, and all the Councils be appointed by the King, and the As- semblies be reduced to a small number like that of New York. After that, the more effectually to secure the power of Civil government by the junction of Church influence, let there be a revisal of all the Acts in the several Colonies, with a view of setting aside those in particular, which provide for the sup- port of the Ministers. But if the temper of the people makes THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE. 12/ it necessary, let a new bill for the purpose of supporting them pass the house, and the Council refuse their concurrence; if that will be improper, then the governor to negative it. If that cannot be done in good policy, then the bill to go home, and let the King disallow it. Let bishops be introduced, and provision be made for the support of the Episcopal Clergy. Let the Congregational and Presbyterian clergy, who will re- ceive episcopal ordination, be supported; and the leading ministers among them be bought off by large salaries. — Let the Liturgy be revised and altered. Let episcopacy be accom- modated as much as possible to the cast of the people. Let places of power, trust and honour be conferred only upon Episcopalians, or those that will conform. When episcopacy is once thoroughly established, increase its resemblance to the English hierarchy at pleasure. These were the ideas which a certain gentleman communi- cated to Dr. Stiles, when they were riding together in 1765. The Doctor, after hearing him out, expressed his belief, that before the plan could be effected, such a spirit would be roused in the people, as would prevent its execution." '^ Nothing could be more apt than this plan to the use of those in this Country who sought to promote the disaffection of the people; and nothing, it may be added, could be much nearer to the arguments commonly used for that purpose. And if the people to whom such appeals were made believed but the half of what was thus urged upon them, their con- demnation of the Colonial Episcopate is sufficiently accounted for. Nor is it surprising that the influence exercised against the introduction of the Episcopate here, should have had that effect in England which it was designed to have ; and that all the efforts there of those who were friendly to the project, 7. Gordon's History of the American Revolution, I, pp. 114-115. 128 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. and who sought to further it, should have been met with in- difference, evasion, and all the compact resistance of a mas- terly inactivity. Ears might be open and patiently receptive ; tongues might be turned to the soothing phrase of diplomatic assurance ; but in respect of action, there was paralysis.^ And so the battle for the Colonial Episcopate was lost : but the contest for the American Episcopate was not yet closed, though its prosecution was necessarily suspended for the present. It was to be resumed later, under circumstances al- most equally discouraging; notwithstanding which it was ul- timately pushed to a successful issue. It would seem that in the counsels of Divine Providence the time had not until then been fully ripe for the gift of that " free, valid and purely Ecclesiastical " Episcopacy which the Colonial Church- men so earnestly desired, but the bearing of which upon fu- ture conditions both civil and Ecclesiastical they could not be expected to foresee. It can hardly be doubted that the es- tablishment of a Colonial Episcopate would have tended, so far as its influence might go, to such a fusion or consolida- tion of the Colonists as would have predisposed them to some form of centralized Government; and would thus have operated to the hindrance, if not the prevention, of that Federal Union which was afterwards established both in civil and ecclesiastical policy, and the principles of which, if duly ob- served are most conducive to the preservation of constitutional liberty in each. And for this reason among others, while one may fully sympathize with the disappointment and disad- vantages of the Colonial Churchmen^ and regard them as en- tirely justified in their contention against the wrong and in- justice which they suffered, he may perhaps, be excused for 8. Cf. the collection of letters from Archbishop Seeker and others, in the appendix to Chandler's life of Johnson; and also Anderson's Colonial Church, III, 430-436. THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE. 129 thinking that the failure to obtain the Colonial Episcopate was not an altogether unmixed evil. However this may be, it is hoped that the present chapter, though with no pretence to be a history of the movement for such an Episcopate — which would involve the history of the Colonial Church — may have contributed something to the better understanding of the political significance of the ques- tion involved in the movement; and, by consequence, to the better understanding of the position of those of the Colonial Clergy who adhered to the existing order of Government. For it was altogether natural, when that which they had with all simplicity advocated on purely religious grounds, was classed by their adversaries among the political grievances of the day, that they should range themselves against their opponents not only in respect of this movement, but also in respect of the properly political issues with which they found it thus associated. CHAPTER X. POLITICAL EXPERIENCES. 1774-1783. IT is the counsel of St. Paul to Timothy that the servant of God must not strive : and it seems at first sight as if there were something contrary to the Christian character in controversy. But of course there is a distinction between mere disputation conducted with rancour and leading to in- jurious personalities, and a firm upholding of the right, coupled with a just resentment against wrong. St. Paul him- self, with all reverence be it said, was by no means back- ward in strenuous assertion of his rights when he thought them unjustly assailed; as, for example, when his persecutors thought that he would be glad, after scourging and imprison- ment, if he had opportunity, quietly and without scandal to take himself out of their way, they found that he indignantly spurned that offer. " They have beaten us openly, uncon- demned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison ; and now do they seek to thrust us out privily? Nay, verily, but let them come themselves and fetch us out." ^ And, on another occasion, outraged with the injustice of one before whom he had been arraigned, and who had commanded him to be smit- ten on the mouth, he cried out, " God shall smite thee thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law ? " ^ And 1. Acts XVI, 37. 2, Acts XXIII, i-s. 130 POLITICAL EXPERIENCES. I3I although when he was reproached for thus reviHng God's high priest, he said, " I wist not brethren that he was the high priest," yet (as that noted controversiaHst Dr. John Henry Hopkins once remarked to me with a twinkle in his eye), "he never took it hack!" The most quiet and even tempered man may in fact some- times find himself in a position which involves either his abandonment of truth and justice, or his plain and forcible assertion of them against those who have betrayed or misrepre- sented them. The subject of the present memoir was naturally a man of cool and impartial judgment, and amiable disposi- tion. But he had strong convictions, and remarkable capacity for the forcible expression of them. He was quick to see and to resent a wrong either to himself personally, or to the principles for which he stood ; and he was so situated as to be involved in controversy, or personal argument with those who differed from him, almost throughout his life. The contro- versies through which we have hitherto followed him were largely of a personal character, though they seem to have involved defence of principles of more extended application than to his own case only; and his conduct of these contro- versies exhibits the force and independence of his character, and also a good deal of the vehemence of temper which was natural to the time of life in which he was involved in them. The argumentative papers of his later years show a marked difference in this latter respect, displaying a tone and manner more calm and judicial, and being wholly wanting in the satire and invective of earlier days. Between these two phases come the political controversies ; in which the fire of his youth and the energy of his maturity combine, and seem to bring him to the climax of all of this sort of writing. It will be necessary to give some account of these as part of the experience which he passed through by reason of the political embroilments which drove him out of his Rectorate at St, Peters, and forced 132 MEMOIR OF BISHOr SEABURY. him to keep within the British Hues in New York until the concUision of the war to which they led. In fact these po- litical controversies, and the incidents connected with them, form the chief part of what is known of his life from the period which we have now reached until the end of the Revo- lutionary War. They seem to have had their beginning in the very earliest days of his ministry, while he was still at New Brunswick: and to have been carried on through the newspapers of the day, and finally to have taken form in a series of pamphlets which he wrote under the signature of A. W. Farmer. These papers were highly valued by those who were interested to maintain the existing government in the Colonies; and excited a very bitter animosity among the Revolutionary party : and so far as he was suspected to be the author of them that animosity was personally vented upon him. His whole position has been severely condemned not only by those who were successful in the struggle against the existing government, but also by many of those who after- wards enjoyed the benefit of their success, and who have not been wanting in the endeavour to cover with obloquy the memory of those who had tried to hinder that success, and of him among the number. In the course of time a great deal of that feeling has passed away ; and there has been evident the growth of a much fairer judgment, and a recognition of the fact that those who are classed under the general names of Loyalists or Royalists were not necessarily the treasonable enemies of their Country: but there is still a considerable prejudice, even if it take the form only of a tolerant pity for those who were so misguided as to have fought their battle on the losing side, which is assumed to have been of course the side which deserved to lose, as having been the exponent of injustice and tyranny. This attitude is perhaps natural enough as human nature is constituted, but it is hardly to be commended as an example of just judgment. POLITICAL EXPERIENCES. 133 There are several considerations which ought to be taken into account on the other side in order to a better balance of judgment; and, without any apology for the position of the subject of this memoir, the statement of them may help to the juster estimate of it. The hostility which had been dis- played toward the Episcopate by the advocates of the Colonial cause against the government, would naturally be regarded by the Churchman as putting him on the defensive, because his whole hope as a Churchman depended on obtaining the Epis- copate. The extension of that hostility to the Society for propagating the Gospel, would greatly intensify his defensive feeling, since very large part of the support of the Church was derived from the Society. But apart from the feeling of the Qiurchman, there was the feeling also of the Citizen who considered himself safe both as to his person and liberties under a system of Government which was, in principle at least, firmly based upon the idea of protection to personal rights ; although there was room for difference of opinion upon the question whether in practice that Government was consistently carrying out the ideas on which it was based. It has too often been overlooked that up to, and throughout the Revolution, men were simply differing as to the proper determination of open questions: and it has been in consequence too easily as- sumed that the success of one party not only determined those differences, but also proved that they always had been deter- mined, and had been binding in right and conscience upon every member of the community, all the while. Hence these were traitors, and those were patriots. Always, however, there was difference of opinion ; and it is more than doubtful whether the so-called patriotic opinions were ever held by the majority of all the Colonists. That such was the case in some places was no doubt true ; but that it was so in all places would be difficult to prove, and I believe never has been proved. Certainly in the Province of New York there was very reasonable ground for 134 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. the feeling of Ihose who stood by the existing order, that the opposition was maintained by a faction which made up in noise what it lacked in numbers. And again it is not always considered that these differences of opinion related not merely to particular measures, but also to principles much deeper than those of mere expediency, and such as concerned not only the integrity of the British Empire, but even the preservation of any kind of government. And more than all it ought to be remembered by those who stand for liberty, that nothing can be more abhorrent to a free man than the meddlesome assump- tion of authority by those who are but fellow citizens under under the same government, and thus have no more right over him and his actions, than he has over them and their actions. I am not concerned to argue these positions, but desire only to aid the reader, so far as may be needed, to understand the point of view from which the subject of the present story re- garded the state of affairs which confronted him ; so that he may have that fair judgment which every man ought to have, and which recognizes the right of every man to take all lawful means to preserve and maintain the truth as he understands it. My purpose is to record as clearly as I can what my sub- ject did, and why he did it; and to this end in the present matter to relate his course in the events which led to the Revo- lution, giving some account of the chief of his political papers, and making a few extracts from them in order to show what his views were in some particulars, and also something of the style and manner in which he presented those views ; and thus to bring him into the better acquaintance of the reader, which I cannot but think will conduce to the benefit of both. It seems to be somewhat in anticipation of the story, but it will be so much of an advantage to let the subject of it speak for himself, that I propose to refer here to a manuscript of his POLITICAL EXPERIENCES. 135 which is dated so late as 1783, and which gives in some detail certain events which belong to the present part of the narra- tive. It is only necessary to say in explanation of his paper, that in the early part of the War he was appointed by Sir Henry Clinton the Chaplain of the King's American Regiment commanded by Colonel Fanning, and that he served in that capacity until the conclusion of the War. Immediately upon the knowledge of this he was elected by the Clergy of Connec- ticut to the Episcopate, to secure which he set sail for England, and taking up his residence in London, was allowed by the authorities Civil and Ecclesiastical to continue that residence, in the illusory hope of obtaining consecration, for some six- teen months. These points will be taken up later. The point at present to be noted is that having no means of any conse- quence when he started, he found them much less, and re- duced to the vanishing point during his residence in London ; and in order to maintain himself he sought to secure from the British Government some pension or award in consideration of the services which he had notably rendered to the cause of that government in the effort to preserve the Colonies to it. In order to that end he prepared for presentation " to the Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury," a Memorial setting forth his services and his cir- cumstances, and asking for such relief as might be deemed just. He seems to have heard nothing from this Memorial for nearly ten years afterward, and then to have received a small matter of thirty pounds ; so that his effort in this direction was practically fruitless. The value of the Memorial to us, how- ever, is in its historical statements ; and as it has never before, so far as I am aware, been published, I now present it from the copy which he kept for himself in his own hand- writing, and which has ever since been preserved among his papers. 136 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. " To D. P. Coke EsqR. J. Wilmot Esq«. Col : — &c. Commissioners &c. The Memorial of Samuel Seabury Doctor in Divinity,' late Rector of West Chester in New York, & Missionary &c : most respectfully showeth, That your Memorialist was born in Connecticut, in the year 1729, and was the son of a Clerg'yman of the first reputation in that Country: That in 1753 your Memorialist was ordained in England, admitted into the service of the Society, & sent to reside at New Brunswick in New Jersey: That about this time periodical papers & essays began to be published in New York, tending to corrupt the principles of the people with re- gard to Government, & to weaken their attachment to the constitution of this country both in Church and State : That a paper of this nature, making its appearance, stiled the Watch-Tozverj supposed to be written by Mr. Livingston, the present Governor of New Jersey, & others, your Memorialist did, in conjunction with a number of his Brethren & friends, write several essays & papers in answer to the Watch-tower, with a view to prevent the ill effects it might have on the minds of the people. That some years after, when it was evident, from continual publications in Newspapers, & from the uniting of all the jarring interests of the Independents and Presbyterians from Massachusetts bay to Georgia, under Grand Committees & Synods, that some mischievous Scheme was meditated against the Church of England & the British Government in America, your Memorialist did enter into an agreement with The Rev'^. Dr. T. B. Ch(andler) then of Eliz: Town, New Jersey & with the Rev^. Dr. Inglis the present Rector of Trinity Church in the city of New York, to watch all publications either in 3. The degree of Doctor of Divinity was conferred upon him by the University of Oxford, December 15, 1777. POLITICAL EXPERIENCES. 137 newspapers or pamphlets, & to obviate the evil influence of such as appeared to have a bad tendency by the speediest an- swers: That your Memorialist faithfully & steadily acted in conjunction with the above named gentlemen to the time of his leaving New York: That he & his two associates bore the whole weight of the controversy with the American Whig, which continued near 2 years: That this paper was the im- mediate fore runner of the late Rebellion; and pointed out to the Americans a separation from G. B. — the rise of an Amer. Empire, & the fall of the British Empire & government. That none of these mischievous papers went unanswered; & your Memorialist & his friends had the satisfaction of seeing & knowing that their antagonists were silenced, &, in the estima- tion of the public, written down : That when the late commotions in America began, your Memorialist lived at West Chester in the then Province of New York, & was, though not in wealthy, yet in easy circum- stances, & supported a large family, viz : a wife & six children, comfortably & decently: That his income was at least 200 £ sterl. p*". ann. arising from his Parish, Glebe and from a gram- mar school in which he had more than 20 young Gentlemen, when the Rebellion began. That perceiving matters were taking a most serious & alarming turn, your Memorialist thought it his duty to exert his utmost abilities & influence in support of that Government under which he had lived, to which he had sworn obedience & which he loved and revered: That he therefore from the beginning opposed the election of all Committees & Con- gresses — in pursuance of which object, he rode many days in the county of West Chester ; That he assembled the friends of Government and at their head opposed the lawless meetings & measures of the disaffected. That at one time, in conjunc- tion with his friend Isaac Wilkins Esq^ he assembled near 400 friends of Government at the White Plains, who openly op- 138 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. posed & protested against any Congress, Convention or Com- mittee, & who were determined if possible to support the legal Government of their country: That their proceedings and protest were published in Mr. Rivington's Gazette, & there was no way of getting rid of such an opposition, but for the disaflfected in New York to send for an armed force from Connecticut into the County of West Chester, which they did & under its power carried all their points. — That in confirma- tion of these facts, your Memorialist begs leave to refer in Particular to Col. Ja^. De Lancey (No. 5 Edw^. Street,) who was present at several of these meetings, & to whom your Memorialist's conduct & situation at West Chester are well known. That while your Memorialist was thus employing his per- sonal influence in his own county, he was not inattentive to the engagement he had entered into with D". C. & I, nor to the obligations of duty which he owed to his King & Country — but published a pamphlet entitled Free thoughts on the pro- ceedings of the Congress at Philadelphia, very soon after the first Congress broke up, & had shown by their adopting the Suffolk resolves that they had entered into a deep scheme of rebellion which pamphlet he addressed to the Farmers & Landowners, intending to point out, in a way accommodated to their comprehension, the destructive influence that the meas- ures of the Congress, if pursued, would have on the farmers & the labouring part of the Community. That as no pamphlet at that period seems to have given the republicans more un- easiness than this, several answers to it were published ; which obliged your Memorialist to write another pamphlet in support of it, called the Congress Canvassed, previous to which he had published An address to the Merchants of New York; In which he endeavoured to convince them of the evil tendency of the Non-importation & non-exportation agreements, & that their happiness & true interest depended on their connection with & POLITICAL EXPERIENCES. I39 subordination to G. B.* That at the meeting of the next As- sembly he published An Alarm to the Legislature of New York — in which he endeavoured to show that by adopting and establishing the proceedings of the Congress as most other Assemblies had done, they would betray the rights and liberties of their constituents, set up a new sovereign power in the province and plunge it into all the horrors of rebellion & civil war. That your Memorialist had also personal interviews with at least one third of the members of that house, with whom he was well acquainted, just before their meeting. How far his writings or conversation had any influence he presumes not to say. The Assembly however rejected the proceedings of the 4. The Memorialist appears to have here fallen into an inadver- tence which, considering the lapse of time, and the stress of interme- diate experiences, and his residence in a foreign country away from his papers, was certainly not unnatural. In point of fact, the three pamphlets which he had printed were, (i) the "Free Thoughts," dated November 16, 1774, addressed to the farmers; (2) the " Congress Canvassed," addressed to the merchants of New York, dated Novem- ber 28, 1774; and (3) "A View of the controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies," dated December 24, 1774. These titles are taken by me from the three pamphlets now before me ; and a com- parison of them with the Memorialist's statement, makes his incidental inadvertence obvious. It is curious to note, as showing how easily historical facts may, with the best possible intentions, be misrepresented, that Ch. J. Shea, in his valuable life of Hamilton (p. 198) refers to the Congress Can- vassed and the Address to the Merchants of New York, as if these were two pamphlets instead of one. I have been at a loss to account for this literary instance of " seeing double," until now I recall the fact (noted on the cover of this Memorial) that I had loaned the Memorial to Judge Shea; and it is thus apparent that he simply fol- lowed the original manuscript. If he had had before him the pamphlets themselves, as I now have, he would have discovered the Memorialist's natural inadvertence. — W. J. S. 140 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Congress, & applied to the King & Parliament by Petition & Memorial; That several pamphlets were published under the signature of A. W. Farmer ; & that they were written by your Memorialist, he refers to the certificate of Dr. M. Cooper, hereunto annexed, & to the testimony of Dr. Chandler. That your Memorialist soon became suspected of writing in support of legal Government, & on that account, & on account of his having acted openly in its support in the county of West Chester, he became one of the first objects of revenge; & so early as April 1775, a friend sending his son to acquaint him that a body of New England troops then at Rye, 15 miles from his house, intended to seize him & Isaac Wilkins Esq*", member for West Chester that very night, they were obliged to retire for some time. Mr. Wilkins did not return home, but soon embarked for England : ^ That after some time your Memo- rialist hearing of no further threat ventured home, & continued unmolested, though occasionally reviled by particular people for not paying obedience to the order of Congress enjoining fast days &c: until the iQth of Nov^ 1775, when an armed force of 100 horsemen came from Connecticut to his House, & not finding him at home they beat his children to oblige them to tell where their father was — which not succeeding they searched the neighbourhood and took him from his school, & with much abusive language carried him in great triumph to 5. In referring to the retirement of the Memorialist to escape cap- ture by the troops at Rye, Dr. Beardsley in his life of Bishop Seabury (p. 31, n.) gives the following quotation from Bolton's History of the Church in West Chester County (p. 86, ed. 1855). "In the old Wilkins Mansion on Castle Hill Neck, West Chester, is still shown the place where Drs. Cooper, Chandler, and Seabury man- aged to secrete themselves for some time, notwithstanding the most minute and persevering search was made for them ; so ingeniously contrived was the place of their concealment in and about the old- fashioned chimney. Food was conveyed to them through a trap-door in the floor." POLITICAL EXPERIENCES. 14I New Haven, 70 miles distant, where he was paraded through most of the streets, & their success celebrated by firing of Cannon &c: That at New Haven he was confined under a military guard & keepers for six weeks, during which time they endeavoured to fix the publication oi A. W. Farmers pamphlets on him; which failing, & some of the principal people in that country disapproving their conduct, your Me- morialist was permitted to return home ; ^ where he remained in tolerable quiet till the next Spring; That then he suflFered much both from insults and the loss of property, by the parties of recruits who were almost daily passing through his Parish to New York, to form that Army which was afterwards de- feated on Long Island. And though your Memorialist lived two miles out of their way, they would come and take up 6. A letter from the President of the Provincial Congress of New- York to the Governor of Connecticut, demanding his " immediate discharge," and dated the 12th of December, was read before the Lower House of the Assembly, and six of its members, with Dr. Wm. Samuel Johnson, of the Upper House, were appointed to take it into consid- eration and report how it should be answered. The Memorial of Mr. Seabury was subsequently referred to the same Committee, and, after due deliberation, they recommended as expedient and proper that all parties concerned in the matter of it " be heard by themselves or coun- sel before both Houses of Assembly," and the question being put in the Lower House on accepting the report, it was decided in the neg- ative. The Memorialist, however, was speedily released from his confine- ment, and he returned to his family after Christmas, arriving in West Chester on the 2d of January. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 42, 43- The Memorial here referred to by Dr. Beardsley was addressed by Mr. Seabury, December 20, 1775, "to the General Assembly of the Governor and Company of the Colony of Connecticut." It is printed in full by Dr. Beardsley in his Life, pp. 36-42, from the Bishop's draft in my possession. It is extremely full and interesting in regard to the episode alluded to in the Memorial to the Commissioners in the present text, but it seems unnecessary to reproduce it here. W. J. S. 142 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. their quarters at his house every two or three nights & seldom quitted while they found anything- to eat or drink: That on these occasions he has been often so threatened that afraid to go to bed, while they were in his house, he has walked his room all night after fastening his door & armed himself in the best manner he could: That matters at last became so bad that your Memorialist was obliged to leave his house when- ever he heard of any parties being in the neighbourhood, & go to some friend's house till the dusk of the evening, and then go where he designed to lodge that night, without letting any person, not even his own family, know where he was ; & scarce ever venturing to sleep two nights successively in the same place. This continued three months, when the victory ob- tained by the Royal army at Brooklyn on the 27th of August 1776 gave him an opportunity of taking refuge with them which he did on the first of Sept'". : That your Memorialist continued with the Army on Long Island & during the progress thro' W. C. County eight weeks, endeavouring to procure the best intelligence & guides he could, & flatters himself that his services were not altogether useless : That your Memorialist begs leave further to observe that while he was with the Army on Long Island there were 20 American dragoons quartered at his house; That everything on the glebe was destroyed, Hay, Corn &c : & when they went away, his horses, cattle & swine were driven off, to the value of at least 50 i sterling — That in November, when the Royal Army left the county of West Chester, your Memorialist was obliged to remove his family to New York for safety; and he was then so reduced in his circumstances as to be obliged to subsist his family on credit, & on some charitable donations from this Country to the suffering Clergy in America : "^ 7. The following extract from a letter of the Revd. Dr. T. B. POLITICAL EXPERIENCES. 143 That in June 1777, he was appointed by Sir WilHam Howe Chaplain to the Provincial Hospital at New York; and in January 1778 Chaplain to the Kings Amer". Reg^ both which appointments he enjoyed till he left New York, which was on the 7th of June last: That he always supposed these emoluments to be as much as he had a right to expect from Government, & should still be satisfied & contented with them were they to continue: But that the Chaplaincy of the Provincial Hospital he supposes has ceased, & that the King's Amer". Reg*, is or will soon be reduced ; and it has been represented to him as an uncertainty whether he shall even enjoy the half pay of that Reg^ : That he never has received any Advantage from his Parish since he left it, but that there was then & is still due to him a con- siderable arrearage of salary. That it is with great reluctance & many awkward sensations Chandler, dated London, April 8, 1776, is of interest as showing the source and direction of the channel of benevolence here referred to, and also, incidentally, as throwing light upon the character and merits of the Memorialist to whom it had been addressed some time before the receipt of the benefaction which he mentions : " I was much surprised to find that your true character was not better known. This must have been greatly owing to your own neg- lect; as I cannot find that you have any correspondent here but the Secretary of the Society, or that you have ever gone farther with him than to give, at proper periods, the necessary information con- cerning your Mission, You have suffered greatly by this neglect, as perhaps I may explain to you on some future occasion. It has been the unceasing endeavor of Dr. Cooper and myself, as well as of some others, to place your worth and importance in a proper light. I co-operated with Dr. Cooper, and was to the full as instrumental as he, in procuring for you the Chaplaincy of the Man of War, v.^hich I have over and over insisted upon as a reward far inadequate to your merit. In what follows I claim a far greater share than Cooper, not because he is less your friend, but because he has been chiefly at Ox- ford, or out of the way. 144 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. that your Memorialist has said so much of himself: but he hopes that candour will apologize for him, especially when it is considered that he is a stranger, unconnected & unsupported in this Country — having nobody to solicit or speak for him ; and no certain support to depend upon; being now in the de- cline of life & having a family of six children, five of whom still look to him for subsistence, & with whom he has been obliged to leave almost all the money he could command for their support; until he could know what was to become of himself : That therefore your Memorialist humbly prays that the above mentioned exertions, services, sufferings, and profes- sional losses in the cause of government may be taken into consideration, and that such compensation may be allowed to him as his case shall be found to deserve. No. 393 Oxford street Oct. 20. 1783." With this copy of his Memorial which Dr. Seabury pre- " After much pains taken in soliciting for a public subscription to relieve the American Clergy, who are suffering for their loyalty, I succeeded in the scheme, which was originally mine, but readily adopted by many others. A subscription at length was brought for- ward under the patronage of the Archbishops and Bishops, with the approbation of his Majesty, and upwards of £4,000 has been raised by it. It was the opinion of the Bishop of London that those who had been assisted with Chaplaincies, &c., were not entitled to shares in the distribution of this money. I allowed that the observation might hold in general, but insisted, over and over, upon some excep- tions, when I always instanced in You. On Saturday last the Bishops met to make distribution of part of the money, when I was desired to attend their Lordships; Cooper again was out of the way. No Clergyman but Cooke was with me. As this was the first distribution it was agreed, in the first place, that no share then granted, should exceed £50. In this business afterwards my recommendation was the sole direction of their Lordships. On my recommending You, in POLITICAL EXPERIENCES. 145 served for his own use, were preserved also copies in his own handwriting of the certificates given by Drs. Cooper and Chandler as to his authorship of the Farmer pamphlets to which he had referred in substantiation of his statements. Dr. Cooper certifies (September 29, 1783) that Dr. Seabury '' did, from the beginning of the Rebellion, exert himself in favour of the British Government, in the most open and avowed manner, more particularly by writing several pam- phlets under the signature of A. W. Farmer, calculated to do the most essential service to his King and this Country;" and Dr. Chandler certifies (October 31, 1783), "I have been in- tim^ately acquainted with the said Dr. Seabury, from the time of his first settling in New Brunswick in 1754, and that I know him to have always been, and to be, inflexibly attached to his Majesty's person & government, and to our excellent Constitu- tion both in Church & State. I do also certify, that he wrote all the pieces and pamphlets of which in his Memorial he claims to have been the author — that he was associated with Dr. Inglis and me, for the purposes he mentions — and that he was an able and active assistant, always willing to take his full share in the combat with those dangerous & false princi- ples, as well as assertions, which, for several years before the breaking out of the late rebellion, were zealously propagated in the colonies ; on which account he was particularly obnox- ious to those, who were disaffected to the British Govern- ment." proper terms, £50 was readily granted you; and when I observed upon it that your title still held good for more, no one objected to it; so that I doubt not I shall be able to get you another £50 in due season. I have obtained £50 for Babcock, the same sum for poor Avery, for Beardsley, for Dibblee, for old Mr. Beach, Sayre, Mans- field, Hubbard, Scovil, Rich: Clarke, Andrews, Tyler, Fogg, Jarvis, Townsend, Bostwick, &c. ; and £40 each, for Mr. Browne of Newark, Ab: Beach, Panton, Frazer, Ogden, &c:— " 146 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. One can hardly fail, I think, from the consideration of the foregoing memorial to gain a good general knowledge of the experience which Dr. Seabury had undergone in the period before the War, and a sufficiently clear insight into his char- acter and circumstances during that time. Very little further perhaps need be added as to this part of the story ; and with a brief reference to certain particulars we may conclude the present chapter, and pass in the next to some consideration of the political papers which were so important a part of his life, and the results of which upon his career were so notable. Among his letters to the Society about this period there is one dated December 29, 1776, cited by Dr. Beardsley,^ which gives an account of some matters referred to in the Memorial of later years, and, as was natural, with somewhat greater par- ticularity; and gives also the history of the termination of his active connection with St. Peter's Church, which I believe ap- pears nowhere else, and for these reasons it may be useful to quote part of that letter here. Referring to the Farmer Pamphlets, he says : " These were attributed to me, and were the principal reason of my being carried into Connecticut last year. If I would have disavowed these publications I should have been set at liberty in a few days ; but as I refused to declare whether I were, or were not, the author, they kept me till they sent to New York and New London, and wherever they could hear of a journeyman printer who had wrought for Mr. Rivington at the time when these pamphlets were published, and had them examined; but find- ing no sufficient proof, upon my putting in a Memorial to the General Assembly at Connecticut, the gang who took me prisoner thought proper to withdraw their guard and let me return. I continued tolerably quiet at home for a few weeks, till after the King's troops evacuated Boston, when, the rebel 8. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 45. POLITICAL EXPERIENCES. 147 army passing from thence to New York, bodies of them, con- sisting of twenty or thirty men, would, every day or two, sometimes two or three times a day, come through West Chester, though five miles out of their way, and never failed to stop at my house, I believe only for the malicious pleasure of insulting me by reviling the King, the Parliament, Lord North, the Church, the bishops, the clergy, and the Society, and, above all, that vilest of all miscreants, A. W. Farmer. One would give one hundred dollars to know who he was, that he might plunge his bayonet into his heart; Another would crawl fifty miles to see him roasted; but, happily for the Farmer it was not in the power of any person in America to expose him. This continued about a month. Matters then became pretty quiet, till they got intelligence that General Howe was coming to New York. Independency was then declared by the grand Congress at Philadelphia ; and the petty Congress at New York published an edict, making it death to aid, abet, support, assist, or comfort the king, or any of his forces, servants, or friends. Till this time I had kept the Church open. About fifty armed men were now sent into my neighbourhood. I was now in a critical situation. If I prayed for the King the least I could expect was to be sent into New England; probably something worse, as no clergyman on the continent was so obnoxious to them. If I went to church and omitted praying for the king, it would not only be a breach of my duty, but in some degree countenancing their rebellion, and supporting that independency which they had declared. As the least culpable course I determined not to go to church, and ordered the sexton, on Sunday morning to tell any person who should inquire, that till I could pray for the king, and do my duty according to the rubric and canons, there would be neither prayers nor sermons. About half a dozen of my par- ishioners and a dozen rebel soldiers came to the church. The 148 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. rest of the people in a general way, declared that they would not go to church till their minister was at Hberty to pray for the king." With regard to the nature of his influence among his own people and neighbours, and their respect for him, it is inter- esting to note what he says in another letter. *' I must ob- serve that but few of my congregation are engaged in the rebellion. The New England rebels used frequently to ob- serve as an argument against me, that the nearer they came to West Chester the fewer friends they found to American lib- erty, — that is to rebellion; and, in justice to the rebels of East and West Chester, I must say that none of them ever offered me any insult or attempted to do me any injury that I. know of." ^ In the autumn of 1777, being then within the British lines in New York, and serving the Provincial Hospital as Chaplain under the appointment of Sir William Howe, he appears to have meditated a return to his Parish, but on visiting it found it unsafe to remain, and then petitioned the Society for leave to remove to Staten Island ; and the Society consenting, prom- ised the continuance of his stipend of £50 as missionary till the existing disturbances should cease.^^ He did not, however, find it practicable to reside on Staten Island ; though, residing in New York, he continued to serve the mission there until the conclusion of the War. We find him then during his settle- ment in New York, engaged in the discharge of his Ministry in three capacities; as Missionary at Staten Island, as Chap- lain to the Provincial Hospital, and, after 1778, Chaplain to the King's American Regiment. What his income was from the Hospital Chaplaincy I do not know. From the other Chaplaincy and from the Society he derived £150 a year; and in order to the better support of his family he engaged also in 9. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 49. 10. Ibid., p. 53. POLITICAL EXPERIENCES. 149 the practice of medicine in New York, as he had done from time to time elsewhere ever since his study in Edinburgh, which has been noted. His only publications during this period appear to have been a sermon preached in his capacity as Regimental Chap- lain in 1779, from the text " Fear God, Honour the King," before Governor Tryon, at whose request it was published; and a sermon preached before the Grand and other Lodges of Free-Masons, of which Fraternity he was a member, at St. Paul's Chapel, New York, on the Anniversary of St. John the Evangelist 1782, printed in 1783. CHAPTER XL A WESTCHESTER FARMER. 1774. IT is one of the inconveniences of writing under an as- sumed name, that in course of time it often becomes impossible to determine the authorship of matter pro- duced. The fashion of thus writing has been largely followed, and in the period with which we are concerned was extensively prevalent; and of course it is a fashion which sometimes has great advantages. Besides the consideration of prudence, which in times of unusual public excitement is important, there is something in the very impersonality of a writer which gives him a certain additional influence. To nothing else, very often, can one attribute the unquestioning acceptance of Edi- torial matter in the overflowing current of newspapers and magazines which he encounters in his daily life. Certainly such matter in most cases derives its influence not so much from its intrinsic merit, as from its awe inspiring association with a power which because it is invisible is assumed to possess pretty much all the other attributes of Deity: insomuch that the average man finds it much easier to question the authority of his Bible, than to doubt the infallibility of the Editor of his daily paper. The fact is that the moment a man speaks in his own name, he loses all claim to influence other than that which comes from the weight of his own merit — and most of us, unhappily, hardly find that a sufficient dependence. 150 A WESTCHESTER FARMER. IS^ Whether such a consciousness suffused the mind of that multiform personality, Timothy Tickle Esq^., who has been mentioned in the foregoing pages, one cannot determine. In fact the association of various writers under that name did give to their various productions a sort of Editorial sanction which comported well with the title of the periodical called " A Whip for the American Whig," designed to correct the errors of the paper so named, which also was itself energized by a combination of unknown writers. These papers were, on both sides, as has been before remarked, contributed to certain Journals of the day, and though a reference to the files of those Journals might reveal the sentiments of the contributors during the period covered by them there would be nothing to determine their personal authorship; so that as to all this phase of the political experience of the New Brunswick Mis- sionary and the Jamaica or West Chester Rector there seems to be nothing to identify him with any particular paper, whether before or after the birth of the " Whip for the Amer- ican Whig." Probably, even were the case otherwise, it would hardly be worth while to give to these papers any particular consideration; since notwithstanding the interest which they were doubtless capable of inspiring at the time, it is natural to suppose that they related chiefly to anticipations of the probable effects of measures, so long since abandoned or ac- complished that it is matter of very little moment what men felt in the apprehension of them. With regard to the Farmer pamphlets the case seems to be somewhat different ; partly because they were more deliberate and studied productions ; and partly because they are devoted to a considerable extent to the discussion rather of principles than of mere measures. And the fact that they aroused so very much interest as they did at the time, and as they have ever since inspired among those who have known something of their history, if not of their contents, seems to make some 152 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. account of them not only desirable but necessary in the present undertaking. The first of these pamphlets, entitled " Free thoughts on the Proceedings of the continental Congress, held at Philadel- phia, Sept. 5. 1774," and printed in that year, is marked on the title page as " By a Farmer." The other two, viz. " The Congress Canvassed, or an Examination into the conduct of the Delegates at their Grand Convention, held in Philadelphia, Sept. I. 1774, Addressed to the Merchants of New York," and " A View of the controversy between Great Britain and her colonies," were marked as " By A. W. Farmer." The nom de plume of a Farmer is said to have been used by Mr. Dickinson, perhaps it was by others; and possibly the subse- quent thought of this may have induced the writer of the present series to make his signature in the second and third papers more specific than that of the first, and to add the initial W — indicating West Chester, so as to distinguish his papers from those of others. At any rate the difference ex- ists. The first of these pamphlets, the " Free thoughts," elicited a reply entitled " A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress," and signed, " A Friend to America," by the then youthful collegian, Alexander Hamilton;^ which the Farmer appears to have seen after he had finished his second pamphlet " The Congress Canvassed " but before it was issued ; as he adds to it a note, dated December 16, 1774, saying that he has seen the '' Full Vindication " by " A Friend to America," in answer to the ** Free Thoughts," and that if its author has any teeth left he may find here another file at his service, and promising a reply to his answer within ten days ; a promise ful- filled with somewhat more than punctuality by the appearance of the third pamphlet, " A View of the controversy," dated I. Shea's Life and Epoch of Alexander Hamilton, pp. 253-258. A WESTCHESTER FARMER. 153 December 24, 1774. To this Hamilton rejoined in a pam- phlet entitled the Farmer refuted, marked as of 1775, but with no more specific date, which closed the series. Between Jan- uary and April of 1775, the Farmer appears to have been busily engaged in the effort to influence the action of the Colonial Assembly of New York which in that period was holding its last session; and after the resort to arms in the battle of Lexington the war of pamphlets was no longer to any purpose. Had it even been so, the popular rage against the Farmer prevented his regular residence at home during the summer of that year, and in the following November he was kidnapped by Sears, who also sacked the printing house of Rivington, from which both sides of the series had been issued: and thus (in very literal sense so far as type was con- cerned), destroyed the fount of the controversy. These pamphlets of the Farmer comprise together nearly one hundred closely printed octavo pages ; and the pamphlets of Hamilton on the other side, about as many more. It would be difficult to give a just idea of the controversy without re- printing them, which would be too much of a digression ; and any really satisfactory analysis of them would be tedious as well as digressive, since they range over pretty much all the matters in dispute between the Mother Country and the Col- onies ; and our object is not so much to enlarge upon that dis- pute, as it is to show how the Farmer stood towards it; and, as illustrative of his personal qualities, to show how he han- dled it in this instance. For this purpose the following ex- tracts from his statements may suffice: In the " Free Thoughts," he says (p. 4) : *' My first business shall be to point out to you some of the consequences that will probably follow from the Non-Importa- tion, Non-Exportation, and non-consumption agreements which they have adopted, and which they have ordered to be 154 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. enforced in the most arbitrary manner, and under the severest penalties." This pamphlet has chiefly in view the practical questions thus indicated, which the Farmer argues at some length. The consequences of these measures, he says, may be discord, leading to mobs and riots in England, Ireland and the West Indies — at least the Congress intended this in some degree : " They intend to distress the manufacturers in Great Britain by depriving them of employment — to distress the inhabitants of Ireland by depriving them of flax seed and of a vent for their linens — to distress the West India people by withholding provisions and lumber from them, and by stopping the market for their produce. And they hope by these means to force them all to join their clamors with ours, to get the acts complained of repealed. This was the undoubted desire of the Congress when their agreements were framed, and this is the avowed design of their warm supporters and partisans in common conversation. But where is the justice, where is the policy of this procedure?" (p. 5). And again (p. 7) : " When a trading people carelessly neg- lect, or wilfully give up any branch of their trade, it is seldom in their power to recover it. Should the Irish turn their trade for flax seed to Quebec; and the West Indians get their flour, horses, etc., from thence, or other places ; the loss to the farm- ers of this Province would be immense. The last non-impor- tation scheme turned the Indian trade from New York down the river St. Lawrence ; we are now repeating, with regard to our flour and flax seed, the same blunder we then committed with regard to the Indian trade. The consequence, however, will be much worse. The loss of the Indian trade was a loss to the merchants only ; but the loss of the flax seed trade will be a loss to every farmer in the Province ; and a loss which he will severely feel." (p. 10) " But no argument is like matter of fact. You A WESTCHESTER FARMER. 155 have had one trial of a non-importation agreement some years ago. Pray how did you Hke it? Were the prices of goods raised on you then? You know they were. What remedy had you? A good Christian remedy, indeed, but a hard one — patience — and patience only. The honor of the merchants gave you no relief — confound their honor — it obliged me — it obliged many of you, to take old motheaten cloths that had lain rotting in the shops for years, and to pay a monstrous price for them." (p. 15) " But it is said that all legal processes are to be stopped, except in criminal cases — that is to say, the lower classes of people are to be deprived of their daily bread by being thrown out of employment by the non-exportation agree- ment; to prevent starving, many of them will be tempted to steal; if they steal they are to be hanged. The dishonest fel- low, who owes money, may by refusing payment, ruin his creditor; but there is no remedy, no process is to be issued against him. This may be justice, but it looks so much like cruelty that a man of a humane heart would be more apt to call it by the latter than by the former name. But pray by whose authority are the courts of justice to be shut up in all civil cases? Who shall dare to stop the courts of justice?" P. 16: ''Rouse my friends, rouse from your stupid leth- argy. Mark the men who shall dare to impede the courts of justice. Brand them as the infamous betrayers of the rights of their country. The grand security of the property, the liberty, the lives of Englishmen consists in the due ad- ministration of justice. When the courts are duly attended to and fairly conducted, our property is safe. As soon as they are shut, everything is precarious; for neither property nor liberty have any foundation to stand upon. Tell me not of Delegates, Congresses, Committees, Riots, Mobs, Insurrec- tions, Associations — a plague on them all. Give me the steady, uniform, unbiassed influence of the courts of justice. 156 MEMOIR OF lUSIIOP SEABURY. I have been happy under their prelection, and I trust in God I shall be so again.'' v. 1/ : '' Let us now attend a little to the non-consumption agreement, which the Congress in their association, have im- posed upon us. After the first of March we are not to pur- chase or use any East India tea whatsoever; nor any goods, wares, or merchandise from Great Britain or Ireland, im- ported after the first day of December next ; nor any molasses, syrups, etc., from the British plantations in the West Indies, or from Dominica; nor wine from Madeira, or the Western Islands ; nor foreign indigo. Will you submit to this slavish regulation ? You must. Our sovereign lords and masters, the high and mighty Delegates, in Grand Continental Congress assembled, have ordered and directed it. They have directed the Committees in the respective Colonies to establish such further regulations as they may think proper, for carrying their association of which this non-consumption agreement is a part, into Execution. Mr. of New York, under the authority of their high mightiness, the Delegates, by, and with the advice of his Privy Council, the Committee of New York, hath issued his mandate, bearing date November 7th 1774, recommending it to the freeholders and freemen to assemble on the 1 8th of November, to choose eight persons out of every ward to be a committee to carry the Association of the Congress into execution. The business of the Committee so chosen is to be, to inspect the conduct of the inhabitants, and see whether they violate the association. Among other things whether they drink any tea or wine in their families, after the first of March; or wear any British or Irish manufactures, or use any English molasses, etc. — If they do, their names are to be published in the Gazette, that they may be publicly knozvn and universally contemned as foes to the Rights of British America and enemies of American liberty. And then the parties of the said Association will respectively break off A WESTCHESTER FARMER. 157 all dealings with him or her. In plain English, they shall be considered as outlaws, unworthy of the protection of civil society, and delivered over to the vengeance of a lawless out- rageous mob, to be tarred, feathered, hanged, drawn, quar- tered, and burnt. O rare American freedom ! " P. i8: "Will you be instrumental in bringing the most abject slavery upon yourselves? Will you choose such com- mittees? Will you submit to them should they be chosen by the weak, foolish, turbulent part of the country people? Do as you please : but by Him that made me, I will not. No, if I must be enslaved, let it be by a King at least, and not by a parcel of upstart, lawless committee-men. If I must be de- voured, let me be devoured by the jaws of a lion, and not gnawed to death by rats and vermin." Dr. Beardsley is rather apologetic for this passage (as in- deed he seems minded to be about the whole political position of his subject) marking it as " rather in the style of a violent partisan than of a discreet and godly Clergyman." ^ But the passage, beside that it is not without rhetorical merit as a fair piece of invective, has a positive historical value in the evidence which it indirectly furnishes of the mode by which the public opinion of the day was being manufactured, and of the fact that usurped power never brooks the opposition of lawful right. And so far from the language of the Farmer being taken as evidence of partisanship, it ought rather to be taken as a manly assertion of the right to liberty conserved by law, which no citizen of the United States should be ashamed to echo. " Did you choose your Supervisors," continues the Farmer (p. i8), " for the purpose of enslaving you? What right have they to fix up advertisements to call you together for a very different purpose from that for which they were elected ? Are 2. Beardslcy's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 34. 158 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. our Supervisors our masters? And should half a dozen fool- ish people meet together again in consequence of their adver- tisements, and choose themselves to be a committee, as they did in many districts in the affair of choosing Delegates, are we obliged to submit to such a Committee? You ought, my friends, to assert your ov^n freedom. Should such another attempt be made upon you, assemble yourselves together; tell your Supervisor that he has exceeded his commission; that you will have no such committees; that you are Englishmen, and will maintain your rights and privileges, and will eat, drink, and wear whatever the public laws of your country permit, without asking leave of any illegal, tyrannical Con- gress or Committee on earth. But, however, as I said before, do as you please; if you like it better, choose your committee, or suffer it to be chosen by half a dozen fools in your neighborhood — open your doors to them — let them examine your tea canisters and molasses jugs, and your wives' and daughters' petty-coats — bow and cringe, and tremble, and quake — fall down and worship our Sovereign Lord the Mob. But I repeat it, by H — n, I will not. No, my house is my castle; as such I will consider it, as such I will defend it, while I have breath. No king's officer shall enter it without my permission unless supported by a warrant from a magistrate. And shall my house be en- tered, and my mode of living inquired into by a domineering committee-man? Before / submit, I will die; live you, and be slaves." The Farmer's antagonist, in prophetic sympathy with his biographer of the next century, is pained by his indulgence in " strong language :" and it is amusing to observe the Farmer's retort, in his " View of the controversy," etc., (p. 34): " You give me a hint about swearing. I have profited by it, and intend never to swear more. I wish you would take a A WESTCHESTER FARMER. 1 59 hint about fibbing. It is rather a meaner quaHty than that of rapping out a little now and then. P. 33. Almost every paragraph contains half a dozen fibs. Let me try the first, as it is most handy. You say that you * love to speak the truth/ one; that you ' scorn to prejudice the farmers in favor of what you have to say/ two; ' by taking upon you a fictitious character/ three; for you subscribe yourself a friend to America; that I am not in reality a * farmer/ four; but * some ministerial emissary/ five; * that has assumed the name to deceive/ six; the very next words con- tain another; but I will stop, or I shall betray my inability to enumerate more than nine fingers." P. 34 : " Your next attempt is upon the imaginations of the farmers. You endeavor to fright them from obeying the Parliament, by representing to them the danger of having taxes laid upon their tables, and chairs, and platters, and dishes, and knives, and forks, and everything else — and " even every kiss their daughters received from their sweet- hearts," and that you say, would soon ruin them. No reflec- tions, Sir, upon farmer's daughters; . . . But I have a scheme worth all this table, and chair, and kiss taxing. I thought of it last night, and I have a violent inclination to write to Lord North about it by the very next packet. It pleases me hugely, and I think must please his Lordship, as it would infallibly enable him to pay the annual interest of the national debt, and I believe to sink principal and all in fourteen years. It is no more than a moderate tax of fourpence a hundred upon all the fibs, falsehoods, and misrepresentations of you and your party, in England and America." But, more seriously, the greater part of the " Free Thoughts," as has been noted, consists of a consideration of the probable consequences of the measures of Congress, as to which there was certainly room for a fair difference of opin- l6o MEMOIR OF r.ISIIOr SKABURY. ion; with briefer reference to the questions of principle at stake in the controversy. " The Congress Canvassed," ad- dressed to the Merchants of New York; and the " View of the Controversy " addressed to the " Friend to America," who had answered the " Free thoughts," discuss, for the most part, questions of principle more fully, and are written on the whole in more careful style and vvdth graver tone. But throughout them all the object is manifestly the defence of a Constitutional system, and not partisanship for the king, min- istry, or even Parliament. As to the question, for example, which has been already suggested, whether the Congress were truly representative of the people, or owed their apparently representative character in considerable measure to the skilful manipulation of over- whelming minorities, the Farmer observes in " The Congress Canvassed," (p. 8) : " Even in this province many undue and unfair advantages were taken. — You had no right to dictate to the counties in what manner they should proceed. You had no right to sup- pose that those districts or those people who did not assemble were in your favor. The contrary ought to have been sup- posed and you ought to have considered those people and districts who did not assemble as not choosing to have any Delegates in Congress at all. The people of your city can easily assemble; they have but a short walk to the City Hall or coffee-house. But is not so easy to assemble the people of a country district. Besides, it is well known by all those who know anything of human nature, that those people who are fond of innovations in government, and of rendering themselves conspicuous in their neighbourhood, would be most likely to assemble on such an occasion. And so it accord- ingly happened ; for it is notorious that in some districts only three or four met and chose themselves to be a committee on this most important occasion. So that taking the whole A WESTCHESTER FARMER. l6l Province together, I am confident your delegates had not the voice of an hundredth part of the people in their favor. You may say that the people might have assembled; and if they did not their silence was to be taken for their consent. Not so fast, gentlemen. That they might have assembled, I know, but had your committee, or their own Supervisors, any right to call them together? Were they under any obligations to obey such notifications as a Supervisor's advertisement founded on the authority of a New York Committee? You know they were not, and because they did not choose to obey it, must their rights and privileges be given up to be torn and mangled and trampled on by an enthusiastic Congress ? " And further, in anticipation of the argument that " the Delegates from several of the governments were appointed by their Assemblies; by the true and legal representatives of the people ; and therefore were the true and legal Delegates of the people :" (P. lo) " Nor is it clear to me that the Legislature of any province have a power of appointing Delegates to such a Congress as lately met at Philadelphia. I am certain no provincial legislature can give them such powers as were lately exercised at Philadelphia. The legislative authority of any province cannot extend further than the province extends. None of its acts are binding one inch beyond its limits. How then can it give authority to a few persons, to meet other persons, from other provinces, to make rules and laws for the whole continent ? ^ In such a case the Carolinas, Virginia, 3. Observe that the Farmer objects not to the right of representa- tives of one province to agree with representatives of other provinces upon measures which should have the force of law for all associated in the common agreement — which is the Federal idea that later produced the United States Constitution: but that his objection is to the right of any number of provincial representatives to agree together in the imposition of laws to be binding on such provinces as were not included in that agreement — which is quite a different proposition. l62 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Maryland, and the four New England States, might make laws to bind Philadelphia, New Jersey, and New York; that is — they might make laws whose operation should extend further than the authority by which they were enacted — ex- tended. Before such a mode of legislation can take place, the Constitution of our Colonies must be subverted, and their present independency on each other must be annihilated." And then as to the catchword of the day, '* No taxation without representation :" (P. i8) : " But what right had the Congress to give what did not belong to them ? To give your money . . . with- out your consent? But I forget myself — they first pro- claimed themselves your representatives, and then of course they had an undoubted, legal, constitutional right to all your substance. For you know, gentlemen, that representation and taxation go together. God and Nature hath joined them. But how, on this principle you can keep your money out of the harpy claws of the Congress, I cannot conceive. . . . I know not how you will help yourselves, unless you have prudence enough to recur to the first principles of govern- ment : And then you will find that legislation and taxation go together; and that no government ever yet had a being where they were divided." The point here touched the Farmer refers to again in his reply to his adversary in the " View of the Controversy :" (P. lo) "The position that we are bound by no laws to which we have not consented either by ourselves, or our rep- resentatives, is a novel position, unsupported by any authori- tative record of the British Constitution, ancient or modern. It is republican in its very nature, and tends to the utter subversion of the English Monarchy. This position has arisen from an artful change of terms. To say that an Englishman is not bound by any laws but those to which the representatives of the nation have given A WESTCHESTER FARMER. 163 their consent, is to say what is true; but to say that an Eng- lishman is bound by no laws but those to which he hath con- sented in person, or by his representatives, is saying what never was true, and never can be true. A great part of the people of England have no vote in the choice of representa- tives, and therefore are governed by laws to which they never consented either by themselves or by their representatives." It is a curious commentary on the natural difficulty of seeing ourselves as others see us, and the common propensity to dis- cover the entire rectitude in ourselves of some course which we have considered extremely wrong in others, that in the very fore front of the United States Constitution (Art. I. Sec. 2) the proviso was inserted excluding from the number of those who were in theory represented, two-fifths of a certain class of persons ; while the whole of that class of persons (i. e., the slaves), and many other persons besides (i. e., all the women), were, in practice, obliged to obey laws to which they never assented either in person or by representatives of their own choice: and though the slaves be gone, and the women may by and by acquire the right to vote, there will still always be the alien who is governed without his own consent until he is naturalized — unless he be previously de- ported for objectionable sentiments, or excluded for the benefit of the labor market — and thus the position will remain true in this Country as in England, that many are governed with- out their consent, either personally or representatively : not to speak of the right of the States to prescribe the qualifications of electors, — whereby the tinge of a man's colour, or the inability of his grandfather to read, may arbitrarily reduce him to the position of being governed without being repre- sented. And with reference to the application of his prin- ciple of legislation and taxation going together, instead of representation and taxation, the Farmer holds language, which states doctrine applied by the Government of the United 164 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Stales on exactly the same foundation of reason as that by which he justified the government of the Colonies by Eng- land. In the " View of the Controversy," he says : (P. 9) *'To suppose a part of the British dominions which is not subject to the power of the British Legislature, is no better sense than to suppose a country at one and the same time to be and not to be a part of the British dominions. If therefore the colony of New York be a part of the British dominions, the colony of New York is subject, and dependent on the supreme legislative authority of Great Britain. Legis- lation is not an inherent right in the Colonies. Many Colonies have been established and subsisted long without it. The Roman Colonies had no legislative authority. It was not till the later period of the Republic that the privileges of Roman citizens, among which that of voting in the assemblies of the people at Rome was a principal one, were extended to the inhabitants of Italy. All the laws of the Empire were en- acted at Rome. Neither their colonies nor conquered coun- tries had anything to do with legislation." Compare Chancellor Kent (Comm., L, 384 n.) : " The Government of the United States, which can law- fully acquire territory by conquest or treaty, must, as an inevitable consequence, possess the power to govern it. The Territories must be under the dominion and jurisdiction of the Union, or be without any government; for the Territories do not, when acquired, become entitled to self-government, and they are not subject to the jurisdiction of any State. They fall under the power given to Congress by the Constitution." And Chief Justice Marshall (quoted by Kent, p. 385) re- marking upon the then distant prospect of the settlement of the country belonging to the United States west of the Rocky Mountains, says : " It would be a long time before it would be populous enough to be created into one or more independent States; A WESTCHESTER FARMER. 165 and in the meantime upon the doctrine taught by the acts of Congress, and even by the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court, the colonists would be in a state of the most complete subordination, and as dependent upon the will of Congress as the people of this country would have been upon the King and Parliament of Great Britain, if they could have sustained their claim to bind us in all cases whatsoever." If we substitute the Union and Congress for the King and Parliament, we may easily suppose the Farmer to have been as good an American (at least in respect to the Hamiltonized aspects of the American system) as Hamilton himself was. In fact, if they were not both disposed to take much the same view of Government, in general, as in some respects it would appear that they were; they certainly (at that time), were chiefly dominated by the one ruling idea of the preservation of the integrity of the British Empire. They differed (very plentifully) as to methods to be adopted for the desired end, and as to the principles which those methods involved, but they seem at heart to have been agreed as to this idea; for Hamilton does not yet appear to regard separation as the nec- essary consequence of independence; and the Farmer points out the possibility of preserving the independent constitutional right of the self-government of the Colonies in matters per- taining to their own individual interests ; while at the same time their rights and interests as a whole, in their inter- dependent relations with each other, might be under the care of the common government of Great Britain. In the " View of the Controversy," he says : P. 21 : "I imagine that if all internal taxation be vested in our own legislatures, and the right of regulating trade by duties, bounties, etc., be left in the power of Parliament, and also the right of enacting all general laws for the good of all the Colonies, . . . we shall have all the security for our rights, liberties, and property, which human policy can give i66 MEMOIR or r.isiiop seabury. us. The dependence of the Colonies on the Mother Country will be fixed on a firm foundation ; the sovereign authority of Parliament over all the dominions of the empire v^ill be es- tablished, and the Mother Country and all her colonies will be knit together in One Grand, Firm, and Compact Body." The foregoing extracts from these pamphlets may, it is hoped, suffice to give the reader some idea of the views of the Farmer, and his mode of presenting them, as well as perhaps to suggest to him the important nature of this controversy at the time, and thus make more intelligible both the interest of the Farmer in it, and the intense animosity which he stirred up against himself by his expression of that interest. In taking leave of the subject it seems to be proper that I should place on record a brief statement of the evidence that the Farmer and the subject of this Memoir were one and the same person ; since that fact has been sometimes denied. The authorship has been in some quarters persistently attributed to others, and the effort has even been made to prove that he himself denied his own authorship. It is not remarkable that papers, appearing in times of great public excitement, without the names of their proper authors, should be attributed to others than those authors. The famous letters of Junius, for example, were attributed to various per- sons: and the Farmer papers have had the same fate. By some they have been attributed to Wilkins ; by some to Cooper ; and certainly they were attributed to Seabury, as the experiences above recounted establish. But when it is said that such papers were attributed to one; and that they were not only attributed to another, but also shown by independent, competent and credible testimony to belong to another, there is no difficulty in determining between the two. That A. W. Farmer was Dr. Seabury, appears in the first place from the family tradition, coming to me from my father, who had it from his father, who was the son of the Bishop: A WESTCHESTER FARMER. 167 and, as part of that tradition, is to be considered the Bish- op's statement in his own handwriting, handed down with reverence in the same hne, and herein above printed. There is in addition to this the very distinct testimony of contem- poraneous witnesses. That of Drs. Cooper and Chandler has been already cited; and in addition to their statements there are very specific words published in a work by the Rev^. Jonathan Boucher, A. M., then Vicar of Epsom ; to whom Dr. Chandler refers in a letter printed by Beardsley * as " a loyal Clergyman from Maryland, the worthiest of the worthy, and one of the most confidential friends of Bishop Seabury.'* Mr. Boucher's Work here referred to is a collection of ser- mons, published in England, and entitled a " View of the Causes and consequences of the American Revolution." In a footnote to p. 556 of this volume, he thus gives his authority for a quotation : " See ' A View of the Controversy between Great Britain and Her Colonies, p. 25, by, by A. W. Farmer ;' that is, by the late Bishop Seabury of Connecticut." Referring to the pamphlet in the note here cited, Mr. Boucher continues : " The fate of the excellent author of this well written piece, and several others of not inferior merit under the same signa- ture, might well discourage any man who attempts to serve the public, if animated only by the hope of temporal rewards. When a Missionary in the service of the Society for Propa- gating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, while the revolt was still in its infancy, he wrote several seasonable pieces, adapted to the capacities of the people, under the assumed character of a Farmer. They were generally acknowledged to have done much good. But, being attributed to another gentleman, he alone derived any personal advantage from them ; for to him the British Government granted an handsome pension, whilst the 4. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 178. l68 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. real author never received a farthing. All the return that all his exertions procured for him, was imprisonment, persecu- tion and exile. By this country he was neglected and aban- doned, and by that which gave him birth disowned ; though a man of such transcendent abilities as would have been an ornament and a blessing to any country that had seen fit to patronize him." The fact that the government in its wisdom (or stupidity) had rewarded the wrong man, had been for some time under- stood by those who knew the true author; and even Mr. Boucher himself seems, on a previous occasion, to have de- rived some amusement in the contemplation of the irony of the situation. Writing to Dr. Seabury, July 30, 17S7, he alludes to the undeserving beneficiary in an enigmatical way, obscure to the reader now, but evidently assumed to be quite intelligible to his correspondent. The allusion is incidental, but the testimony is quite clear in its implication both as to the real author, and also as to the fraud which had been practiced against him. Taken, some day, in connection with some other reference, it may help to determine the identity of the fictitious claimant; but, even if not, the passage which contains it is interesting in itself, and also substantiates the statement already quoted from Boucher's book. It is as fol- lows: " Have you heard of the very extraordinary rumours that have lately been in circulation respecting White's famous ser- mons on Mahometanism, preached at the Bampton lecture? The story is curious. No sermons that have been lately pub- lished have been better received: even the Bp. of London's, and Blairs' were hardly more popular. The author has got very considerable preferment from the Abp. of Cant: and from the Chancellor, entirely, as is believed, on the score of these sermons. But, lo, it now turns out, that the mighty Professor was no more the real author of the sermons A WESTCHESTER FARMER. 169 that have been given to the world under his name, than our late friend of Punnical memory, was the real A. W, Farmer. There was a Mr. Badcock, a man of considerable learning, who not long since came over to us from the Presbyterians. He is lately dead : and it is said to appear evident from his papers, found by his Ex"., that he actually wrote the sermons in question; for which he was to be paid £500. Did A. W. make so good a bargain? Sic vos non vobis &c: and Ma- homet you see was not the only imposter." As to the denial of Dr. Seabury's authorship by himself, the sole foundation for that tale is, that being charged during his imprisonment at New Haven with having " written pamphlets and newspapers against the liberties of America," he em- bodies in his Memorial to the Connecticut Assembly above referred to, a plea of " not guilty ;" stating that he will be "ready to vindicate his innocence, as soon as he shall be re- stored to his liberty." A plea of not guilty to a charge which had been the principal reason of his arrest, and the admission of which would not unlikely have sacrificed his life to the vio- lence of a mob, is hardly equivalent to the denial of his authorship. And as to his being " ready to vindicate his inno- cence," it should be remembered that the charge was that he had written against "the liberties of America," which he could by no means admit. That the plea was not intended, or under- stood by his captors, to deny the authorship, appears from his allusion to the matter in his letter to the Society of December 29, 1776, above quoted. These pamphlets, he says, " were attributed to me, and were the principal reason of my being carried into Connecticut the last year. // / would have dis- avozved these publications I should have been set at liberty in a few days; but as I refused to declare whether I were, or were not, the Author, they kept me;" while as to the nature of the attentions which he would have been likely to receive if he had avowed them, the letter qivcs us some idea. 170 MEMOIR OF lUSIIOP SEABURY. And so, havinc^ discharged the (Uity of placing the evidence of this authorship plainly on record, we may leave these trou- blous times, and pass on to others — no less full of troubles indeed, but in the consideration of which the reader may have the advantage of finding the troubles to be of a somewhat dif- ferent kind. Even trouble is sometimes lessened by variety: or, at least, one sometimes learns under one trouble to regret that he has lost the last. CHAPTER XII. VAE VICTIS ! 1783. THE contemplation of a lost cause can hardly fail to be suggestive of melancholy reflections. Even if v^e imagine that the loss of that cause has been the gain of another which holds the promise of a higher benefit to the world, we cannot but feel a certain sympathetic sadness in the consciousness of the sorrow experienced by those who have nobly thrown themselves into the struggle for what they deemed the right; who have given their all for an idea which they had taken for better, for worse; and who have reahzed at last that they have nothing left but the thankful remem- brance of having devoted their best efforts to the frustration of the evils in which they have now found themselves irretriev- ably involved. The sense of loss too would undoubtedly be proportioned to the confidence which the advocates of such a cause had felt, not only in its justice, but also in its prospects of ultimate success. Throughout the war the adherents to the legitimate government, had been persuaded that the efforts of those who sought to overthrow it in this country, could with small dif- ficulty have been brought to naught, if the government had seriously and with determination set itself to the task of overcoming the resistance opposed to it; and those who had opportunities of forming an intelligent estimate of the situa- 171 172 MEMOIR OF r.ISIIOP SEARURY. tion were not slow to discern the fact that the strength of the colonial cause was largely due to the sympathy and support which it received, implicitly if not explicitly, from the oppo- sition in England, which systematically weakened the admin- istration, and so hampered its action as to destroy its efficiency. The history of the process has hardly yet been fully written, but enough perhaps has transpired to give good ground for the inference that the loss of the Colonies to England was its fault as well as its misfortune; and that the success of the Colonies was due not so much to their own capability, as to the Providential confusion of the counsels of their adversaries. At all events those who were then disposed to take that view of the case, could not but be prostrated with grief and dis- appointment — mingled sometimes with a more resentful feel- ing — at the utterly unexpected recognition of the Independ- ence of the thirteen States, and the settlement of the terms of a general peace in the Treaty signed November 30, 1782. As illustrative of the state of mind among the Loyalists both before and after the peace it may be worth while to refer to Dr. Chandler who had good opportunities for the formation of intelligent opinions ; and who, although he is rather addicted to strong language, may be supposed to have said only what a good many others felt, though they had less capacity for the expression of it. In a letter to Dr. Seabury from London, August 5, 1782, at which time he considered negotiations for peace at an end for the present, he says : " I am not surprised to find your late letters written in a querulous strain. To see such a cause disgraced, and such a country ruined, in so infamous a manner — to see the ab- surdity, pusilanimity and degeneracy of Britain co-operating with the diabolical madness of America — to see justice, hon- our, virtue and merit persecuted and insulted by those who ought to be their protectors, while everything that is vile, and VAE VICTIS! 173 wicked, and abominable, is encouraged and promoted — is in- deed beyond the bearing of mortal patience. I do not there- fore wonder that " the affection and attachment of the Loyalists within the British lines (to a Government that will suffer all this) are nearly expired." . . . The change in the INIinistry which you speak of, though disagreeable on some accounts, was, upon the whole, not un- pleasing to us here; for we plainly saw that nothing could be done, or was to be expected, under the old Ministry, well disposed as it was, while embarrassed and intimidated with such an opposition. We hoped that the new Ministers, having carried their point of getting into power, would see the neces- sity of adopting the principle of their predecessors with regard to the great American question, and that everything would be carried on with proper spirit. But we have been more than a little disappointed. It soon appeared that this Ministry was divided amongst themselves ; that part of the Cabinet was for giving up America, and everything else; that our exertions, where it was meant to carry on the war, were as languid as before; and that there was little prospect of their saving the nation. The death of Lord Rockingham, about a month ago, has produced another change, which I hope will be advantageous. Mr. Fox and most of his associates, are out of place; and Lord Shelburn, a warm and avowed enemy to the independ- ence of the Colonies, is the Minister, being at the head of the Treasury. ... It is thought that Administration will soon undergo a second refinement, without which the strength of the nation cannot be properly exerted. In the meanwhile, I am well assured that it is the fixed purpose of Lord Shelburn not to lose the Colonies/' Hopefulness in spite of the recognition of the evil political conditions arrayed against success, is the manifest tone of this letter written only three or four months before the peace. Af- 174 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. tcr that event, however, the tone is changed to one of disap- pointment bordering upon despair. On the 15th of March, 1783, Dr. Chandler writes a letter which I venture to think worthy of being presented entire, both on account of the light which it throws upon the nature of the influences which had been afifecting the treatment of the American question, and also on account of its intrinsic interest as one of the series of letters with which its author favoured the subject of this Memoir during the progress of the war; and which have been carefully preserved among his papers. Could his replies to Dr. Chandler's letters be recovered the complete correspondence would be of great value; but it is probable that they have not survived.^ Dr. Chandler's letters alone, however, are of rare interest by reason of his uncom- promising convictions and trenchant style ; as the reader may perhaps infer from the following specimen. " My Dear Sir This is to be delivered to you by Sir John St. Clair. This young Baronet is going over to America to look into his affairs there; he offers to take charge of any letters I have occasion to send, and wishes to be introduced to any of my friends. Will you therefore accept of my recommendation, and shew him any little civilities that may fall in your way. I do not insist upon your giving him a dinner ; yet it might not be amiss if he were permitted to drink. tea with your daughters. Your favour of Dec^. 17th by Mr. Cooke, did not reach me till the 25th of Feb : — I fully intended to acknowledge it by 5. In the hope that these letters might have passed into the pos- session of Bishop Hobart, who married a daughter of Dr. Chandler, and that they might have been preserved among his papers, I once asked the late Rev. Dr. Hobart, the son of the Bishop, concerning them; and learned from him that Bishop Hobart's papers had been destroyed by a fire in which his house was burned. VAE VICTIS! 175 the Packet, but I was, in spite of the most resolute exertions, and to my great mortification, disappointed. I would have written fully to you by this opportunity ; but Sir John, though he has talked for some time of his voyage, sets off at last un- expectedly, and it happens, as is frequently the case, that is in a comparative sense, that I must put you off with a hasty letter. When you wrote, little did you imagine, though your im- agination is a very fine one, and can make as daring excursions as any man's, that we had arrived at that state of outrageous insanity, which before this time you must have been informed of. At that time you could conceive of no character's being worse than that of Fox. His, I confess, is bad enough in all conscience ; but we are now fully convinced that he is a political Saint^ when compared with that infernal politician who was lately at the head of this nation. Fox has always been fair and open ; he would have given Independency to the Colonies, but he would not have given them the best part of Canada and Louisiana ; and he would have secured some tolerable terms for the Loyalists ; whereas in contradiction to all his professions and avowed principles, with the fullest evidence before him that the recovery of our just rights was practicable and easy, that true friend of sedition and son of perdition, Malagrida,^ has plunged the nation into irretrievable ruin and everlasting infamy. We have been at a loss to account for such monstrous conduct, upon any motives that can actuate the mind of a human creature, and we are still unable completely to solve the problem. Indeed we can easily conceive of his motives for giving Independency to America, and for making a general peace, on such terms as might be had ; for it may easily be sup- 6. A nickname given by contemporary political opponents to Lord Shelburn: derived perhaps from the reputation of Gabriel Malagrida, an Italian Jesuit and Missionary to Brazil, said to have been a con- spirator against the King of Portugal. See Webster's Dictionary. 176 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABUKY. posed that he had entered into such engagements with the leaders of the rebelHon, that if he refused to grant them In- dependency when he had it in his power, they would expose to the world his villanies and treasons; but this could not oblige him to grant them so much more than Independency. And as to a general peace, he was under one of the strongest temp- tations, to one in his situation, to secure it at all adventures ; for, being involved in debt up to the very ears, by that means he was able to make, and has made, by the purchase and sale of stock, not much less than £200,000, some say more. It is an undoubted fact that he has very lately paid off a mortgage to one person, whom I know, to the amount of £70,000 — But all this does not solve the problem, in its full extent. Time, that great revealer of secrets, will sooner or later place it in its proper light. When the terms of the peace were known, we were in hopes that the Parliament would have so much wisdom and spirit as to set it aside, and to renew the war with proper vigour. But it is over with England. Her stamina have failed; her Con- stitution is ruined ; and her dissolution must soon follow. The most it seems that could be done by Parliament was to disap- prove of the peace, and yet confirm it, and to displace the Minister, but without any punishment or impeachment. What can be the end of these things ! We have been near a month without an Administration. The Nation, you know, and the world knows, is divided into a number of parties. No one party has a bottom broad enough to support the pillar of Gov- ernment. A coalition of two or more parties is therefore neces- sary. An attempt of this sort has been making, but to in- corporate such heterogeneous bodies is the work of time. It is now thought that the 'Rovih.itcs and ¥o:s.ites will soon unite, and form an administration that will have a chance for some permanency. I am extremely impatient to hear in what manner the con- VAE VICTIS! 177 cessions of this Country affect the minds of people in America, both of the LoyaHsts and of the now legalized, sanctified rebels. I want much to know, whether the country is Hkely to become peaceable; or whether there is not a greater probability of a contest previous to it, between the Republicans and Anti-Re- publicans which must again bring on a deluge of blood. In the latter case, if the Loyalists are not allowed a neutrality, I hope they will not hesitate which side to take. They have nothing, I believe, to expect from this country, unless they re- move into some part of what are now the British dominions. To such as have lost estates by confiscation some compensation will be made, but on such conditions of leaving the States &c as many thousands will not, in prudence, be able to comply with. In what part of the world I shall fix myself, is at present impossible to foresee. Canada appears, at this instant, to be most eligible. Wherever I may be situated, you may always depend upon my continuing to be, with sincere esteem and af- fection. Unalterably yours — London, March 15th, 1783. Rev. Dr Seabury." The feelings of Dr. Chandler were, in a man of his spirit and with his experiences, perhaps natural enough. His ac- count at any rate affords a rather vivid picture of the situation, and his apprehensions of the future were no doubt shared by many in that day. One can hardly help thinking after all, in view of his lugubrious forecast of subsequent developments which never took place, how foolish it is to think that our wisdom can measure the designs of Providence in the arrange- ment of human and National affairs. Had Dr. Chandler and his disappointed associates been able really to penetrate the fu- ture, and see not only the continued expansion and strengthen- ing of the British Empire, but also the development of the 178 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Free and Independent American States into a consolidation fully as Imperial as that of Great Britain, and with all the ap- propriate accompaniments of distant subject Colonies, and other facilities for the cultivation of a legitimate despotism, they would no doubt have been persuaded that there was not so much need to dread the results of the temporary triumph of Republican principles. But many of those who fully sympathized with Dr. Chandler in his general feelings, were more moderate in the expression of their feelings, and more judicious in estimating the influence of events which they equally deplored upon the course which they themselves thought it their duty to follow. The Rev^. Dr. Inglis, for example, the friend and political associate of Dr. Chandler and Dr. Seabury, being then Rector of Trinity Church, New York, thus expresses himself in a letter of March 28, 1783, to the Hon. James Duane: *' The general part I took in the late contest was the result of principle and conscience; to their dictates I honestly ad- hered, and conceived I was thereby promoting the best interests and welfare of America. But the views of Divine Providence, respecting this Country, were different; and it is my indis- pensable duty to acquiesce in the decisions of Providence. By recognizing the Independency of America, the King gives up his claim to my allegiance ; I am thenceforth at full liberty to transfer it to that State where Providence may place me ; and I need not tell you that the same principles, the same sense of the sacredness of an oath, and the same dictates of conscience, will lead me in future, as they have done hitherto, to observe inviolably my oath of Allegiance.'"^ As to the feeling of Dr. Seabury himself in this juncture there appears no record. His subsequent course as a citizen of the State of Connecticut is sufficient to show that, however 7. From a letter in the handwriting of Dr. Inglis, among Bishop Seabury's papers. VAE VICTIS! 179 much he may have sympathized with Dr. Chandler in his sense of outrage and disappointment at the conduct and result of the War, his judgment in regard to his duty in the course of his own life was based upon the principles so well expressed by Dr. Inglis. But what is of chief importance for us to notice at this time is that the issue of the contest in which he had been for many years so strenuously engaged had been such as to throw him back upon the renewed exercise of the Ministry ; which he had indeed never neglected, but which he had been incapacitated from discharging in the regular way. The political contest was over, and nothing remained for him in this respect, but simple acquiescence in the result, and the faithful discharge of the duties of ordinary good citizenship in connection with the performance of the functions of his Ministry. The open questions were closed; and what had been his chief motive in trying to influence the determination of them, namely the safe- guarding of the welfare of the Church, and the securing of the introduction of Bishops as a means to that end, while it was no longer operative as an inducement to influence the course of civil affairs, was still vitally present to his conscience as the controlling incentive to his individual action. From this period accordingly the concern of his life is the Church; and to the benefit, extension and preservation of that he wholly devoted himself, leaving the course of this world to the order- ing of whomsoever the Divine Providence might see fit to se- lect for that end ; feeling perhaps that the precept of Christ to one who sought to postpone his discipleship until certain pre- liminary affairs had been disposed of, had acquired a new and very solemn meaning for him : ^' Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead." CHAPTER XIII. THE ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE. 1783- BEFORE Dr. Seabury could have received Dr. Chan- dler's last letter — within ten days, in fact, of its date — ^an event occurred v^hich was of momentous influ- ence both upon his own life, and upon the future history of the Church to which he was devoted : that is to say, his election to the Episcopate of the Church in Connecticut, which took place at Woodbury in that State, on March 25th, being the Feast of the Annunciation, in the year 1783. The articles of November 30, 1782, above mentioned, were provisional, and were to constitute the treaty of peace between Great Britain and the Colonies recognized as independent States, when peace should have been settled between Great Britain and France. On the 20th of January 1783, articles were agreed upon between Great Britain and France ; whereby the provisional articles of November 1782 came into full force as the treaty of peace/ These articles arrived at New York in March 1783.^ The Connecticut election took place March 25, 1783.^ The articles were ratified by Congress in May 1783.* The Presbyter elected to the Episcopate sailed June 7, 1. History of New York during the Revolutionary War, by Thomas Jones, Justice of the Supreme Court of the Province, vol. II, p. 238. 2. Ibid., 259. 3. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 78. 4. Jones' History of New York, II, p. 259-60. 180 THE ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE. l8l 1783.^ And the British forces, under Sir Guy Carleton, evac- uated New York, November 25, 1783. This comparison of dates is suggestive, not only of prompt action on the part of the Electors and the Elect, but also of the settled judgment and matured purpose which made them ready to proceed to action so soon as opportunity should be offered for it by the severance of the tie that bound the Colonists to the Mother Country. The election precedes by a month or two the Congressional ratification of the peace ; and the Bishop elect is on the water seven months in advance of the retirement of the British troops consequent upon the peace. This readiness to act upon the first appearance of a possible favourable opportunity is the more remarkable because of the number of doubtful questions which, in view of the history of the struggle for the Episcopate, and the continued existence of many of the hindrances which had hitherto prevented the ob- taining of it, would be apt to present themselves to all thought- ful men. The one want which, as we have seen, was felt by earnest Churchmen in the Colonies to be more imperative than any other was the want of a resident Bishop. By every available means this want was for many years vainly made known to those who were in possession of the Official Episcopal au- thority by which it could be supplied. Some of the English Bishops had advocated the sending over of a Bishop for the Colonies, and probably all desired it : but the act of consecra- tion under their circumstances was one of which they could not conceive the possibility. They realized, no doubt, the abstract possibility of the existence of the Church independently of con- nection with the legal system of Great Britain ; but they could not realize the possibility of the action of British Bishops apart from the restraints imposed upon them by the British system. 5. Memorial to Commissioners, ante chapter X ; cf. Hawks and Ferry, Connecticut Church Documents. 11, 212. l82 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. As the law was commonly understood they were not at liberty to act without the permission of the Government ; and that permission the Government, for its own reasons, was sure not to grant. The loyalty of Churchmen in the Colonies the Government was in the main safe in counting upon : the loyalty of the Puritan interest in the Colonies was never to be counted upon ; and it was not safe to put it to the too severe test of the sight of an American Bishop. Still less was it safe to incur the opposition of the dissenting interest at home, which would have been aroused against any ministry which should have con- sented to the consecration of such a Bishop. And when the Revolution was accomplished, and the inde- pendence of the States acknowledged, it may be imagined that the Churches in those States would seem to many to be none the nearer to the fulfilment of their desire: in fact, perhaps, their condition was worse than before. For before, they had access, even though at great trouble and expense, to the Bishop of London, whose jurisdiction had hitherto been recognized as the common bond of union between the Churches in the several colonies. But now they had no Bishop. That jurisdiction, in abeyance during the War, was practically abandoned at its conclusion. The laws of England remaining as they had been, the oath of allegiance to the King was connected with ordina- tion; and this, hereafter, could not be taken by those who should go from the States to England for Orders. So that, always important and desirable, it had now become actually necessary that Bishops should be had. Otherwise, the Church as a distinct body must come to an end for want of power to perpetuate itself by its own laws ; and its members must lapse into infidelity, or be absorbed into other bodies. Yet what was the prospect now, of the success of an appli- cation already many times made and rejected? Would the English Bishops be more disposed to act in behalf of men who had become citizens of another country, than they had been for THE ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE. 183 those whom they acknowledged as fellow subjects of a common government ? And, if they were, would they be more able than they had been ? For the change in the law depended upon the civil, and not upon the ecclesiastical authority; and it was un- likely that the civil authority would care to sanction an act, the apprehension of which had been one of the causes of the disaffection which had led to the war; since such sanction might be interpreted as an insult to the newly made States. And supposing the application to be successful, what were the prospects before one who might return to this country as a Bishop? The hatred of Prelacy among the Puritan bodies could hardly be thought to have become entirely extinct; even though it might by success have been somewhat modified. And the loyalty which had largely prevailed among the clergy had made them obnoxious, as a class, to a great part of the American people ; whose aversion to the preservation of a body which was looked upon as more English than American, might fairly be presupposed. More important, perhaps, than all the questions thus sug- gested, was the question, upon whom it devolved to move in the matter if it were to be moved. Were the members of the Church here to wait for Bishops to be sent out to them. That course had been pursued long enough in vain. Were they to consider themselves as constituting in the different States, one body, in such sense as that no movement could be made with- out the consent of all? But this would have been to assume the existence of an union which did not come fully into being for more than six years afterward, and the first step toward which had not yet been taken. And, moreover, it would have been to take for granted the existence of a political union among the States themselves, which was yet a project to be painfully wrought out in years to come, rather than an ac- complished fact. Or was some individual to start off, of his own motion, and 184 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. bring back the coveted treasure ? This was an experiment that had been tried in the case of Talbot; who had on his own responsibility secured an irregular consecration in England, and found himself on his return to this country so entirely without recognition that he never presumed to claim Episcopal jurisdiction, nor, so far as known, even to exercise a single function of the Episcopal Office. It is hardly probable that this precedent was known by the Connecticut clergy, but had they known it, the course which they chose indicates that they would hardly have been likely to follow it.® Such questions as these which have been suggested were present to the minds of all reflecting Churchmen ; and met, of course, with differing answers. But in one State only were they met by the concerted action of men who had some claims to be regarded as the representatives of the Church in that State. The Clergy of Connecticut had been long familiar with these questions, and their training in Church principles had been such as to enable them to know what was due, at their hands, to the members of the family of Christ of whom they had been put in charge. They understood that their duty required them not only to minister the Word and Sacraments to their people, but also to seek to provide for them that oversight which was above their own office to give, and to take measures to secure the continued supply of the ministrations of the Gospel after they themselves should have been called to their rest. What- 6. The Rev. John Talbot, of Burlington, New Jersey, was conse- crated in 1723-1724 by Robert Welton and Ralph Taylor; Welton having been before consecrated by Taylor alone. Welton and Talbot both came to this country, Welton is said by Percival to have " exer- cised Episcopal functions," though upon what evidence does not appear. The English Government, however, interfering at the request of the then Bishop of London, Welton retired to Portugal, where he died in 1726. Talbot took the oaths and submitted. See Percival's Apology for the Apostolic Succession, pp. 222-226. THE ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE. 185 ever the Churchmen in other States might do, they determined to be satisfied with nothing less than a Bishop for the Church in Connecticut. They recognized in the State of Connecticut the civil limits by v^hich they were distinguished, as to this matter, from their brethren in other States, as they were from their brethren in England ; and although there was a common cause between them and their brethren in other States, yet they saw no obligation either to await their convenience, or to sub- mit to a policy of their imposition. And so, although they were willing to advise with them, as they showed by consulta- tion with the Clergy of New York, they did not hesitate to enter upon an independent course of action. The whole number of the Connecticut Clergy at that time was fourteen. Of this number ten were present at the meeting in Woodbury at which the election took place. The Rev^. Abraham Jarvis, Missionary at Middletown, was the Secretary of this convention, but no minutes of that meeting appear to have survived. The evidence of the action taken is contained in the various letters w^hich were written to give effect to it; and in the testimonials which were prepared for the recommen- dation of the Bishop Elect to the Archbishops, both of Canter- bury and of York, and the Bishop of London. These papers seem to have been drafted by the Secretary, and they are care- ful and dignified documents, setting forth the present situation of the Church in the Colonies, the desire of the Connecticut Clergy to be instrumental in procuring the needed Episcopate, and their selection of Dr. Seabury to be their Bishop if con- secration might be conferred upon him, for which they earnestly ask the action of the English Bishops. The papers are printed in full in Dr. Beardsley's Life, (pp. 80-95) and it seems unnecessary to reproduce them here. They comprise a letter to the Archbishop of York, dated April 21, 1783, signed by the Secretary; a Testimonial of the same date signed (according to Dr. Beardsley) by the Rev. Dr. Leaming, lB6 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. the Rev. Dr. Inglis, Rector of Trinity Church, New York, the Rev. Dr. Benjamin Moore, assistant minister of Trinity Church, and others — the others appearing, from the copy be- fore me in Dr. Seabury's handwriting, to have been the Rev^. Isaac Browne, Rev<^. Abraham Jarvis, Rev. Jonathan Odell, Rev. John Beardsley; and (in "London July lo ") the Rev. Samuel Cooke; a letter to the Archbishop of York, May 24, 1783, signed by Drs. Learning, Inglis and Moore ; and a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed by Mr. Jarvis as Secretary, which is printed by Beardsley without date. There is also printed by him a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, dated j\Iay 24, 1783, which he quotes from " The Churchman's Magazine" for February 1807, as having been there given without signature. From a copy of part of a letter in Dr. Seabury's handwriting, it would appear that a letter which was a counterpart of that above noted as addressed to the Archbishop of York, was under the same date. May 24, 1783, addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. This copy, with a few unimportant verbal differences, is the same as the first part of the letter to the Archbishop of York, to the end of the last paragraph on p. 84 of Beardsley's Life, and there concludes with a memorandum that the remainder is omitted as relating to another matter, noting the signatures as those of Inglis, Moore, Browne, Leaming, Odell and Beards- ley. There appears also to have been an additional testimonial given from New York June 3, 1783, which is, somewhat abridged, to the same effect as that of April 21, 1783, printed by Beardsley; which, as not hitherto printed, it may be well to place here. " New York, June 3, 1783 Whereas our well-beloved in Christ Samuel Seabury Doctor of Divinity, at the earnest request of the Episcopal Clergy of THE ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE. 187 Connecticut, hath resolved to embark speedily for England, that he may be admitted to the sacred office of a Bishop ; and afterwards to return to Connecticut, and there exercise the spiritual powers pecuHar to the Episcopal office, by superin- tending the Clergy, Ordaining candidates for Holy Orders, and confirming such of the Laity as choose to be confirmed; and having applied to us for Letters Testimonial on the oc- casion We therefore, whose names are underwritten, in justice to Dr. Seabury's abilities, learning, and moral charcter, of which we deservedly entertain the highest opinion, do certify, that we have, for many years past, been intimately acquainted with the said Dr. Seabury, and that we believe him to be every way qualified for the sacred office of a Bishop. And we cannot but express our earnest wish that he may succeed in his ap- plication, as many inconveniences may be thereby prevented, which no after care can remove, when they have once taken place. Charles Inglis, D. D., Rector of Trinity Church in the City of New York JoN". Odell, a. M., Missionary, Burlington, New Jersey Benj". Moore, A. M., Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New York " The general plan of those who sought thus to obtain the Episcopate appears from these papers to have been that if Dr. Seabury should be consecrated, he should " with the approba- tion of the Society " return to Connecticut in the character of a Missionary of the Society at New London; with the hope of being permitted by the Governor to exercise the spiritual powers of the Episcopal office there ; a permission which, from representations of persons of character not members of the Episcopal Church, it was anticipated might be cheerfully l88 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. granted, since the acknowledgment of Independence had re- moved apprehensions of temporal power attaching to the Epis- copal office. It seems to have been imagined too, that the King would readily dispense with any impediments to the proposed consecration ; and that thus action might be taken for the con- secration not only of Dr. Seabury for Connecticut, but also of Dr. Chandler for Nova Scotia; which would provide in America for the continuance of the succession there in con- formity to the Apostolic Canon requiring that a consecration to the Episcopate should be by at least two Bishops. There is a plea also made for the application to the benefit of the Bishop of Connecticut of certain legacies which at different times had been bequeathed for the support of Bishops in America; and, in addition to the usual arguments for the necessity of Episco- pal oversight, there is urged the danger to be apprehended from the otherwise possible success of " a plan of a very extra- ordinary nature, lately formed and published in Philadelphia, the plan being " to constitute a nominal Episcopate by the united suffrages of Presbyters and laymen." This proposed plan, published by the Rev. William White, then Rector of Christ Church Philadelphia, and afterwards Bishop of Penn- sylvania, was obviously one of the '' inconveniences " sought to be prevented by the actual consecration of a Bishop, which it was conceived that " no after care can remove, when they have once taken place." A full account of this anticipated in- convenience is given in a letter of the Connecticut Clergy con- vened at Woodbury to the Rev. Mr. White, printed by Dr. Beardsley (pp. 98-102) ; and an account of the same matter is given by Bishop White himself in his Memoirs of the Protes- tant Episcopal Church, (pp. 89-92) One of the very many important services rendered by the late Bishop Perry to the cause of the history of the Church in this country, was the discovery and preservation of another paper, which though not an official document, bears the most THE ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE. 189 complete and interesting testimony to this election. The Bishop told me that having been on a visit to a member of the family of the Rev^. Samuel Parker, sometime Bishop of Mas- sachusetts, he was told of a parcel of old papers which had been consigned to the cellar for burning, as they were sup- posed to be of no particular value. But anything of that kind was treasure inestimable to Bishop Perry; and having ob- tained leave to ransack the parcel he made some most valua- ble discoveries. Among other things he found an autograph letter of the Rev. D. Fogg to Mr. Parker, giving an account of the action of the Woodbury Convention of which he had been a member. This letter has, of course, been printed before, but I reproduce it from the copy in Bishop Perry's writing which he sent to my father in 1862. It is as follows : " Pomfret 14th July '83 Dear Sir : I wrote you a few lines 2^ inst. by an uncertain conveyance in which I attempted to excuse myself by throwing the blame upon you for not waiting for you till the time you mentioned. I now plead guilty and beg your forgiveness. I likewise men- tioned that the Connecticut Clergy had done all in their power respecting the matter you were anxious about but they keep it a profound secret even from their most intimate friends of the Laity. The matter is this: After consulting the Clergy in New York how to keep up the succession they unanimously agreed to send a person to England to be consecrated Bishop for America and pitched upon Dr. Seabury as the most proper person for this purpose, who sailed for England the beginning of last month, highly recommended by all the Clergy in New York, Connecticut, &c. And if he succeeds he is to come out as missionary for New London or some other vacant mission. And if they will not receive him in Connecticut, or any other of the States of America, he is to go to Nova Scotia. Sir Guy 190 MEMOIR OF BISIlOr SEABURY. [CarlctonJ highly approves of the plan and has used all his influence in favour of it. The Clergy have even gone so far as to instruct Dr. Sea- bury, if none of the regular Bishops of the Church of England will ordain him, to go down to Scotland and receive ordina- tion from a nonjuring Bishop. Please let us know by Mr. Grosvenor how you approve of the plan and whether you have received any late accounts from England. From your affct. brother, D. Fogg." Dr. Beardsley prints with this letter (p. 105) another from the same writer to Mr. Parker ; which gives an additional in- sight into the feelings and motives of the electors : " Dear Sir : I am very glad that the conduct of the Connecti- cut Clergy meets with your approbation in the main. Dr. Sea- bury 's being a refugee was an objection which I made, but was answered, they could not fix upon any other person who they thought was so likely to succeed as he was, and should he suc- ceed and not be permitted to reside in any of the United States, it would be an easy matter for any other gentleman who was not obnoxious to the pozvers that be, to be consecrated by him at Halifax. And as to the objection of not consulting the Clergy of the other States, the time would not allow of it, and there was nobody to consult in the State of New York, for there is not one Clergyman there except refugees, and they were con- sulted. And in the State of Connecticut there are fourteen Clergymen. And in your State and New Hampshire, you know how many there are, and you know there is no compul- sion in the matter, and you will be left to act as you please, either to be subject to him or not. As to the matter of his support, that must be an after consideration. Your affectionate friend and brother, D. Fogg. Pomfret, August i, 1783." THE ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE. I9I It is stated by Dr. Beardsley (p. 78) that the Clergy who met at Woodbury '' selected two persons, the Rev. Jeremiah Leaming and the Rev. Samuel Seabury, as suitable, either of them, to go to England and obtain, if possible. Episcopal con- secration." No evidence is offered in support of this state- ment; but it is, I presume, substantially correct, being in ac- cordance with the general tradition. The papers, in regard to the appHcation make no mention of any name but that of Dr. Seabury, nor do the letters of Mr. Fogg. But it is quite natural that the Convention should have determined upon the designation of whichever one of two mentioned should ac- cept the trust : and the ascertainment of this point appears to have been left to the Secretary who was commissioned to go to New York, where both of these Clergymen then were, and to put the papers necessary for use into their final form, in- serting the name of the one who accepted the election/ Which of these two was really the first choice of the Con- necticut clergy, in the sense of being, so far as their feelings were concerned, the person preferred, matters very little, except in so far as the real truth of history is always interesting. Bishop Perry has expressed his conviction that this honour belongs to Dr. Seabury. Dr. Beardsley stoutly holds for Dr. Leaming.^ If I might venture to have an opinion in such presence, it would be that the Connecticut clergy regarded Seabury as the man for the place, but had so much respect for Leaming, and held such relations to him as their fellow Presbyter in Connecticut, that they were unwilling to seem to overlook him ; and that accordingly they elected Sea- bury with the understanding that the position should be first offered to Leaming before that election should take effect: there being good grounds to anticipate that Leaming would 7. See Bishop Seabury's letter to the Secretary of the Society, February 27, 1785; Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 172. 8. "The Living Church," August 2J, 1881. 192 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. decline to serve: although of course the offer would be made in good faith, and the Secretary would be empowered to give effect to it if necessary. I doubt whether the true spirit and intent of the action in relation to Dr. Leaming can be better indicated than in the words which Dr. Beardsley used before his discussion with Bishop Perry arose, the italics being mine : " There was good reason for giving him the opportunity to decline." » The proceeding which has been now described has at times been referred to in language which apparently honours it not cheerfully but grudgingly and of necessity; language which not so much raises the question whether it were an election, as assumes that question to have been decided in the negative. Mr. Fogg's letters state that the clergy had " pitched upon Dr. Seabury as the most proper person for this purpose," and that it was said among them that ^' they could not fix upon any person so likely to succeed as he was." The letter of the Secretary to the Archbishop of York, speaks of Dr. Seabury as the person whom the Connecticut clergy " have prevailed upon to offer himself for consecration." The tes- timonial signed by Leaming and others speak of him as embarking " at the earnest request of the Episcopal clergy of Connecticut " to present himself for consecration. These phrases indicate the determination between different persons, the selecting from a number for any use or office, which constitutes choice or election; and it is not easy to see the point which, in some minds, discriminates this election from any other election to the Episcopate, so far as the nature of the act is concerned — or, for that matter, so far as its authority is concerned, although these are separate questions. Judging the transaction by the evidence, the necessity for 9. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 79. THE ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE. I93 Speaking of it, as not exactly an election, but rather a desig- nation; as, perhaps not in entire conformity with Catholic usage; as, the action of individuals rather than a regidar ec- clesiastical proceeding — is not apparent. Of course it was not an election by Dean and Chapter in pursuance of conge d'elire and letter missive, and under penalty of praemunire ; nor by a body of delegates appointed for the purpose by in- corporated parishes ; but it was an election nevertheless. And, as the word election is the technical word to express the selecting of a person to be presented for consecration as Bishop, the word election is as properly to be used with refer- ence to the first Bishop of Connecticut as to any other Bishop. Nor does the fact that the election was of one of two per- sons named change its character. The election of two to be, one or the other, Bishop of Connecticut, as might be de- termined by a designated contingency, is as much an election (supposing it to be proved that such zvas the manner of it) as the election of either alone could have been. The devise of an estate to one of two persons who should first signify his acceptance of it on certain conditions, would be as much a devise as if to one alone. An alternate delegate to General Convention is as much elected as the principal whose vacant place he is called to fill. In short, the will of those who acted concurred in the choice of whichever of these two men should be found to have been prepared and disposed by Providence to accept the trust, and on that one the election took effect. If, however, disparagement of this election regarded only the question of its harmony with mere formalities, it would hardly be worth noticing. But it acquires some show of importance from the bearing which the election of a Bishop has upon the settlement of his jurisdiction over the particular district or field for which he is consecrated: and thus it is necessary that this election should have justice done to it. The distinction, inherent in the Church system, between 194 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Order and jurisdiction; the former being the power to exe- cute the functions of the ministry, and the latter the lawful right to exercise that power, makes it obvious that something beside Consecration to the Episcopate is necessary to consti- tute the person consecrated the lawful Bishop of the Church in a certain field or district. And the inquiry as to what that thing is, does not in every case admit of the same answer. In the settled state of affairs in which we now live, the inquiry is of course easy to answer; for our common Consti- tution provides that in every Diocese the Bishop shall be chosen agreeably to rules prescribed by the Convention of the Diocese; and therefore a Bishop, however valid might be his consecration, would not have the lawful right to exercise his office as the Bishop of a Diocese which had not so chosen him. But in revolutionary or transitional periods, when there is no such settled rule in any particular district and when, as in the case before us, the rule, which had hitherto been acted on, had been withdrawn — and practically repealed — it would only be necessary to conform as far as possible to the prin- ciples of the Church Catholic — such principles, that is, as were recognized in the Church prior to the adoption of special rules. This was what the Connecticut men did. In the absence of any local regulation binding upon them, they fell back upon the general principle that the Clergy were bound to provide for the needs of the people committed to them ; and as they had done, and were doing for them, everything except that which a Bishop alone could do, they proceeded to pro- vide for this need also, by choosing a man to receive consecra- tion for the Episcopate. This, certainly — there being no law to the contrary — was all that was necessary to give the Bishop, who should be lawfully consecrated for them, a law- ful jurisdiction over them; and, as they had jurisdiction over the members of the Church in which they had been lawfully THE ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE. 195 settled, jurisdiction over them involved also jurisdiction over their people. In fact the jurisdiction as well as the Orders of the first Bishop of Connecticut will stand the test of every recognized general principle of the law of the Church pertaining to them. The question of Orders belongs to a later period : the question of jurisdiction arises here by reason of its connection with the matter of election. If we lay aside the claims of the Papacy, which have no bearing within the limits of our subject, there are but three ways in which the jurisdiction of a Bishop can be established; viz. either by the assignment of the Bishops by whose con- sent he is consecrated, or by the choice and acceptance of clergy and people, or by the sanction of the civil authority ruling over the district in which he is to be settled. In the earliest times those who conferred the Episcopal Office assigned the district in which it was to be exercised,^^ and as this would be necessary in planting the Church among the heathen, so it would always be lawful when such assign- ment did not interfere with a previous settlement made by competent authority. In later times elections prevailed, sometimes by clergy or people, sometimes by both. And because this, in the times of the Roman Empire, led to turbulence, and in some sad cases to riot, and even bloodshed, the Emperors seem to have taken to themselves the right to appoint to Sees ; and thus the right came to be claimed and exercised generally in Christian coun- tries by the civil authority.^^ 10. " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." St. Paul's Epistle to Titus, I, 5. 11. Cf. "A View of the Elections of Bishops in the Primitive Church" by a Presbyter of the Church of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1728 — probably the learned Dr. Thomas Rattray, sometime Bishop of Dun- kel4. 196 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Now all these things concurred, cither explicitly or implic- itly, to establish the jurisdiction of the first Bishop of Con- necticut. For he was consecrated for his particular district by Bishops who had the same right that all Bishops have to take care of the good of the Church in those places where no established order of succession exists; he was duly chosen by the clergy before his consecration, and unanimously and heart- ily received by the whole body of the Church laity of the district after his consecration; and, lastly, his residence as a Bishop in that district was sanctioned by the Civil Authority, not merely by acquiescence and failure to eject him, but be- yond this, by fair inclusion within the purview of an Act of the Legislature of the State of Connecticut, understood at the time, and by those whose votes contributed to the passing of it, as implying the full concurrence of the civil authority in the residence of a Bishop within that State, as being essential to the ecclesiastical body to which he belonged.^- And so every requirement of general application ever recognized in 12. The committee of the Connecticut Convention appointed to confer with leading members of both Houses of Assembly as to the attitude of the civil government in respect to the question of the settlement of a Bishop in Connecticut, were assured that the Act already passed by the Legislature comprehended all the legal rights and powers intended to be given by their Constitution to any de- nomination of Christians, and included all that was wanted for the allowance of a Bishop within the State. "We now understand," say the Committee after this conference, " as we suppose, the part which the government established among us means to take in respect of religion in general, and the protection it will afford to the different denominations of Christians under which the subjects of it are classed, and the lowest construction, which is all we expect, must amount to a permission that the Episcopal Church enjoy all the requisites of her polity, and have a Bishop to reside among them." (Letter of Rev. Messrs. Leaming, Jarvis and Hubbard to Dr. Seabury. Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Documents, H, 224, 226.) THE ELECTION TO THE EPISCOPATE. I97 the Church as essential to the estabHshment of Episcopal ju- risdiction, except within the confines of the Papal obedience, was duly complied with in his case. With regard to the influence of the action which has been now commemorated upon the subsequent history of the Church in this country, it is worth while to observe that it preceded every movement in which members of the Church combined for its general organization; the first of these not being before May, 1784, and this and others being only tenta- tive; and to add, besides, that when the movement for the completion of the Church by the addition of the Episcopate began in other parts of the country — which was not before this venture had been seen to succeed — it took distinctly the form of the pattern set by the Church in Connecticut; the persons chosen for the Episcopate being chosen not by rep- resentatives of the Churches in all the States, but by the action of the Church in particular States, each for itself, as in the choice by New York of a Bishop for New York, and in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and afterward in the other States in like manner.^^ So that the pattern set in Connecticut of a Church complete in itself, was, in fact, followed by the Church in every State; and the ultimate adoption of the Con- stitution of 1789 became the action, not of a confused multi- tude of Churchmen throughout the country, but of Churches duly constituted, and either perfectly organized or in process of becoming so organized : the Churches in the several States, though in some cases still temporarily deprived of their Dio- cesans, holding practically the position of the co-ordinate Sees of the Primitive Church — no one subordinate to another, but all bound by the unity of the faith and by the duty of 13. See the Plan for obtaining consecration of Bishops, adopted in General Convention Session of 1785 — October 5th. Bioren's Ed. Journals of General Convention, pp. 11, 12. 198 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. subordination on the part of the individual Bishops to the whole body of the Episcopate — and, as such, being free to associate themselves by mutual agreement, as they actually did, into a more formal and specific Union. CHAPTER XIV. ILLUSIONS. 1783-1784. NOTHING seems to be more noticeable in the quest for Episcopacy which we are following, than the extreme simplicity which characterized the seekers, and which made them the sport of the astute politicians civil and ecclesiastical with whom they had to deal. They sought to partake of the treasure which was held in trust for them as well as others : but the policy of the possessors was to keep the seekers seeking. There is nothing very remarkable about this: it is merely the way of the world. What is remarkable, is that the seek- ers should have been so simple as to imagine the possibility of anything else. They lived under illusions. They saw what did not exist. They measured the possessors by their own standards of mercy and justice; and could not suppose that they would act otherwise than as they believed they them- selves would act in a similar situation. It took their repre- sentative sixteen months to realize that he had been " amused, if not deceived" ; that the seekers were being systematically treated as what they were — simple folk who believed that to do justice and love mercy was as natural, and seemed as obligatory, to others as it did to them; and that if laws stood in the way of mercy and justice those laws ought to be changed : and, O simplicity of simplicities ! they actually be- lieved that those laws would be changed for the sake of 199 200 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. mercy and justice. They were slow to realize that the only way to (leal with those who with such patient simulation of desire to satisfy them were determined to ignore their wishes, was to get what they sought from other possessors of the same treasure who would not allow themselves to be hindered by laws which precluded mercy and justice. At last they learned that lesson ; and behold, as soon as they had acted on it, the wheels of policy began to turn in another direction ; and not long after the law was changed so that mercy and justice could be done without contravening law. But it was of course too late to benefit them, and it was only to their dis- illusionment in this respect that they owed the success which they had in another quarter. These simple ones were also under another illusion. They saw in the mild monarch who loved the Church of England as much as his grandfather hated it,^ a cheerful readiness to dispense with the necessity of administering the oath of alle- giance In the consecration of a Bishop to reside In a foreign State. They saw what did not exist : for the monarch had his non possumus as completely committed to memory as the Bishops had. The law prevented him as well as them. But at least, said the simple ones, whatever may be the Issue of our confidence in these particulars, we have one anchor sure and steadfast, our hope In which can never be removed. The Venerable Society for propagating the Gospel in Foreign parts, which has been the tender guardian of the Church In Connecticut these many years; which has supported the weak hands and strengthened the feeble knees of those whose lives were devoted to the benefit of that Church; which has been Instant in season, out of season, in the effort to obtain the completion of the Church in America by the supply of the Episcopate; which sees now the even greater needs of the I. Cf. Dr. Berkeley's letter — p. 127, Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury. ILLUSIONS. 201 Church in America, and the absolute dependence of her Mis- sionaries upon it for the continuance of a support, the with- drawal of which would reduce them to poverty — this great Society will not now desert us, but will continue that tender solicitude for our interests which it has so long manifested in our behalf. But here too they saw what did not exist. The interest which had been manifested had not been only for the Church as the institution of Christ, but eminently for the Church as an institution of the British Empire. The Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, duly fortified by its Charter, had its 7ion possumiis ready too : it could not minister to the needs of the Church in a State independent of Great Britain, because it zvas foreign. So the illusions were all dissipated at last ; and the seekers, discerning the facts as they were, perceived that they must obtain the treasure which they sought from those who had nothing but that treasure to impart; and that they must be content to receive it without any recognition from, and with the cold disapproval of those from whom, as they conceived, both their duty and their affection had led them to seek it. The story of that sixteen months, from the arrival in Lon- don of the Bishop Elect on the 7th of July, 1783, to his departure for Scotland about the same time in the month of November, 1784, is one of the most sickening that can be conceived. It has been often related, and no where more fully and plainly than in the life of Bishop Seabury by Dr. Beardsley, who, with his usual painstaking detail has given all the correspondence, and recorded all the events which are of chief importance in it. As I had the pleasure to loan him all of the Bishop's manuscripts relating to this matter I have little now to contribute in addition to what he has already published, and therefore avail myself of the convenience of his valuable book. All that need be done here, for the contin- uity of this narrative, is merely to relate the sequence of pro- 202 MEMOIR OF RlSllOr SEABURY. cccdiiig-s, and to show what the course of the subject of this memoir was in the discharge of that commission which had ])ccn entrusted to him. So far as his personal hfe (hiring this period is concerned there seems to be nothing which throws any hght upon it. All that apparently survives, is the account which from time to time he gave in writing to those who had commissioned him, and to others who were inter- ested in his movements, of the several steps which he took in the performance of his duty. The only point of personal in- terest in the process seems to have been his poverty, and the straits to which he was put in the endeavour to maintain himself long enough to carry on the siege which he had undertaken : for his mission was entirely at his own cost ; and in it he more than expended all that he had. One of the means by which he sought to make provision for his needs, was the effort to procure some compensation from the Gov- ernment for his services and losses in its behalf during the War, an account of which has already been given in a previ- ous chapter. All the rest of the written evidence which re- mains of the course which he pursued seems to relate simply to the discharge of his mission. It will be remembered that the letter of the Rev^. Mr. Fogg, one of the members of the Connecticut Convention at Woodbury, which has been previously quoted, states that the Clergy of that State, after consultation with clergymen in New York, had unanimously agreed to send Dr. Seabury to England to obtain consecration; and that they had instructed him, if he could not obtain consecration in England, to seek it in Scotland ; and that Dr. Seabury had already sailed. Dr. Seabury is spoken of in Mr. Fogg's letter as highly recom- mended, and the credentials which he carried with him were very full and explicit in regard to his fitness for the Office which he was sent to seek ; and it is proper to say here, once for all, that no personal objection was ever made against him ILLUSIONS. 203 by those from whom he sought consecration, and that all the objections which were made by them to his consecration were such only as would have applied to any applicant under the same circumstances. In other words they all related to the propriety of the consecration, and none of them to the pro- priety of consecrating him if consecration were to be deter- mined upon. On the 15th of July, 1783, he reports from London to those who had elected him that, having arrived on the 7th inst., and having failed of an interview with the Arch- bishop of York who had left the city a fortnight before, he had waited on the Bishop of London, from whom he had met with a cordial reception. " He heartily approved," continues the writer, " of the scheme, and wished success to it, and declared his readiness to concur with the two Archbishops in carrying it into execution : but I soon found he was not dis- posed to take the lead in the matter. He mentioned the State Oaths in the Ordination offices, as impediments, but supposed that the King's dispensation would be a sufficient warrant for the Archbishops to proceed upon. But upon conversing with His Grace of Canterbury, I found his opin- ion rather different from the Bishop of London. He received me politely, approved of the measure, saw the necessity of it, and would do all he could to carry it into execution. But he must proceed openly and with candor. His Majesty's dis- pensation he feared would not be sufficient to justify the omission of oaths imposed by act of Parliament. He would consult the other Bishops ; he would advise with those per- sons on whose judgment he thought he could depend. He was glad to hear the opinion of the Bishop of London, and wished to know the sentiments of the Archbishop of York. He foresaw great difficulties, but hoped there were none of them insurmountable." ^ 2. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 106, 107. 204 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. On the lolh of August following, continuing the account of his proceedings, the writer reports that he had visited York, in order that he might have the full benefit of the Archbishop's advice and influence. *' This journey," he says, ** I have ac- complished, and I fear to very little purpose. His Grace is now carrying on a correspondence with the Archbishop of Canterbury on the subject; what the issue will be is not cer- tain ; but I think, unless matters can be put on a different footing, the business will not succeed. Both the Archbishops are convinced of the necessity of supplying the States of America with Bishops, if it be intended to preserve the Epis- copal Church there; and they even seem sensible of the jus- tice of the present application, but they are exceedingly em- barrassed by the following difficulties : 1. That it would be sending a bishop to Connecticut, which they have no right to do without the consent of the State. 2. That the bishop would not be received in Connecticut. 3. That there would be no adequate support for him. 4. That the oaths in the ordination office cannot be got over, because the king's dispensation would not be sufficient to justify the omission of those oaths. At least there must be the concurrence of the king's council to the omission; and that the council w^ould not give their concurrence without the permission of the State of Connecticut to the bishop's resid- ing among them. All that I could say had no effect, and I had a fair oppor- tunity of saying all that I wished to say. It now remains to be considered what method shall be taken to obtain the wished-for Episcopate. The matter here will become public. It will soon get to Connecticut. Had you not, gentlemen, better make immediate application to the State for permission to have a bishop reside there? Should you not succeed, you lose nothing, as I am pretty confident you will not succeed here without such con- ILLUSIONS. 205 sent. Should there be anything personal with regard to me, let it not retard the matter. I will most readily give up my pretensions to any person who shall be agreeable to you, and less exceptionable to the State. You can make the attempt with all the strength you can muster among the laity: and at the same time I would ad- vise that some persons be sent to try the State of Vermont on this subject. In the meantime I will try to prepare and get things in a proper train here. I think I shall be able to get at the Duke of Portland and Lord North, on the occasion, and should you succeed in either instance, I think all diffi- culty would be at an end." ^ To Mr. Leaming, from 91 Wardour Street, London, Sep- tember 3, 1783, the account is continued: " With regard to my success, I do not only think it doubt- ful, but that the probability is against it. Nobody here will risk anything for the sake of the Church, or for the sake of continuing Episcopal ordination in America. Unless there- fore it can be made a ministerial affair, none of the bishops will proceed in it for fear of clamor; and indeed the ground on which they at present stand, seems to me so uncertain, that I believe they are obliged to take great care with regard to any step they take out of the common road. They are apprehensive that my consecration would be looked on in the light of sending a bishop to Connecticut, and that the State of Connecticut would resist it, and that they should be censured as meddlers in matters that do not concern them. This is the great reason why I wish that the State of Connecticut should be applied to for their consent. Without it, I think nothing will be done. If they refuse, the whole matter is at an end. If they consent that a bishop should reside among them, the grand obstacle will be removed. You see the necessity of 3. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 108, 109. 206 MEMOIR OF lilSUOP SEABURY. making the attempt, and of making it with vigor. One rea- son, indeed, why I wished the attempt to be made in Con- necticut, related to myself. 1 cannot continue here long: necessity will oblige me to leave it in March or April, at furthest. If this business fails, I must try to get some pro- vision made for myself: and indeed the State of Connecticut may consent that a bishop should reside among them, though they might not consent that I should be the man. In that case, the sooner I shall know it the better: and should that be the case, I beg that no clergyman in Connecticut will hesi- tate a moment on my account. The point is, to get the Episcopal authority into that country ; and he shall have every assistance in my power. Something should also be said about the means of support for a bishop in that country. The bishops here are appre- hensive that the character will sink into contempt, unless there be some competent and permanent fund for its support. Please let your opinion of what ought to be said on that sub- ject be communicated by the first opportunity, that is, pro- vided you think anything can be done in Connecticut. Dr. Chandler's appointment to Nova Scotia will, I believe, succeed. And possibly he may go there this autumn, or at least, early in the spring. But his success will do no good in the States of America. His hands will be as much tied as the bishops in England; and I think he will run no risks to communicate the Episcopal powers. There is, therefore, everything depending on the success of the application to the State of Connecticut. It must be made quickly, lest the dis- senters here should interpose and prevent it; and it should be made with the united efforts of clergy and laity, that its weight may be the greater; and its issue you must make me acquainted with as soon as you can." * 4. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. no, in. ILLUSIONS. 207 The main objection to consecration, it will have been ob- served, was the legal obligation of the person consecrated to take the oaths of allegiance in connection with the Ordination Office. But the impression which the applicant appears to have received from the Archbishops was that there might be a concurrence of the King's Council in his dispensing with that obligation, if there was the permission of the State of Connecticut that a Bishop should reside there. Of course nobody promised anything. Probably nobody intended to perform anything. But that was the impression given. Ac- cordingly it was urged upon the Clergy that they should endeavour to procure such consent. The letters of the appli- cant were submitted to the Clergy of Connecticut, who after conference in regard to them in a Convention held at Walling- ford, appointed the Rev. Messrs. Leaming, Jarvis and Hub- bard a committee to confer with the leading members of both Houses of the Assembly then sitting at New Haven, as to such of the anticipated difficulties as had reference to civil government: and, having performed its function, this com- mittee described the result in a letter to the applicant dated February 5th, 1784. In this letter the committee give the sentiments of these principal members as follows: " Your right, they said, is unquestionable. You therefore have our full concurrence for your enjoyment of what you judge essential to your Church. Was an Act of Assembly expedient to your complete enjoyment of your own ecclesi- astical constitution, we would freely give our votes for such an act. We have passed a law which embraces your Church, wherein are comprehended all the legal rights and powers, intended by our Constitution to be given to any denomination of Christians. In that act is included all that you want. Let a bishop come; by that act he will stand upon the same ground that the rest of the Clergy do, or the Church at large. It was remarked that there were some, who would oppose 208 MEMOIR OF 131S110P SEABURY. and would labor to excite opposition among the people, who if unalarmed by any jealousies, would probably remain quiet. For which reason it would be impolicy, both in us and them, for the Assembly to meddle at all in the business. The intro- duction of a bishop on the present footing, without anything more, in their opinion would be the easiest and securest way in which it could be done, and we might be sure of his pro- tection. This they thought must be enough to satisfy the bishops, and all concerned in the affair in England. We are further authorized to say that the legislature of the State would be so far from taking umbrage, that the more liberal part will consider the bishops in this transaction as maintain- ing entire consistency of principle and character, and by so doing merit their commendation. The act above alluded to, you will receive in a letter from Mr. Leaming, attested by the clerk of the lower House of Assembly. It is not yet published. The clerk was so obliging as to copy it from the journals of the House. You were men- tioned as the gentleman we had pitched upon. The Secretary of the State, from personal knowledge, and others, said things honorable and benevolent towards you. Now if the opinion of the governor and other members of the council, explicitly given in entire agreement with the most respectable members among the representatives, who must be admitted to be com- petent judges of their own civil polity, is reasonably sufficient to remove all scruples about the concurrence of the legisla- ture, we cannot imagine that objection will any longer have a place in the minds of the Archbishops." ^ A copy of the Act of the Connecticut legislature has been preserved among Bishop Seabury's papers. It cannot be the same copy which was submitted to the Archbishop of Canter- bury, because that copy was received in London on the 17th 5. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 113, 114. ILLUSIONS. 209 of June, 1784, and this is officially certified August 6th of that year. But it will equally serve our convenience, if we take from it such extracts as show the bearing of the act upon the question of the permission of the State to have a Bishop settled within it. '' An act for securing the rights of conscience in matters of Religion to Christians of every denomination in this State. " As the happiness of a people and the good order of civil society, essentially depend upon Piety, Religion and Morality, it is the duty of the civil authority to provide for the sup- port and encouragement thereof: so as that Christians of every denomination, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the State, may be equally under the protec- tion of the Laws : And as the people of this State have in general, been of one profession on matters of Faith, Reli- gious Worship, and the mode of settling and supporting the Ministers of the Gospel, they have by law been formed into ecclesiastical Societies, for the more convenient support of their Worship and Ministry: and to the end that other de- nominations of Christians, who dissent from the Worship and Ministry so established and supported, may enjoy free lib- erty of conscience in the matters aforesaid — Be it enacted by the Governor, Council and Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same. That no persons in this State, professing the Christian Religion, who soberly and conscientiously dissent from the worship and ministry by Law established in the Society wherein they dwell, and attend public worship by themselves, shall incur any penalty for not attending the worship and ministry so established, on the Lords-Day, or on account of their meeting together by themselves on said day, for public worship in a way agreeable to their consciences. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all denominations of Christians differing in their religious 210 MEMOIR OF BISHOr SEABURY. sentiments from the people of the Established Societies in this State, whether of the Episcopal Church, or those Con- gregationalists called Separates, or the people called Baptists, or Quakers, or any other denomination who shall have formed themselves into distinct Churches or Congregations, and at- tend public worship, and support the Gospel Ministry in a way agreeable to their consciences and respective professions; and all persons who adhere to any of them, and dwell so near to any place of their Worship, that they can and do ordinarily attend the same on the Sabbath, and contribute their due proportion to the support of the Worship and Min- istry where tliey so attend . . . every such person shall be exempted from being taxed for the support of the Worship and Ministry of said Society, so long as he or they shall continue so to attend and support public worship with a dif- ferent Church or Congregation as aforesaid. And be it further enacted . . . that all such Protestant Churches and Congregations as dissent from the Worship and Ministry established as aforesaid and who maintain and attend public worship by themselves, shall have liberty and authority to use and exercise the same powers and privileges for maintaining and supporting their respective Ministers and building and repairing their Meeting-Houses for the public Worship of God, as the Ecclesiastical Societies, constituted by Act of the General Assembly of this State by law have and do exercise and enjoy; and in the same manner may com- mence and hold their meetings, and transact their affairs, as occasion may require for the purpose aforesaid." On the back of a copy of a letter from Dr. Seabury to Dr. Cooper of August 31, 1784, which will be referred to later, is a memorandum in Dr. Seabury 's writing which seems to have escaped the eye of Dr. Beardsley in his inspection of the Seabury Manuscripts, and which shows that in the lapse of a year since the four objections were made by the Arch- ILLUSIONS. 211 bishops and transmitted to Connecticut, the Archbishop of Canterbury, under the guidance of the Ministry, had been able to discover new objections to the consecration. The memorandum is as follows : ** Objections made to the Connecticut Episcopate by the British Ministry, as represented to Dr. Seabury by his Grace of Cant, the beginning of Aug*^. 1784. 1. That they cannot consent that a Bp. be consecrated for Connecticut, till the N. Scotia Episcopate be settled. 2. Nor unless Congress requested, or, at least acquiesced in the measure. 3. That Conn*, was only one State and even their consent was not explicitly declared. 4. That the application was only from the Clergy and not from the Laity in Conn*. 5. That the Laity of the Episcopal Communion in America were adverse to the having Bps. resident among them. 6. That the Country was not divided into Dioceses, nor any provision made for Bps. 7. That having never sent Bps. into America while the 13 States were subject to Great Britain, it would have a very suspicious look to do it now, and would probably create, or augment, ill will in that Country against G. B." Yet in one way or other, probably through some communi- cation which has not survived, the writers of the Connecticut letter had evidently been made aware of one of these objec- tions, which therefore can hardly have been first broached at the time of the above memorandum. It is one that would occur naturally to the Erastianized mind, clerical or lay, and so was very likely to have been at least mentioned; but it was one which was difficult for those to appreciate whose cir- cumstances had thrown them back upon the radical concep- tion of the Church as a Divine and Spiritual institution essen- tially distinct from the State. ** We feel ourselves," say the 212 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. writers, " at some loss for a reply to the objeetion which re- lates to the limits and establishment of a diocese, because the government here is not Episcopal ; and because we do not conceive a civil or legal limitation and establishment of a diocese, essentially attached to the doctrine of Episcopacy, or the existence of a Bishop in the Church. The Presbyters who elect the Lishop, and the congregations to which they min- ister, may naturally direct his active superintendence, and prescribe the acknowledged boundaries of his diocese." *^ In other words, their conception of a diocese was that of the spiritual jurisdiction of a Bishop over clergy and laity in communion with him through the Eaith and Sacraments of Christ, in whatsoever place, and under whatsoever circum- stances that jurisdiction might be exercised. The recognition of State limits as the place within which such jurisdiction should prevail, was one which grew naturally out of the obligation of individual Churchmen to obey the civil laws under which they lived; but that involved no right on the part of the State to prescribe diocesan limits ; much less any expectation on the part of Churchmen to receive the benefit of any provision made for them by the State, nor any privi- lege beyond that of the protection of the civil rights which they shared with all their fellow citizens of what religious persuasion soever. But this objection was naturally connected with the idea of what was deemed, by those who had worldly conceptions of the dignity of the Episcopate, necessary pecuniary provision for the maintenance of that dignity. As to this too the answer of the Connecticut Clergy shows the spiritual as opposed to the worldly conception of the Episcopate: " Under existing circumstances, and utterly unable to judge with any certainty what, in the course of divine providence, 6. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 114-115. ILLUSIONS. 213 may be the future condition of the Church in this Country, we can contemplate no other support for a Bishop, than what is to be derived from voluntary contracts, and subscriptions and contributions, directed by the good will and zeal of the members of a Church who are taught, and do believe, that a Bishop is the chief Minister in the kingdom of Christ on earth. Other engagements, it is not in our power to enter into, than our best endeavors to obtain what our people can do, and we trust will continue to do, in proportion to the in- crease of their ability, of which we flatter ourselves with some favorable prospect. A Bishop in Connecticut must, in some degree, be of the primitive style. With patience and a share of primitive zeal, he must rest for support on the Church which he serves, as head in her ministrations, unornamented with temporal dignity, and without the props of secular power." '^ On April 30, 1784, Dr. Seabury acknowledges this letter of the Committee, and relates his use of it: " I have communicated your letter to the Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of London and Oxford; the last did not seem to think it quite satisfactory, but said the letter was a good one, and gave him an advantageous opinion of the gentlemen who wrote it, and of the Clergy of Connecticut in general; and that it was worthy of serious consideration. The Bishop of London thought it removed all the difficulties on your side of the water, and that nothing now was wanting but an Act of Parliament to dispense with the State oaths, and he imagined that would be easily obtained. The Arch- bishop of York gave no opinion, but wished I would lose no time in showing it to the Archbishop of Canterbury." ^ 7. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 115. 8. Ibid. 118. 214 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. On IMay 3, he continues the account relating the comments of Canterbury on May ist: " His Grace's behaviour, though poHte, I thought was cool and restrained. When he had read the letter, he observed that it was still the application only of the Clergy, and that the permission was only the permission of individuals, and not of the legislature. I observed that the reasons why the legislature had not been applied to were specified in the letter, and that they appeared to me to be founded in reason and good sense — that had his Grace demanded the concurrence of the laity of the Church last autumn, it might easily have been procured. That it was the first wish both of the Epis- copal Clergy and laity of Connecticut to have an Episcopate through the clear and uninterrupted channel of the Church of England and my first wish that his Grace and the Arch- bishop of York might be the instruments of its conveyance — but that if such difficulties and objections lay in the way as it was impossible to remove, it was but lost time for me to pursue it further; but that I hoped his Grace would converse with the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London on the subject. He said he would but that he was then very unwell. I thought it was no good time to press the matter while the body and mind were not in proper unison, and rose to withdraw, offering to leave the letter, as it might be wanted. I will not, said he, take the original from you lest it should fare as the letter you brought from the Clergy of Connecticut has fared. I left it with Lord North when he was in office, and have never been able to recover it; but if you will favor me with copies of both letters I shall be obliged to you. I promised compliance and took my leave. Dr. Chandler has been with him to-day on the subject of the Nova Scotia Episcopate, which, I believe, will be effected. His Grace introduced the subject of Connecticut; declared his ILLUSIONS. 215 readiness to do everything in his power, compHmented the Clergy of Connecticut, and your humble servant, talked of an act of Parliament, and mentioned that some young gentle- men from the Southern States, who were here soliciting Orders, had applied to the Danish Bishops through the me- dium of the Danish Ambassador at the Hague, upon a suppo- sition that he was averse to conferring orders on them; but that the supposition was groundless, he being willing and ready to do it when it could consistently be done." ^ On May 24, 1784, the account of the applicant is continued in a letter to Mr. Jarvis. Referring to previous letters, he says: " Since those letters I have had two interviews with his Grace of Canterbury, the last this morning. He declares him- self ready to do everything in his power to promote the business I am engaged in ; but still thinks that an act of Parliament will be necessary to enable him to proceed; and also that the act of the Legislature of your State, which you mentioned would be sent me by Mr. Leaming, is absolutely necessary on which to found an application to Parliament. I pleased myself with the prospect of receiving the copy of that act by the last packet, the letters of which arrived here on the 15". inst. ; but great was my mortification, that no letter came to me from my good and ever dear friends. What I shall do I know not, as the business is at a dead stand without it; and the Parliament is now sitting. If the next arrival does not bring it, I shall be at my wit's end. Send it, therefore, by all means, even after the receipt of this letter : or if you have sent it, send a duplicate. His Grace says he sees no reason to despair; but yet that 9. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 120, 121. 2l6 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. matters arc in such a state of uncertainty that he knows not how to promise anything. He complains of the people in power; that there is no getting them to attend to anything in which their own party interest is not concerned. This is cer- tainly the worst country in the world to do business in. I wonder how they get along at any rate. But if I harl the act of your State which you refer to in your letter, I should be able to bring the matter to a crisis, and it would be deter- mined, one way or the other. And as it is attended with uncertainty whether I shall succeed here, I have in two or three letters to Air. Learning, requested to know, whether in case of failure here, it would be agreeable to the Clergy in Connecticut that I should apply to the nonjuring Bishops in Scotland, who have been sounded and declare their readiness to carry the business into execution. I hope to receive in- structions on this head by the next arrival, and in the mean time must watch occasions as they rise. Believe me, there is nothing that is not base that I would not do, nor any risk that I would not run, nor any incon- venience to myself that I would not encounter, to carry this business into effect. And I assure you, if I do not succeed it shall not be my fault." ^"^ Dr. Seabury's letter of June 26, 1784, to Mr. Jarvis, con- tinues the relation : " I received on the 17" inst. Mr. Learning's letter, inclosing the act of the legislature of Connecticut, respecting liberty of conscience in that State. Upon the whole I think it a lib- eral one; and, if it be fairly interpreted and abided by, fully adequate to all good purposes. I have had a long conversa- tion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and another with the Archbishop of York, on the act. They seem to think the 10. Beardsley's life of Ep. Scabury, pp. 123, 124. ILLUSIONS. 217 principal objections are removed so far as you or I are con- cerned. They spoke handsomely of the Clergy of Connecticut, and declared themselves satisfied with your humble servant, whom the Clergy were pleased to recommend to them. But I apprehend there are some difficulties that may not easily be got over. These arise from the restrictions the Bishops are under about consecrating without the King's leave, and the doubt seems to be about the King's leave to consecrate a Bishop who is not to reside in his dominions; and about the validity of his dispensing with the oath in case he has power to grant leave of consecration. I have declared my opinion, which is, that as there is no law existing relative to a Bishop who is to reside in a foreign State, the Archbishops are left to the general laws of the Christian Church, and have no need either of the King's leave or dispensation. But the opinion of so little a man cannot have much weight. The Arch- bishop of Canterbury supposes that an Act of Parliament will be necessary; yet he wishes to get through the business, if possible, without it, and acknowledged that the opinion of the majority of the Bishops differed from his. The questions are referred to the Attorney and Solicitor-general, and their opinion, should they agree, will, I presume, determine the point. This opinion, I hope, will be obtained in a short time, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has promised to consult them. . . . I have had opportunities of consulting some very respect- able clergymen in this matter, and their invariable opinion is, that should I be disappointed here, where the business had been so fairly, candidly, and honorably pursued, it would become my duty to obtain Episcopal consecration wherever it can be had, and that no exception could be taken here at my doing so. The Scotch Succession was named. It was said to be equal to any succession in the world, etc. There I know consecration may be had. But with regard to this matter I 2l8 MEMOIR OF BISIIOr SEABURY. hope to hear from you in answer to a letter I wrote to Mr. Learning, I think in April. Should I receive any instruc- tions from the Clergy of Connecticut, I shall attend to them; if not, I shall act according to the best advice I can get, and my own judgment. Believe me, there is nothing I have so much at heart as the accomplishment of the business you have intrusted to my management ; and I am ready to make every sacrifice of worldly consideration that may gtand in the way of its com- pletion." " The last of this series is addressed to the Clergy of Con- necticut, and contains the report of the final action taken in pursuit of their instructions to resort primarily to the Eng- lish Bishops for the consecration. It goes again over the ground, so often traversed, of the necessity of a permissive act of Parliament; but it shows a nearer approach to the cri- sis, and that the point was being reached at which the question of consecration or no consecration in England must be de- cided. If Parliament refused, or omitted to give, the needed authority for the consecration of a Bishop to be settled in foreign parts, which would involve the omission of the State oaths, and the waiver of questions in regard to the position of a Bishop so to be settled, it would be considered as tanta- mount to the denial of the application in the present case, and the applicant would prefer his petition elsewhere. This let- ter is here given entire. " London, July 26, 1784 Gentlemen, — I take the opportunity by Mr. Townsend to write to you, although I have little more to say than I have already said in my late letters. On the 21^*= inst. I had an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury. I was with him an hour. He entered fully II. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 130, 131. ILLUSIONS. 219 and warmly into my business; declared himself fully sensible of the expediency, justice, and necessity of the measure; and also of the necessity of its being carried immediately into exe- cution. An act of Parliament, however, will be requisite to enable the Bishops to proceed without incurring a Praemunire. A bill for this purpose I am encouraged to expect will be brought In as soon as the proper steps are taken to insure it an easy passage through the two Houses. The previous meas- ures are now concerting, and I am flattered with every pros- pect of success. But everything here is attended with uncertainty till it is actually done. Men or measures, or both, may be changed to-morrow, and then all will be to go through again. However, I shall patiently wait the issue of the pres- ent session of Parliament, which, it is the common opinion, will continue a month longer. If nothing be done, I shall give up the matter here as unattainable, and apply to the North, unless I should receive contrary directions from the Clergy of Connecticut. The various difficulties I have had to struggle with, and the various steps I have taken to get through them are too long to communicate by letter; but I hope to spend the next winter in Connecticut, and then you shall know all, at least all that I shall remember. My best regards attend the Clergy, and all my friends and the friends of the Church. I hope yet to spend some happy years with them. Accept, my good brethren, the best wishes of your affectionate humble servant, Samuel Seabury." The cheerful and courageous tone of this letter appears not to have been inconsistent with the recognition of the very possible prospect of a final disappointment of the writer in .the efforts which, hoping against hope, he had now made for more than a year. In their simple faith in the justice of their 220 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. appeal to the English Bishops the Connecticut Clergy had commissioned him to seek consecration from them. In their relation to the Civil Authority of their Country, these Bishops (lid not think it safe to grant the request made of them : and refused to do so unless an act of Parliament should authorize such action as was needed. The result of all the waiting, the anxiety and suspense, the laborious efforts to prepare for and procure the desired sanction from Parliament, was that an act was passed authorizing the Bishop of London and his sub- stitutes to dispense with the oaths which precluded ordination of foreign candidates for the Diaconate and the Priest- hood; but without the admission of candidates for the Epis- copate to the same privilege: so that the Bishop Elect in the present case was still left under all the disabilities which the English law imposed upon him. His duty therefore was accomplished so far as the English Episcopate was concerned ; and it became necessary for him to look elsewhere for that which he had been commissioned to procure. The paths open to him, and the course actually pursued by him, are now to be considered. CHAPTER XV. THE FREE, VALID AND PURELY ECCLESIASTICAL EPISCOPACY. 1784. THE title of this chapter constitutes a phrase which is of frequent occurrence in the writings of those who were interested in the original settlement of Bishops in this Country. I cannot ascertain by whom it was first used, but it was very common in the days with which we are now concerned, and had been so for many years. It well expressed the substance of the desire of those who sought to have the Episcopate planted in this Country; and was de- signed to indicate the absence of intention to introduce with the Episcopate any of those worldly associations which have been the bane of that Divine Institution since the Church ceased to be persecuted, and the Enemy of Mankind became content to work its injury by the slower, but more effectual, process of connecting it with the State, or otherwise corrupt- ing it with the influences of temporal power and wealth and social prestige. The Episcopate which the Connecticut Clergy sought to procure was to be free, as being entirely distinct from the State, and subject only to the obHgations of its own Divinely given charter of spiritual authority; it was to be valid, as having been derived by direct transmission from Christ through the Apostles and the Bishops successively tracing back to them; and it was to be purely ecclesiastical, as being 221 222 MEMOIR OF IllSIIOr SEABURY. wholly without any of those powers which had been legally and technically called spiritual, but which were essentially civil in their character. In the aj^plication to the English Establishmentarian Bishops, what was sought from them was merely the Episcopal character; and this, if obtamed, was de- signed to be used simply for its own spiritual ends. But the English Episcopate though valid, was neither free nor purely Ecclesiastical ; and therefore was incapable of communicating its own validity, without the permission of those to whom it had forfeited its freedom. That permission being refused, and the Church of England Bishops deprived of the happiness of being the first to trans- mit to this Country the Apostolic Succession, it was necessary for the man chosen by the Connecticut Clergy to be the Bishop of the Church in that State, to seek this Episcopacy in another quarter. The choice before him appears to have been practically lim- ited to two Hnes of the Episcopate then existing in Great Britain, and distinct from the Establishmentarian line. These two lines were those of the Scottish Church, and of the non- juring Bishops of the Sancroft succession residing in Eng- land. There were other Bishops of course to whom access cotild have been had; but these were such as would not have communicated the succession to the applicant without requir- ing him to abandon allegiance to the Anglican Communion — as in the case of Bishops of the Greek or Roman obedience; or they were such as he could not have sought the Episcopate from, without recognizing the validity of that which they possessed, probably not capable of proof in his view, — as in the case of the Danish succession. So that practically he was to choose between the succession of the Scottish Church, and the English non-juring succession. He received an offer of consecration at the hands of Bishops Cartwright and Price of the last named succession : but this offer was declined on THE PURELY ECCLESIASTICAL EPISCOPACY. 223 the ground that apphcation had already been made by him to the Scottish Church, and that the apphcation had been granted. Dr. Seabury's letter to Bishop Cartwright, of October, 1784, printed by Dr. Beardsley (p. 135) contains the following passage, which may suffice to show his action in regard to that offer: '' Till within a few days I have had no decided answer from the North, and therefore did not sooner write to you because I could make no certain reply to your letter. But as the issue of the negotiation I was engaged in is such that I cannot in honour retreat, I can only at present return you my hearty and unfeigned thanks for the candid communication and liberal sentiments which your letter contained; and assure you that I shall ever retain the highest esteem and veneration, both for yourself and Bishop Price, on account of the ready disposition which you both show to impart the great blessing of a primi- tive Episcopacy to the destitute Church in America." ^ It is very difficult to reconcile the expressions in Dr. Sea- bury's letters to Connecticut, in reference to his application to the Scottish Bishops, with a consciousness on his part of an obligation to follow instructions already received to resort to Scotland in case of his failure in England. Mr. Fogg's let- ter, above quoted, plainly asserts that the Connecticut Clergy had instructed Dr. Seabury if he could not obtain consecra- tion in England to seek it in Scotland: yet Dr. Seabury re- peatedly submits the question of such procedure to the Con- necticut Clergy, as if he had received no instructions. Either the instructions had not in fact been communicated to him, although the Convention ordered that they should be; or he had not remembered them; or he thought that the members I. The word "to" appears before the words "assure you" in the latter part of this sentence, both in Dr. Beardsley's reprint, and in Bishop Seabury 's letter book: but it is so manifestly an inadvertence that I have taken the liberty of omitting it from the above text. 224 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. of the Convention ought to have another and later opportunity of expressing their will if it had remained unchanged. Dean Burgon, whose judgment on all points is worthy of the most respectful consideration, affirms very positively that the suggestion of the resort to the Scottish Bishops was first made to Dr. Seabury by the venerable Dr. Routh, President of Magdalen College, Oxford, then a young man of twenty- nine, but then, as always, a prodigy of learning; and that Dr. Routh at the same time disabused the mind of Dr. Seabury as to the validity of the Danish succession. It is possible that Dr. Seabury at that time was not as accurately informed in regard to the Danish succession as Dr. Routh was ; and that the stricture of Dr. Routh may have removed from Dr. Seabury's mind any question which might have arisen there as to a resort to that succession, which it was understood at the time might have been imparted. It is possible also that Dr. Routh's reference to the Scottish succession might have been received by Dr. Seabury as a renewed assurance of what he had already understood, and of what he knew the Con- necticut Clergy were also aware of. But, considering his former residence in Scotland, and his former associations with the Church there, it seems hardly probable that Dr. Seabury then for the first time learned of the existence and validity of its Episcopal succession. However, it certainly does not seem that he thought himself bound by the Connecticut instructions to resort to Scotland; and it certainly is proved that Dr. Routh suggested that resort; and the reader, if he is curious enough to consult Dean Burgon's account of the matter will at least find it most interesting and instructive, and may de- termine the questions raised according to his own judg- ment.2 It does not appear that Dr. Seabury received any answer 2. Burgon's Lives of Twelve Good Men, vol. I, pp. 29-35, and Ap- pendix C. in the same volume. THE PURELY ECCLESIASTICAL EPISCOPACY. 22$ from Connecticut to his requests for instructions; and it is to be presumed that, having heard nothing to the contrary, he assumed that it would be agreeable to the Connecticut Clergy, as it accorded with his own judgment, that he should prefer his request to Scotland. This he did, after informing the Archbishops of Canterbury and York of his intention to pur- sue that course. It appears that the idea of the derivation of an American Episcopate from the Scottish Bishops, had been entertained by the Rev. Dr. Berkeley, and by him suggested to Bishop Skinner of Scotland, some months before the same idea was broached by the Connecticut Convention. Possibly it may have occurred to others. Dr. Berkeley, however, a son of the illustrious Bishop of that name, seems to have been the one who first brought the matter home to the consciousness of the Scottish Bishops. To Bishop Skinner he wrote in Oc- tober, 1782, hoping " that a most important good might ere- long be derived to the suffering and nearly neglected sons of Protestant Episcopacy on the other side of the Atlantic from the suffering Church of Scotland ... I would humbly submit it to the Bishops of the Church in Scotland (as we style her in Oxford), whether this be not a time peculiarly favorable to tlie introduction of the Protestant Episcopate on the footing of universal toleration, and before any Anti-Episcopal establishment shall have taken place. God direct the hearts of your prelates in this matter." Bishop Skinner's judgment in regard to the suggestion was that the Scottish Bishops could not move in the matter until the Brit- ish Government had committed itself irrevocably on the ques- tion of independence. After that had taken place, Dr. Berke- ley again addressed him on the subject, speaking in one of his letters as follows : " I have this day heard, I need not add with the sincerest pleasure, that a respectable presbyter, well recommended, from 226 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. America, has arrived in London, seeking what, it seems, in the present state of affairs, he cannot expect to receive in our Church. Surely, dear sir, the Scotch prelates, who are not shackled by any Erastian connection, will not send this suppliant empty away." And about the same time, November 1783, the question was proposed to the Scottish Primus by Mr. Elphinstone, the son of a Scotch clergyman — '' Can consecration be obtained in Scotland for an already dignified and well-vouched clergy- man now at London, for the purpose of perpetuating the Episcopal reformed Church in America, particularly in Con- necticut ? " ^ It would seem that the reply to these suggestions was af- firmative, and that Dr. Seabury was made aware of the wil- lingness of the Scottish Bishops to consecrate him, since, in his letter above cited of June 26, 1784, referring to Scotland, he wrote, " there I know consecration can be obtained." His own first move in the matter seems to have been by a letter to his friend Dr. Cooper at Edinburgh, which appears to have been intended to be submitted to the Scottish Bishops, and which was so submitted by its recipient. A copy of this let- ter in his own handwriting is contained in his manuscript let- ter book, being the first of the letters copied into that book, and is as follows: " Copy of a letter from Dr. Seabury to Dr. Cooper, Dated London 31^*, August 1784 My dear Sir I hope this letter will find you safe at Edin'^ in good health and spirits. Here everything in which I have any concern continues in the same state as when I saw you at your Castle. I have been for some time past, and yet am, in daily expecta- 3. Cf. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 126-130. THE PURELY ECCLESIASTICAL EPISCOPACY. 227 tlon of hearing from Connecticut; but there have been no late arrivals, nor shall I wait for any, provided I have any favorable account from you, but shall hold myself in readiness to set off for the North at 24 hours notice. With regard to myself, it is not my fault that I have not done it before, but I thought it my duty to pursue the plan marked out for me by the Clergy of Connecticut, as long as there was a probable chance of succeeding. That probability* is now at an end, and I think myself at liberty to pursue such other schemes as shall ensure to them a valid Episcopacy; and such I take the Scotch Episcopacy to be in every sense of the word ; and such I know the Clergy of Connecticut consider it, and always have done so, but the connection that has always subsisted between them and the Church of England, and the generous support they have hitherto received from that Church, natu- rally led them, though now no longer a part of the British Dominions, to apply to that Church in the first instance, for relief in their spiritual necessity. Unhappily the connection of this Church with the State is so intimate that the Bishops can do little without the consent of the Ministry, and the Ministry have refused to permit a Bishop to be consecrated for Connecticut, or for any of the 13 States, without the formal request, or at least consent of Congress, which there is no chance of obtaining, and which the Clergy of Connecticut would not apply for, were the chance ever so good. They are content with having the Episcopal Church in Connecticut put upon the same footing with any other religious denomination. A copy of a law of the State of Connecticut, which enables the Episcopal Congregations to transact their ecclesiastical affairs upon their own principles, to tax their members for the maintenance of their Clergy, for the support of their worship, for the building and repairing of Churches, and which 4. This word is mistakenly printed ''probably," in Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 136. 228 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. exempts them from all penalties and from all other taxes, on a religious account, I have in my possession. The Legislature of Connecticut know that a Bishop is applied for, they know the person in whose favour the application is made, and they give no opposition to either. Indeed were they disposed to object, they have more prudence than to attempt to object to it. They know that there are in that State more than 70 Episcopal Congregations : many of them large : some of them making a majority of the inhabitants of large towns; and with those that are scattered through the State, composing a body of near or quite 40,000: a body too large to be needlessly af- fronted in an elective government. On this ground it is that I apply to the good Bishops in Scotland, and I hope I shall not apply in vain. If they con- sent to impart the Episcopal succession to the Church of Connecticut, they will, I think, do a good work and the bless- ing of thousands will attend them. And perhaps for this cause, among others, God's Providence has supported them, and continued their succession under various and great diffi- culties — that a free valid and purely ecclesiastical Episcopacy may from them pass into the western world. As to anything which I receive here, it has no influence on me, and never has had any. I, indeed think it my duty to conduct the matter in such a manner as shall risk the salaries which the Missionaries in Connecticut receive from the So- ciety here as little as possible; and I persuade myself it may be done, so as to make that risk next to nothing. With re- spect to my own salary — if the Society choose to withdraw it, I am ready to part with it. It is a matter of some consequence to me that this affair be determined as soon as possible. I am anxious to return to America this autumn, and the winter is fast approaching, when the voyage will be attended with double inconvenience and danger, and the expense of continuing here another win- THE PURELY ECCLESIASTICAL EPISCOPACY. 229 ter is greater than will suit my purse. I know you will give me the earliest intelligence in your power, and I shall pa- tiently wait till I hear from you. My most respectful regards attend the Right Reverend Gentlemen under whose considera- tion this business will come, and as there are none but the most open and candid intentions on my part, so I doubt not of the miost candid and fair construction of my conduct on their part. Accept, my dear Sir, of the best wishes of your ever affec- tionate &:c S. S." The next entry in the letter book is as follows : " Copy of a card from Dr. Cooper to Bp. Kilgour Dr. Cooper presents his most respectful compliments to Bishop Kilgour, and begs leave to acquaint him, that to Dr. Cooper's knowledge. Dr. Seabury is recommended by several worthy Clergymen in Connecticut as a person worthy of pro- motion, and to whom they are willing to submit as a Bishop. Dated Edin^ 13th September 1784 Postscript by another hand Dr. Berkeley, in consequence of some fears suggested by Bp. Skinner, wrote the present Archbishop of Canterbury, that application had been made by Dr. Seabury to the Scot- tish Bishops for consecration, and begged, that if his grace thought the Bishops here run any hazard in complying with Dr. Seabury's request, he would be so good as [to] give Dr. Berkeley notice immediately, but if his Grace was satisfied that there was no danger, there was no occasion to give any answer. No answer came." The postscript here copied is said to have been a memoran- dum in the handwriting of Bishop Skinner on Dr. Seabury's letter of application. 230 MEMOIR OF BiSIIOr SEABURY. With regard to the question of risk in the contemplated action of the Scottish Bishops, it is to be observed that the whole Scottish Episcopal Church had been for many years, ever since the first session of King William's Parliament in Scotland, proscribed by law; Episcopacy being then abolished, and in the next session the Presbyterian government being established, and Presbyterian Judicatories being erected which had authority to fine, imprison and punish the Episcopal Clergy even if they held any private congregations, or meet- ings with people of their own Communion and opinions ; and to shut up the doors of all their meetings, not allowing them the least toleration. Such is, in part, the account given by Granville Sharp of the " persecution " of the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland, in a letter written by him to the Rev^. Mr. Man- ning, to which we shall probably have occasion to refer here- after, and which is here cited only for its testimony as to this particular. The situation as described by Dr. Beardsley was that the Clergy were forbidden to officiate except in private dwellings, and then only for four persons beside the house- hold; or if in an uninhabited dwelling, for a number not ex- ceeding four. In many rural places their houses of worship were burnt by military detachments; and in towns where burning was unsafe, they were shut up or demolished. A clergyman violating these laws was liable, for the first offense, to six months imprisonment, and for the second, to transporta- tion for life.^ And although in the lapse of time the harsh- ness with which these laws had been enforced was somewhat abated, yet the laws remained unrepealed, and were very liable to be enforced if any influence near the Court should on ac- count of some special grievance set their machinery again in motion. Hence the caution used by Bishop Skinner in feel- ing the pulse of the Archbishop of Canterbury through Dr. Berkeley. 5. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 144. THE PURELY ECCLESIASTICAL EPISCOPACY. 23I It was on account of these persecutions that the worship of the Episcopal Church was conducted with that secrecy which we have had occasion to notice in an earUer chapter of this work while Dr. Seabury resided in Edinburgh as a stu- dent of medicine before his ordination; and for the same rea- son that Bishop Skinner had been obliged to make provision for the worship of the congregation in Aberdeen to which he ministered, by setting apart for the purpose the two upper floors of his private dwelling house in an obscure part of the town called Longacre. The next entry in the letter book is a copy of a letter — " From the R*. Rev^. Bp. Robert Kilgour of Aberdeen to the Rev^. Mr. John Allen of Edinburgh. Rev'^. and Dear Sir, I acknowledge by first opportunity the receipt of yours of the 14th ult. enclosing Dr. Seabury's letter to Dr. Cooper which I doubt not you have received in course. Dr. Seabury's long silence after it had been signified to him that the Bishops of this Church would comply with his pro- posals, made them all think that the affair was dropped and that he did not chuse to be connected with them, but his letter and the manner in which he accounts for his conduct give such satisfaction that I have the pleasure to inform you, that we are still willing to comply with his proposal ; to cloath him with the Episcopal character, and thereby convey to the Western World the blessing of a free, valid and purely eccle- siastical Episcopacy: not doubting that he will so agree with us in Doctrine and Discipline as that he and the Church under his charge in Connecticut, will hold communion with us and the Church here on Catholic and Primitive principles; and so that the members of both may with freedom communicate to- gether in all the Offices of Religion. We are concerned that he should have been so long in de- 232 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. termining himself to make this appHcation and wish that in an affair of so much importance he had corresponded with one of our number. However as he appears open and candid on his part, he may beheve the Bishops will be no less so on their part ; and will be glad how soon he can set out for the North. As I cannot undertake a journey to Edinburgh, and it would also be too hard on Bp. Petrie in his very infirm state, the only proper place that remains for us to meet in is Aberdeen. How soon Dr. Seabury fixes on the time for his setting out or at least how soon he comes into Scotland, I hope he will ad- vise me; as the Bishops will settle their time of meeting for his Consecration as soon thereafter as their circumstances and distance will permit. With a return of the Bps. most re- spectful regards to Dr. Seabury, please advise him of all this. May God grant us a happy meeting, and direct all to the honour and glory of his name and to the good of his Church. To his benediction I ever heartily commend you and am Rev^ and dear Sir Your affect Brother and humble Serv*. Robert Kilgour." Peterhead 2" Bishop Aladison, consecrated for Virginia in 1790, made the third Bishop of English consecration and instruction; and 9. Bishop White's Memoirs, p. 142. 10. Connecticut Church Documents, Hawks and Perry, II, 350, 352. THE MEDIATION OF THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPATE. 25I in 1792, the three Bishops of the EngHsh hne were willing to act with the Bishop of the Scottish line in the consecration of Dr. Claggett as Bishop of Maryland. Bishop White and Bishop Madison thought '' that the sense of the Archbishop was fully accomplished by the presence and assistance of the canonical number in the English line." Be- sides, adds Bishop White " the question had changed its ground by the repeal of the laws against the Scotch Bishops; and by their reception in their proper character in England."^^ No change in the laws of England could have had such retroactive effect as to make the Bishop consecrated by the Scottish Bishops in 1784, more rightly and lawfully a Bishop than he was at the time of his consecration and throughout the eight years in which the petty spite of English prejudice had caused to be suspended the perpetuation of the American line. The real reason for admitting the Bishop of Connecticut to a share in the consecration of Bishop Claggett must be found in the supposition that it could do no harm, since the English three were sufficient without him. But through Bishop Claggett every Bishop since consecrated in the American Episcopate traces his line of Episcopal succes- sion; and thus every one of these Bishops derives his Epis- copate from the Scottish line as well as from the English line. So God overruled the malice of those Bishops who, having through their connection with the State been deprived of the opportunity of being the first to transmit the Apostolic suc- cession to the Western World, sought to secure the credit of an action which they had been afraid to perform, by depreciat- ing an Episcopacy which they knew to be as valid as their own. And so the act of the Scottish Bishops in consecrating a Bishop for Connecticut, has in the Providence of God stamped II. Bishop White's Memoirs, p. 144. 252 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. an impress on the American Episcopate which will last as long as the power of the American succession to perpetuate itself shall endure. And in the preparation of the Scottish Episcopate for the fulfillment of that mission of mediation to which God had called them in respect of the American succession, the Scottish Bish- ops were made instrumental in the restoration of the broken unity of the Episcopal chain, by connecting one of the links of the English non-juring succession with their own. For among these English non-juring Bishops was one, Dr. George Hickes, who joined in the consecration of one of the Scottish Bishops in the line which led down to the Bishop of Connecticut/- and remarkable to relate, every other branch of that English non- juring line (and there were several of them) died out without succession. So that the Episcopal line which diverged with Sancroft, actually came back to the unity of the Church in the lawful line of the National Episcopate of Scotland: and thus through the Bishop of Connecticut, were transmitted to the American Episcopate both the line of the Scottish succession derived through English channels from pre-Reformation and primitive sources, and also the line of those who had been deprived in England by William III, after the Revolution of 1688. Short sighted indeed was that prejudice which made the English Bishops, and those whom they consecrated for us in 1787, cast doubtful glances upon the consecration of 1784; and led them to such scrupulous circumspection lest they should seem to permit the American succession to depend for the com- pletion of its canonical number of consecrators, upon the Bishop of Connecticut. And much reason have we to be thankful that the life of that Bishop was preserved until their scrupu- lous, though dangerous, nicety was satisfied: for had he died 12. Bishop Gadderer was consecrated, February 24, 1712, by Bishop Hickes, Bishop Campbell, and Bishop John Falconer. THE MEDIATION OF THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPATE. 253 before the three Bishops consecrated in England were ready to perform their first consecration in this Country ,we should indeed have had the Episcopal succession, but we should have been de- prived of the happiness of tracing it through those who had lived to show to the world the possibility of maintaining the succession without the help of the Establishment, and in spite of tyrannical efforts to stamp it out of existence. Nor should we have had the privilege of showing the concentration of several lines sometime separated, but now in our succession united; and thereby symbolizing the true purpose and motive of the Episcopate as the Divinely appointed centre of unity in the Church of Christ. B CHAPTER XVII. LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND. 1784-1785. ISHOP SEABURY'S JOURNAL, to which we shall later have occasion to refer as recording some of his Episcopal experiences in America, is marked by him as Journal B. From this it is natural to infer that he had kept an earlier Journal marked A. This earlier volume, however, has not been preserved among his papers, and, if it be in fact still extant, has not been elsewhere discovered. One can only- regret that no such source of information as to the manner of his life during the period between his consecration and his de- parture for home, is accessible. As it is, the information as to his experience in that period is but scant, and is to be obtained mostly from letters of his which have survived, and from occasional references to him in the letters of others. It would appear from these sources that, in the afternoon of the Sunday on which he was consecrated, he preached in Aberdeen at the chapel in which the consecration took place ; ^ that he went from Aberdeen some time before the third of De- cember, to Edinburgh, whence he went on to London about the middle of December, remaining there until he sailed. His let- ter to Dr. Boucher, hereafter quoted, is dated " Edinburgh, Dec. 3. 1784;" and in this he speaks of his purpose to be in London in ten days. He was expected in London December I. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 156-7. 254 LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND. 255 17th, as appears from a letter of Rev. Jacob Duche.- He was at ^8 Norton Street London, in the first part of January, as ap- pears from a letter of Dr. Home addressed to him at that place under date of January 3, 1785. He dates the letter to the Connecticut Clergy, ''London, January, 5, 1785 " and one to Dr. Morice, " London February 27, 1785 ;" and Dr. Chandler, writing of him to Bishop Skinner, April 23, 1785, says " he left the Downs on the 15*^ of last month; on the 19*^ was sixty-five leagues west of the Lizzard with a fair prospect of a good passage, at which time he wrote to me." ^ This report of Dr. Chandler is confirmed by two notes written by Bishop Seabury to his friend Dr. Sylvester Gardiner, one dated at the Downs March 15th, and the other at 65 miles west of the Liz- zard.* The first of these notes is particularly valuable, con- taining evidence which I have nowhere else seen as to the due observance of the proprieties, on the part of Bishop Sea- bury, by a farewell call on the Archbishops; and, on their part, by their polite reception of the same; and also as to the name of the ship in which he sailed, concerning which he seems to have changed the purpose expressed in one of his letters ; and further, as to the fact that he went to Halifax to see his children — though which of them were then there does not appear. The following extract from this note bears upon these points : ^' My business in Scotland was completed on the 14^^ of Nov. In December I returned to London, and had no inter- course with the great men of the Church till the last of Febru- ary when I went to take leave of the two Archbishops. They received me with the greatest politeness, and parted with me 2. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 170. 3. Ibid., p. 179. 4. For the use of these notes I am indebted to the Rev<3. Henry A. Parker who was allowed to copy the originals in possession of the late Mrs. Margaret Elton, a great-granddaughter of Dr. Gardiner, 256 MEMOIR OF BlSllOr SEAliURY. in the most friendly and affectionate manner. So that I hope I shall be able to keep up a proper hitercoursc with them. I have taken my passage in the Ship Chapman Capt. Dawson, for Halifax, that I may visit my children before I sit down in Con- necticut, where I hope to be sometime in May." These references give us all the knowledge that seems at- tainable in reference to this part of Bishop Seabury's life. Why he should have delayed for four months the return which he had during the last year been so anxious to expedite, does not appear: but, presumably, he had good reasons for the de- lay ; and, certainly, the letters which he wrote in the last days of his sojourn in Great Britain are not among the least valu- able of his works, as it is hoped will by and by more fully appear. One event which occurred during his stay in London, which Dr. Beardsley does not mention, and of which so far as I am aware, no written account has ever been given, is nevertheless of considerable interest. The Rev^. Jacob Duche, above men- tioned, who appears to have contracted a strong regard and admiration for Bishop Seabury, of which he writes to the Rev^. Mr. White in Philadelphia, speaks in his letter of ex- pecting Bishop Seabury in London on the 17th of December. Whether he expected him as his guest, or merely as a sojourner in the town, does not appear; but it was, no doubt, through this connection that the acquaintance of Bishop Seabury was then made by the Rev. Mr. Duche's son, Mr. Thomas Spence Duche, who was an artist, and had been a pupil of the cele- brated Benjamin West. This acquaintance led to the painting of the portrait of Bishop Seabury by Mr. Duche, a picture which is said to have received its finishing touches from West himself. Whether the portrait was then finished is uncertain, but it must have been at this time that the Bishop sat, or rather stood, for it. The portrait was engraved by William Sharp an eminent engraver of that day: and the engraving is well LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND. 257 known in England and Scotland, as well as in the United States ; and, wherever it exists, perpetuates a very noble presentation of its subject. What became of the plate of this engraving I do not know. Perhaps some one of those who are curious in such matters may ascertain its whereabouts some day, as the repu- tation of Sharp seems to have been such as to make his works worth considering. But there are some associations which the portrait has which dispose me to dwell a moment on its his- tory. The Rev^. Dr. Duche was, at the first breaking out of the Revolution in this Country the Rector of Christ Church, Phila- delphia ; and, being apparently sympathetic with the Patriots, was appointed the Chaplain of the Congress at its first ses- sion; but observing, I suppose, what took place at this Con- gress, and " doubting whereunto these things would grow," he thought it prudent to transfer his residence to England. Upon his retirement he was succeeded in the Philadelphia Rec- torate, and the Chaplaincy of Congress, by the Rev. Mr. White; and at a later period of his life, after Mr. White had become Bishop of Pennsylvania, he returned to Philadelphia. From his regard for Bishop Seabury, and the consequent in- terest of his son Mr. Thomas Spence Duche, it may be im- agined that the painting of this portrait was a labour of love. The fruit of love's labour, however, was not bestowed upon the Bishop, but remained with the artist. I have been in- formed that, having been afterwards brought to this Country, the Portrait was presented by Bishop White, on behalf of a sister of the artist, to the Diocese of Connecticut; and was lodged in Trinity College where it still exists in good preserva- tion. Some years later when Dean Hoffman was enriching the General Theological Seminary in New York with his many beneficences, he procured the loan of this portrait, and had a copy of it made by Mr. Yewell, and presented it to the Sem- inary; in the Refectory of which, in Hoffman Hall, it now 25S MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. hangs. Recently, in the autumn of 1907, another copy of the portrait, made by Miss Mihh-ed Jordan, was, through the Hb- erality and pubHc spirit of Air. George Dudley Seymour, pre- sented to Yale College, in commemoration of Bishop Seabury's association with that College as one of its graduates in the class of 1748.=^ Three of the letters to which reference has been made it will be necessary to present in full, both because of their his- torical value, and because they reflect so much honour upon their writer that it would be inexcusable to omit them from an account of his life. They are the letter which he addressed to the Clergy of Connecticut after his consecration, the letter which he wrote to his friend the Rev^. Jonathan Boucher, and that which he addressed to the Society for propagating the Gospel, through its secretary, the Rev^. Dr. Morice. It is pro- posed to present them in this order, although the Boucher let- ter is of the earliest date, because of the bearing which the Boucher and Morice letters have upon the effort which he was making to preserve for the aid of the Church in Connecticut the stipends of the Society upon which the Clergy had hitherto been so largely dependent for their support. These letters will speak for themselves and need no comment. 5. It may perhaps be as well to mention in this connection, that two portraits of Bishop Seabury were painted in this Country after his return ; one by Earle and the other by an artist whose name I never heard. Both of these are excellent paintings. That by Earle, in the Episcopal robes, represents the subject as in a sitting posture. This painting was inherited by my father, and was given by him to his 'daughter Lydia, wife of Samuel Peters Bell, Esqr., and is now the property of their son, Mr. Samuel Seabury Bell. The other portrait is in a standing position, and also in the Episcopal dress. The Bishop's son, Mr. Edward Seabury, had this portrait of his father made, and gave it to his sister Violetta, wife of Charles Nicol Taylor, Esq., by whose daughter, Sarah Maria, wife of Capt. Thomas H. Merry, it was presented to my father, who left it to me. — W. J. S. LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND. 259 But before presenting them it will not be amiss to notice the interchange of notes, in January, 1785, between the Bishop and Dr. George Home the Dean of Canterbury. The Dean's note has already been referred to in another connection. The en- tire passage from which the extract was previously made is as follows : " You do me but justice in supposing me a hearty friend to the American Episcopacy. I am truly sorry that our Cabinet here would not save you the trouble of going to Scotland for it. There is some uneasiness about it, I find, since it is done. It is said you have been precipitate about it. I should be in- clined to think so too, had any hopes been left of obtaining consecration from England. But if none were left, what could you do but what you have done ? " Dr. Beardsley quotes, though without giving any authority for the quotation, an extract from Bishop Seabury's reply to the Dean, which is as follows : " God grant that I may never have greater cause to con- demn myself than in the conduct of this business. I have endeavoured to get it forward easily and quietly, without noise, party or heat; and I cannot but be pleased that no fault but precipitancy is brought against me. That implies that I have needlessly hurried the matter, but is an acknowledgment that the matter was right in itself. . . . From education and habit, as well as from a sense of her real excellence, I have a sincere veneration for the Church of England, and I am grieved to see the power of her Bishops restrained by her con- nection with the State. Had it been otherwise, my applica- tion, I am confident, would have met with a very different re- ception." ® No doubt the Bishop's confidence in this respect was not misplaced. It is not difficult to make an allowance for the fet- 6. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 164. 260 MEMOIR OF BISIIOr SEABURY. tcred condition of the Bishops to whom he refers; nor to understand that tied and bound as they were, they could not have granted his appHcation, But that affords no excuse for the freezing out poHcy, which their settled resentment of his success without their permission induced them afterwards to inaugurate, and scrupulously to impart to their American suc- cessors. In the one course they deserve some sympathy : as to the other — the least that can justly be said is that it savours more of the earthen vessel, than of the grace which that vessel is supposed to contain. To the Rev^. Messrs. Leaming, Jarvis and Hubbard, of the Connecticut Clergy, the following letter was written from Lon- don, January 5th, 1785 : *' My very dear and worthy friends, — It is with very great pleasure that I now inform you, that my business here is perfectly completed, in the best way that I have been able to transact it. Your letter, and also a letter from Mr. Leaming, which accompanied the act of your Legisla- ture, certified by Mr. Secretary Wyllys, overtook me at Edin- burgh, in my journey to the north, and not only gave me great satisfaction, but were of great service to me. I met with a very kind reception from the Scotch Bishops, who having read and considered such papers as I laid before them, consisting of the copies of my original letters and testi- monial, and of your subsequent letters, declared themselves perfectly satisfied, and said that they conceived themselves called upon, in the course of God's Providence, without regard to any human policy, to impart a pure, valid, and free Epis- copacy to the western world; and that they trusted that God, who had begun so good a work, would water the infant Church in Connecticut with his heavenly grace, and protect it by his good providence, and make it the glory and pattern of the pure Episcopal Church in the world ; and that as it was freed from LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND. 261 all incumbrance arising from connection with civil establish- ments and human policy, the future splendor of its primitive simplicity and Christian piety would appear to be eminently and entirely the work of God and not of man. On the 14^^ of Nov. my consecration took place, at Aberdeen (520 miles from hence). It was the most solemn day I ever passed; God grant I may never forget it ! I now only wait for a good ship in which to return. None will sail before the last of February or first of March. The ship Triumph, Capt. Stout, will be among the first. With this same Stout, commander, and in the Triumph, I expect to embark, and hope to be in New York some time in April ; your prayers and good wishes will, I know, attend me. A new scene will now, my dear Gentlemen, in all proba- bility open in America. Much do I depend on you and the other good Clergymen in Connecticut, for advice and support, in an office which will otherwise prove too heavy for me. Their support, I assure myself, I shall have; and I flatter my- self they will not doubt of my hearty desire, and earnest en- deavor, to do everything in my power for the welfare of the Church, and promotion of religion and piety. You will be pleased to consider whether New London be the proper place for me to reside at; or whether some other place would do better. At New London, however, I suppose they make some dependence upon me. This ought to be taken into the con- sideration. If I settle at New London, I must have an assist- ant. Look out, then for some good clever young gentleman who will go immediately into deacon's orders, and who would be willing to be with me in that capacity. And indeed I must think it a matter of propriety, that as many worthy candidates be in readiness for orders as can be procured. Make the way, I beseech you, as plain and easy for me as you can. Since my return from Scotland, I have seen none of the Bishops, but I have been informed that the step I have taken 262 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. 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 inter- view with each of the Archbishoi)s, 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, has 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. This I believe is the last time I shall write to you from this country. Will you then accept your Bishop's blessing, and hearty prayers for your happiness in this world and the next? May God bless also, and keep, all the Good Clergy of Connecticut ! I am, reverend and dear brethren, your aflfectionate brother, and very humble servant, Samuel Seabury." The letter to the Rev^. Jonathan Boucher now follows : " Edinburgh, December 3, 1784. My very dear sir: I promised to write you as soon as a certain event took place, and I have not till now made good my promise. In truth, I have not had opportunity to collect my thoughts on the subject on which I wished to write you ; and even now I expect every minute to be called upon, and probably this letter will go unfinished to you. Dr. Chandler, I suppose, has informed you that my conse- cration took place on the 14*^ of November at Aberdeen. I found great candor, piety, and good sense among the Scotch LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND, 263 Bishops and also among the Clergy with whom I have con- versed. The Bishops expect the Clergy of Connecticut will form their own Liturgy and Offices ; yet they hope the English Liturgy, which is the one they use, will be retained, except the Communion Office, and that they wish should give place to the one in Edward the Sixth's Prayer Book. This matter I have engaged to lay before the Clergy of Connecticut, and they will be left to their own judgment which to prefer. Some of the Congregations in Scotland use one and some the other Office ; but they communicate with each other on every occasion that offers. On political subjects not a word was said. Indeed, their attachment to a particular family is wearing off, and I am persuaded a little good policy in England would have great effect here. Upon the whole, I know nothing, and am conscious that I have done nothing that ought to interrupt my connection with the Church of England. The Church in Connecticut has only done her duty in endeavoring to obtain an Episcopacy for herself, and I have only done my duty in carrying her en- deavors into execution. Political reasons prevented her appli- cation 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 ecclesi- astical sense, with the English. His Grace of Canterbury apprehended that my obtaining consecration in Scotland would create jealousies and schisms in the Church, that the Moravian Bishops in America would be hereby induced to ordain clergymen, and that the Phila- delphian clergy would be encouraged to carry into effect their plan of constituting a nominal Episcopacy by the joint suf- frages of clergymen and laymen. But when it is considered that the Moravian Bishops can- not ordain Clergymen of our Church, unless requested to do so, and that when there shall be a Bishop in America, there 264 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. will be no ground to make such a request ; and that the Phlla- dclphian plan was only proposed on the supposition of real and absolute necessity ; which necessity cannot exist when there is a Bishop resident in America, every apprehension of this kind must, I think, vanish and be no more. My own inclination is to cultivate as close a connection and union with the Church of England, as that Church and the political state of the two countries shall permit. I have grown up and lived hitherto under the influence of the highest veneration for and attach- ment to the Church of England, and in the service of the Society, and my hope is to promote the interest of that Church with greater effect than ever, and to establish it in the full enjoyment of its whole government and discipline. And I think it highly probable that I may be of real service to this Country, by promoting a connection with that country in religious matters without any breach of duty to the State in which I shall live. I cannot help considering it as an in- stance of bad policy, that my application for consecration was rejected in England; and I intend no offense when I say, that I think the policy would still be worse should the Society on this occasion discharge me from their service, which his Grace of York, in my last interview with him, said would certainly be the case. That indeed would make a schism between the two Churches, and put it out of my power to preserve that friendly intercourse and communion which I earnestly wish. It might also bring on explanations which would be disagree- able to me, and, I imagine, to the Society also. However, should the Society itself 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 my 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, con- tinue his goodness to me, and bless my endeavors to serve the LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND 265 cause of his infant Church in Connecticut. I trust, sir, that it is not the loss of £50 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. You can make such use of this letter as you think proper. If I can command so much time, I will write to Dr. Morice on the subject. If not, I will see him as soon as I return to London, which will be in ten days. Please to present my regards to Mr. Stevens and all friends, and believe me to be, with the greatest esteem. Your affectionate, humble servant, S. S." Fortunately, Bishop Seabury was able to command so much time as to write to Dr. Morice, otherwise posterity would have suffered the loss of a very good letter, the copy of which in the Letter Book follows the copy of that to Mr. Boucher : " From Bp. Seabury to Dr. Morice, Secretary to the Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, on the Bps. leaving England to return to America dated London, Feby. 2.y. 1785. Reverend Sir, When the articles of the late peace were published in Amer- ica, it is natural to suppose that the members of the Church of England must have been under many anxious apprehensions concerning the fate of the church. The great distance between England and America had always subjected them to many difficulties in the essential article of ordination: and the inde- pendency of that Country gave rise to new ones that appeared unsurmountable. Candidates for Holy Orders could no longer take the oaths required in the English ordination Offices, and without doing so, they could not be ordained. The Episcopal 266 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Church in America must, under such circumstances, cease, whenever it should please God to take their present ministers from them, unless some adequate means could be adopted to procure a regular succession of clergymen. Under these im- pressions the Clergy of Connecticut met together as soon as they possibly could; and on the most deliberate consideration, they saw no remedy but the actual settlement of a Bishop among them. They therefore determined to make an effort to procure that blessing from the English Church, to which they hoped, under every change of civil polity, to remain united: and commissioned The Rev^. Mr. Abraham Jarvis of Middlctown in Connecticut to go to New York and consult such of the Clergy there as he thought prudent on the subject and procure their concurrence. He was also directed to try to prevail on the Rev^. Mr. Leaming or me to undertake a voyage to England and endeavor to obtain Episcopal Conse- cration for Connecticut. Mr. Leaming declined on account of his age and infirmities : and the Clergy who were consulted by Mr. Jarvis gave it as their decided opinion that I ought, in duty to the Church, to comply with the request of the Con- necticut Clergy. Though I foresaw many and great difficulties in the way, yet as I hoped they might all be overcome ; and as Mr. Jarvis had no instruction to make the proposal to any one besides, and was, with the other Clergy, of opinion the design would drop if I declined it, I gave my consent ; and arrived in England the beginning of July, 1*783, endeavoring according to the best of my ability and discretion to accomplish the busi- ness on which I came. It would be disagreeable to me to recapitulate the difficulties which arose and defeated the meas- ure ; and to enter on a detail of my own conduct in the matter is needless, as his Grace of Cant^., and his Grace of York with other members of the Society, are well acquainted with all the circumstances. Finding at the end of the last session of Parliament, that LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND 267 no permission was given for consecrating a Bishop for Con- necticut or any of the American States, in the Act enabhng the Lord Bishop of London to ordain foreign candidates for Dea- cons and Priests orders ; and understanding that a requisi- tion or at least a formal acquiescence of Congress or of the Supreme Authority in some particular State, would be ex- pected before such permission would be granted; and that a diocese must be formed, and a stated revenue appointed for the Bishop, previously to his consecration, I absolutely de- spaired of ever seeing such a measure succeed in England. I therefore thought it not only justifiable but a matter of duty to endeavour to obtain wherever it could be had a valid Epis- copacy for the Church in Connecticut which consists of more than 30,000 members. I knew that the Bishops in Scotland derived their succession from England, and that their Liturgy, Doctrines and discipline scarcely differed from those of the English Church. And as only the spiritual or purely Ecclesi- astical powers of Episcopacy are wanted in Connecticut, I saw no impropriety in applying to the Scotch Bishops for Conse- cration. If I succeeded I was to exercise the Episcopal Au- thority in Connecticut out of the British Dominions, and there- fore could cause no disturbance in the ecclesiastical or civil state of this Country. The reasons why this step should be taken immediately ap- peared also to me to be very strong. Before I left America a disposition to run into irregular practices had showed itself. For some had proposed to apply to the Moravian, some to the Swedish Bishops for Ordination: and a pamphlet had been published at Philadelphia urging the appointment of a number of Presbyters and laymen to ordain Ministers for the Episcopal Church. Necessity was pleaded as the foundation of all these schemes. And this plea could be effectually silenced only by having a resident Bishop in America. I have entered into no political engagements in Scotland 268 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURV. nor were any mentioned to mc ; and I shall return to Amer- ica, bound indeed to hold communion with the Episcopal Church of Scotland, because I believe that, as I do the Church of England, to be the Church of Christ. It is the first wish of my heart, and will be the endeavor of my life, to maintain this unity with the Church of England, agreeable to those general laws of Christ's Church which depend not on any human power, and which lay the strongest obligations on all its members to live in peace and unity with each other: and I trust no obstacles will arise, or hinder an event so desirable and so consonant to the principles of the Christian Religion, as the union of the Church of England and the Episcopal Church of America would be. Such a union must be of great advantage to the Church in America, and may also be so at some future period to the Church of Eng- land. The sameness of Religion will have an influence on the political conduct of both countries, and in that view may be an object of some consideration to Great Britain. How far the venerable Society may think themselves justi- fiable in continuing me their Missionary, they only can deter- mine. Should they do so, I shall esteem it a favour. Should they do otherwise, I can have no right to complain. What- ever may be their resolution, I beg them to believe that I shall ever retain a grateful sense of their favours to me, during thirty one years that I have been their Missionary : and that I shall remember, with the utmost respect, the kind attention which they have so long paid to the Church in that country for which I am now to embark. Very happy would it make me could I be assured they would continue that attention if not in the same, yet in some degree, if not longer, yet during the lives of their present Missionaries, whose conduct in the late commotions has been irreproachable and has procured esteem to themselves and respect to that Church to which they belong. LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND. 269 The fate of individuals is, however, of inferior moment when compared with that of the whole Church. Whenever the Society shall wholly cease to interest itself in the concerns of Religion in America it will be a heavy calamity to the Church in that country. Yet this is to be expected : and calamity will be heavier if proper steps be not previously taken to secure to that Church various property of lands &c in the different States (now indeed of small value but gradually increasing) to which the Society alone has a legal claim. It is humbly sub- mitted to them how far it may be consistent with their views, to give me authority to assert, and secure to the Church there, the lands in Vermont and elsewhere. This it is hoped might now be easily done : but a few years may render their recovery impracticable. The Society has also a library of books in New York, which was sent thither for the use of their Missionaries in that neighborhood. As there is now only one Missionary in that State, and several in Connecticut, I beg leave to ask their per- mission to have it removed into Connecticut, where it will answer the most valuable purposes, there being no library of consequence in that State to which the Clergy can resort on any occasion. Whatever the Society may determine with regard to me I hope it will not be thought an impropriety that I should cor- respond with them. I think many advantages would arise from such a correspondence both to the Church and to the Society. Their interests are indeed the same : and I trust the Society will do me the justice to believe, that with such abiHty as I have, and such influence as my station may give me, I shall steadily endeavor to promote the interest of both. I am, with the greatest respect and esteem, Rev^ Sir your and the Society's most ob^ and very humble Serv^ S. S." 270 MEMOIR OF BISIIOr SEABURY. The next entry in the letter book is as follows: " From the Rev^ Dr. W"^ Morice Secretary to the Society, to the Rev^ Dr. Scabnry, New London, Connecticut (so di- rected) dated Hatton Garden April 25^^' 1785."^ Rcv'^ Sir Your letter of February 2y^^ was read to the Society &c at their first meeting subsequent to my receiving it. I am directed by the Society to express their approbation of your services as their Missionary: and to acquaint you that finding they cannot consistently with their Charter employ any Missionaries except in the Plantations, Colonies and Fac- tories belonging to the Kingdom of Great Britain your case is of course comprehended under that general rule. No decided opinion is yet formed respecting the Lands you mention. For the rest — The Society without doubt will always readily re- ceive such information as may contribute to promote their in- variable object, the propagation of the gospel in foreign parts. I am Rev'^ Sir Your affectionate brother and most humble Servant W^ MoRiCE Secretary'' The very great importance of the interests of the Church in Connecticut involved in his appeal to the Society, would natur- ally make the Bishop's application of deep concern to himself, apart from any interests of his own in the matter : and would be likely to demand his utmost care in the preparation of the let- ter in which he presented the application. Certainly such care was bestowed upon the letter, and certainly the result fully jus- tified his labour in the composition of it. There remain among 7. Attention is called to the words — {so directed) — inserted by the Bishop in this introduction of the letter; as showing that he no- ticed the breach of good manners, and the insulting implication, in- volved in the direction. LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND. 271 his manuscripts two papers which he drafted in preparation for that composition ; so that the letter in its final form represents the third effort which he had made to shape his thoughts on the subject before him in the most effective way for the pur- pose which he had in view. The result of his re-writing was, as it would be apt to be, that his thoughts were more concisely- expressed; and that, as to various points, conclusions are ex- pressed without the process of reasoning by which he had reached them. But although this course was better for the purpose of arresting and retaining the attention of those to whom he wrote, it had the disadvantage, for those who might afterwards come to regard his letter from the historical point of view, of not presenting his full thought as to some of the matters to which he referred. For this reason I venture to think that certain passages of those drafts have a value to posterity which it did not occur to him to attach to them, and which justifies their reproduction here, especially as they have not heretofore been printed. It seems to have been constantly present to the mind of the Bishop while he was writing, that he was to some extent — perhaps he hardly realized to how great an extent — under censure for the course which he had pursued; and therefore he seems to take pains to put his conduct, throughout the whole process of the quest for the Episcopate in such a light as to show that it could not justly be condemned. He does this sufficiently in the letter which he sent; but in the drafts he goes somewhat more at length into the consideration of the grounds upon which he had acted, and thus has left for us some account of his own principles as to matters in which others had differed from him. It will perhaps have been noticed that while he reported fully in his letters to Connecticut the objections which had been made to consecrating him in England, he touched very lightly if at all upon the answers capable of being made to 2.'J2 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. those objections. In the first of the drafts above mentioned he considers two of the objections as follows: " I. The impropriety of sending a Bp. into Connecticut, now a sovereign, independent and foreign State, without the desire or formal permission of that State. But, with the utmost deference, it is presumed, that the consecrating a Bp. of the Christian Church at large, with a view to his going to reside in a foreign State, where there is an Episcopal Church but no Bp. cannot, in strict propriety, be called sending a Bp. to that foreign State. At most it is but permitting him to go into it. The act is his ; the risk is his ; the impropriety, if any there be, is his, and not theirs who con- secrate him. And if it must be deemed a sending a Bp. he is sent, not to that State, but to the Episcopal Church in the State, and there can be no more impropriety in a Missionary Bp. than a Missionary Presbyter. The other objection is the Impropriety of sending a Bp. where there is no established diocese, nor any provision made for his decent support. . . . It cannot be expected that a State the rulers of which are independents will ever establish a regular diocese, or make provision for the support of a Bp. But . . . there are in Connecticut 80 Episcopal Congregations, and 13 resident Presbyters. Before the late commotions began there were 21. Were a Bp. settled there, these would naturally become his diocese, and their number would be great enough to employ all his time and attention. But the whole benefit of permit- ting a Bp. to go to Connecticut would not centre in that State. Other parts of the Continent might from thence receive the great blessing of the Episcopal order, and at least a million of souls preserved in that Church, who without an Episcopate will be left, in a manner, without God and without Christ in the world. LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND. 273 In the infancy of Christianity Bps. went and resided where there were no established dioceses, nor even Christians to form a single congregation. They did not wait till the ruling powers, who were generally averse from Christianity, sent for them, but they went, and by converting the people established those dioceses over which they afterward presided, or else they appointed them a Bp. and proceeded in propagating their re- ligion. . . . With regard to the support of a Bp. in Connecticut, it is readily acknowledged that not much is to be expected there at present. The emoluments arising from the station can be no object with any one. Nor can the views of ambition be gratified by the appointment. Trouble and labour, perhaps re- proach and ill treatment, will be the necessary attendants. But still it is presumed some support may be obtained for him, and with such support as can be obtained he ought to be content." In the second of the drafts, the Bishop again refers to cer- tain objections made to his consecration in England, and con- siders them, showing plainly his ground and principle, with regard to them: and he also puts on record a bit of personal (and diplomatic) history, of which so far as I am aware, this draft furnishes the only extant evidence. Several difficulties, he says, presented themselves to the Archbishop of Canterbury : " I. The oaths in the Consecration office. 2. The uncertainty that I should be permitted, by the civil authority, to reside in Connecticut, and exercise Episcopal powers there. 3. There was no diocese formed in that Country, nor any stated adequate support for a Bp. The first of these difficulties I had foreseen, and hoped that a dispensation from the King would have been sufficient to re- move it, if not, that a short act of Parliament might be ob- tained; especially as the object, in a religious view, was great. 274 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEAnURY. and the necessity urgent ; and in a pulitical view must have a good effect by keeping up a friendly intercourse with that country on the strong foundation of a common reHgion, in its mode as well as substance. The third objection, though it had occurred to me, never appeared of any weight. It is not to be expected that dioceses should be formed by legal authority in a country where the prevaiHiig mode of religion is presbyterian : nor that any stated revenue should be appropriated, for the Bp's support, by a government who denied the necessity of Bps. in the Church. But that the whole nimiber of Episcopalians in Connecticut would of course be his diocese, and their voluntary contribu- tions must be his support, till funds for that purpose could be gradually raised: In short, that the Bishop must be of the primitive kind, such as were in the Christian Church before it became the religion of the State — His powers merely spiritual, and his support such as the people could give him. The second objection appeared to me of much more conse- quence, and I hoped if I could fairly get over it, the rest would sink of themselves. I had no doubt that I should be permitted to live and discharge the duties of the Episcopal Office in Connecticut. This persuasion arose from the knowledge I had of the state of that country, the temper and disposition of the people, the number and influence of the members of the Episcopal Church in it. No positive assurances, however, had been given me by that Government ; and it appeared to me un- reasonable to expect that his Grace should take any decided step in favour of the measure till that matter was ascertained. In one conversation with his Grace, about September, 1783, I was led to believe that, if I could get, though not a direct permission from the government of Connecticut to come thither in the character of Bp., yet an acquiescence in the measure, all other difficulties v^ould probably be easily surmounted. I therefore wrote to the Clergy of Connecticut, requesting that LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND. 275 an application should be made to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut to obtain such permission, or at least an assurance of legal protection. It was so long before I received any answer to my letters, that I really despaired of their being able to do anything in that way, and had given up the matter in my own mind, and was wishing to provide for myself in some other way; when, in April, I think, I received accounts from the Clergy to this purpose. — That the State of Connecticut had, in January, 1784, passed an Act by which the Church of England so called was put upon an equal foot- ing of privileges and legal protection, with any other denomina- tion of Christians, and enabled to manage their religious af- fairs according to their own principles. . . . Upon the receipt of these accounts I determined with my- self to exert every ability to carry their views into effect, but at the same time not to abandon the idea of securing some provision for myself should my endeavours prove abortive. His Grace of Cant, seemed to think the letter gave some ground on which to proceed, though he, at the same time, observed that it was not so clear and explicit as he could wish. The copy of the Act of the State I received after the letter; and upon my waiting on his Grace with it, he kindly said he would make the best use of that and the letter that he could, and hoped he should be able to succeed. And that he would lay them before some principal persons of both Houses of Parliament, and if possible get the permission to consecrate Bps. for the States of America included in the bill relating to the ordination of Candidates for foreign States. Here the matter rested till the end of the last session of Parliament, when his Grace informed me that he had not succeeded in his views — That the Minister, or Ministry, had refused to let the bill pass with a clause for the consecration of Bps. The reason, if I rightly understood his Grace, was, lest they should give offense to the American States ; and that it would 276 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEAUUKY. seem very odd to send a Dp. thither now they were inde- pendent, when we had sent none while they were British Colonies : and that therefore no Dp. could be sent thither with- out the requisition of the American Coni^ress. Here I beg leave to make a few remarks. — 1. That there was no good reason to apprehend that the State of Connecticut would take my consecration amiss. They had passed an Act by which the Episcopal Church is put on an equality with any other denomination of Christians — The Governor and the leading men of the two houses of Assembly had declared to the Committee of the Connecticut Clergy who corresponded with me — Messrs. Leaming, Jarvis & Hub- bard, that they approved both of the plan and the person nom- inated ; and that the Bp. would be equally under the protection of the laws of the State with any other Clergyman. 2. That having neglected to send a Bp. to America while those States were British Colonies was no good reason why it should be neglected now, when so fair a prospect of doing it easily and quietly presented itself in Connecticut. 3. That the American Congress is incompetent to the busi- ness of making such a requisition. All religious affairs being, by the Articles of Confederation, reserved to the particular States, and therefore out of the power of Congress. 4. To expect such a requisition from the State of Connecti- cut is also unreasonable. The Government is presbyterian and wants no Bps. and therefore cannot be expected to make a requisition for any. 5. The phrase of sending a Bp. to America is, with regard to me, an improper one. I came from America to ask for Consecration, and had I obtained it and returned, there would have been no sending in the case. 6. To put the issue of my business upon conditions in their own nature impossible to be complied with, was equal to a positive denial ; and so his Grace of Cant, seemed to under- LAST DAYS IN ENGLAND. ^J^J stand the determination of the Ministry at the time he ac- quainted me with it. In this situation I had every reason to suppose that all pros- pects of success here were at an end ; especially when I con- sidered the Act passed in the last session of Parliament, em- powering the Bp. of London to ordain priests and deacons for foreign States, as being intended to preclude the necessity of having resident Bps. in America at all; though it left all the former inconveniences unremedied. This Act had certainly a greater tendency to alarm the Americans, by its confining the power of ordaining their Clergy to this Country, than Conse- crating a Bp. for them, and permitting them to have a Bp. or Bps. of their own; and it is astonishing to me that it never struck the Ministry in this light, especially when their ap- prehensions of giving offense to the Americans were so very easily excited. I submit it to every candid mind whether under these cir- cumstances I was not justifiable in seeking a valid Episcopacy wherever it was to be had. Legal restrictions there were none upon me. From those I had been set free when the supreme authority of this nation declared the independency of America. I was therefore bound only by the general laws of Christ's Church as it stands independent of all human power; and I trust I have broken none of these. . . . Let me here mention that after I had written to the Scotch Bps., and before I received their answer a Mission was, by Dr. Morice, at the direction of the Abp of Cant, offered to me in New Brunswick. As the Dr. pressed for an early answer that he might inform the Society at their next meet- ing ; I could not give up that prospect till I knew of the appli- cation in Scotland, I therefore consented; telling the Dr. at the same time I did not think it equal to what I had a right to expect from Government, and that I must do better for my- 278 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. self if I could. This I said in full confidence that my merit toward this Government was at least equal to that of any man in my station : and from Government I never had before, nor have I since, been favoured with the least notice or attention. As soon, however, as I received my information from Scotland, his G. of Cant, was made acquainted with it. So that the Mis- sion was not kept unsupplied, nor could any inconvenience on that account, arise from my conduct. . . ." So — with all due acknowledgment of the considerate pru- dence of the Establishmentarians, in their endeavour safely to bestow the man whom they had disappointed in a remote corner of the British dominions — we may bid farewell to England, and pass on to the consideration of the experiences of the subject of our Memoir on his return to his western home. CHAPTER XVIII. THE FIELD OF WORK. 1785-1786. FROM March 19 to June 20*'^ 1785, there appears no evi- dence as to the experience of the Bishop of Con- necticut. During this period his voyage to Hahfax, his sojourn at that place, and the voyage from thence to New England, were accomplished; but as to any particulars of that period I have no information, unless I may consider as such, a vague tradition of a shipwreck, or at least very great stress of weather, some time while the Bishop was at sea ; which I have heard referred to as accounting for the stains on the leaves of some of his books, and on his papers, said to have been in- jured by the sea water. Instead of proceeding to New York, as it will have been observed that he had anticipated doing when he purposed to sail in the Triumph, he landed at Newport, Rhode Island. This event was recorded in the Diary of John Bours Esqr., of that place as follows : " June 20, 1785. Arrived in town, via Halifax, from Eng- land, Doctor Samuel Seabury, lately consecrated in Scotland, Bishop of the State of Connecticut. The Sunday following, did the duties of the Church (Trinity Parish) and preached A. M. and P. M. to a crowded audience from Heb: xii, i^* and 2^ verses, Monday proceeded to New London by water, where he is to reside."^ I. Extract from contribution to "Gospel Messenger" of Utica, 279 28o MEMOIR OF BISIIOI* SEABURY. It is thus not until toward the end of June 1785, that Bishop Seabury reports himself to the Revd. Mr. Jarvis as having ar- rived at Nev;^ London, and as desirous that provision should be made for his meeting with the Clergy of his Diocese as soon as practicable. That his first official act should be the meeting with the Clergy of Connecticut was obviously proper, and significant also of his conception of the work to which he had been partic- ularly called, and thus of the field within which his jurisdiction was established. This body of Clergy, in the exercise of that jurisdiction which belonged to them as in charge of congrega- tions constituting the Church of England in Connecticut, and now known as of the Episcopal Church in that State, had elected him to seek the Episcopate, and had pledged their ac- ceptance of him as their Bishop when he should be conse- crated. Returning in that capacity he advises them of the ful- filment of their commission, and affords them the opportunity of receiving him as their Bishop, and thus of formally ratify- ing their promise of canonical obedience previously made. The opportunity was embraced without unnecessary delay; and thus, by the joint act of Bishop and Clergy accepted with loyal concurrence by the people of their communion wifliout any manner of gainsaying or objection, was completed the Diocese of the Church in Connecticut, which constituted that Bishop's proper field of work, or jurisdiction. That he had no purpose or desire to extend his Episcopal jurisdiction beyond that field, is manifest from the course which he pursued in the exercise of the Episcopal function, as well as from his declara- tions.^ At the same time, when it is considered that the needs N. Y., December 21, 1849, enclosed in note of Bishop DeLancey, of Western New York, to Revd Dr. Samuel Seabury, of New York, February 6th, 1850. 2. See, for example, his statement in his letter to Dr. Smith in reference to anticipated action of the Churches in the Middle and THE FIELD OF WORK. 28l of the members of the Episcopal Church in other States for the services of a Bishop were as great as those of the members of the Church in Connecticut; that there was at the time of his arrival no other Bishop in the Country, and that no other Bishop was in the Country for nearly two years afterwards; and that, upon principles fundamental in the doctrine of Episcopacy, he had as Bishop not only his local or Diocesan jurisdiction, but also that universal jurisdiction which was the proper attribute of his Office, and by virtue of which he had a general concern for the sheep of Christ's flock wheresoever they were unshepherded as being without Episcopal care or oversight, it will not be surprising to find that in fact Episco- pal functions were performed by him for others than those who were within his local jurisdiction, and that such action was sometimes taken by him outside of that particular juris- diction. These instances were, however, exceptional ; and were always upon the request of those who needed his services, and whose request to him could involve no dereliction of duty to any other Bishop, since there was in fact no such other Bishop in the Country. And in none of these instances, except one which will be afterwards considered, was there any charge of intrusion made against him. There was, nevertheless, a certain uneasiness in some quar- ters, as to the likelihood of his claiming jurisdiction over the Church in other States; and as the Church in some of the other States had by this time begun to carry into effect the plan of a common or general organization, with the purpose of procuring for the several States concerned Bishops of their own, it may easily be understood that it was desired that the jurisdiction of those Bishops should not be interfered with by one who was at that time not within that organization. And Southern States: "In this matter I am not interested. My ground is taken, and I wish not to extend my authority beyond its present limits." — Beardsley's Life of Bp. Seabury, p. 235. 282 MEMOIR OF BISIIOr SEABURY. this feeling was also enhanced by the subservience to the Eng- lish prejudice against the Scottish consecration which has been already considered, and to which it will be necessary again to refer. The point to be noted is that Bishop Seabury considered the Church in the State of Connecticut as constituting his proper and peculiar jurisdiction; and that at the same time, in the want of Bishops in any other part of the country, he con- ceived it to be within the right of his Office, and to be a duty of simple Christian charity, to exercise the Episcopal function for the benefit of those whose necessities led them to seek such exercise from him. The Clergy of Connecticut met in Convention at Christ Church in Middletown, August 2, 1785, under the presidency of Mr. Leaming, Mr. Jarvis being Secretary. Eleven were in attendance as members of the Convention. The Rev. Ben- jamin IMoore of New York, and the Revd. Samuel Parker of Massachusetts, had honorary seats in the Convention. On the following day the Bishop was formally received, greeted and accepted by the Clergy as their Bishop. The first ordina- tion was held, at which four were made Deacons ; and the first Episcopal Charge was delivered. At the conclusion of the Ordination service, the Bishop dissolved the Convention, and directed the Clergy to meet him in Convocation, in the after- noon. The Convention, of course, was a voluntary body : the Convocation was so named as being a body convoked by au- thority. The Convocation which thus succeeded into the place of the Convention, continued to meet from time to time until the organization of the Convention of Clergy and Lay dele- gates in 1792, after which time its function seems to have been advisory to the Bishop. On consultation with the Convocation in various sessions two most important steps were taken by the Bishop of Con- necticut in the line of the then pressing need of revision of the THE FIELD OF WORK. 283 Book of Common Prayer; partly in order to the adaptation of the prayers for Civil Rulers to the change which the Revolu- tion had made necessary ; and partly in order to the revision of the Communion service. In 1786, Bishop Seabury submitted to the Convocation his draft of a service for Holy Communion, which, with their con- currence he afterwards put forth as " recommended to the Episcopal Congregations in Connecticut." The changes in the State prayers he had before, on consultation with the Con- vocation, put forth as enjoined upon the Clergy in a Pastoral Letter, dated August 12th, 1785.^ The issuing of the injunction contained in this Pastoral Letter was a distinct act of Episcopal authority: concluded upon, indeed, after advice with the Clergy, as in the best ages of the Church acts of Episcopal authority usually were, but set forth as the act of the Bishop as such, and containing a claim upon the obedience of the Clergy: and although it is not nec- essary here to reproduce the details of alteration in the ser- vices, yet it is worth while to record the preamble of the letter, both for its dignified and temperate tone, and also as bearing upon the point of the field of work, or local jurisdic- tion of its author. It is as follows : " Samuel, by divine permission. Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the State of Connecticut, to the Clergy of the said Church Greeting. It having pleased Almighty God, that the late British Colony of Connecticut should become a free, sovereign and indepen- 3, This account of the Convention and Convocation is taken from the very valuable compilation of the Rev^. Joseph Hooper, prefixed to " the Records of Convocation " printed by the Convention of Con- necticut, New Haven, 1904. A fuller account is given by Beardsley, with copies of the Address of the Clergy, and the Bishop's Answer, and of his two valuable Charges. — Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 208-225; 263-282. 284 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. dent State, as it now is, some alterations in the Liturgy and offices of our Church are necessary to be made, to accommo- date them to the civil Constitution of the Country in which we live; for the peace, security and prosperity of which, both as good subjects and faithful Christians, it is our duty constantly to pray — We, the Bishop aforesaid, have thought fit, by and with the advice and assistance of such of our Clergy as we have had opportunity of consulting, to issue this Injunction, hereby authorizing and requiring You, and every one of You, the Presbyters and Deacons of the Church above mentioned, in the celebration of Divine Service, to make the following alterations in the Liturgy and offices of our Church — "* The American mind which, (in its natural condition and un- affected by Anglophilic or other hyper-social aspirations) is no *' respecter of persons," has sometimes amused itself at the baronial or royal sort of style of this and other pronounce- ments of Bishop Seabury. His " Samuel by Divine permis- sion Bishop &c," and his use of the " We " instead of I, which used to be characteristic of Sovereigns, have been often com- mented upon; sometimes humorously, and sometimes with disparagement. So far as it may furnish amusement to those whose humor is fain to be tickled with such straws, no ex- ception need be taken to the comment: but the inference that the usage was the mark of a vain affectation of exaltation is unjust. The character of the man was wholly averse from anything of the kind. He knew his own worth, and was fully conscious of his own capacity for inspiring in others the respect which he had for himself ; and thus possessed a natural personal dignity which had no need of any adventitious props. At the same time he was permeated with the faith that what- soever good will or power he possessed, he had it not by any merit of his own, but because he had received it from the 4. Dr. Hart's Reprint of Bishop Seabury's Communion Office, p. 29, THE FIELD OF WORK. 285 Giver of all good ; so that he was without temptation to glory in it as if he had not received it. And it should be remem- bered, that, in the usage commented on, he simply followed the fashion which had been customary not only in the English Church, but also almost throughout the Christian world; and further that he believed in the Office which he held; and that it was part of the duty which his faith taught him, to magnify his Office, and in all his public acts to present it to men so that it should inspire in them the reverence which he himself felt for it.^ At all events, both the introduction to Bishop Seabury's pastoral, and his customary signatures accord with other testi- monies as to the extent of his jurisdictional claims. In a col- lection of fac-similes of Church Documents issued by the *' Historical Club of the American Church," 1874-79, appear the following specimens ; " Samuel Connect.," " S. Bp. Con- nect.," " Samuel Bp. Connect," " Samuel Bp. Ep^ Chch Con- nect.," and " S. Bp. Connect. & Rho. Isl." The last cited sig- nature being after he had been declared Bishop of Rhode Island by a Convention of Churches in that State in 1790.*^ In the same direction tends the letter written by Bishop Seabury to the Governor of Connecticut, the copy of which in the Letter Book is signed with, presumably, an abbreviated form. This letter has other significances also which make it 5. It is, perhaps, not unworthy of consideration, that the official use of the plural " We," to which exception is sometimes taken, is a usage much more democratic in its suggestions than that of the singular " //•' The Ruler speaks as the exponent of the Community over which he presides. The Sovereign is the embodiment of the people of his realm: the Bishop, of the body of the Church in his Diocese. So that the plural of the personal pronoun has a much better political and ethical sanction — beside that of venerable precedent — than could be pleaded for the recent usage of Edward VII, in addressing Par- liament in the first person, in regard to My Army, My Soldiers, etc. ^. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, 391. 286 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. worth printing, since it shows not only the writer's recognition of duty to the Civil authority, but also very particularly his acknowledged allegiance to the State, notwithstanding the United States of America in Congress assembled were not to be precluded from the benefit of the prayers of the Church. '' His excellency Samuel Huntington Esquire Governor of the State of Connecticut. New London Oct. 14, 1786. Sir, The Convocation of the Episcopal Clergy of this State hav- ing in their late meeting at Derby, directed the inclosed forms of Prayer for the United States of America in Congress as- sembled, to be inserted in the Liturgy, and used in the celebra- tion of Divine Service, I have taken the liberty to make this communication to your Excellency, thinking it my duty to lay all our transactions, in which the State is in any wise con- cerned, before the Supreme Magistrates. We feel it to be our duty, and, I assure your Excellency, it is our willing dis- position, to pray for, and seek to promote, the peace and hap- piness of the Country in which we live, and the stability and ef- ficacy of the Civil Government under which God's providence has placed us : and we persuade ourselves, that in the discharge of this duty, we have not derogated from the freedom, sover- eignty, or independence of this State. Should your Excel- lency's sentiments be different, I shall presume to hope for a communication of them, that due regard and attention may be paid to them. Begging the best blessings of Heaven for your Excellency, both in your private and public capacity, I remain, with great regard and esteem, your Excellency's most obedient and very humble servant, S — Bp. Connect." The Bishop was favoured with the following answer to this communication from Governor Huntington: THE FIELD OF WORK. 287 " New Haven Novem. 4^'' 1786 Sir I have been honoured with your letter of the 11*^ ult^. with the forms of prayer for the United States in Congress as- sembled, as composed by your late Convocation at Derby, and communicated them in the Council Chamber this session of Assembly, we found nothing exceptionable in the forms, I es- teem them well adapted to the occasion. I may say with much pleasure and satisfaction, I am happy to see the day when the spirit of bigotry seems almost extin- guished, and religion is no longer prostituted as an engine in State policy to serve political parties and purposes. I have the honour to be with sentiments of esteem and respect Your obedient humble serv* Sam^K Huntington Rev'^. Bishop Samuel &c " * To adduce evidences that the jurisdiction of the subject of these m.emoirs was Connecticut, may seem somewhat like an attempt to prove the obvious. But in fact, at the time, there were some who had a different view of the matter. The habit of the Church mind for a century or more had been to desire a Bishop for the Church in the Colonies, a Bishop to reside in America, and to be for the Church in this Country what the Bishop of London had theretofore been; and when at last a Bishop actually was in the Country, it was not unnatural that many should feel that the desire of the Church here had been realized, and that those who needed to be confirmed, or or- dained, or otherwise to have the benefit of Episcopal care, might now enjoy what they had so long desired. It was felt too, that in this way the perpetuity of the Church throughout *Seabury MSS. 288 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. the Country was secured. For although intelligent and well informed Churchmen knew that the ordinary canonical practice was that a Bishop should be ordained by three, or, as the '' Apostolical Canon " phrased it, " by two or three Bishops," yet they also understood that the power of the individual Bishop essentially involved the capacity of perpetuating his own order; and that under the circumstances in which they then were, that course might be pursued if it should prove to be necessary to adopt it. And so some of those who were in sympathy with the Connecticut movement, feeling that the situation was saved, expanded a little in their joy, and hailed the new Bishop as the good Bishop of America, the Bishop of All America, and with such like phrases. And, on the other hand, those who did not sympathize with the Connecticut movement, but were, from their position, or judgment, or both, inclined to favour the movement in the Middle and Southern States for the completion of an organization first, and the ac- quirement of Bishops afterwards, were extremely apprehen- sive of possible claims of a jurisdiction over them, which might in some way interfere with the development of their plans. Dr. Chandler after his return to this country, writing to Bishop Seabury from Elizabethtown July 28, 1785, referring to " A grand Convention " soon to be held at Philadelphia ** the proceedings of which will decide the character and the fate of the Church in the middle States," says, " I find that some people have a jealousy, that you are aiming at the rule of the whole Continent in ecclesiastical matters; and they blame you for hastening to settle the Constitution of the Church in Connecticut, before the meeting of the Continental Convention:" and the evidences of this feeling were not al- together wanting in some of the proceedings afterwards insti- tuted in that Convention, which will later come under our consideration. It seems thus to be of some importance to show clearly the ground taken by Bishop Seabury, as to his own THE FIELD OF WORK. 289 proper and exclusive jurisdiction, that we may be the better able to estimate at their true worth such incidents in his Epis- copal life as have been, or are perhaps liable to be, miscon- strued as having resulted from an overweening desire on his part to extend and intrude his own influence beyond the sphere for which he was justly responsible. His visits to other neighborhoods, wherein he had many friends both Clerical and Lay, led of course to frequent, though occasional, exercise of his Episcopal functions, since it was as Bishop that he was invited to officiate. At Boston, at Portsmouth, at Newport, and at Hempstead, there were serv- ices held ; which were apparently regarded as matter of course, and as no more worthy of criticism than would ordinarily be the act of one Clergyman in preaching upon invitation in the parish of another. Some of these we may have later occasion to notice. But to none of them was exception taken, so far as I am aware, except to that of a service in St. George's Church, Hempstead, in which Bishop Seabury, in 1785, or- dained Mr. John Lowe of Virginia, both Deacon and Priest. Of this occurrence, the Rev^. Dr. Dix, in his History of Trinity Church, New York, speaks as follows : " It was not strange that in the uncertain state of affairs at that time, things should have been done which naturally led to irritation of feeling and breaches of the peace between the brethren. A case in point was that of Bishop Seabury's cross- ing over into the State of New York in 1785, and ordaining, in a place where he had no canonical right to officiate, a Can- didate for Holy Orders from the State of Virginia. The Or- dination took place in St. George's Church, Hempstead, L. L" And, after quoting an account of the service given in *' The New York Packet," November 10, 1785, Dr. Dix continues, " This ordination caused no little annoyance in New York. Later we find the Bishop of Connecticut vigorously resenting a lesser act of intrusion on the part of his brother of New 290 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. York. When, in 1795, at the request of the Clergy of Massa- chusetts, and after consultation with those of New York, Bishop Provoost after much hesitation ordained a Minister for a Congregation at Narragansett, which had placed itself under the care of the Church in Massachusetts, Bishop Sea- bury promptly protested against the act, claiming that the whole of the territory of Rhode Island was under his jurisdic- tion. On receiving Bishop Seabury's remonstrance, Bishop Provoost himself proposed the adoption of Canon VIII of 1795 (to prevent a Congregation in any Diocese or State to unite with a Church in any other Diocese or State)."'' With regard to the first of the things thus referred to, the ordination of Bishop Seabury " in a place where he had no canonical right to officiate," it is to be observed that there were no canons then existing in this Country regulating the right of Bishop Seabury to officiate in any particular place. His admitted and recognized jurisdiction was the Church in Connecticut. And the general canonical obligation of a Bishop not to exercise his office outside of his own jurisdic- tion was manifestly applicable only in cases where such act would be an interference with the right of some other Bishop. There was, however, no other Bishop claiming jurisdiction over the place in which Bishop Seabury then officiated, and he certainly disregarded no canonical obligation by officiating as a Bishop in any place where there was no Bishop having or claiming to have jurisdiction over the Church in that place. It is true that the Church in the State of New York, in 7. A History of the Parish of Trinity Church in the City of New York, compiled by order of the Corporation and edited by Morgan Dix, S. T. D., D. C. L., 1901, vol. I, pp. 106-7. See also Appendix XV, pp. 325-333, of the same volume, in which a fuller, and very satisfactory account of the matters referred to in the text, is given by the Rev. Joseph Hooper. THE FIELD OF WORK. 29I which Hempstead was, had, prior to the act of Bishop Sea- bury, formally organized itself into what was practically and intentionally a Diocesan jurisdiction; and proposed to have itself completed, when possible, by a Bishop to be consecrated for it. So that it might be claimed that no such act as that of a foreign Bishop officiating within its limits, ought to have taken place without permission of its constituted authorities. Generally speaking, that position would no doubt be correct: but when it is considered that such organization had taken place only a few months before ; that it was the act of a Con- vention which had dispersed, and had during its session con- stituted no Standing Committee or other body to exercise its authority in the interim between its sessions ; and that prob- ably information in regard to such organization was not as yet become general, it hardly seems fair to consider the act of officiating without express permission, as an act of intru- sion. And as to the application of the provision of the draft constitution of the General Convention of 1785, that '' every Bishop shall confine the exercise of his office to his proper jurisdiction; unless requested to ordain or confirm by any Church destitute of a Bishop," it had not at the time of the act referred to been ratified by the Convention of New York, and was of no obligation in that State, and certainly of none in Connecticut which was as yet unrepresented in General Convention. The act of the Bishop of Connecticut in this case seems to have been fairly within his Episcopal discretion, and cannot be condemned without judging it in comparison with standards and circumstances which did not exist at the time, nor for a good while afterwards. And it is worthy of note too that Dr. Provoost, who objected very strenuously to Bishop Seabury's being in New York, because he imagined he was set on mischief and was trying to thwart the plan of having Bishops consecrated in England, nevertheless does not 292 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. appear to have had any particular objection to allege against the act of Bishop Scabury from a Church point of view.^ With regard to the vigorous resentment said to have actuated Bishop Seabury vi^hen some ten years later Bishop Provoost ordained a clergyman for a congregation in Narra- gansett, Rhode Island, w^ithout consultation with Bishop Sea- bury, under whose jurisdiction the Church in the State of Rhode Island had previously been placed, the facts appear to be, that a minority of the parish at Narragansett refused to concur in the act of the Convention of the Church in Rhode Island placing that Church under the jurisdiction of Bishop Seabury, and desired to associate itself with the Church in Massachusetts; and that Mr. Walter Gardiner, at the instance of that minority, had applied to the Standing Committee of Massachusetts for admission as a Candidate for Holy Orders ; and that, upon the request of that Committee, Bishop Pro- voost, visiting the Parish of St. Paul, Narragansett (now Wickford) on June 24, 1792, made Mr. Gardiner a Deacon. It being well known that the Church in Rhode Island had by its convention November 18, 1790, placed itself under Bishop Seabury's jurisdiction, the only plea that could be made in defense of the act of Bishop Provoost in ordaining a Narragansett Church member for a congregation in Narra- gansett, on the request of Massachusetts Clergymen, would be that this member and Congregation had the right to connect themselves with another Diocese than that of Rhode Island. No canon having prohibited such connection the intended im- plication seems to be that there was no objection to it. It is to be noted, however, that the principle that the unit of repre- sentation in the Ecclesiastical Union was the Church in the State (then conterminous with the Diocese) was settled so early as 1786, when the General Convention on a question put, 8. See his letter to Dr. White, cited by Beardsley, pp. 248-9. THE FIELD OF WORK. 293 decided that it had no authority to admit as members, persons deriving their appointment not from a State Convention but from a particular parish or parishes only.^ That principle being settled, jurisdiction over the Church in a State would seem necessarily to include jurisdiction over congregations of the Church within that State. The Canon subsequently en- acted, prohibiting union of a congregation in one State, with the Convention in another State, no doubt applied this prin- ciple and made it plainer ; but the principle and the duty ought to have been obvious enough to prevent the action of Bishop Provoost. Bishop Seabury appears not to have taken any action publicly until the Convention of 1793 in Rhode Island. Afterwards, and before the General Convention of 1795 he addressed a letter to Bishop White, " respectfully and affec- tionately complaining of the matter," which letter was read to Bishop Provoost, who " perceived objections to such conduct in individual Congregations, and would much approve of a Canon to prevent it." ^^ I do not find any evidence of Bishop Seabury's '' vigorously resenting " the action of Bishop Pro- voost other than this. Bishop Seabury made the following entry as to the matter in his Journal under date of July 31, 1793, recording the action of the Rhode Island Convention at Newport: " The case of Mr. Walter Gardiner, of Narragansett, who that he might have some pretence for endeavouring to seize the legacy left by John Case Esq^ for a support of a Bishop who should have the superintendency of the Narraganset country, whenever his widow who had her life in his farm should die, and who had therefore refused to join with the other Churches in the State, and with the majority of the congregation at Narragansett, in acknowledging the Bishop of Connecticut for 9. Bioren's Journals General Convention, p. 39. 10. Bishop White's Memoirs, Ed. 1880, p. 201, cited on p. 332 of Dr. Dix's History of Trinity Church, volume I. 294 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. the Bp. of Rhode Island, came to be considered. And as it appeared that Mr. Gardiner had privately obtained a recom- mendation to the Standing Committee of Massachusetts, and that they had, without any personal knowledge of Mr. Gard- iner, recommended him to Bp. Provoost of New York, without any concurrence of the Congregation; and that Bp. Provoost had on this recommendation conferred Deacons orders on Mr. Gardiner (who it seems had joined himself to the Massa- chusetts Convention) the Convention declined to acknowledge Mr. Gardiner as one of their body, unless he did subscribe the constitution of Rhode Island, and acknowledge the superin- tendency of the Bp. of Connecticut. This Mr. Gardiner would have then done, had he not been prevented by Mr. Thomas Wickham of NewPort. The Convention therefore allowed him till the middle of November to consider of this matter: and determined if he did not by that time accede to the Con- stitution of Connecticut &c: they would hold no connection with him. It appeared also to the Convention that Mr. Gardiner had not attended at the Church for divine service for a month past, as no congregation would attend with him." Apart from this episode, which it has seemed desirable to consider in this connection, the course of our story appears to have brought us to the recognition of the fact that the return of Bishop Seabury to this Country, and the subsequent action of himself and his Clergy, with the loyal concurrence of the laity of their congregations, resulted in the establishment of an integral part of the Catholic Church of Christ — perfectly organized and complete in itself — having, by valid and canon- ical transmission of the Episcopate, the threefold order of the Ministry united with the laity in communion with Christ through the faith and sacraments of His institution. To speak THE FIELD OF WORK. 295 of this organization as a Diocese of the Church in Connecticut, is to speak correctly, but not adequately. To those who are accustomed to think of a Diocese as merely one of several parts of a larger division of the Church to which it bears a sub- ordinate relation, the phrase would not convey the whole truth in its application to the Church in Connecticut. It is necessary to observe further that this organization in Connecticut con- stituted in itself an entire and complete Church — bound in- deed by the analogy of the faith and order of Christ's Church as a whole ; but, so far as other individual parts of the Church were concerned, absolutely independent, and free from all manner of subordination to the rule or dictation of any one of them or of any combination or association of them. The abandonment on the part of the English Bishops of all claim to the jurisdiction which had been the common bond of union of the Churches existing in the several Colonies, left the Church in each State after the Revolution free to pursue one of two courses open to it. It might seek to complete and perfect itself by procuring the consecration of a Bishop, and by settling its own faith and worship and discipline in accord- ance with the general constitution of the Church of Christ; or it might associate itself with the Church in other States in a common organization, and seek the procurement of its com- pletion by Bishops afterward. In Connecticut the first of these courses was pursued. In Pennsylvania and other States the second course was preferred. Each part of the Church was wholly within its right in the course adopted. But it is mani- fest that neither part had any right or claim to jurisdiction over the other; and that the basis of whatever joint or com- mon association there might be, was simply the consent of the integral parts associating themselves. The relation which the completely organized Church in Con- necticut might come to hold to the Churches in other States 296 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. then in process of organization, was necessarily to be based upon the common consent of all ; and the several steps toward the establishment of such consent, and the difficultres attendant upon its completion, come now to be considered. CHAPTER XIX. THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 1784-1789- THE Ecclesiastical Union here intended is that associa- tion of Episcopal Churches in the States of the Civil Union of this Country, on the basis of a common Constitution voluntarily adopted for purposes of common gov- ernment, which was established at the end of the eighteenth century; and which has since continued to exist under the legislative authority of the representative body known as the General Convention, composed of Bishops, Clergy and Laity, and deriving its powers from that Constitution which is the basis of the association. Our present concern with this Union relates chiefly to the connection with it of the subject of these memoirs: and the effort here made will be to show in what the Union consisted, and to point out some of the difficulties which had to be over- come in the completion of it. From the first Journals of General Convention, and from the Memoirs of the venerable Bishop White, to whom belongs the honor of having been the father of the plan on which the Churches in the different States were associated in this Union, the following facts appear. In May, 1784, a meeting of some of the Clergy of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, was held at New Bruns- wick, New Jersey, for the revival of a charitable Corporation 297 298 MEMOIR OF r>ISIIOP SEABURY. chartered in the Colonial period,* at which meeting were also present certain of the lay members of the Church. Opportu- nity was taken to consider the condition and prospects of the Church in the United States, and to submit certain measures, recently adopted in Pennsylvania, tending to the organization of the Church throughout the Civil Union. The result was a more general meeting in New York in the following October ; at which there appeared deputies from the three States above named, and others. The greater number of these deputies were vested with no powers to bind their constituents, the Churches in the States from which they came; and their only act was the recommendation to the Churches in the various States to unite under a few articles considered to be funda- mental.^ At Philadelphia in September, 1785, a Convention assembled at which were present deputies, Clerical and Lay, from the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Del- aware, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina. The Convention thus assembled adopted what may be called a draft of a Constitution, as the basis of the association of the Churches represented, and such others as might be disposed to join them ; and the members of that Convention, being still possessed of no authority to bind their constituents, provided in their proposed Constitution, that when that Instrument should be ratified by the Church in the different States, it should be fundamental, and unalterable by the Convention of the Church in any State.^ In 1786, representatives from the seven States above named adopted another draft or proposed Constitution, a modification 1. The Corporation for the Relief of Widows and Children of Clergy- men, still perpetuated in the three States of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 2. Bishop White's Statement prefixed to Bioren's Reprint of General Convention Journals. 3. Bioren's Journals, p. 8. THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 299 in some respects of that of 1785, but in the main to the same effect, and with the same want of authority ; the deputies being still without power to bind their constituents. But in the year 1786, a resolution was adopted which led to putting the author- ity of the Convention in future upon a different basis : it being by this resolution " recommended to the Conventions of this Church in the several States represented in this Convention, that they authorise and empower their deputies to the next General Convention, after we shall have obtained a Bishop or Bishops in our Church, to confirm and ratify a General Con- stitution, respecting both the doctrine and discipline of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Amer- ice." ^ In accordance with this action the proposed Constitu- tion of 1786 provided that that Instrument " when ratified by the Church in a majority of the States assembled in General Convention, with sufficient power for the purpose of such rati- fication, shall be unalterable by the Convention of any particu- lar State which hath been represented at the time of such rati- fication." ^ In 1787, Dr. White was consecrated Bishop for Pennsyl- vania, and Dr. Provoost for New York, and at the General Convention, following these Consecrations, in the summer of 1789, the members being called upon to declare their powers relative to the resolution of 1786, recommending their being appointed by their State Conventions with the full power " to confirm and ratify a General Constitution respecting both the doctrine and discipline, of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America gave information, that they came fully authorized to ratify a Book of Common Prayer, &c. for the use of the Church." ^ 4. Bioren's Journals, p. 26. Cf. Bishop White's Memoirs, pp. 80, 81. (Ed. 1836.) 5. Ibid., p. 26. 6. Ibid., p. 48. 300 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. The Constitution adopted in August, 1789, was thus author- itative, and of obligation upon the Churches in the States rep- resented in the Convention then sitting; and, having reached this point, the Convention adjourned to another session in the autumn of the same year, to which were invited, and at which attended, representatives from the Church in Connecticut and other Eastern States; and in October of that year the Con- stitution which had been adopted in the previous August was, after certain amendments, re-adopted, and agreed to also by those representatives. From thenceforth, there was estab- lished the Ecclesiastical Union, under that Constitution, of all the Churches of the several States which had been represented in that Convention. In Connecticut there appears to have been a further formal ratification of the acts of their deputies; but the authority of the Constitution as the basis of the Ecclesi- astical Union dates from the second session of General Con- vention, in October, 1789; and although that Union did not then extend over all the States of the Civil Union, all were ultimately included within it. The course pursued by the Convention from the beginning of its sessions was, in several respects, such as to cause serious distrust among the Connecticut Churchmen and those who were like minded with them. The attitude of the Convention to- ward the Episcopate, which indeed it was solicitous to procure for each of the States represented, but which it seemed dis- posed to put in a subordinate position, and make rather inci- dental than essential to the system; the somewhat hasty and crude revision of the Book of Common Prayer ; the association of laymen on equal terms with the Clergy, not only in legisla- tive but even in judicial functions; the reduction of Bishops to an ex officio membership in a House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, without even provision (at first) for having a Bishop preside when one should be present ; and the making of every Clergyman, — Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon — amenable to the THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 3OI Convention in his State, so far as related to suspension or re- moval from office, were measures for which there was no prece- dent in the previous practice of the Church, and no justification in the principles on which that practice had been founded. There was no disposition on the part of the Bishop, or the Diocese, of Connecticut, to hold aloof from the Union, or to make any opposition to it — quite the contrary. But in all the Eastern States there were grave apprehensions of unchurchly tendencies in the Middle and Southern States. Bishop White thought that these were not well founded, but they existed ; and they had as strong an influence in one direction, as the objections to the independent action of Connecticut, and the uneasiness about the anticipated extension of Bishop Seabury's universal American jurisdiction had in the other. In addition to the opposition of feeling thus indicated, it is necessary also to observe that the attitude of the Convention toward Bishop Seabury himself, was not such as to encourage his confidence in the desire of the Churches represented in that body to have any connection or association with him, or the Church under his jurisdiction. Instigated at first by Dr. Pro- voost of New York, and afterward promoted by Dr. Robert Smith of South Carolina, an effort was made to set a stigma upon Bishop Seabury's consecration, by impugning the vaHdity of ordinations performed by him. And although the Conven- tion could not be influenced to this extent by those deputies, yet it is hardly surprising that the action which that body did take, should be viewed by Bishop Seabury in connection with those attacks upon him, and be considered accordingly as far from reassuring. It seems worth while to record here the several resolutions which were formulated in order to guard against what was supposed to be the dangerous tendency of Bishop Seabury's existence at that period. In the New York Convention, May i6, 1786, after the ap- 302 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. pointmcnt of Clerical and Lay deputies to the next General Convention, it was ** Resolved, That the persons appointed to represent this Church be instructed not to consent to any act that may imply the validity of Bishop Seabury's ordina- tions." '^ In the General Convention, June, 1786, it was moved by the Rev. Robert Smith of South Carolina *' That the Clergy present produce their letters of Orders, or declare by whom they were ordained." ^ This resolution having been lost, it was moved by Dr. Pro- voost and seconded by Dr. Smith, " That the Convention will resolve to do no act that shall imply the validity of ordina- tions made by Dr. Seabury." This motion was also lost, New York (as instructed,) New Jersey and South Carolina voting for it; and Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia voting against it.^ On a motion made by Dr. White, and seconded by Dr. Smith, it was " Resolved unanimously that it be recommended to this Church in the States here represented, not to receive to the pastoral charge within their respective limits, clergymen professing canonical subjection to any Bishop, in any State or Country, other than those Bishops who may be duly settled in the States represented in this Convention." ^^ This Resolution fairly covered the only ground on which reasonable objection could be made to the admission of persons ordained by Bishop Seabury; viz. that those who were amen- 7, New York Journals, I, p. 9. 8. Bioren's Journals, p. 19. 9. Ibid., p. 21. The Journal shows that before this vote was taken, Dr. William Smith moved the previous question, and was seconded by Dr. White. The object was to shut off all disparagement of the right of Bishop Seabury to ordain. The Convention, however, refused to pass this motion, thus insisting upon voting on Provoost's resolution, which nevertheless they also refused to pass. 10, Bioren's Journals, p. 21. THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 303 able to the Convention, ought not to have a divided allegiance, as being also amenable to a Bishop not connected with the Convention. If the Convention anticipated such danger it had a right to guard against it: and if this resolution had stood alone, although it showed but little confidence in Bishop Sea- bury, and no great desire for union with him, no exception needed to be taken to it. But such moderate measure could not satisfy those who either had, or affected to have, doubts of the Scottish succession; or who were anxious to acquire merit in the eyes of the English Bishops by refusing to fraternize with a Bishop who had scandalized their Lordships by his Scottish consecration. This latter significance seems to be involved in the resolution next adopted unanimously on the motion of Dr. Robert Smith ; '' Resolved, That it be recom- mended to the Conventions of the Church represented in this General Convention, not to admit any person as a minister within their respective limits, who shall receive ordination from any Bishop residing in America, during the application now pending to the English Bishops for Episcopal Consecra- tion." ^^ Notwithstanding these covert, but obvious, attacks, upon him ; and notwithstanding the anxieties which the reports of the action of the Convention aroused in him. Bishop Seabury was desirous that nothing should be wanting on his part, which he could properly do, for the promotion of union between the II. Bioren's Journals, pp. 21, 22, No such ulterior motive is at- tributable to Dr. White, who did not entertain doubts of the validity of the Scotch Succession, and who was above any such indirect modes of conciliation. " It was Dr. White," writes Dr. William Smith to Bishop Seabury, " who seconded, on a former occasion, my motion for not suffering any question in Convention, which might imply even a doubt of the validity of your consecration, and that at a time when admitting a doubt of that kind was considered by some as a good means of forwarding his own and Dr. Provoost's consecration." (Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 364.) 304 MEMOIR OF BISIIOr SEABURY. Churches in all the States. He proved this earnest desire by his courteous overtures to the Bishops of Pennsylvania and New York upon their return from England in that capacity ; by his kindly criticism of the measures of the Convention from which he apprehended evil results ; ^^ and by his willingness at last to accede, for the sake of the unity and peace of the Church, to a system which, as being an entirely new departure, he was prone to distrust ; but which, rather than risk the dan- gers of having different organizations of the same Communion in the United States, he thought it most wise to support — provided certain essentials could be preserved — in the hope of the ultimate settlement of the system upon a more trust- worthy basis. So great, however, was the anxiety entertained in Connecti- cut in regard to the tendencies which they apprehended, that the Bishop and Clergy of that State thought it wise to try to secure another Bishop to act as Coadjutor to Bishop Seabury, and to succeed him in case of his decease ; and the Convocation in the latter part of February, 1787, elected the Rev^. Mr. Jarvis to go to Scotland to receive consecration from the Bish- ops of that Country. Writing on March 2^. of that year to Bishop Skinner, and speaking of the recent meeting of his Clergy, Bishop Seabury says : " They are much alarmed at the steps taken by the Clergy and Laity to the south of us, and are very apprehensive that, should it please God to take me out of the world, the same spirit of innovation in the gov- ernment and Liturg}^ of the Church would be apt to rise in this State, which has done so much mischief in our neighbor- hood. . . . and should this See become vacant, the Clergy may find themselves under the fatal necessity of falling under 12. See for instance his manly, clear and cogent letter to Dr. Wil- liam Smith of August 15, 1785, printed in Bishop White's Memoirs, pp. 286-292. THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 3^5 the Southern establishment, which they consider as a depart- ure from ApostoHcal institution. To prevent all danger of this, they are anxious to have a Bishop coadjutor to me, and will send a gentleman to Scot- land for consecration as soon as they know that the measure meets with the full approbation of my good and highly re- spected brethren in Scotland. It has not only my approbation, but my most anxious wishes are, that it may soon be carried into execution." Communication in those days was slow, and the custom of correspondents adapted itself to that deliberation. Not until June 20, 1787, was Bishop Skinner's answer to this letter dated; and of course its arrival here was much later. In the meantime Drs. White and Provoost had been consecrated in England, and had returned to this Country. Aware of their consecration, Bishop Skinner, in his reply to Bishop Seabury, says, " We can hardly imagine that the Bishops of Philadel- phia and New York will refuse their brotherly assistance in the measure which you propose to us, or yet take upon them to impose their own Liturgy as the sole condition of compliance. Should this be the case, and these new Bishops either refuse to hold communion with you, or grant it only on terms with which you cannot in conscience comply, there would then be no room for us to hesitate. But fain would we hope better things of these your American brethren, and that there will be no occasion for two separate communions among the Episco- palians in the United States.^^ The *' brotherly assistance " of the Bishops mentioned was not sought for the consecration of the Coadjutor for Bishop Seabury. Later it was sought by Massachusetts and New Hampshire clergy for the consecration of Dr. Bass to be Bishop for the Church in those States; and was decHned. 13. Cf. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 293-298. 306 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Reference will hereafter be made to this; but, in order of time, there are other matters to be first noted. It is to be observed, however, in passing that the " brotherly assistance " was sought from a different quarter, through the request made by the Convention in Virginia, in May, 1787, that Bishops White and Provoost would consecrate the Rev. Dr. Griffith Bishop for the Church in that State. The request was, con- sistently, denied on the ground that it behoved those Bishops not to act without first obtaining the three Bishops from Eng- land, and partly on the further ground that a consecration by only two Bishops would be a precedent for irregularity in fu- ture ; ^^ though apparently it was not convenient to remember that there was another Bishop within easy reach if regularity had been the thing desired. In a letter to his friend William Stevens Esq^ of London, on the 9th of May, 1787, Bishop Seabury writes : " It is so long since I heard from any of my friends in London, that I cannot help feeling some uneasiness on that account. I did hope that I should have received some intelligence respecting the two American Bishops, and particularly, whether they were laid under any restrictions ? And if so, what those restrictions were? Those Gentlemen are returned, but I do not find their arrival has made much noise in this Country. I have written to them both, proposing an interview with them, and an Union of the Church of England through all the States, on the ground of the present Prayer Book, only accommodating it to the Civil Constitution of this Country; and the government of the Church to continue unaltered as it now is, with a body of can- ons to give energy to it, and direct its operation. I know not what efifect this overture may have. But my fears are greater than my hopes. Everything I can fairly do to procure Union and uniformity, shall certainly be done." ^^ 14. Bishop White's Memoirs, p. I44n. 15. Ms. Letter Book. THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 307 Bishop White and Bishop Provoost landed at New York, in the afternoon of Easter Day, April 7, 1787.^*^ The letters re- spectively addressed to them by Bishop Seabury, are said by Dr. Beardsley to " bear the same date and breathe the same spirit." ^^ Bishop White replied with courtesy, but otherwise not very satisfactorily.^^ Bishop Provoost seems not to have replied at all. A copy of the letter to him as preserved in the Letter Book is here presented. "May I, 1787. The Right Reverend Bishop Provoost, New York. Right Reverend and dear Sir, It is with pleasure I take this opportunity of presenting my congratulations on your safe return to New York, on the suc- cess of your appUcation to the English Archbishops, and on your recovery from your late dangerous illness. You must be equally sensible with me of the present un- settled state of the Church of England in this Country, and of the necessity of union and concord, among all its members in the United States of America, not only to give stability to it, but to fix it on its true and proper foundation. Possibly noth- ing will contribute more to this end than uniformity in wor- ship and discipline among the Churches of the different States. It will be my happiness to be able to promote so good and necessary a work: and I take the liberty to propose, that be- fore any decided steps may be taken, there may be a meeting of yourself and Bishop White with me at such time and place as shall be most convenient; to try whether some plan cannot be adopted that shall, in a quiet and effectual way, secure the great object which I trust we should all heartily rejoice to see accomplished. For my own part I cannot help thinking, that 16. Bishop White's Memoirs, p. 140. 17. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 299. 18. Ibid., pp. 300-3. 30S MKMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. the most likely mclliod will be to retain the present Common Prayer Book, accommodating it to the civil constitution of the United States. The government of the Church, you know, is already settled: a body of canons will however be wanting to give energy to the government, and ascertain its operation. A stated Convocation of the Clergy of this State is to be held at Stamford on Thursday after Whitsunday. As it is so near to New York, and the journey may contribute to the re-estab- lishment of your health, I should be much rejoiced to see you there; more especially as I think it would promote the great object, the union of all the Churches. May God direct us in all things! Believe me to be Rt. Rev^. and dear Sir, your aff. Br. and humb^ Servt." Bishop Provoost's ignoring of Bishop Seabury's overture was consistent with his previous, and indeed his subsequent, attitude. In a letter to Dr. White, of May 20, 1786, Dr. Pro- voost says that it would be highly improper to give any sanc- tion to Bishop Seabury's ordinations. ** It would also," he continues, " be an insult upon the Church and to the truly ven- erable prelates to whom we are now making application for the succession. For my own part I carry the matter still further, and as a friend to the liberties of mankind, should be ex- tremely sorry that the conduct of my brethren here should tend to the resurrection of the sect of Non-Jurors (nearly buried in oblivion) whose slavish and absurd tenets were a disgrace to humanity, and God grant that they may never be cherished in America, which, as my native Country, I wish may always be saved to liberty, both civil and religious." ^^ *' Our state in this Country," remarks Bishop Seabury in his letter of November i, 1788, to Bishop Abernethy Drummond of Edinburgh, " is still unsettled, and like I fear to continue so. 19. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 254. THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 3O9 Bishop White, of Philadelphia, seems disposed to an Ecclesi- astical Union, but will take no leading or active part to bring it about. He will risk nothing; and Bishop Provoost seems so elated with the honor of an English consecration that he affects to doubt the validity of mine." ^^ Besides the apprehension that Bishop Seabury had, that there was a disposition on the part of the Churches to the southward to exclude him from the Ecclesiastical Union, it was made apparent to him that there was somewhere in those quarters a disposition to give the impression that it was he who was striving to obstruct the completion of that Union : an imputation which he certainly was justified in resenting. In reference to this he writes to Dr. Parker, December i6, 1788, " As it appears to me, all the difficulty lies with those Churches, and not with us in Connecticut. I have several times proposed and urged a Union. It has been received and treated, I think, coldly. And yet I have received several let- ters urging such a union on me, as though I was the only person who opposed it. This is not fair. I am ready to treat of and settle the terms of union on any proper notice. But Bishops White and Provoost must bear their part in it actively as well as myself; and we must come into the Union on even terms, and not as underlings." ^^ This feeling is manifested again, some months later, in a manuscript which seems to be the Bishop's draft of a letter to Dr. Parker of May 27, 1789, in reference to the movement for procuring the consecration of Dr. Bass by himself and Bishops White and Provoost. This paper seems to me so suggestive, in several aspects of the situation, that I quote almost the whole of it, as follows : " I cannot but approve of your design to have a Bp. to the Eastward, and from Mr. Bass's character and standing in the Church, I am persuaded he 20. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. ZZ7- 21. Ibid. pp. 333-4. 310 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. would worthily and acceptably fill that station. With these sentiments I shall readily meet your and the Clergy's wishes, by contributing all in my power to accomplish an event which I much wish. But I have my doubts of the concurrence of the other Bps., yet I hope they will prove groundless. I have several times mentioned the propriety of a Union between all the Churches in the States and am ready to enter on and settle the terms of that Union as far as relates to Connecticut, whenever Bps. White and Provoost shall please to come into such a measure. But then we must meet them on even ground. It must be the union of the Church in Conn*., with the Church of the Southern States upon just and reasonable principles, not a subjection to them founded on a majority of votes. In this matter I think I shall have all the Clergy of Connecticut with me. To accomplish this I see no way but for the Bps. White and Provoost with as many Proctors from the Clergy as shall be thought necessary to meet with the Bp. and Proctors of the Church of Connecticut. If they cannot agree on a uniformity of Worship, they certainly can agree on terms of perfect Union, so as to keep up the most friendly intercourse by admitting each others Clergy and Communi- cants, and assisting each other by advice and mutual good of- fices. Indeed I do not see the absolute necessity of exact uniformity in public Liturgy to keep up Christian unity be- tween Churches whatever advantages may attend it. While the analogy of Faith is preserved and a due regard paid to ancient Catholic practice, a variety in publick Liturgy will be attended with no real detriment. I must also mention another doubt I have — whether it is right that the merit or demerit of forms of P. Prayer should be ascertained by votes in a large, or even a small assembly, either of Clergy or Laity, or both? I cannot enlarge on this point — your own good sense will suggest many reasons against it. I take it for granted that the G. Con. will make no abate- THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 311 ment in the power of Lay Ds. in Ec. matters — and I think the C of C will be averse to putting themselves into the same state. However, as our Convocation is to meet the next week, the question shall come fairly before them. I cannot but think it a little hard that I should be repre- sented as being averse from a union between the Churches. The opposition comes from another quarter, and there the blame ought to lie. I think the Church in C. as respectable on acct. of its numbers and Clergy as the Church in any of the States, and feel that in some instances it has been treated in a manner bordering on contempt. Judge you, whether it would be right in them to put themselves in a situation that will intail this treatment on them? Or whether it would be doing themselves justice always to bear it with the same tameness they hitherto have done rather than throw any im- pediment in the way of union with those She fondly hoped would treat her as a Sister. I repeat it; If a union with Con. be desired, it may be had on reasonable and even terms — If more be aimed at, I hope it will never be effected. You must excuse a little warmth, as I feel myself hurt by having it represented that I stood in the way of perfect union. You know it cannot be obtained till the nonsensical objection about my Cons, be given up. This matter does not stick with Bp. W. But while it does subsist it must preclude both myself and Clergy from appearing at their general Convention. With regard to Mr. Bass — I believe it will be found that Bps. W and P are under engagements not to consecrate any Bp. till they have another Bp. from England. You can however make the experiment ; or if you choose it, you can ascertain whether they would join in such a Cons, before Mr. B. be elected." The extreme policy for which Bishop Provoost stood — based as it was in part upon political prejudice, and in part upon the " nonsensical objection " above mentioned, did not however, command much support even in his own Diocese. 31^ MEMOIR OF UISllOP SEABURY. At first, indeed, his influence carried the Convention of New York to the point of instructing delegates to General Conven- tion not to consent to any act that would imply the validity of Bishop Seabury's ordinations: but in the New York Con- vention of 1788, the desire to have the succession carried on in the English line was not deemed inconsistent with the desire to promote the union of the Churches in all the States, which of course involved the inclusion of the Scottish line ; as may appear from the following two resolutions : " Resolved, That it is highly necessary in the opinion of this Convention, that measures should be pursued to preserve the Episcopal succes- sion in the English line — and Resolved also, That the union of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is of great importance and much to be desired ; and that the delegates of this State in the next General Convention, be instructed to promote that union by every prudent measure, consistent with the Consti- tution of the Church, and the continuance of the Episcopal succession in the English line." -^ Bishop Seabury's impression that Bishop White was un- willing to take the lead in promoting the Union was not quite correct. Bishop White's way of working was not understood by Bishop Seabury, to whose simple and outright character diplomatic processes were uncongenial. In fact Bishop White's was the master mind in the whole movement for Union, and it had all along been his object to bring the Epis- copacy of the Church in Connecticut within that union.^"^ Had Bishop Provoost possessed the same feeling, probably the re- sult would have been reached through conference, as Bishop Seabury desired. Failing that, Bishop White pursued his purpose otherwise. One mode of operation was to work 22. Journal New York Convention, November 5, 1788. Cf. Bishop White's Memoirs, p. I4in. 23. Memoirs, p. 141. THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 313 through Dr. Parker of Massachusetts, the friend of Bishop Seabury. To him Bishop White wrote that as the Clergy of Massachusetts had not been concerned either in the appUcation to England or to Scotland, they had it in their power to act the part of mediators in bringing the Clergy of Connecticut and those of the other States together. Out of this move grew the application, which, as we have seen, was made by the Massachusetts Clergy for the consecration of Dr. Bass by the three Bishops, Seabury, White and Provoost. This application met with favour in the General Convention, which united in making request of those Bishops to perform that action; and although neither White nor Provoost were, as has appeared, willing to grant that request, yet the fact that the General Convention made the request, involved the recognition by that body of the validity of Bishop Seabury's Episcopate, and so removed the chief hindrance to Bishop Seabury's co-operation with the General Convention. This was assured by the pas- sage of the following resolution on the 30th of July, 1789: '* Resolved unanimously. That it is the opinion of this Con- vention, that the consecration of the Right. Rev. Dr. Seabury to the Episcopal office is valid.'* And when the Convention adjourned for the express purpose of having the Connecticut Clergy meet with it in September, the movement for the Con- secration of Dr. Bass was thought to have accomplished its object, and Dr. Bass soon afterward resigned his election.-^ With reference to this application the General Convention, in August, 1789, adopted a series of five resolutions, drawn and moved by Dr. William Smith, the first and fourth of which it will suffice for our purpose to record here. " i^* Resolved, That a complete order of Bishops, derived as well under the English as the Scots line of Episcopacy, doth 24. See Bishop White's account of this matter, Memoirs, pp. 142-4. A statement of the application and of the resolves of General Conven- tion thereupon will be found in the same volume, pp. ZZZ-33S- 314 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. now subsist within the United States of America, in the per- sons of the Right Rev. WilHam White D. D. Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Pennsylvania; the Right. Rev. Samuel Provoost, D. D. Bishop of the said Church in the State of New York, and the Right. Rev. Sam- uel Seabury, D. D. Bishop of the said Church in the State of Connecticut. 4*^ Resolved, That the Right Rev. Dr. White and the Right Rev. Dr. Provoost be, and they hereby are, requested to join with the Right Rev. Dr. Seabury, in complying with the prayer of the Clergy of the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, for the consecration of the Rev. Edward Bass, Bishop elect of the Churches in the said States; but that be- fore the said Bishops comply with the request aforesaid, it be proposed to the Churches in the New England States to meet the Churches of these States, with the said three Bishops, in an adjourned Convention, to settle certain articles of union and discipline among all the Churches, previous to such conse- cration." 2^ On the 8th of August this Convention, after having adopted a Constitution, adjourned to meet at Philadelphia on the 29th of September following, and before its adjournment appointed a Committee, of Bishop White and others, for the performance of various duties, among which were the answering, so far as necessary, of Bishop Seabury's letters ; the forwarding of the minutes and proceedings of the Convention to him, and to the eastern and other churches not included in the union ; the no- tifying them of the time and place to which the convention should adjourn, and the requesting of their attendance at the same for the good purposes of union and general govern- ment.^^ The letters of Bishop Seabury which were thus referred to 25. Bioren's Journals General Convention, pp. 53-54. 26. Ibid., pp. 61-64. THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 315 the Committee had been addressed respectively to Bishop White, under date of June 29, 1789, and to the Rev. Dr. William Smith, under date of July 23, 1789. The letter to Bishop White has been printed in full by Dr. Beardsley.^^ It goes very candidly and patiently over various matters in the proposed formularies, which the author deprecates, and dis- cusses them with learning and with moderation. As to some of these matters the writer had opportunity to use his influence in the subsequent revision and settlement of the Book of Common Prayer. The whole letter is admirable. Further reference to it may be made hereafter; but at present it is proposed to give the part of it which relates particularly to the matter of the inclusion of the Church in Connecticut within the Union. The writer represents the Lay delegates at a re- cent Connecticut Convention as having declined every inter- ference in Church Government or in the reformation of Lit- urgies, and then speaks of the feeling of the Clergy and of himself. " The Clergy supposed that in your Constitution, any repre- sentation from them would be inadmissible without Lay Dele- gates, nor could they submit to offer themselves to make a part of any meeting where the authority of their Bishop had been disputed by one Bishop, and probably by his influence, by a number of others who were to compose that meeting. They therefore must consider themselves as excluded, till that point shall be settled to their satisfaction, which they hope will be done by your Convention. For my own part, gladly would I contribute to the Union and Uniformity of all our Churches; but while Bishop Pro- voost disputes the validity of my consecration, I can take no step towards the accomplishment of so great and desirable an object. This point, I take it, is now in such a state that it 27. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, 349-356. 3l6 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. must be settled, either by your Convention, or by an appeal to the good sense of the Christian World. But as this is a subject in which I am personally concerned, I shall refrain from any remarks upon it, hoping that the candor and good sense of your Convention will render the further mention of it altogether unnecessary. You mention the necessity of having your succession com- pleted from England, both as it is the choice of your Churches, and in consequence of implied obligations you are under in England. I have no right to dictate to you on this point. There can, however, be no harm in wishing it were otherwise. Nothing would tend so much to the unity and uniformity of our Churches, as the three Bishops now in the States joining in the consecration of a fourth. I could say much on this sub- ject, but should I do so, it may be supposed to proceed from interested views. I shall therefore leave it to your own good sense, only hoping you and the Convention will deliberately consider whether the implied obligations in England, and the wishes of your Churches be so strong that they must not give way to the prospect of securing the peace and unity of the Church. The grand objection in Connecticut to the power of Lay Delegates in your Constitution is their making part of a judicial consistory for the trial and deprivation of Clergymen. This appears to us to be a new power, utterly unknown in all Episcopal Churches, and inconsistent with their constitution. That it should be given up, we do not expect ; power we know is not easily relinquished. We think, however, it ought to be given up; and that it will be a source of oppression, and that it will operate as a clog on the due execution of ecclesiastical authority. If a Bishop with his Clergy are not thought com- petent to censure or depose a disorderly brother or not to have sufficient principle to do it, they are unfit for their stations. THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 317 It is, however, a presumption that cannot be made, and there- fore can be no ground of action. I observe you mention that the authority of Lay delegates in your Constitution is misunderstood. We shall be glad to be better informed, and shall not pertinaciously persist in any unfair constructions, when they are fairly pointed out to us. That the assent of the Laity should be given to the laws which affect them equally with the Clergy, I think is right, and I believe will be disputed nowhere, and the rights of the laity we have no disposition to invade." ^^ It will be convenient to observe here that the "' grand diffi- culty " of conferring judicial character upon laymen for the discipline of the Clergy was removed in the Constitution of August, 1789, so that when the representatives of the Eastern Churches met the General Convention in October, they did not find any cause of objection on that score. The Article num- bered VIII in the proposed Constitution of 1785 had made every Clergyman, Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon amenable to the authority of the Convention in the State to which he be- longed, so far as related to suspension or removal from of- fice. In that form the Constitution, with other papers, was submitted to the English Bishops in the application for conse- cration of American Bishops. In a letter to the members of the Convention laid before that body in 1786, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York strongly represent that the eighth Article of the Constitution submitted to them, appeared to them to be a degradation of the clerical, and still more of the Episcopal character, and express the hope that the Article may be changed.^^ The Convention declined to make any change in consequence of this representation,"^ having already made a 28. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 349-356. 29. Bioren's Journals, pp. 34-35. 30. Ibid., p. 42. 3l8 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. modification in one respcct,^^ which, however, did not go to the root of the matter. But in the new Constitution brought be- fore the General Convention of 1789, and adopted in August, Article 6, taking the place of the former objectionable Article VIII, discarded the unwholesome ideas upon which that Ar- ticle had been based — that the Convention possessed judicial authority, and that the Clergy were amenable to it as to a ju- dicial body. For the power to judge, involved in making the Clergy amenable to it so far as related to the tenure of their Office, was wholly withdrawn; and for it was substi- tuted the right to institute a mode of trial — which was dis- tinctly a legislative power, to the exercise of which the objec- tions formerly made in the matter were clearly inapplicable. How far the representations of Bishop Seabury on this point, which had been strongly and repeatedly made prior to the meeting of this General Convention, were influential in pro- ducing the new provision cannot perhaps be known. The Convention of 1786 had declined to heed the remonstrance of the English Prelates on that head, but their objection might naturally have had weight afterwards; and Bishop Seabury 's views on the matter being also well known, and his inclusion in the Union being the desire of Bishop White, it is very probable that that desire was an additional incentive to the more satisfactory remodelling of the Article. The letter to Dr. William Smith which was also before the General Convention of 1789, refers again to the doubt cast upon the validity of Bishop Seabury's consecration by Bishop Provoost and others; and also calls attention to the require- ment of the Constitution that the Church in each State should send Lay as well as Clerical delegates, from which the Con- necticut Clergy understood that they were inadmissible as rep- resentatives unless accompanied by Lay delegates. 31. Bioren's Journals, p. 25. THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 319 The General Convention recorded, as a reason for their resolution recognizing the validity of Bishop Seabury's Con- secration, that it appeared from his letters that he " lay under some misapprehensions concerning an entry in the minutes of a former Convention, as intending some doubt of the validity of his consecration."^- There was very little misapprehension as to the position of some members of the Convention ; but the action of the Convention itself was capable of another con- struction, as resulting from the fear of having any of its mem- bers under the jurisdiction of a Bishop not connected with the Convention. With regard to the necessity of lay representa- tion, Bishop Seabury does appear to have been under a mis- apprehension, owing to a change in the Constitution, of which he was probably unaware. In 1785 the Convention provided that '* there shall be a representation of both Clergy and Laity of the Church in each State." In 1786 and 1789, the provision was that every Diocese should be entitled to Clerical and Lay representation. This change enabled the Church in Connec- ticut to send Clerical representatives, without Lay delegates, to the Convention; and the recognition of the validity of Bishop Seabury's Consecration, removed the obstruction which had hitherto precluded the attendance of himself and his Clergy : so that when the official invitation, dated Philadelphia August 1 6th, 1789, sent in accordance with the authority of the Convention, was received, Bishop Seabury readily ac- cepted it. The Committee charged with the duty of making this com- munication to Bishop Seabury, consisted of Bishop White, Rev. Dr. William Smith, Rev. Dr. Magaw, Hon. Francis Hop- kinson. Tench Coxe Escf , and William Ward Burrows Esq^.^^ The original of this document, now before me, apparently in the handwriting of Dr. Smith, and with the signatures of 32. Bioren's Journals, p. 51. 33. Ibid., p. 64. 320 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. all of the Committee except Mr. Burrows, is so admirable a model of what such a communication should be, that I deny myself its publication here in full with great reluctance. But two or three paragraphs of the letter it seems most desirable to present, as showing with how much dignity, good feeling, and precision, the Committee gave effect to the candid desire on the part of the Convention to remove the obstacles which the action of that body might have seemed in any way to in- terpose to the inclusion of the Eastern Churches within the Ecclesiastical Union. " By the second Article of our printed Constitution (as al- tered and inserted in our Journal) you will observe that your main difficulty, respecting Lay-Representation, is wholly re- moved, upon the good and salutary principle admitted on both sides, viz "That there may be a strong and efficacious Union between Churches where the Usage is in some part different " — (It was indeed long the case in many Dioceses of Eng- land) — " The admission of the Church of Connecticut and other Churches of the Eastern States (where there is no Lay- Representation according to their present practice or usage is, by the Article of our Constitution above mentioned, ex- pressly provided for, upon your ozvn principles of representa- tion ; while the Churches, within our present Union, are not required to make any sacrifice of their principles; it being only declared by the s^. Article — "That the Church in each State shall be entitled to a representation, either of Clergy or Laity, or of both. And if the Convention (or Church) of any State should neglect, or decline, to appoint their Deputies, of either Order, (or, which is the same, if it should be their rule or usage to appoint only out of one Order) ; or if any of those appointed should neglect to attend, or be prevented by sick- ness or any other accident; the Church in such State, (Dis- trict or Diocese) shall nevertheless be considered as duly THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 321 represented by such Deputy or Deputies as may attend, of either Order. Here, then every case is intended to be provided for; and experience will either show that an efficacious Union may be accomplished upon those principles ; or mutual love and good- will, with a further reciprocation of sentiments, will eventually lead to a more perfect Uniformity, both of discipline and doctrine. As to the second point, respecting your own Consecration, and the vaHdity of the Scots-Episcopacy, we are persuaded that you have fallen into some misapprehension concerning the entry made in the Journal of a former Convention ; or that you have been misinformed of the circumstances attending it. Nothing was ever agitated in that Convention concerning the Scots-Episcopacy ; but, on the contrary, you may perceive by the Journal, that the Convention would not suffer any question to come before them, which implied even a doubt of the validity of your Consecration; and the proceedings of the present Convention upon that subject, we are persuaded, will be more than sufficient to remove every obstacle to our future Union, which might have been apprehended on that score." In compliance with the most gracious and satisfactory in- vitation thus extended, Bishop Seabury attended, on the first day of October 1789, the adjourned session of the General Convention in Philadelphia; and with him attended two of his Clergy, the Rev. Mr Jarvis and the Rev. Mr. Hubbard as representing the Churches in New Hampshire and Massa- chusetts. "All things now appeared to tend to an happy union," writes Bishop White : but he goes on to relate that at this point cer- tain laymen of the Convention expressed scruples as to ad- mitting Bishop Seabury to membership in the Convention, on the ground that he was in receipt of half pay as a retired ^22 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. British Chaplain. The good sense and reasonable explanations of Bishop White seem to have disposed of the objection so that it was never formally made, though he says he was not without apprehensions that it might be so made. It was pointed out to the objectors that the half pay was a compensation to Bishop Seabury for former services, and not for any now expected of him ; that it did not prevent him from being a citizen, with all the rights attached to the character, in Connecticut, and that any one in like circumstances who might be returned to Con- gress must necessarily be admitted a member of that body; and that, as there was no law covering the case, there was no reason why an Ecclesiastical body should be more particular in the matter than a civil body.^^ The Convention having resolved that for the better promo- tion of union with the eastern Churches, the Constitution adopted by the same body in the previous session in August, was still open to amendment, by virtue of the powers dele- gated to the Convention; and having appointed a Committee to confer with the representatives of those Churches ; and such conference having been held, the Committee reported on the following day, " That they have had a full, free and friendly conference with the deputies of the said Churches, who on be- half of the Church in their several States, and by virtue of sufficient authority from them, have signified, that they do not object to the Constitution, which was approved at the former session of this Convention, if the third article of that Consti- tution may be so modified, as to declare explicitly the right of the Bishops, when sitting in a separate House, to originate and propose acts for the concurrence of the other House of Con- vention; and to negative such acts proposed by the other House, as they may disapprove. Your Committee . . . recommend . . . that the third article of the Constitution 34. Bishop White's Memoirs, p. 145. THE ECCLESIASTICAL UNION. 323 may be altered accordingly. Upon such alteration being made, it is declared by the deputies from the Churches in the eastern States, that they will subscribe the Constitution, and become members o£ this General Convention."^^ In the Constitution as it had been adopted in August 1789, Article 3 provided that the Bishops when there should be three or more in the Churches associated under the Constitution, should form a House of revision. To this House was to be submitted any proposed act adopted by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. If the House of revision concurred with the other house the act had the force of law. If the House of revision did not concur, the act was to be reconsidered by the other House ; and if there adhered to by a three fifths majority the act became a law notwithstanding the negative of the House of revision. This provision, of course, assigned to the Bishops an entirely subordinate position in the system. What the representatives of the eastern Churches wanted was that the House of Bishops should be put on terms of equality with the other House ; with the same right to originate acts as was possessed by it, and with the same right to negative its action, as it possessed to negative the action of the Episcopal House. In other words the consent of both Houses should be essential to give to any act the force of law; and each House was to have the same right as the other to originate measures, and to concur or not concur in measures submitted to it by the other House. Hence the condition proposed by the representatives of the eastern Churches to the Committee, and by the Com- mittee recommended to be accepted by the Convention. The condition was not fully accepted, but it was so far accepted as to recognize the equality of the two Houses in the right to originate measures, though the equality in respect to the power of the negative was not conceded ; the reservation being made 35. Bioren's Journals, pp. 72-7^. 324 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABUKY. that the negative of the House of Bishops might be overruled by a four fifths majority of the other House; and on this basis the matter was concluded, and the Constitution as thus amended was acceded to by the eastern men as well as by the other representatives. This was the best arrangement that the then state of public opinion as reflected in General Convention permitted. The assertion of the right of absolute equality between the two Houses, however, had been made, and ultimately that right was recognized and conceded. In effect, it was established very soon afterwards, by giving the right of negative to the Bishops on certain conditions which were quite in their own power to comply with ; so that the right was practically abso- lute, though formally conditional. But the equality was not established entirely without conditions until the revision of the Constitution in 1901 — which seems to show that Bishop Seabury and his associates were, in this matter of fundamental principle, more than a hundred years in advance of their con- temporaries. CHAPTER XX. THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 1789. IN the course of the life which we are following we come to the associations which it had with the liturgical work which engaged the attention of the first House of Bishops. The life of Bishop Seabury can hardly be appreciated without some account of his influence upon that work; and the nature of that influence can hardly be understood without some ac- count of the Book of Common Prayer as it was affected by the reorganization of the Church in this Country after the Rev- olution. The theme, in its twofold aspect, is as much too large for a chapter as it is for the capacities of the writer : but the effort to treat it has to be made, and it is hoped may contribute something to the better understanding of matters not always clearly apprehended. The Book of Common Prayer as established in the Church of England was, of course, in use by the members of that Church in the Colonies. When, after the Revolution, those Colonies had become independent States, the members of the Church which had been the Church of England in the Colonies, natur- ally continued in the use of the same book as part of the privi- lege of their common inheritance. They were, however, of necessity obliged to seek some alteration of the Book to adapt it to the different circumstances in which they found them- selves, owing to the change in their Civil relations ; and while this was on all hands acknowledged to be necessary, it was the 325 326 MEMOIR OF r.ISnOP SEABURY. feeling of some that it would be well that opportunity should be taken to make other changes than those which the civil con- ditions suggested; and changes of both these kinds were pro- posed in different quarters, and to some extent acted upon in the period between the recognition of the independence of the States and the authoritative establishment of the Book of Common Prayer under the Ecclesiastical Constitution in 1789. In Connecticut where, as we have seen, there had been since 1784 a complete Church which was not among the number of those which were in process of association under a common Constitution, action was taken by the Bishop upon consultation with his Convocation, both in August 1785, by the enjoining of alterations required by the change in Civil conditions, and in September 1786, by the recommendation to the Congregations of the Church in that State of a Liturgy or Communion Office which differed in important respects from the English Liturgy of that day. Intermediate between these two promulgations, in October 1785, Article IX of the proposed Constitution of that year pro- vided that, corresponding to the representation of a desire for further alterations of the Liturgy than those made necessary by the Revolution, the English Book as changed in accordance with alterations then proposed and recommended, " shall be used in this Church when the same shall have been ratified by the Conventions which have respectively sent Deputies to this Convention."^' Article IX of the proposed Constitution of 1786, professing the same reason for action on the subject, referring to the Book as " revised and proposed " to the use of the Church, provides that this Book " may be used by the Church in such of the States as have adopted or may adopt the same in their particular Conventions, till further provision is made, in this I. Bioren's Journals General Convention, pp. 9, 10. THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 32/ case, by the first General Convention which shall assemble with sufficient power to ratify a Book of Common Prayer for the Church in these States."^ It thus appears that the Book referred to in these Articles differed from the Book set forth afterwards in 1789 in re- spect of authority. The power of the Conventions in which al- terations in the English Book had been made extending no further than to recommendation, the Book was described by those Conventions as " proposed ;" and accordingly the Book has ever since been known as " The Proposed Book." As such it is simply a historical record of an effort made by some, who were influential among the Churches engaged in the plan of association, to introduce certain changes in the English Book which seemed to them desirable; and therefore it never had any authority as the Book of Common Prayer of the Church in this Country. It followed, apparently, the pattern of that proposed revision of the English Book which had been prepared in England by a Commission appointed for the pur- pose in 1689, composed of Tillotson, Burnet and others, which the Preface to the Proposed Book describes as a " great and good work " which had " miscarried." That is to say, it never went into effect, more than did the American Proposal which was modelled on it.^ But although not authoritative in the proper sense of the word, the Proposed Book was naturally understood as ex- pressive of the sense of the representative body by which it had been recommended ; and in that view it excited grave ap- prehensions in other quarters. Bishop Seabury's general esti- mate of it may be understood from his letter to Dr. Parker of 2. Bioren's Journals General Convention, p. 25. 3. The Book, with its preface, may be seen in the valuable work of the Rev. Peter Hall entitled Reliquiae Liturgicse, vol. V (Bath, 1847). See an interesting Reference to the Commission of 1689 in Bishop Dowden's Workmanship of the Prayer Book, I34-I39- 328 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. February 13, 1789; in which he says: " I never thought there was any heterodoxy in the southern Prayer Book: but I do think the true doctrine is left too unguarded, and that the offices are, some of them, lowered to such a degree, that they will, in a great measure, lose their influence."^ In the letter to Bishop White, above referred to as laid before General Con- vention, he examines particularly various points in the Book which seem to him objectionable; and shows very strongly his want of sympathy with the disposition to make changes in well founded forms for the mere sake of general accepta- bility. The experience of the Church of England, he intimates, ought to counteract weakness of this sort. " The concessions she has made in giving up several primitive, and I suppose apostolical usages, to gratify the humors of fault finding men, show the inefficacy of such conduct. She has learned wis- dom from her experiences. Why should not we also take a lesson in her school ? If the humor be pursued of giving up points on every demand, in fifty years we shall scarce have the name of Christianity left. For God's sake, Sir, let us re- member that it is the particular business of the Bishops of Christ's Church to preserve it pure and undefiled, in faith and practice, according to the model left by apostolic practice. And may God give us grace and courage to act accordingly !"^ The use of this Book, according to the recommendation of 1786, was to continue until further provision should be made by the first General Convention which should assemble with sufficient power to ratify a Book of Common Prayer for the use of the Church. Such further provision was made in the General Convention of 1789, by the establishment of the Book of Common Prayer, under the authority of Article 8 of the Constitution previously adopted in the same session. The Article was as follows : " A Book of Common Prayer, ad- 4. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 327. 5, Manuscript Letter Book. THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 329 ministration of the Sacraments, and other rites and Ceremonies of the Church, articles of rehgion, and a form and manner of making, ordaining and consecrating Bishops, Priests and Dea- cons, when estabhshed by this or a future General Convention, shall be used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in those States which have adopted this Constitution." This Article is the charter of General Convention authoris- ing supreme legislative action upon the matters specified therein; whether such action were taken in the session then being held or in future sessions of the same body.*^ In accordance with the provisions of another Article, that when there should be three or more Bishops in the Churches associated under the Constitution they should form a separate House, that House came now in the October session of 1789 first into existence, consisting of Bishop Seabury, Bishop White and Bishop Provoost; and owing to the absence of Bishop Provoost from that session, the other Bishops, Seabury and White, acted as the quorum of the House. The principal act of the session of the Convention, after the adoption of the Constitution, was the establishment of the Prayer Book ; which was practically then completed, athough some work was post- poned to a future session. *' The journal shows," remarks Bishop White, writing many years afterward, *' that some parts of it were drawn up by the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- ties, and other parts of it, by the House of Bishops. In the lat- ter, owing to the smallness of the number and a disposition in both of them to accommodate, business was dispatched with great celerity ; as must be seen by any one who attends to the progress of the subjects recorded on the journal; To this day, there are recollected with satisfaction, the hours which were spent with Bishop Seabury on the important subjects which 6. Cf. " Notes on the Constitution of 1901," by W. J. Seabury, (Thomas Whittaker, New York), pp. 1 18-125. 330 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. came before them ; and especially the Christian temper which he manifested all along J It would seem from Bishop White's account, that a differ- ent view of the nature of the work in which they were en- gaged, was taken by the two Houses; the House of Bishops assuming that their duty was to revise the English Book of Common Prayer, as the existing basis to which amendments were to be made, adapting it to the use of the Church in this country; and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies acting on the assumption that a Liturgy was to be formed, without their being beholden to any existing book, although with liberty to take from any, whatever the Convention should think fit. The latter position, as Bishop White remarks, " was very unreasonable; because the different Congregations of the Church were always understood to be possessed of a lit- urgy, before the consecration of her bishops or the existence of her conventions."^ The variance, however, does not appear to have led to any serious, or, at least, lasting complications: and, whether by amendment of the English Book, as in one House; or by process of selection from that, regarded as one among others, as in the other House; the result was the sub- stantial conformity of the American to the English Book, both Houses agreeing in such adaptation as seemed desirable for the American use. There are, of course, numerous details of variation between the two books, both in the Communion Office and elsewhere; but the consideration of these, though full of liturgical interest, would involve too great a digression in this place.^ The chief difference between these Books, and the one which especially 7. Bishop White's Memoirs, p. 149, 8. Ibid., p. 147. 9. Dr. Hart's Reprint of Bishop Seabtiry's Office, and Bishop Dow- den's Annotated Scottish Communion Office will be found useful in this connection. THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 33^ claims our present attention, as having owed its existence pri- marily to Bishop Seabury, lies in what is called the Prayer of Consecration in the Eucharistic office. Before endeavouring to explain this difference, however, it will be proper to notice certain other points as to which the influence of Bishop Sea- bury was not so complete, though in regard to some of them it would seem to have been not altogether without effect: for, quite apart from the question of his influence, it is matter of interest in the present enquiry to observe the principles on which he acted. His views upon these points are freely ex- pressed in his letter to Bishop White before the meeting of the Convention of 1789, and are also with great fairness de- scribed by Bishop White in his account of the meeting of the House of Bishops in that year.^^ The following extract from the letter will serve the present purpose : " Was it not that it would run this letter to an unreasonable length, I would take the liberty to mention at large the ob- jections that have been here made to the Prayer Book pub- lished at Philadelphia. I will confine myself to a few, and even these I should not mention but from a hope they will be obviated by your Convention. The mutilating the Psalms is supposed to be an unwarrantable liberty, and such as was never before taken with Holy Scripture by any Church. It destroys that beautiful chain of Prophecy that runs thro' them, and turns their application from Messiah and the Church, to the temporal state and concerns of individuals. By discard- ing the word Absolution, and making no mention of Regenera- tion in Baptism, you appear to give up those points, and to open the door to error and delusion. The excluding the Nicene and Athanasian Creed has alarm^ed the steady friends of our Church ; lest the doctrine of Christ's divinity should go out with them. If the doctrine of 10. Bishop White's Memoirs, pp. 149-153. MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. these Creeds be offensive, we are sorry for it, and shall hold ourselves so much the more bound to retain them. If what are called the damnatory clauses in the latter be the objection — cannot those clauses be supported by Holy Scripture? Whether they can, or cannot — why not discard those clauses and retain the doctrinal part of the Creed? The leaving out the descent into Hell from the Apostles Creed seems to be of dangerous consequence. Have we a right to alter the analogy of Faith handed down to us by the Holy Catholic Church? And if we do alter it, how will it appear that we are the same Church which subsisted in primitive times? The article of the descent I suppose was put into the Creed to ascertain Christ's perfect humanity — that he had a human soul — in opposition to those heretics who denied it, and affirmed that his body was actuated by the divinity. For if when he died and his body was laid in the grave, his soul went to the re- ceptacle of departed spirits, then he had a human soul as well as body, and was very and perfect man. The Apostles Creed seems to have been the Creed of the Western Church, the Nicene of the Eastern, and the Athanasian to be designed to ascertain the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity against all op- posers. And it always appeared to me that the design of the Church of England in retaining the three Creeds was, to show that she did retain the analogy of the Catholic Faith in com- mon with the Eastern and Western Church, and in opposition to those who denied the Trinity of persons in the Unity of the Divine essence. Why any departure should be made from this good and pious example I am yet to seek. There seems in your book a dissonance between the offices of Baptism and Confirmation. In the latter there is a renewal of a vow which in the former does not appear to have been ex- plicitly made. Something of the same discordance appears in the Catechism. THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 333' Our regard for primitive practice makes us exceedingly grieved that you have not absolutely retained the sign of the cross in Baptism. When I consider the practice of the an- cient Church before Popery had a being, I cannot think the Church of England justifiable in giving up the sign of the Cross where it was retained by the first prayer book of Ed- ward the 6*^^ Her motive may have been good, but good motives will not justify wrong actions. . . . And in the Burial Office the hope of a future Resurrection to eternal life is too faintly expressed. And the acknowledgment of an in- termediate State between death and the resurrection seems to be entirely thrown out, tho' that this was a Catholic, primitive and Apostolical doctrine will be denied by none who attend to the point."^^ These strictures upon the Proposed Book are given, as already observed, to show the mind of their author upon the points to which they relate; and not as claiming that his in- fluence was the cause of preserving the Prayer Book of 1789 from the errors in the Proposed Book which were thus indi- cated. As a matter of fact, however, none of the objections here made appear to be applicable to the American Book, ex- cept that of leaving the sign of the cross in Baptism optional, and that of the omission of the Athanasian Creed. The criti- cism in reference to the Psalter is only in part applicable, since the regular reading of the Psalter was retained as in the English Book, with the permissive substitution of selec- tions to be used at the discretion of the Minister. The accomplishment of the change in the Prayer of Con- secration in the Communion service, to which reference has been made, was a matter which Bishop White says *' lay very near to the heart of Bishop Seabury." In the letter to Bishop II. Manuscript Letter Book. 334 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. White which comments upon the departures of the Proposed Book from the EngHsh Prayer Book, Bishop Seabury refers to the one particular in which he conceives that the EngHsh Book itself ought to be amended, in the following words : " That the only exceptionable part of the English book is the Communion office may be proved by a number of very res- pectable names among the Clergy of the last and present cen- tury. The grand fault in that office is the deficiency of a more formal oblation of the Elements, and of the invocation of the Holy Ghost to sanctify and bless them. The Conse- cration is made to consist merely in the Priest's laying his hand on the Elements and pronouncing This is my body etc: which words are not consecratory at all — nor were they ad- dressed by Christ to the Father — but were declarative to the Apostles. This is so exactly symbolizing with the Church of Rome in an error, an error too on which the absurdity of Transubstantiation is built, that nothing but having fallen into the same error themselves could have prevented the enemies of the Church from casting it in her teeth. The ef- ficacy of Baptism, of Confirmation, of Orders, is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, and his energy is implored for that purpose; and why he should not be invoked in the Consecration of the Eucharist, to make the elements the body and blood of Christ in power and effect, especially as all the old Liturgies are full to the point, I cannot conceive. It is much easier to account for the Alterations of the first Liturgy of Edward 6*^, than to justify them; and as I have been told there is a vote on the minutes of your Convention — Anno 1786 I believe, for the revision of this matter, I hope it will be taken up, and that God will raise up some able and worthy advocate for this primitive practice; and make you and the Convention the in- struments of restoring it to his Church in America. It would do you more honor in the world, and contribute more to the union of the Churches than any other alterations you can make, THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. ' 335 and would restore the Holy Eucharist to its ancient dignity and efficacy." ^- " These sentiments," says Bishop White, speaking of Bishop Seabury's views of the deficiencies of the English prayer, " he had adopted, in his visit to the bishops from whom he received his Episcopacy." ^^ Sufficient evidence has been given in an earlier chapter of these memoirs to show that the sentiments of Bishop Seabury on tliis subject were the same which he had entertained from the beginning of his ministry. But, of course, the change in his position, and his membership in the House of Bishops, combined with the understanding and agree- ment which he had had with his Consecrators, gave to his sentiments a more practical turn, and led to the earnest effort to have the principles which he held attain their due^recogni- tion in the formularies now being prepared for the use of the Church. The fifth Article of the Concordate executed, November 15, 1784, by the Scottish Bishops, who had consecrated him on the day previous, and by Bishop Seabury himself, shows the na- ture of his agreement with them as to the Eucharistic service, and is as follows: " Art. V. As the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist, or the Administration of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, is the principal Bond of Union among Christians, as well as the most solemn Act of Worship in the Christian Church, the Bishops aforesaid agree in desiring that there may be as little Variance here as possible; and tho' the Scottish Bishops are very far from prescribing to their Brethren in this matter, they cannot help ardently wishing that Bishop Sea- bury would endeavour all he can, consistently with peace and prudence, to make the Celebration of this venerable Mystery conformable to the most primitive Doctrine and Practice in 12, Manuscript Letter Book. 13. Bishop White's Memoirs, p. 155. 336 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. that respect : Which is the pattern the Church of Scotland has copied after in her Communion Office, and which it has been the Wish of some of the most eminent Divines of the Church of Eng-land, that she also had more closely followed than she seems to have done since she gave up her first reformed Lit- urgy, used in the Reign of King Edward VI., between which, and the form used in the Church of Scotland, there is no Dif- ference in any point, which the primitive Church reckoned es- sential to the right ministration of the holy Eucharist. In this capital Article therefore of the Eucharistic Service, in which the Scottish Bishops so earnestly wish for as much Unity as possible, Bishop Seabury also agrees to take a serious View of the Communion Office recommended by them, and if found agreeable to the genuine Standards of Antiquity, to give his Sanction to it, and by gentle Methods of Argument and Per- suasion, to endeavour, as they have done, to introduce it by degrees into practice, without the Compulsion of Authority on the one side, or the prejudice of former Custom on the other." The last sentence of the paragraph quoted may seem at first to imply that Bishop Seabury was undertaking to enter upon the consideration of the doctrine involved in the practice rec- ommended, as if it had been previously unfamiliar to him : but upon attention it will appear that it was not the doctrine which he agreed to compare with that of the standards of Antiquity, but the Communion Office of the Scottish Church which he undertook to compare with those standards. It might very well have been that he should be familiar with the doctrine, and yet not entirely so with the Scottish formularies ; and in- deed an imperfection in such information would not be alto- gether surprising; for the vicissitudes of the Scottish Church have made its Liturgical, as well as its other history somewhat complicated. The temporary deprivation of its Episcopate which the Scot- tish Church suffered, must have greatly impaired the unity of THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 337 its liturgical traditions: and, in respect of practice, it is prob- able that (as when there was no King in Israel), every man did that which was right in his own eyes. So that not only was there for a considerable period no liturgical form consid- ered as obligatory, but prayers, and even communions were commonly rendered in extemporary words.^^ Still it has been said that since the Reformation there had been recognized in Scotland the English Prayer Book of 1552, though this would seem to have been largely displaced by Knox's Book of Com- mon Order, which the Church Assemblies at different times unsuccessfully tried to revise. The first Scottish Prayer Book was that published in 1637, under the direction of Charles I, and commonly attributed to Archbishop Laud, though it was prepared in Scotland; its chief compilers being Bishops Max- well of Ross, and Wedderburn of Dunblane, and Laud's rela- tion to it appearing to have been only in the way of preliminary suggestion and subsequent revision. The Book was used on one Sunday only, and withdrawn ; though the real offence of it, which led to riots in many Churches, seems to have lain not so much in its contents, as in the manner of its imposition, in- troduced as it had been by royal proclamation at the Market Crosses of Scotland, instead of by the authorized Courts of the Church.^^ The chief variations of this Book from the English Book which was then in use appear to have been in the closer con- formity of its Communion Office to that of the first Prayer Book of Edward VL : and although the Book was immediately withdrawn, yet its Communion Office served to some extent as the model for subsequent Communion Offices among both the 14. Bishop Dowden's Annotated Scottish Communion Office, pp. 43, 52. 15. See a Short History of the Church in Scotland by the Rev. Anthony Mitchell, B. D., Principal of the Episcopal Theological Col- lege in Edinburgh — p. TJ. 33^ MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. Scottish and English non-jurors. Of these there were several ; but the one which was in use in Scotland at the time of the Concordate, and recognized as the Standard Edition, was that which was published in 1764; and this has continued substan- tially unchanged in the worship of the Scottish Church to the present time, although of late years made an alternate use with the English Office. From this Office of 1764, was taken, with some slight variations, the Communion Office which Bishop Seabury recommended to the Episcopal Congregations in Connecticut in 1786, and which was in general use among them until the adoption of the American Prayer Book in i789.^« This Book of 1789, while it is in the main, with certain amendments, a reproduction of the English Book which had been previously in use in the Colonies, embodies in full the Prayer of Consecration as it stood in Bishop Seabury's Com- munion Office, making that prayer a substitute for the Prayer in the English Book. The only differences between the Prayer as embodied in the American Liturgy, and the Prayer as it stood in Bishop Seabury's Office, were that the words '' lively Sacrifice " in the latter were changed to " living Sacrifice " in the former ; and that the words " that they may become the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son," used by Bishop Seabury, were omitted, and there were substituted for them the words " that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood." 16. See the Rev. Dr. Hart's Facsimile Reprint of Bishop Seabury's Communion Office, with Historical Sketch and Notes (Thomas Whit- taker, New York, 1883), particularly pp. 34, 35, 36, 40. 4i, and 54-6o. Bishop Dowden, not claiming " synodical sanction " for the office of 1764, says " Its text is rightly regarded as presenting the recognized Scottish Communion Office — substantially the textus reccptus ab om- nibus." — Annotated Scottish Communion Office, pp. 98, 99. THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 339 This latter change was probably owmg, as Dr. Hart ob- serves, to the influence of the delegation from Maryland: an inference which is based upon an account of proceedings in a Maryland Convention given in 1786 by Dr. William Smith, one of the Representatives of Maryland in the General Con- vention of 1789. Writing to the Rev. Samuel Parker in Boston, Dr. Smith says that the Maryland Convention, hav- ing the " Proposed Book " under consideration, had decided to recommend " an addition to the Consecration Prayer, in the Holy Communion, something analogous to that of the Liturgy of Edward VI, and the Scots' Liturgy, invoking a blessing on the Elements of Bread and Wine," changing the prayer " that they may become the body and blood, etc." to " that we receiving the same, according to Thy Son, Our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy Institution etc." ^^ The Prayer thus adopted in 1789 has continued unchanged in the American use to the present time, except for one altera- tion made in late years. The Scotch Office, in the latter part of the Consecration Prayer, had the words " Whosoever shall be partakers . . .may be . . . made one body with him, that he may dwell in them, and they in him." Bishop Seabury substituted for the word " whosoever," the words ** we and all others," a change from the third person to the first person, which ought to have been followed by a similar change in the pronouns at the end of the sentence ; so that the words " he may dwell in them, and they in him " should have read he may dwell in us, and we in him. The need of this change was inadvertently overlooked, apparently both by Bishop Seabury and by the Convention of 1789, and was not recognized authoritatively until recently, when the sentence was put into its present form, reading : *' We and all others . . . that he may dwell in us, and we in him." ^^ 17. Hart's Bishop Seabury's Communion Office, pp. 45, 46. 18. Ibid., p. 56. Dr. Hart's account of the inadvertence, however, 340 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. The difference between the Prayer of Consecration which was laid aside in the adoption of the Prayer Book of 1789, and the Prayer which was then substituted for it, may of course be readily seen by comparing the two forms as they respec- tively appear in the English and American Books. Briefly, perhaps, it can best be described by saying that the English Prayer, after ascribing to the mercy of the Father the gift of His Son to suffer death for our redemption, and desiring of the Father that we receiving the bread and wine according to Christ's institution, in remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of His Body and Blood ; repeats the words used by Christ at the last Supper, and there concludes : while the American Prayer, ascribing glory to God the Father for the gift of His Son to suffer death for our redemption, and repeating, as in the English Prayer, the words used by Christ at the last Supper, does not there conclude ; but goes on to say that, according to the institution of Christ we do celebrate and make before the Father, with the holy gifts which we now offer to Him, the memorial which the Son hath commanded us to make ; and adds to this the supplication that the Father will vouchsafe to bless and sanctify with His Word and Holy Spirit the gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that we, receiving them according to Christ's institution, in remem- brance of His death and passion may be partakers of His Body and Blood; and then, with the earnest desire that God will accept this Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and grant remission of our sins and all other benefits of Christ's passion ; with the offering of ourselves as a living sacrifice ; and with petitions for ourselves and others for the worthy reception of the Body and Blood of Christ, and for consequent unity with has, by a singular mishap, transposed the quotations: attributing the use of the word "whosoever" to Bishop Seabury instead of to the Scottish Office. THE COOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 34I Christ, concludes with the ascription of glory to the Father by and with Jesus Christ in the unity of the Holy Ghost. In both prayers there are used by the Priest, in connection with the words of our Lord at the Institution of the Sacra- ment, the acts, also performed by Him at that Institution, of the breaking of the Bread and of the taking of the Cup into the hands : but in respect of the acts of blessing and giving thanks attributed to Christ in the scriptural account of the Institution, and presumably included in His command to do that which He had done, there is no explicit evidence of obe- dience in the English Prayer; whereas, in the American Prayer, after the solemn rendering of most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured by the Offering of Christ now commemorated, there is the distinct supplication by the Priest that the elements, used according to Christ's command, may be blessed and sanctified to the end for which that use had been commanded. Viewed as the expression of the intent of the Church to do, in obedience to Christ's command, that which He had done at the conclusion of the Supper which followed the offering of the Passover then being fulfilled by Him in the solemn Obla- tion of Himself about to be consummated on the Cross, it would appear that the Prayer of Consecration which we are considering makes, in the use of Christ's words and acts at the Paschal Supper, the solemn oblation of the elements of Bread and Wine both in their natural, or material, capacity, and in their designated, or symbolical, capacity as appointed by Christ to be the means of the Offering of the Body and Blood of His Sacrifice to the Father; that upon these Holy Gifts thus offered to the Father it invokes the blessing of the Word and Holy Spirit, that through the efficacy of that bless- ing upon them, we may, receiving them as by Christ's institu- tion we were to receive them, be partakers of His Body and Blood. 342 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. So understood, it would seem that this Prayer expresses what is conformable to the general character of Sacrifice in the religious usage of the world — wherein that which is solemnly offered to God, is reverently received back from Him as fitted by His benediction for the refreshment of those who offer ; and that it is also in close analogy with the most primitive and catholic conception of the Christian Sacrifice. For, in that conception there is presented to the Father, by the offer- ing of the elements of Christ's appointment for that purpose, the Sacrifice of the death of Christ; and that which is thus offered to the Father is by the operation of His Holy Spirit enabled to impart to us the benefit of that Sacrifice : So that, that which in the mystery, or significance of Christ's appoint- ment is offered to the Father, is, by the power of the Spirit, in the same mystery, or significance, returned to us for our re- freshment. The frequent references to the fact that this Prayer is in closer conformity to the Reformed Liturgy in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. than the subsequent Liturgies of the Church of England have maintained, make it necessary to point out, what has been often overlooked, that there is an important difference between the Prayer as we now have it, and the corresponding Prayer in the first book of Edward. The substance of both as to the main matter is the same, but the order in which the matter is presented is different; and the difference is of great significance, as showing that the later usage, which has been derived into the American Liturgy from the Scotch, is in closer conformity to primitive models, than could be expected to be found in the work of Reform- ers not yet entirely freed from the confusing Roman tradition which they were trying to correct. Dr. Hart calls attention to the fact that in the most essen- tial part of the Communion service, the prayer of Consecration. Stephen's second Liturgy, the Non- jurors' Book, the Scotch THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 343 services since 1755, Bishop Seabury's Office, and the present American book differ from all other Communion Offices in the English language, in placing the words of Institution, the Oblation, and the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, in the order in which they are to be found in all the ancient Liturgies ; and he observes that the first reformed Prayer Book, of 1549, fol- lowed the order of the Roman Liturgy in placing the words of Institution in an abnormal position, after the Invocation, and before the Oblation: an arrangement which was changed in the revision of 1552 by the entire omission of the Oblation, and of all mention of the Holy Spirit in what corresponded to the Invocation previously used — a form still retained in the English Office. Whereas the Non-jurors book, taking the words of the Clementine Liturgy, took also the primitive or- der; and the Scotch Bishops, in framing the services from which Bishop Seabury took his Office, to which we are in- debted for our American prayer, though they used the words of the book of 1549, changed their order to agree with the primitive custom.^^ In speaking of the " Invocation " in the Roman Canon, I understand Dr. Hart to refer, not to the specific Invocation of the Holy Spirit, but to the prayer for the benediction of the Oblation which precedes the words of Institution in that Canon. " The Roman Liturgy," remarks Bishop Dowden, " does not possess in the Canon, an express Invocation of the Holy Spirit ;" although, as he further observes, " it does pos- sess in the Canon, what the present English Liturgy does not, an express prayer for God's blessing upon the bread and wine." ^^ And Bishop Brett, after citing Greek and Eastern Liturgies on the point of the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, makes the following interesting and suggestive comments: " But the Roman Canon, contrary to all others, does not 19. Hart's Reprint of Bishop Seabury's Office, pp. 60-63. 20. Dowden's Annotated Scottish Communion Office, p. 206. 344 MEMOIR OF IJiSllOP SEADURY. invocate the descent of the Holy Ghost ; however it prays for God's particular blessing- upon the elements, and that he would make them the body and blood of Christ, which is much to the same effect; . . . since the spiritual blessings of God are all conferred upon us by the operation of his Holy Spirit. And the Roman Missal prays thus : ' Which Oblation we be- seech thee, O God, that thou wilt vouchsafe to make in all respects blessed, firm, valid, reasonable and acceptable, that it may be to us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved son Jesus Christ' But the first Liturgy of King Edward VI has added the word Holy Spirit to this invocation, saying, ' And with thy Holy Spirit and Word, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved son Jesus Christ.' But in this the Roman Canon, and that English Liturgy which was made from it, are singular and particular, in that they place this invocation before the words of institution and the oblation of the elements, which in all other Liturgies fol- lows in the last place: which certainly is the most natural order, the Holy Spirit by his descent completing and perfect- ing the consecration. It is certainly most natural and agree- able to order, that we should first perform our parts, place our gifts upon the altar, declare that we do this in obedience to Christ's institution, make our oblation of them to God, as what he has appointed to be the sacramental or representative body of his Son, and then desire that the Holy Ghost may come down upon them, to make them that body and blood in power and effect, that by his gracious operation in them and with them, they may convey to us all the blessings purchased for us by Christ." ^^ This arrangement is, as Bishop Brett observes, most natu- 21. Brett's Dissertation on Ancient Liturgies, pp. 224-5. THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 345 ral and agreeable to order : but it is so, only on the pre- sumption that the purpose or object of the Eucharist is the Sacrificial offering, which Christ instituted, and which, ac- cepted by the Father, is returned to us with the benediction of the Holy Spirit for our participation thereof. If, however, the purpose or object of the Eucharist is to promote and afford opportunity for the worship of the Sacrifice itself, then the order of the Roman Canon is the more natural, as conducive to that end. The Sacrifice, offered in the Eucharistic mystery, or significance, as an act of worship to God, accepted by the Father, and blessed by His Holy Spirit to the end of our par- ticipation in it, is one thing: the Sacrifice, offered, and as- sumed to be so changed by the act of God as that it becomes the object of our worship is quite another thing. And it is the latter alternative which both the order of the Roman Canon, and the various rubrical directions accompanying it, professedly, and most studiously and effectively combine to promote; and which those who adopt Roman modes of ren- dering our own prayer of Consecration, inevitably come under the influence of, and learn to accept and perpetuate. Hence the wisdom of the return of the American Prayer of Consecration (through Bishop Seabury's office, and the Scotch from which it was derived), to the primitive order, sustained by a general consent, in variance from which the Roman usage is, as Brett remarks, " singular and particular." And hence too, the wuwisdom (if so very feeble and inade- quate a word may be forgiven) of those who for the sake of promoting the worship of the Sacrifice, as distinguished from the worship of God by and through the Sacrifice, are pleased to symbolize with the Roman error, in preference to the really Catholic usage which antedates it; and thus to promote not only a change in the form of the worship of God, but the very revolution of that worship, by making the Sacrifice, which Christ instituted as a means of worship and of participation in 346 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. the benefits of that worship, itself the object of worship."- In conckiding this Chapter, it may be matter of interest to follow the process of the adoption of the Communion Service in the General Convention of 1789, partly because special consideration has here been given to that particular portion of the Prayer Book, and partly too, as evidence of that " celerity " to which Bishop White has referred. It appears from the Journal of that year that, October 3. The House of Deputies appointed a Committee to prepare an order for the administration of the Holy Com- munion. — p. 79. October 8. The House of Bishops prepared proposals on the order for the administration of the Holy Communion, p. 88. — which presumably were sent to the other House, and re- ferred to its Committee on the subject, appointed October 3. October 9. The report of this Committee was received by the Deputies, and ordered to lie on the table, p. 80. October 10. That report was taken up and considered by that House — p. 81. October 13. The Communion service was ordered to be transcribed and transmitted to the House of Bishops, p. 82. October 14. The House of Bishops received from the House of Deputies a proposed Communion service, and made amendments, p. 91. October 14. 4 p. m. A message was received from the Bishops with amendments to the Communion service which they passed as amended by the Deputies. The Deputies con- sidered the Amendments, sent them to the Bishops, as amended; and the service thus amended was returned by the Bishops as assented to. p. 83. 22. For a valuable outline of the progress of change in the under- standing and use of the Roman Canon Missae, see chapter IV of Dr. Gummey's work of the Consecration of the Eucharist, Philadelphia, 1907. THE COOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 347 It would seem from this process that the hope expressed by Bishop Seabury, in his letter to Bishop White above cited, that God would raise up some able and worthy advocate of the primitive practice who should make the Convention the instru- ment of restoring it to His Church in America, was realized. It is noticeable that the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies moves in the matter earlier than the House of Bishops; and that it is the office which that House prepared (with that pro- posed by the House of Bishops before it) which, upon amend- ment by the Bishops, is adopted as the act of the Convention. In giving an account of the proceedings of the General Convention of 1789, in the adoption of the Book of Common Prayer, Bishop White remarks that " In the service for the administration of the holy communion; it may perhaps be expected, that the great change made, in restoring to the con- secration prayer the oblatory words and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, left out in King Edward's reign, must have pro- duced an opposition. But no such thing happened to any considerable extent; or at least, the author did not hear of any in the other house, further than a disposition to the effect in a few gentlemen, which was counteracted by some pertinent remarks of the president." ^^ The president of the lower House was the Rev^. Dr. Wil- liam Smith, the same whose letter from Maryland in 1786 had suggested an approach to the form of the Scots' Liturgy; and who, as a Scotchman by birth (although ordained Deacon and Priest at the same time with Bishop Seabury) may be sup- posed to have had some early associations with that Liturgy. He it was who had in the previous session drafted and moved the resolutions of invitation to the representatives of Con- necticut and other Eastern Churches to meet with the Con- vention for the purposes of union; who had been in corre- 23. Bishop White's Memoirs, p. 154. 348 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. spondcnce with Bishop Scabury since 1785, and who received him as his guest in Phihidclphia during this session of the Convention. It was natural, under all the circumstances, that his influence in the lower House should be, as it is known that it was, in support of the changes in the Prayer which Bishop White mentions : and the story is that when some in that House showed a disposition to object to the Prayer under consideration, he, for their better information, read the Prayer in the House, and that in so impressive a manner as wholly to disarm the prejudice of the objectors; and the adoption of the Prayer took place without further demur,-* So that evi- dently his influence was of great aid to Bishop Seabury in the effort, which he had so long and so earnestly and effectively prosecuted, to restore "the Holy Eucharist to its ancient dig- nity and efficacy," and " to make the celebration of this ven- erable mystery conformable to the most primitive doctrine and practice." 24. Dr. Hart's Reprint of Bishop Seabury's Office, pp. 44, 45. CHAPTER XXI. CONCERNING PREROGATIVE. 1 786- 1 792. THE course of the narrative has brought me to the account of some matters which seem to lend them- selves to a grouping around the idea of preroga- tive ; and, objectionable as are the associations of that word in many minds, I can think of no other which will better serve the purpose in hand. After all, however, prerogative is but an exclusive or peculiar privilege ; and although many in high place both in the past and in the present have made and are making an evil use of such privilege, yet no man who consid- ers his own sense of honor, his own consciousness of love, his own inward appreciation of what is good and true and lofty and noble, and his own thankfulness for whatever in his own life tends to foster these sensibilities, can afford to say that prerogative or privilege is in itself unworthy. The subject of these memoirs appears to have been largely influenced by such sensibilities. He carried himself always in his own consciousness as in, and not of the world; and while he did not decline the dignities which were the attribute of his station, nor fail to assert the rights which he conceived to belong to that station, yet he lived altogether above the sense of personal gratification in these matters, viewing them simply as pertaining to the Episcopate which he was, according to his faith and judgment, privileged to share. His attitude toward the matter of primacy in the House of Bishops, and 349 350 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. toward the matter of his concern in the transmission of the American succession, seems to show this disposition of his heart and mind; and, in a lesser way, his attitude toward the matter of Episcopal habiliments indicates the same feeling and principle. Associations of Bishops, like all other deliberative bodies, need a presiding officer; and not only has such a distinction prevailed in Episcopal Synods and Councils, but also the office created by the distinction has been apt to carry with it, not superiority of Episcopal authority, since all Bishops are essen- tially equal in that respect, but a certain capacity of repre- senting the common consent of the body, deferred to by its individual members. One of the most ancient Canons of the Church provided that the Bishops of every nation should know him who was chief among them, and do nothing of great moment without his consent ; and that he who was Chief should do nothing without the consent of all, that there might be unity of heart.^ And the various titles of Arch- bishop, Metropolitan, Primate, Primus, etc., testify to the general usage of the Church in the matter. With such precedents before them, of which they cannot be presumed to have been ignorant, it is not surprising that the first House of Bishops in the Ecclesiastical Union consum- mated in 1789, should have taken care to make corresponding provision in their own case ; and although there were but three Bishops in the Country, and but two of this number actually present in the first session of the House, the principle that the Presidency of the House was the attribute of the Bishop of senior consecration was established ; by reason of which Bishop Seabury became the first Presiding Bishop. To avoid misunderstanding, it is desirable to observe that the title of Presiding Bishop, with which the Church was fa- I. Apostolic Canons, XXXIV: Fulton's Index Canonum, p. 91. CONCERNING PREROGATIVE. 35 ^ miliar throughout the 19th Century, and for some previous years, was simply descriptive of the Presidency of the House of Bishops. The Office had not been established by the Con- stitution ; and the incumbent of the office was not in the proper sense of the words, the Presiding Bishop of the Church, but was the Presiding Bishop of the House of Bishops. The office of " Presiding Bishop of the Church " was created by the Constitution as amended in 1901,^ and never before ex- isted. The Constitution as amended prior to that date, and several Canons, also prior to it, devolved various duties upon the Bishop who was recognized as bearing the title of Presid- ing Bishop, although he bore it without Constitutional or Canonical authority, and only by rule of the House of Bish- ops — the earliest canonical use of the title which I have observed being in 1799:^ but the office in itself involved sim- ply presidency in the House of Bishops ; and seems to have had one only other prerogative connected with it — that, namely, of presiding at the Consecration of a Bishop. The title Presiding Bishop occurs in the Rubric before the Con- secration Office, which was adopted in 1792,* and first used in the Consecration of Bishop Claggett; but it denotes in the Rubric, as it does later in Constitution and Canons, an office recognized as existing under the known rule of the House of Bishops, and owing its origin to no other source. In like manner in the letter of consecration of Claggett, Provoost, then President of the House of Bishops, is described, in ac- cordance with the Rubric, as Presiding Bishop, though his signature is simply " Samuel Provoost." ^ The first one of the Presidents of the House of Bishops who signs himself as " Presiding Bishop " is Bishop White, 2. Article I, section 3. 3. Bioren's Journals, p. 196. 4. Quarto edition of Ordinal by Hugh Gaine, New York, 1793. 5. Bioren's Journals, pp. 127, 128. 352 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. in 1795;^ and such has been the general subsequent usage. It is possible that the association of this title with Bishop White; and the fact, observable in looking through the Jour- nals, that it does not appear to have been used by either of his predecessors, each of whom signed himself as President ; "^ may have given rise to the assertion which has been some- times made that Bishop White was the first Presiding Bishop ; yet in fact he held only the same office which had previously been held by Bishop Provoost and originally by Bishop Sea- bury; though he preferred to use another title, which was not only better in itself, but also had, when he used it, the sanction of Rubrical precedent. It is a matter of pleasure and of interest to note that the action which made Bishop Seabury the first to preside in the House of Bishops, also originated with Bishop White ; whose account of the transaction is as follows: " The form of proceeding in the House of Bishops, con- sisting of two only — Bishop Provoost, although absent, be- ing considered as making up the constitutional number — were soon settled. They were drafted by the author, and he seized the opportunity of preventing all discussion at any time — for this he hoped for as the effect — on the point of precedency; by resting the matter on the seniority of Epis- copal consecration: which, of course, made Bishop Seabury the President of the House." ^ In the Journal of the House of Bishops, October 5, 1789, the record of Rules established for the government of the House gives the following as the first: " The Senior Bishop present shall be the President ; seniority to be reckoned from the dates of the letters of consecration." ^ 6. Bioren's Journals, pp. 127, 128. 7. Ibid., pp. 93, 127. 8. Bishop White's Memoirs, p. 148. 9. Bioren's Journals, p. 87. CONCERNING PREROGATIVE. 353 The principle of making the presidency dependent upon seniority of consecration, was questioned at the next session of the House of Bishops, and a rule was adopted which made the Presidency dependent on the principle that it should be successive in the several members of the House. This seems to have been the only principle in the new rule; for the com- parative proximity to the North Pole can hardly be considered a principle, so much as a providential dispensation for the advancement of Bishop Provoost, to which he interposed no obstacle. At the session of the House in 1792, composed of Bishops Seabury, White, Provoost, and Madison, " the first rule for the government of the House of Bishops, as agreed on at the last Convention was re-considered ; " and it was '' Resolved, that the said rule be rescinded — that the follow- ing be adopted instead thereof, viz : — The office of the Presi- dent of this house shall be held in rotation, beginning from the North : reference being had to the presidency of this house in the last Convention. In consequence of the above rule, the Right Rev. Dr. Pro- voost took the chair." ^^ Bishop Seabury, recording in his private Journal some of the matters which took place at this session of General Con- vention of 1792, makes the following entry in regard to the transfer of the Presidency of the Plouse of Bishops; referring to the original arrangement in 1789, and to the change just made in 1792 : " At the last General Convention held at Philadelphia, it was proposed by Bp, White, and agreed to by me, that the eldest Bp. present (to be reckoned from the consecration) should be the President of the House of Bps. This agree- ment seemed to be displeasing to Bps. Provoost and Madison ; and it was proposed by them that the presidency should go 10. Bioren's Journals, pp. 122-3. 354 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. by rotation, beginning from the North. I had no inclination to contend who should be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and therefore readily consented to relinquish the Presidency into the hands of Bp. Provoost. I thank God for his grace on this occasion, and beseech him that no self ex- altation, 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. Amen." The account which Bishop White gives of this transfer is extremely interesting and suggestive; and includes also a reference to the question, of which no disposition had as yet been made, whether the continuance of the American Epis- copate was to be effected solely by the Bishops of English consecration, or with the co-operation also of the Bishop of Scottish consecration. Bishop White and Bishop Provoost had declined to join, as requested by General Convention, with Bishop Seabury in the consecration of Dr. Bass, on the ground of the obligation which they conceived themselves to be under to the English Bishops, not to unite in any Episcopal Consecration until they had been supplied with another, or third Bishop of English consecration. This third Bishop was present in the person of Dr. Madison of Virginia; and the election of the Rev"^. Dr. Thomas John Claggett to be Bishop of Maryland, and the application for his consecration to that Office at the Convention of 1792, made it necessary that the question of the participants in that act of Consecration should be decided by the House of Bishops at that session. But at the opening of the session, when the displeasure of Bishops Provoost and Madison at the rule in regard to the Presidency was manifested, the point had not yet been mooted. In view of his past experiences of Bishop Provoost's attitude towards him, and with knowledge of the restrictions imposed by the English Bishops, it certainly was not unnatural that Bishop Seabury should apprehend that the displeasure manifested at CONCERNING PREROGATIVE. 355 his Presidency, might be only part of the larger feeling against the consecration by virtue of which he had abtained that Pres- idency ; and while he cared little for the matter of Presidency, the matter of the recognition of his consecration, and his admission on equal terms with the other Bishops in the per- petuation of that Episcopate which he had been the first to introduce into the Country, was everything to him. Without raising any discussion of the matter in the session of the House of Bishops, however, which might have developed opposition, he took the more prudent course of conferring with Bishop White personally upon the subject; and the result was his waiver of any claim to the Presidency, and the assur- ance that in the consecration of Dr. Claggett he should co- operate with the other Bishops; all of which may more fully and at large appear from the following graphic account of the venerable and diplomatic Angel of Pennsylvania. " When the Bishops met in the vestry-room of Trinity Church, on Wednesday, the 12*^ of September, it appeared that Bishops Provoost and Madison were dissatisfied with the rule in regard to the presidency, as established in 1789. As the house were divided on the question of repealing the rule, it would have stood. But this might have been construed into an ungenerous advantage of the prior meeting; in which those now in the negative had voices, and the others had none. The day passed over without any determination ; which was not productive of inconvenience ; the morning being principally occupied by the religious service, and the convention not meet- ing in the afternoon. The next morning, the author received a message from Bishop Seabury; requesting a meeting in private, before the hour of the convention. It took place at Dr. Moore's, where he lodged. He opened his mind to this effect — That from the course taken by the two other bishops on the preceding day, he was afraid they had in contemplation the debarring of him from any hand in the consecration, ex- 356 MEMOIR OF BISIIOr SEABURY. pectcd to take place during this convention — that he could not submit to this, without an implied renunciation of his con- secration, and contempt cast on the source from which he had received it — and that the apprehended measure, if proposed and persevered in, must be followed by an entire breach with him, and, as he supposed, with the Church under his super- intendence. The author expressed his persuasion, that no such design was entertained, either by Bishop Provoost or Bishop Madi- son ; and his determination, that if it were, it should not have his concurrence. He believed they wished, as he also did, to have three Bishops present under the English consecration, whenever such an occasion, as that now expected, should occur. The being united in the act with a bishop who should consecrate through another line, would not weaken the Eng- lish Chain. In regard to the question of presidency, on which Bishop Seabury had intimated that he should not be tenacious ; the author told him, that his opinion being the same as in 1789, he could not consistently vote for the reversal of the rule; which, if it were done, he thought had best be by the absence that morning of one of the two now conversing; and that should Bishop Seabury think it proper in this way to waive his right under the rule, the author pledged himself, that in no event would he have a hand in the ensuing con- secration, if it were to be accompanied by the rejection of Bishop Seabury's assistance in it; although there was still entertained the persuasion, that no such measure would be thought of, as indeed proved to be the fact. Hands were given, in testimony of mutual consent in this design. He ab- sented himself that morning, and the rule was altered, in the manner related on the journal; that is, for the presidency to go in rotation, beginning from the North ; which made Bishop Provoost the president on the present occasion." ^^ J I. Bishop White's Memoirs, pp. 162, 163. CONCERNING PREROGATIVE. 357 The Presidency of Bishop Provoost devolved upon him the right and duty of officiating as Presiding Bishop at the con- secration of Bishop Claggett. He therefore performed that function, the other three Bishops co-operating with him therein. So that, as has been pointed out in an earher chapter, Bishop Claggett derived his Episcopate from the Bishops of English consecration, and from the Bishop of Scottish con- secration; and as there has been no Bishop of American con- secration whose Episcopal line is not traced through Claggett, so there is no Bishop of American consecration whose Episco- pal line is not traced to the Bishops of the Scottish Church, as well as to the Bishops of the English Church. With no de- sire to be Chief in that first American Consecration, the possi- bility of which he had first accomplished ; and content with the humbler though not less effective part of co-operation in it, Bishop Seabury has no thought apparently but one of gratitude to God for the fulfillment at last of the great object of the transmission of the American Episcopate; an object for which he had now patiently waited for nearly eight years from the time of his own consecration. During all that period he had been perfectly conscious of his own power to transmit an actu- ally valid succession by his own single act. During nearly five years of that period he had been conscious of the neigh- borhood of two other Bishops, with whose co-operation — de- nied to him on grounds insufficient in his judgment — a succes- sion both valid and canonical might have been transmitted: but with an exalted faith in God's overruling care for His Church, he denies himself, and in patience waits for the result of that Divine care : and in view of that result he has no word to speak but one of faith and gratitude. In his Journal, on September 20, 1792, commenting upon the recent Convention he made this record : " At this Convention, the Right Reverend Dr. Claggett of Maryland was consecrated a Bishop ; in Trinity Church, by 35^ MEMOIR OF CISllOl' SEADURY. Bps. Provoost, White, Madison, and Seabury. All Glory be ascribed to God for his goodness to his Church in the Ameri- can States. In his goodness I confide for the continuance of that holy Episcopate which is now begun to be communicated in this Country. May it redound to his glory, and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ. Amen." ^- As the exigencies of history constrain us, at the present juncture, to part from Bishop Provoost, whom we may not 12. Concerning the relative value of the acts of the Bishops asso- ciated in a Consecration, see Haddan's Apostolical Succession in the Church of England, (p. 221) and Seabury's Lectures on Haddan's teaching in that treatise (pp. 62, 63, and ^2), 74). For controversial purposes, both in the effort to discredit Parker's consecration (temp. Eliz.) and in defense of the Roman succession in this country, resting on the consecration of Carroll by a single Bishop, it may be convenient to claim that the act of consecration can only be the act of one, and that those associated with him are merely witnesses of the act, contributing nothing to it The Catholic rule, however, and one of the reasons of it — as affording additional security for the actual transmission of order — plainly pre- suppose that the act of Consecration is the joint act of those Bishops who participate in it; although, as matter of convenience, one, so far as the words are concerned, speaks for all. The Apostolic Canon says that a Bishop is to '' he ordained by two or three Bishops " — not by one, in the presence of one or two others ; and the common word "assisting" testifies to the same thing — for a witness does not assist, but he who co-operates, or helps another to perform an act, does. It is quite true (as Haddan says, p. 263) that " no one who knows of what he speaks can hold consecration by one to be invalid " ; but it is a queer specimen of Roman logic to conclude that because valid consecration may be by one, therefore, it must be by one. Cf. contra the ruling of the Roman Canonist Martene, who determines the en- quiry by saying — that all the Bishops who are present are not only witnesses hut also co-operators, is to he asserted heyond all shadow of doubt. (De antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, Lib. I, (Cap. VIII, Art. X, Ord. XVI) : and, for a brief account of the consecration of Carroll, see note, pp. 129, 130, of Seabury's Introduction to the Study of Ec- clesiastical Polity. CONCERNING PREROGATIVE. 359 meet again, it seems proper to record the fact that the rela- tions between him and Bishop Seabury were, during the Con- vention of 1792 held in New York, placed upon a more agreea- ble footing than had before been the case. What the personal acquaintance between them had been before that time, or whether there had been personal acquaintance, I do not know : but the well known attitude of each in the view of the other makes it likely that neither felt particularly drawn to the other. Bishop White, with his keen perception, discerned possible in- conveniences resulting from their mutual aversion ; and with his usual tact and good disposition obviated these inconven- iences by bringing the two together. As he tells the story, *' An unpropitious circumstance attended the opening of this convention; but was happily removed before proceeding to business. Bishop Seabury and Bishop Provoost had never, when the former had been in New York at different times since his consecration exchanged visits. Although the author knows of no personal offence, that had ever passed from either of them to the other, and indeed was assured of the contrary by them both; yet the notoriety, that Bishop Provoost had denied the validity of Bishop Seabury's consecration, accounted at least for the omission of the attentions of a visit on either side. . . . The prejudices in the minds of the two bishops were such as threatened a distance between them ; which would give an unfavorable appearance to themselves, and to the whole body, and might perhaps have an evil influence on their deliberations. But it happened otherwise. On a proposal being made to them by common friends, and through the me- dium of the present author, on the suggestion of Dr. Smith, they consented without the least hesitation, Bishop Seabury to pay, and Bishop Provoost to receive the visit, which etiquette enjoined on the former to the latter; and was as readily ac- cepted by the one, as it had been proffered by the other. The author was present when it took place. Bishop Provoost 360 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. asked his visitant to dine with liini on the same day, in company of the author and others. The invitation was accepted, and from that time, nothing was perceived in either of them, which seemed to show, that the former distance was the result of anything else, but difference in opinion." ^^ This laudable observance of conventional proprieties in re- spect of social intercourse, may serve to introduce a reference to the matter of conventional proprieties in respect of dress; the observance of which in Bishop Seabury's case appears to have attracted some attention ; and, like the baronial style of signature before mentioned, to have occasioned both amuse- ment and censure, though such observance seems to have re- sulted from no unworthy motive. It is natural to conform to the usages of the society in which one lives : but when one oc- cupies a position in which he is alone in the community, it is equally natural for him to conform to the conventions applica- ble to that position, even though they may be different from those of the society which he meets. The society into which Bishop Seabury returned after his consecration had no pro- vision in its conventions for the dress of a Bishop, and was therefore amused, or displeased, as the case might be, at the sight of that to which it was unaccustomed. On his part, however, he preferred the conventions of the larger society which included Bishops, and had assigned to them a dress deemed suitable to distinguish them from others, whether Clergymen or laymen. And so it probably seemed as natural to him to wear the usual dress of a Bishop in every day life, as it did to wear the vestments appropriate to the Episcopal office in public ministrations. At any rate it may be inferred from the following humorous description of his appearance in 1786 in the city of Boston, that this is what he did. In that year, some one in Boston writes to a lady in New York a letter containing the following reference: 13. Bishop White's Memoirs, pp. t6i, 162. CONCERNING PREROGATIVE. 361 " I don't recollect anything else that is new to tell you. yes, Miss! We have a Bishop in town named Seabury — he dresses in a black shirt with the fore-flap hanging out, that's one suit; at other times he appears in a black sattin gown; white sattin sleeves, white belly band, with a scarlet knapsack at his back, and something resembling a pyramid on his head. " Fine times now ! We can have our sins pardoned without going to Rome — if you have any to repent of let me know for 1 guess you may obtain absolution by proxy." ^* It probably was only a man who wrote that letter ; for one of the other sex would have known instinctively — even if she had never before seen a Bishop — that the sleeves were not " sattin," and would perhaps have preferred " Stomacher " to the white — other thing; but, for a man, the writer succeeds fairly well in suggesting the Bishop's Apron, as it is called; and the Oxford Doctor's hood superinduced upon the Rochet and Chimere and lawn sleeves of the conventional Episcopal Vestment. As to the " something resembling a pyramid on his head " that may require some further elucidation. The convention- alities of the Church of England at that period, did not call for the Mitre as part of the usual Episcopal Vestment ; but in an older day it had been customary to use it ; and the circum- stances of his position perhaps suggested to Bishop Seabury the propriety of conforming to the earlier, rather than to the later usage. It has been correctly observed that St. Paul, in his first Epistle to Timothy, makes provision for two orders in the ministry; one called by the name of Bishops (sometimes also Presbyters), and the other styled Deacons. The inference that this provision contemplated only these two orders might 14. For this extract, copied from the New York Packet, April 17, 1786 (No. 585), I am indebted to my friend the Revd. Joseph Hooper. 3^2 MRMOIR OF r.ISIIOP SRAP.URY. be allowed, if it did not leave out of view Timothy, under whose oversight and direction St. Paul was placing these two Orders, as sharing with him the Apostolic office, to which in later usage the Episcopal title was appropriated. Timothy, however, does not seem to have been apparent in the horizon of the Standing Order of the Congregationalists, who recog- nized no higher office than that of the Presbyter. So it fell out that the representatives of that persuasion in Connecticut, affected the title of Bishop, as claimed to be synonymous with Presbyter, and doughtily opposed it to what were conceived to be the unauthorized assumptions of Samuel of Connecticut. And it is related that on one occasion, when Bishop Seabury attended a commencement of Yale College presided over by his old correspondent Dr. Stiles, the suggestion being made that he be invited to occupy a seat upon the stage, Dr. Stiles re- plied — "We are all Bishops here, but if there be room for another he can occupy it." ^'' It is possible, as has been said, that Bishop Seabury adopted the Mitre as a badge of office which those who were disposed to make light of his claims would not be likely to imitate ; or, it may, after all, be that he used the Mitre simply because it always had been in the usage of the Church a proper part of the Episcopal Vestment; and he wished to observe the proprieties. The latter supposition seems to me more probable, as being more characteristic of the man. Dr. Beardsley considers that the first time of the using of the Mitre was on the occasion of the consecration of the Church in New London which took place September 20, 1787; and he sets aside as due to a failure of memory, the testimony of an old Clergyman who said that he saw it on Bishop Sea- bury at his first ordination in 1785.^*^ The testimony of the letter in the New York Packet, however, is sufficiently plain 15. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 237. 16. Ibid., pp. 318, 319. CONCERNING PREROGATIVE. 363 to the fact that a Mitre was worn in April, 1786, though it was not that particular Mitre which Dr. Beardsley knew, and which he assumed to have been the only one the Bishop had pos- sessed. The story of that particular Mitre, I venture to think may be worth telling, and some account of it may properly con- clude the chapter concerning prerogative. Writing from London, September 14, 1786, the Rev. Dr. Inglis relates the efforts which he had made to comply with Bishop Seabury's wish to be furnished with a Mitre, in the following paragraph : ** Agreeably to your desire, I called upon Mr. Stone about the Mitre. As no Mitres are worn by our Bishops in England, the manufacture of them is consequently little known. Neither Stone, nor any other person I could hear of, had ever made one. However, I told Stone he must try his hand. He and I have consulted together at least a dozen times ; and we also called in a very ingenious embroiderer to assist us. After con- sulting a variety of books, cuts, monuments, &c (for no real Mitre was to be found) we at last fixed on the size, materials and manner of execution ; all of which I hope will meet your approbation. The size I fancy is large enough. The materials are paste-board covered with black sattin; a cross in gold em- broidery, with a Glory around it in front; and a crown of thorns, in gold embroidery, on the back part. The two lobes, if I may so call them, lined with white silk ; and each pointed with a gilt cross, such as is usual in the Mitres of Bishops. The lower part bound with a handsome black lace, and the in- side lined with black thin silk. The ribbons with which it ties down, are purple and each pointed with a bit of gold lace. My wish was to have it decent and respectable ; without anything tawdry, or very expensive about it. What the expense will be I know not, and shall order the bill to be put up with the Mitre, by which you will learn it — it cannot be very great ; 364 MEMOIR OF lUSIIOP SF.Al'.UKY. and therefore if tliis Mitre does not please or fit you, the next may be made more to your mind." ^^ The building of which Dr. Inglis was the architect and which would seem to have been still in process of construction in September 1786 was in due time completed and brought into use. When the Mitre reached New London does not appear ; but at the rate of progress in those days it is likely enough that its arrival was at least so far delayed as that the consecration of September 1787 should present the first suitable occasion for the wearing of it. " The Consecration service," writes the Rev^. Ashbel Baldwin, " was amazingly grand. The Bishop had on his royal attire. Tlie crown and Mitre were reful- gent." ^^ The reference is apparently to the crown as a feature of the Mitre, corresponding to the description of Dr. Inglis ; and shows that the Mitre as sketched in his letter had taken the place of that (probably of domestic manufacture) which had been seen in an earlier stage of the Episcopate. It was worn on special occasions, by Bishop Seabury during his life ; and afterwards, remained among the Bishop's effects in the hands of his son the Rev'^. Charles Seabury who removed from New London to Setauket on Long Island about 1814. Nearly half a century after the Bishop's death it was rescued from the oblivion with which it was threatened, by the interest of Arthur Cleveland Coxe, who at that time was contributing to *' the Churchman " the poems which were afterwards gath- ered into the charming collection called Christian Ballads, and who applied to my father, who was then editor of the Church- man, for information as to the fate of an article, the signifi- cance of which had appealed to his devout fancy. " Doctor," said he, '' is it true that your grandfather used to wear a Mitre ? " "I believe it is," was the answer. " Well, have you 17. Seabury Mss, i8. Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, p. 318. CONCERNING PREROGATIVE. 365 any idea what became of it ? " " Why, I rather think it is lying about the garret somewhere, in Setauket. If you Hke, perhaps I can get it for you." " If I hke! Why the rehc is priceless! It ought to be enshrined in Connecticut. Give it to me, and I will set it up in Trinity College." Before very long the promise was fulfilled. The Mitre was placed near the portrait of its wearer, and marked as that of " The Apos- tle of the New World " ; and there were added to the number of the Christian Ballads the stirring verses which the contem- plation of the object had drawn from the heart of the donor.^^ It is curious to observe with what different feelings men view such things as these. To Bishop Coxe, in the fervor of the poetic imagination which produced the Christian Ballads, the Mitre was a sacred relic ! To Dean Stanley in his visit to this Country some years ago, it was a grotesque survival of antiquated absurdity. The Dean was extremely amused with it. The moment I was presented to him he went off into gen- tle ripples of hilarity at the remembrance of his recent inspec- tion of it. The amiable gentleman had probably never before seen a Mitre except on the recumbent effigies of his ancient Abbey, and he doubtless associated this one with a petrified Christianity. But Wisdom is justified of all her children. 19. Coxe's Christian Ballads; Oxford ed. 1859: pp. 82-84. CHAPTER XXII. THE DECLINE OF LIFE. SO early as 1783, when he was only in the fifty-fifth year of his age, Bishop Seabury speaks of himself as in the decline of life. Literally, of course, and in respect of the actual number of the years of his earthly pilgrimage, the expression was accurate. Yet with regard to the work of his life it would seem that the period upon which he entered after the close of his fifty-fifth year was rather the growth and in- crease than the decline of his life. For in view of all that he accomplished in that period, it appears as the crown and cul- mination of his career; and it is for what was then accom- plished that he has been chiefly known and esteemed since his departure. In the efifort which has been thus far made to describe this part of the Bishop's life, the plan pursued has involved the more particular consideration of his connection with events which were of more or less general or public concern. There remain to be considered various happenings which were of a more individual nature, and which seem worthy of attention so far as they may serve to promote the better appreciation of his personal character. It seems hardly possible to classify these matters, or to find any thread which runs through and unites them all, save that of his own personality : and this can hardly fail to be better understood by some account of his cir- cumstances ; and of the things in which he was personally con- cerned, either by his own action, or by the actions of others which were brought to bear upon him. Even without defi- 366 THE DECLINE OF LIFE. 367 nitely knowing what his action in every case was, we may form some idea of him from a better knowledge of the situa- tions which confronted him. There are few of his own letters extant, but there are many letters extant which were received by him ; and some selection from these may help to show the conditions under which his work was done ; and, sometimes, what his work in the particular instance w^as. It will have appeared from several allusions to the Bishop's want of money, that he was during this period of his life much straitened in his means of living. Life apparently had always been a struggle to him; and the summit of such tem- poral prosperity as he attained, seems to have been reached in his position at West Chester before the breaking out of the War. Like many others of his side of that contest, he lost almost all that he had in it; and when he set out upon his quest for the Episcopate he devoted the remainder to that en- terprise. He speaks of himself as having in this venture more than expended all that he had. It was this condition of affairs, and the consciousness that he had rendered substantial service to the cause of the Government during the war of the Colonies against it, and had in the effort to render such service suffered many losses, which led him to seek from that Government some compensation, as has been already related. From that applica- tion he seems to have heard nothing until so late as 1792, when, apprised by his agent in London that he had been allowed £30 as compensation, he notes in his letter book the fact that he had drawn for that sum. His situation in England, and indeed during the rest of his life, was made the more trying by the withdrawal from him, after his consecration, of the fifty pounds per annum which he had theretofore received as a Missionary of the Society. It was partly to supply this defi- ciency, and also to give expression to their earnest sympathy with him in the arduous work before him, that some of his friends in England joined in an annual contribution for his 36S MEMOIR OF 15IS1I0P SEAIIURY. supi)ort, which continued to be paid until the close of his life. The chief instruments in this bounty were the Rev^. Jonathan Boucher, then Vicar of Epsom, and William Stevens Esq^ of London, who seems to have been most constantly devoted to him. The following extract from a letter of Mr. Boucher of March 31, 1786, throws light upon this and other matters con- nected with the story: " I was much hurt by your long silence, because I could not help being apprehensive it might hurt you. Everybody was anxious to hear of and about you, and as accounts of one kind or another were every now and then coming over, it seemed to those who had flattered themselves with being considered as your particular friends, that everybody but them did hear of you. All is well now and I have taken the liberty thus plainly to tell you what we were about to think and say, that you may be more on your guard hereafter. I am no longer a secretary in the service of the Society for Propagating the Gospel: on my return from my foreign tour Dr. Morrice out-morriced himself. He was more than ordi- narily queer and captious. This, at length, was taken notice of by the Abp., to whom I explained the whole affair; which was that he suspected me of too strong a leaning, and par- tiality to the Missionaries; whilst I thought him unreasonably strict and narrow. It ended in my resignation; which I did with the entire approbation of the Abp., who made an hand- some speech of, and for, me, to the Board; and Dr. Morrice and I are now very cordial friends again. As the willing secretary or agent to a much smaller, but not less benevolent Society, my importance perhaps is less, but not so my satisfactions. I feel a very sincere pleasure in directing you, from them, to draw on me, as soon as you please, at twenty or thirty days after sight, for fifty pounds. This is THE DECLINE OF LIFE. 369 for one year, from the time of your arrival, as Bp., in Connect- icut ; which date you must be so good as to apprize me of, and yourself attend to. I hope, tho' I dare not assure you, this or nearly this, will continue as long as you and I continue. One of your friends, Mr. Anth^ Bacon, is already dead, and we have not yet been able to find a successor to him. It is proper you should know to whom you are indebted for this Christian con- tribution, and tho' I have no authority to tell you, I here set down their names. The Dean of Canterbury, the Rev*^. Dr. Poyntz, a Prebendary of Durham, the Rev^. Dr. Glasse, King's Chaplain: John Frere Esq^; Cha^ Eyre Esq^. King's Printer, Thomas Calverley Esq^., my neighbour here, your old and true friend W"\ Stevens Esq'"., and your humble servant, together with Mr. Fowle, who was my poor wife's apothecary : each five guineas. They, as well as I, wish it were more; as well as more permanent: but, in the nature of things, this cannot be. . . ." The withdrawal of the Society's fifty pounds a year had left the Bishop without any income whatever. The contribu- tion referred to by Mr. Boucher, though it was to date back to the beginning of his Episcopal work, was not fixed until 1786: the half pay as Chaplain was at the beginning of his Episcopate still in doubt, and the payments upon it did not begin for some time after his return home. The prospect before him, in view of his expenses abroad, and the provision for his family at home, was certainly appalling. Yet fully recognizing the gravity of the situation his heart seems never to have failed him, nor did his trials lead him to the least querulous complaint. He still felt himself, as he once ex- pressed it to Boucher, the same humble pensioner on Divine Providence as he had always been; and in that faith went on with his business in meekness. It was probably due chiefly to the liberality of his very devoted friend James Rivington 370 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. that he was at all able to sustain himself and provide for his family during the period of his sojourn in England. Mr. Rivington, freely and of his own generous motion advanced money to him to a considerable extent; and although his own reverses in later times made it necessary for him to seek re- imbursement it was evidently a trial to him that he had to do so, instead of making his advances a gift to the cause he had so much at heart. Various sums due to him seem to have been repaid by the Bishop during his residence in New Lon- don; and there is evidence of some collections made for this purpose from those who had obligated themselves to the payment of monies which they owed to the Bishop for medi- cal services rendered by him in New York during the War — as well as on other accounts. It would be tedious, as well as unnecessary, to go into these matters in more detail ; but the allusions here made to them may help to give some idea of the difficulties by which the subject of our memoir was hampered in the discharge of his duty ; and as nothing is more depress- ing, and enfeebling to the energies of mind and body, than the consciousness of the hopelessness of trying to make both ends meet in the effort for self-support, and support of those who are dependent upon us, it must enhance our appreciation of the true greatness which in the present case was shown in the rising above such difficulties, and, in spite of them all, in the doing of so much and such splendid and unselfish work. On the Bishop's return to New London he took charge of the Church of St. James, as Rector, and no doubt , received some income, though probably small, from that source. He had, however, in that connection the use of a comfortable residence as a parsonage. Some contributions were made from time to time for his support from other parts of the Diocese ; but the only regular and reliable income which he appears to have had, and which only began to come in after THE DECLINE OF LIFE. 37I a year or more of residence in Connecticut, seems to have been derived from the sources above mentioned in England; and together to have amounted to about £ioo sterHng per annum. Certainly a very good field for Providence to work in was thus presented; and as the Bishop continued to subsist for some years, during which he found occasion for the expres- sion of his gratitude for the comforts and decencies of life which he enjoyed, I presume that the work of Providence was — as always — well done in his case ; though by what means that work was accomplished it is hard to conclude from ex- tant evidences. It is interesting to note in this connection that the Bishop died intestate, and that the Inventory upon administration shows the value of his personal effects to have been estimated at about £275 — presumably currency. He seems to have left no other property. After all, however, straitness of circumstances is but comparative ; and lest I should seem to have presented too lugubrious a picture of Bishop Seabury's poverty, let me com- pare it with the festivities of one of his predecessors in the Scotch line. Dr. James Hamilton, Bishop of Galloway, of whose manner of life Stephen gives the following quaint account : " The Bishop was very happy in a pious, fond and virtuous wife. She knew his constitution, and did, under God, as abstemious as he was, keep him in a good state of health dur- ing her life; but for the seven years he Hved after, his daugh- ters being very young, and when come to any maturity, mar- ried from him, he took the liberty to manage his diet as he pleased, which generally was one roasted egg in the morning; a little broth and perhaps nothing else about four; at night a glass of small ale to his pipe in the winter, and for the most part water in the summer. This, with his book, was most of 37- MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. the good Bishop's food during the last seven years of his lifc."^ Stephen's reference to the " book " may have been made in support of the aphorism that *' Man shall not live by bread alone " ; but the record of the diet would seem to suffice for the establishment of that truth, without further evidence. From the appearance of Bishop Scabury's latest portrait one would infer that he must have had more " to his pipe " than went to the nourishment of his abstemious predecessor.- The fact that we have gone over the steps by which the Ecclesiastical Union and the Book of Common Prayer were established will not lessen the interest of some discussion of tendencies as they appeared while the events were as yet in- complete. The views of Inglis and Boucher and others as given in their letters to Bishop Seabury throw a good deal of light upon the feeling in England in regard to the innovations proposed by the Churches to the southward ; and upon the an- ticipations which were entertained as to the restraining and corrective influences to be exercised by the English Bishops pending the application to them for the consecration of Amer- ican Bishops. Such papers show too, to some extent, what was present to Bishop Seabury's mind during this period. Dr. Chandler, who is always interesting, had also some things to say as to these points after his return to this Country; of which the following extracts from one of his letters, may be taken as a sample: " Your very obliging letter of Jany. lo*^ with a P. S. of the 12th came safely to hand; but, as you conjectured, I had not 1. History of the Church in Scotland, III, 7. 2. The pipe, a portly and well colored meerschaum, is now in pos- session of his great-great-grandson, Hon. Samuel Seabury. THE DECLINE OF LIFE. 373 the pleasure of seeing Mr. Wood, to whom you entrusted it. I should have liked to see him for several reasons, and, par- ticularly, as he is destined to reside in Virginia, where, with regard to ecclesiastical principles, and, I fear, religious prac- tices, instead of clear heads and sound hearts, they discover little besides zvonnds, and bruises, and putrifying sores. You. undoubtedly, said all that was proper to him, on the occasion ; and I could have wished for an opportunity of adding my testimony, such as it is, to yours, and of seeing that he had duly profited by your instruction. I am glad to find that the Clergy in England have begun to recommend to your Lordship, and that one Bishop has already given his sanction to the practice. Why any of them should be backward in doing so, I cannot conceive ; unless they are of opinion that no offices in the Christian Church were rightly performed, before the time of Constantine, when the civil power first gave its patronage. You have done well in writing to Inglis and Boucher; and you would have done better, had you written sooner. A let- ter to Mr. Stevens will find him, if properly directed, at No. 68 Old Broad Street. Neglect not writing to him, and in your letter forget not respectfully to mention the Dean of Cant: Dr. Glasse, Mr. Jones, Anthony Bacon and j\Ir. Frere. These little attentions may be of more service to you than, perhaps, you imagine. Each of these gentlemen should have a copy of your initiatory pamphlet. I formerly expressed my entire approbation of what appears there in your name ; and I did not mean to condemn what appears in the name of your Clergy. The sermon is an excellent one — only the Text ought, somehow, to have been brought in sight during the course of it. It is now no more than a motto ; and many others might have been as properly chosen. Whatever may be imagined or pretended by others, I can never bring myself to think, that your Consecration has a nat- 374 MEMOIR OF BISIIOr SEACURY. ural tendency, or had when you obtained it, a probable ten- dency, to make a schism in the American Church ; and if a schism should actually be occasioned by it, it will be the fault of those who act contrary to the maxims of Ecclesiastical Polity, and not of you ; who have strictly adhered to them. However, I am still not without hope, notwithstanding the late appearances, that the essentials of Episcopacy may be retained throughout this Continent. For Mr. Beach, from whom I had a visit lately, assures me, that all the Clergy but one (viz: the Rector of N. Y.) and a very considerable por- tion of the Laity, in the Philadelphia Convention, were for giving their future Bishops the accustomed authority over their Clergy, although it was carried by dexterity of manage- ment against them : and he is clearly of opinion, that if the Bishops in England will signify that this right must be re- stored, as a condition of receiving Consecration from them, it will be complied with without any difficulty or hesitation. The Bishops in England shall not be ignorant of this ; and afterwards, if they do not insist upon the condition, the blood of Episcopacy must rest upon them. I honour your declaration, that you must and will, to the utmost of your ability, keep pure and undefiled that Apostol- ical Commission which you hold. Consistently with this reso- lution, when Bishops are introduced into the several districts with all their essential powers, you may, and it will be your interest to, unite with them. Then it will be expedient for a general Ecclesiastical Council to be held, consisting of the Bishops and Proctors for their respective Clergy; and then will be the time for making such alterations in the Liturgy &c, besides those which are immediately necessary under the late change of government, as may be thought proper. I wish this important work may be kept back till then. . . . As you applied to Mr. Moore, I trust that before this time you have seen the Journals of the aforesaid Convention, and THE DECLINE OF LIFE. 375 their corrected Liturgy; and that you have taken this ground for writing, as you proposed to the two Archbishops. They must, in the end, think better of the matter. Apropos ! I ask pardon for not having mentioned before the sight of your letter to Dr. Smith, with which you favoured me. ... In truth, the letter was exactly agreeable to my wishes ; and had not S. been incorrigible, it would have had a good effect upon him. How far you are right in your con- jectures with regard to the projected plan of operation, time will discover. As to Smith's reference to Bingham, to prove that one Bishop and two Presbyters may consecrate a Bishop, I have not been at the trouble of examining the passage ; but I can prove, perhaps from the same Bingham, however from as good authority as his, that one Bishop, zvithout the assist- ance of Presbyters can, when the exigencies of the case re- quire it, perform a compleat consecration: And, were but one Bishop to be concerned in any particular consecration, I had rather see him proceed without Presbyters than with them. Of the three supposed candidates whom you mention, White, in my opinion, is very far the least unworthy. I have lately received a letter, but without date, from honest Charles Wesley. He speaks of you in terms of high respect and affection; and continues to lament the rash step taken by his doting, superannuated brother. He tells me that Coke has returned to England, in order to make mischief there ; but he consoles himself with the hope that the mischief he has done in America may, in a good measure, be repaired, by the prudence and superior abilities of Mr. Pilmore. I hear that upon the latter you have conferred H. Orders, and that he is settled in St. Paul's Church, Philadelphia. Possibly it might have been better, if he had, for some time, circulated first among the Methodists. I must give you a short epigram made by Charles upon his brother : 37^ MEMOIR OF CISIIOP SEABURY. * Wesley himself and friends betrays, By his own sense forsook: While siiddainly his hands he lays On the hot head of Coke! ^ I am impatient to hear what measures have been taken to- wards providing for you a support, in some measure answer- able to your station, though I fear you can expect but a scanty one. As to my disorder, I do not find that it is much mended. . . . I am happy in the encouragement you give me to hope for a visit from you in the ensuing season; do not dis- appoint me. I am, my dear Bishop, totally and unalterably yours, Eliz: Town Feb: i6*^^ 1786 T. B. Chandler Rt. Rev^ Bp. Seabury " There are several clues presented in this letter which might be seized with interest and advantage ; but, as a choice must be made, it shall be determined by the reference to Charles Wesley. Chandler mentions a letter then recently received, as containing mention of Bishop Seabury ; but there had been a letter, previous to that, addressed by Charles Wesley to Chandler as he w^as leaving England, which Chandler brought with him, and which subsequently came into Bishop Seabury's possession and still remains among his papers. Beardsley 3. Charles Wesley's other epigram on his brother's rash act, quoted by Beardsley in his life of Bishop Seabury, p. 399, is more clever than that given by Chandler: " So easily are Bishops made. By man's or woman's whim ; Wesley his hands on Coke hath laid, But — who laid hands on him?" THE DECLINE OF LIFE. 377 makes a quotation from it, but it is of so much interest and value in its bearing on the history of Methodism in the Eng- Hsh Church, and the independent organization of the Meth- odist Episcopal Society in this Country, as to be worthy of publication in full. It is matter of interest to note in this connection that an application was at a later date made by Dr. Coke (who had received from John Wesley by a private im- position of hands an authority of superintendency over the Methodists in this Country) for consecration by Bishop Sea- bury in order that the Methodists might have Bishops who had been Episcopally consecrated, instead of those who could show no other right to the title of Bishop than such as had been derived from the Presbyter John Wesley. The letter of Coke need not be reproduced here. A similar letter from him to Bishop White is printed in Bishop White's Memoirs, to which reference may be made for information.^ I am not aware that Bishop Seabury answered Dr. Coke's letter : but, if so, he must have been unable to give any encouragement to the proposal. The obvious objection to it was that it in- volved the gift of Episcopacy to a body which at that time was, and intended to remain, independent on the authority of the Church. Charles Wesley's letter will explain the situa- tion, which being of course understood by Bishop Seabury would preclude his compliance with Dr. Coke's proposal. It is as follows: To Dr. Chandler. "London. April 28. 1785. Rev^. & Dear Sir. As you are setting out for America, and I for a more dis- tant Country, I think it needful to leave with you some ac- count of myself and my companions thro' life. At 8 years old, in 171 5, I was sent by my father, Rector of Epworth, to Westminster School, and placed under the care of my eldest 4. Memoirs, pp. 167-170, 343-348- 37^ MEMOIR OF BISIIOr SEABURY. brother Samncl, a strict Churchman, who brought me up in his own principles. In 1727 I was elected student of Christ church. My brother John was then Fellow of Lincoln. The first year at College, I lost in diversions. The next, I betook myself to study. Diligence led me into serious think- ing. I went to the weekly Sacrament, and persuaded two or three young scholars to accompany me ; and likewise to ob- serve the method of study prescribed by the Statutes of the University. This gained me the harmless nickname of Meth- odist. In half a year my brother left his curacy of Epworth. and came to our assistance. We then proceeded regularly in our studies, and in doing what good we could to the bodies and souls of men. I took my Degrees, and only thought of spending all my days at Oxford: but my brother who always had the as- cendant over me, persuaded me to accompany him and Mr. Oglethorpe to Georgia. I exceedingly dreaded entering into holy Orders; but he overruled me here also; and I was or- dained Deacon by the Bishop of Oxford one Sunday, and the next Priest by the Bishop of London. Our only design was to do all the good we could as Min- isters of the Church of England, to which we were firmly attached both by education and principle. My brother still acknowledges Her the best national Church in the World. In 1736 we arrived, as Missionaries in Georgia. My brother took charge of Savannah, and I of Frederica : waiting for an opportunity of preaching to the Indians. I was in the meantime Secretary to Mr. Oglethorpe, and also Secretary of Indian affairs. The hardships of lying upon the ground &c soon threw me into a fever and dysentery, which forced me in half a year to return to England. My brother returned the next year. Still we had no plan but to serve God, and the Church of Eng- land. The lost sheep of this fold were our principal care; THE DECLINE OF LIFE. 379 not excluding Christians of whatever denomination who were willing to add the power of Godliness to their own particular form. Our eldest brother Samuel was alarmed at our going on, and strongly expressed his fears of its ending in a separation from the Church. All our enemies prophesied the same. This confirmed us the more in our resolution to continue in our calling; which we constantly avowed, both in public and in private by word, and preaching and writing; exhorting all our hearers to follow our example. My brother drew up rules for our Society, one of which was constantly to attend the Church prayers and Sacrament. We both signed these rules, and also our Hymn Books. When we were no longer permitted to preach in the Churches, we preached (but never in Church hours) in houses, or fields, and sent from thence (or rather carried) multitudes to Church, who had never been there before. Our Society in most places made the bulk of the Congregation, both at prayers and sacrament. I never lost my dread of a separation, or ceased to guard our Societies against it. I frequently told them ' I am your servant as long as you remain members of the Church of Eng- land ; but no longer. Should you forsake Her, you would re- nounce me.' Some of our Lay-preachers very early discovered an in- clination to separate, which induced my brother to publish " Reasons against a Separation." As often as it appeared we beat down the Schismatical spirit. If any one did leave the Church, at the same time he left our Society. For 50 years we kept the sheep in the fold, and having fulfilled the number of our days, only waited to depart in peace. After our having continued friends for about 70 years and fellow-labourers for above 50, can anything but death part us? I can scarcely yet believe that in his 82^ year, m}^ 380 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. brother, my old intimate friend and companion should have assumed the Episcopal character, ordained Elders, conse- crated a Bishop, and sent him to ordain the Lay-preachers in America ! I was then in Bristol at his elbow ; yet he never gave me the least hint of his intention. How was he sur- prized into so rash an action? He certainly persuaded him- self that it was right. Lord Mansfield told me last year that Ordination was Separation! This my brother does not, and will not see: or that he has renounced the principles and practice of his whole life; that he has acted contrary to all his declarations, pro- testations, and writings; robbed his friends of their boasting; realized the Nags head ordination ; and left an indelible blot on his name, as long as it shall be remembered. Thus our partnership here is dissolved — but not our friendship. I have taken him for better for worse till death do us part — -or rather re-unite in love inseparable. I have lived on earth a little too long, who have seen this evil day. But I shall very soon be taken from it, in steadfast faith that the Lord will maintain his own cause, and carry on his work, and fulfil his promise to his Church, Lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the World ! Permit me to subscribe myself Rev^. and dear Sir, Your faithful & obliged serv* & brother Charles Wesley. P. S. What will become of those poor sheep in the wilderness the American Methodists? How have they been betrayed into a separation from the Church of England, which their preachers and they no more intended than the Methodists here ! Had they had patience a little longer, they would have seen a Real Primitive Bishop in America duly consecrated by three Scotch Bishops, who had their consecration from the THE DECLINE OF LIFE. 381 English Bishops, and are acknowledged by them as the same as themselves. There is therefore not the least difference betwixt the members of Bishop Seabury's Church, and the members of the Church of England. You know I had the happiness to converse with that truly apostolical man, who is esteemed by all that know him as much as by you and me. He told me he looked upon the Meth- odists of America as sound members of the Church, and was ready to ordain any of the Preachers whom he should find duly qualified. His ordinations would be indeed genuine, valid and Episcopal. But what are your poor Methodists now ? Only a new sect of Presbyterians. And after my brother's death which is now so very near what will be their end? They will lose all their usefulness and importance; they will turn aside to vain jangling; they will settle again upon their lees and like other sects of Dissenters come to nothing." The Rev^. Mr. Pilmore, whom Dr. Chandler mentions as having been ordained by Bishop Seabury, was an instance of the Bishop's readiness, described by Charles Wesley, to or- dain any of the Methodist lay preachers whom he should find duly qualified. Looking upon the Methodists, as they had been up to that period, as members of the Church of Eng- land, banded together for work in that communion, there was of course no requirement to be made of Mr. Pilmore except that he should be duly quahfied; and so he appears to have been. He is highly spoken of in various accounts, and did most useful work both in Philadelphia and afterwards in New York. His work in New York, however, was matter of great anxiety to himself and others ; and in the prosecution of it he appears to have incurred the displeasure of Trinity Church, and of Provoost then Bishop of New York. The beginning of this work was by the interest of certain members of Trin- 382 MEMOIR OF DISIlOr SEABURY. ity Church who desired to have him appointed an assistant in that Parish, and faihng that they organized another congre- gation ^ and founded the parish of Christ Church. It ap- pears from letters of James Rivington and Mr. Pilmore that while they were under the displeasure, or at least discoun- tenance, of Bishop Provoost, a strong pressure was brought to bear upon Bishop Seabury to consecrate the new Church. This of course he could not do ; but so far as he rightly could he advised them in their troubles ; and although no letter of his has been preserved, it may be inferred from the tone of their communications that his advice was salutary, and con- ducive to peace and order. It is not surprising that in the settlement of a new order of things there should have been sometimes an unwillingness to substitute new habits for old ones; and that it should have been one of the burdens of the Episcopate to bring those who were disposed to adhere to their own ways into conformity with the body of the Diocese. Several letters of the Bishop show his gentle, firm and dignified way of dealing with such cases. The venerable Dr. Dibblee for example is addressed in a way which shows both the love and respect which the Bishop had for him, and also the power of constraint brought to bear upon him. And so in the case of the Rev. Dr. Tyler, one of the most respectable and worthy of his Clergy, there seems at one time to have been a difference with the Convoca- tion which had a very serious outlook. The following letters may illustrate the Bishop's way of dealing with such cases. " New London Aug* 25, 1786 Rev° Sir. I fully intended when I was at Norwich to have called on you, but was prevented by the business in which I was neces- sarily engaged, and must therefore do by letter what I then 5. Berrian's History of Trinity Church, pp. 183-4. THE DECLINE OF LIFE. 383 purposed to have done, which was to inform you, that your conduct, more particularly of late, has given great offence to several of the Clergy in the State, and that they greatly de- sire an interview with you, that they may know in what light they are to consider you for the future. I am therefore in compliance with my duty to request and require, which I hereby do, your attendance at the Convocation at Derby, at the house of the Rev^ Mr. Richard Mansfield, on the twen- tieth day of September next, to see whether mutual explana- tions may not remove that offence which your proceedings at Wallingford and Norwich have, we conceive, justly given to them and myself. I am Rev^ Sir your affect: Bro'* and hum^ servt. S. Bp. Epl. Chch Connect." The attendance of Dr. Tyler having been unavoidably pre- vented, he is again addressed, as follows: " N. L. Oct. 19. 1786 Dear Sir You will recollect when I lately saw you here, I observed to you that your case must necessarily come under the con- sideration of the Convocation. Your absence was much regretted: but as it appeared to be unavoidable, they agreed that one or two of your brethren, should with me, try whether by conference they could prevail with you to put matters on such a footing as that they might still keep up their connec- tion with you. And I yesterday received a letter from Mr. Jarvis informing me that he with Mr. Hubbard would be at my house on Tuesday next, but that they could not go to Nor- wich, because they should be obliged to return the same week. I have therefore to desire that you would meet them here on tuesday evening or Wednesday morning at furtherest, as their 384 MEMOIR OF BISHOP SEABURY. only business is on your account. I hope Mrs. T's situation will permit your leaving her for a day or two without incon- venience; and if you should choose to have the Church War- dens of your Church with you, I shall not only have no objec- tion, but shall be glad to see them. Please to present my re- gards to Mrs. Tyler, & believe me to be Your affectionate huml. Serv^ S. Bp. Connect." These letters of course are not to suggest any reflection upon Dr. Tyler, but only to show the mode of dealing with the difficulty in which for some reason or other he appears for a time to have been involved. The exercise of discipline was obviously not neglected, al- though tempered with mildness, patience and charity; and there is so far as I am aware but one instance in which it ap- pears to have been carried to the extent of punishment. The Rev. Mr. James Sayre, after all efforts to bring him to a right mind had proved unavailing, is at last, by formal pronounce- ment, not only forbidden to perform any Ecclesiastical Offices, but is declared to be *' out of the unity and Communion of the Church." This pronouncement was by printed proclamation of *' Samuel, by divine permission. Bishop of Connecticut and Rhode Island, to the Clergy of the Church in Connecticut and Rhode Island ; " and signed " Samuel, Bp. Connect, and Rho. Island ; " " Done at New Milf ord, in Connecticut, this 25**^ day of September, 1793." — the copy now before me being marked in writing as " Redde in St. James Chc'h New Lon- don by Mr. Ch^ Seabury on Sunday the 13*^ Oct. being the 20*^ Sunday after Trinity 1793, after sermon in the after- noon." The Revd. Mr. Sayre had been at one time settled in the Church at Newport, R. I., and had been succeeded by the THE DECLINE OF LIFE. 385 Rev. Wm. Smith.® The Parish apparently had been divided in sentiment, and some who had been in favour of Mr. Sayre were indisposed to accept Mr. Smith. Messrs. Gardiner and Freebody having presented their views to Bishop Seabury, he endeavours to bring them to a better mind ; and his letter to Mr. Gardiner of April 13, 1790, may show his attitude, not only toward them, but in regard to principles of order in the Church, and is besides a good example of speaking the truth in love. Referring to the hearty desire for peace and unity professed by Mr. Gardiner, the Bishop says " Indeed I should expect this temper from you: I pray God this temper may govern your whole congregation. But my dear Sir, I do not see the propriety of Mr. Smith's making the first advances, nor how he can be said to have caused the division among you. He came to Newport with as great a majority as could be ex- 6, The Revd. William Smith above mentioned (not to be confused with the Revd Dr. William Smith frequently referred to in these pages) "was a Scotsman, and possessed Scottish Orders. His first charge in America was Trinity Church, Oxford, together with All Saints, Pequestan (afterward Lower Dublin), both parishes then near (but now included within the limits of) the city of Philadelphia. He remained there from January i, 1785, until his appointment to Step- ney, Maryland, in the fall of the same year. On July 7, 1787, he became Rector of St. Paul's, Narragansett, R. I., and on January 28, 1790, Rector of Trinity Church, Newport, R. I." ("The Consecration of the Eucharist," by the Revd Henry Riley Gummey, D. D., p. 223, note). The Rev 156 Attempt to prejudice Churchmen against Episcopate 1 12-124 Attendance at General Convention 321 Athanasian Creed 331, 333 Attitude toward Episcopate 300 toward Bp. Seabury 301 Atlantic 84, 87, 91 Authority, no wish to extend 280, 281 Authorship of Farmer pamphlets 166-170 of Independent letter 93 Autographs 285 Autograph memorial by Ch. J. Shea 4^9 B Backbiting endeavors 236 Bacon, Anthony 369, 373 Badcock 169 Baldwin, Rev. Ashbel 364 Bampton lectures 168 Baptism through Apostolic succession 3 and note Baptismal record 2 Baptist minister 238, 239 Baptists 44 Bass, Bp. elect 250, 305, 309, 311, 313, 314, 354 Battery 24 Beach 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 374 Beach's Sermon 16-22 Bearcroft 18, 21, 22 Beardsley, Preface and Passim Bearing of Jamaica controversy on political questions 50 Beaton, Abp. of Glasgow 242 Bellomont, Gov 41 Bell 64, 258 Benediction of Oblation 343 424 INDEX. Beneficiaries of Charital)le Fund 145 Berkeley, Dr 200, 225, 229, 230 Berkeley Divinity School 417 Bernard, Gov 97, 108 Bernon, Gabriel 2 Berrian, Rev. Dr 382 Betts, Rev. B. R 54 Bingham 374 Bishops associated in consecration co-operators, not witnesses. . 358» none seen 261 Bishop of London 4, 7, 46, 48, 182, 184, 185, 203, 267 Bishop Scabury's dress 361 in America, B. W.'s use for 92 Bis-sextile 408, 409 Blackstone 33, 38 Blair's sermons 168 Blind way to rear room 6 Blessing on the Elements 344 Blood of Episcopacy — where to rest 374 Body and Blood 15, 344 Bolton 140 Boston 94, 96, 97, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, no, 117, 118, 119 146, 360, 395 Boston Divine 90 Boston Gazette 109, 289 Bounds 19, 22 Boucher, Rev. J 167, 168, 254, 258, 262, 265, 368, 2>1^, 2>1Z^ 400 Bours, John 279 Bowden, Dr. Epitaph by 410, 414 Boyhood 3 Brazil 175 Bread 14, 15, 341, 343, 344 Brett, Bp., comparison Roman Canon and English Liturgy. .. .343, 344 Bristol 380 British Empire 137, 165, 177 integrity of 134 Brooklyn 24, 142 Brown, Thomas 97, 98, loi, 107, 108, 109 Brownell, Bp 398 Brotherly assistance 305, 306 INDEX. 425 Brunswick 11 Burgon, Dean 224 Burhans, Rev. Dr 406, 407, 411 Burial 400 Burlington 184 Burnet, Bp ^2^ Burn's Ecclesiastical Law 33 Burrows, William Ward 319, 320 B. W. Controversy 89-1 1 1 B. W 94, 96, 98, 100, loi, 102, 105, 106, 107, 109, no C Cabinet i73, 259 Calverley, Thos , 369 Campbell, Bp 246, 247, 252 Campbell, Abigail M. (Seabury) 389, 403 Canaan 19 Canada i75, i77 Candidates 90 Candor, manifest unaccountable want of 86 Canon Law 36 Canterbury 168, 185, 186, 203 204, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 225, 229, 230, 236, 237, 263, 275, 277 Capture and transportation to New Haven 140, 141 Care in composition 19 Carleton, Sir Guy 181-190 Carlisle, Bp. of 6 Carolina 161 Cartwright, Bp 222, 223, 249 Carroll, Roman Bp. of Baltimore 358 Case, John 293 Catechism 332 Catechist 1 3", 4 Catholic and Primitive principles 231, 233 Caulkins' Hist. New London 2 Chapel of Bp. Skinner 231, 234 Chaplain 8, 135, 143, 148, 149, 257, 322,369 Chance work 105 Chancellor 80 426 iM)i:x. Chandler, Rev. Dr.. .48, 78, 80, 8j, 84. 86, 114, ti8, 128, 136, 138, 140, T45 167, 172, 174, 177, 178, 180, 206, 214, 255, 262, 288, 372, 376, 381 Chapman, Ship 256 Characteristics of Bp. Scabiiry 392 Charitable Corporation 297, 298 Charitable donations, Chandler's account of 142-145 Charles I ZZ7 Charles II 243 Charter 40, 58, 62, 201, 329 Charter House 2T Chauncey, Rev, Dr 90, 91, 92 93, 96, 97, 98, 100, loi, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, no, 118, 119 Christ our Sacrifice 14 Christian Ballads 364, 365 Christian Religion 14, 30 Christian Sacrifice 14, 15, 341 Christ Church 257, 382 Christmas 8, 141 Church of England 2, 3, 18, 59, 81, 92, 106 of England in Jamaica 44 Churches in States, relation of 197-198 Church of Christ, general laws of 268 Church lands in States 269, 270 Church Missions House 418 Churchman, editor of 405 Cider 11 City Hall 160 Civil Union 78 Claggett, Bp. of Maryland 251, 351, 354 Claggett, All Bps. of American consecration trace through. .. .251, 357 Clamour, Policy of 119, 120 Clergy of Connecticut, letter to 258 Clergymen, widows and children of 298 Clementine Liturgy 343 Clendenin, Rev. Dr 74 Clinton, Sir Henry 135 Clowes, S. Jr 48 Coadjutor Bp 234, 304, 305 Coffee House 160 Coit, Rev. Dr 2 INDEX. 427 Coke, D. P., Commissioner 136 Coke, Rev. Dr Z7S, Z77 Colden, Cadwallader 58 Colgan, Rev. Mr 46, 47, 48 Colonial Churchmen, attitude toward Episcopacy 114 Colonial Episcopate 78, 81, 1 12-129 Colonies, independent on each other 161, 162 Collation 35 College of Bps. in Scotland 234 Committee of Connecticut Clergy 207 Committees, Self Chosen 158, 160 Comes Inn 63 Commotions I37 Communion Office 11, 326 Office Bp. Seabury's 326, 338 Offices Scotch and English Non-jurors 337, 338 Service 12 Commemorative Services and Sermons 418, 419 Common Prayer 325, 348 American Book 325, 326, 338 Comparison of English and American Prayer of Consecration. .340, 341 Compton, Bp. of London 247 Conciliatory Course of Bp. Seabury 301, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308 Concordat 235, 335, 336 Conference of Committees 322 Congregational Watchers 17 Congress Canvassed 138, 152, 160 Connecticut . .2, 18, 22, 78, 112, 135, 136, 138, 140, 141, 146, 169, 178 180, 184, 185, 189, 196, 197, 202, 204, 205, 206, 214, 219, 227, 228 231, 256, 261, 270, 272, 275, 300, 326, 347 entire and complete Church 295 Instructions 223, 224, 225 Consecration 11 at Aberdeen 234, 235, 261, 262 of Eucharist 346, 383 Ignoring of 249 Letter of 235 no natural or probable tendency to Schism ^73^ 374 Prayer of 236, Z32>, 340, 386, 387 Constantine :i7Z 428 INDEX. Constituents 298, 299 Conslitiitidn ..297, 298, 299, 300, 314, 317, 318, 320, 322, 323, 324, 326 328, 329 Constitutional Establishment of Prayer Book 328, 329 Constitutional System 160 Continuity of Episcopate in England: broken in Scotland 242 Continental Convention 288 Controversial writings 131, 132 Controversy and Christian character 130 as to St. Matthias in Leap Year 409 between Great Britain and Colonies, View of the 139, 152, 160 Convention 17, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 326, 382, 383 Convention, General 13, 78 of New York, Instructions of 250 distinguished from Convocation 282 Conventionalities 360, 361 Cooke, Rev. Samuel 174, 186 Cooper, Rev. Dr. Myles 75, 80, 81, 140, 143, 145, 166, 167, 226, 229 Rev. Dr. Samuel 118 Cornbury, Lord 44 Cosby, Gov 45, 46 Country Districts 160 Courts of Justice 155 Courteous Overtures 304 Court House, Services in 402 Coxe, Arthur Cleveland, Bp. W. N. Y 364 Coxe, Tench 319 Creatures, Mark of 55 Crete 195 Culmination of career 366 Cumulative force of remembrance 416 Cutler, Rev. Dr 113 D. Damnatory Clauses 332 Danish Ambassador 215 Danish Bishops 215 Succession 222, 224 Dawson, Capt 256 INDEX. 429 Deacon's Orders 4, 6 Dean of Canterbury 369, 2>72> Dean Hoffman 11, 400 Death and Passion 15 Decline of life 366-401 Degrees 3 De Lancey 138, 280 Delaware 298 Delaware Bay 57 Delegated Powers 161 " Delicacy in Speaking of Dr. Seabury " 237, 238 Dens and caves of the earth 5 Departure 402-420 Deputies 298, 321 Derby 257, 383 Descent into Hell 332 Dibblee, Rev. Dr 382 Dickinson 152 Dignity of English Episcopate 237 Diocese 212 Conception of 212, 274 of Connecticut, Completion of 280 Diocesan Catechism — Old New York 397 Discipline, manner of 382 Discourses 9, 10, 13, 16, 400, 401 Dissenters 31, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 81, 84, 85, 86, 113, 114, 381 Dissenting Clergy, Knot of loi Dissonance bet. Bapt. and Conf. in Proposed Book 332 Divergent Lines united in Am. Episc 252 Divine 7 Dix, Rev. Dr 289 Dominica 156 Dongan, Gov. T^y Dowden, Dr. John, Bp. of Edinburgh 235, 327, 330, 337, 338, 343 Downs 255 Drafts of letter to S. P. G 271-278 Duane, Hon. James 178 Duche, Rev. Dr 255, 256, 257 Duche, Thomas Spence 256, 257 Dunblane 234 430 INDEX. Durham 3^ Dutch Congregation 44 E Earlc 25?^ Early years and Ordination i-7 East Chester 75. 7^ Eastern Churches 320, 322, 323, 347 East India Tea 15^ Eastern States 300 Ecclesiastical bodies, Procedings of 87 Ecclesiastical Reverence 87 Ecclesiastical Stamp Act 119 System 32 Union 297-324 Union, Sense of term 297 Union, Unit of representation in 292 Edinburgh 5, 6, 149, 226, 231, 2^2, 254, 260, 262, 308 University of 4 Edcs & Gill 98 Edwards 105 Edward Street 138 Edward VI 2C3, 333, 334, 2,2>7, 339, 342, 344, 347 Edward VII 285 Election to Episcopate 180-198 Discussion as to 191-198 Bearing on j urisdiction I93-I97 Elements 13, IS, 339, 344 Elizabethtown 82, 136, 288, 37G Elphinstone 226 Elton, Mrs. Margaret 255 Engagements not to consecrate 311 England 7, 9, I35, 202 English Episcopate, Limitations of 222 English Episcopal j urisdiction 2>2> English Prayer Book 12, 325, ZZZ, 32>7 English Non-jurors 244 Engraving of Bp. Seabury 256 Entry on duties at Jamaica 49-80M Episcopacy 14 INDEX. 431 Episcopal Reverence 84 Episcopal Church, Footing of in Connecticut 227 Episcopal Conference — Aberdeen 234 Episcopal Congregations and persons in Connecticut 228 Episcopal Clergy in Connecticut, Scottish Bps. to 235 Episcopal functions in various places 289 Episcopal plan turned into political grievance 125 Episcopal Palace 393 Episcoparian 97 Episcopate, Length of 409 Episcopate, Relation of Scottish to English and American 241 Episcopate to be free, 221; valid, 221; purely Ecclesiastical. .. .221, 222 Epigrams of Charles on John Wesley 376 . Epitaph by Dr. Bowden 410, 411 on Obehsk 414,415 Epsom 167, 368 Epworth ZTl, 378 Equality of two Houses Z'^Z^ 3^4 Erastian connection 226 Establishment of Prayer Book 329 Establishmentarian 222, 238, 249, 278 Eucharist 11 Purpose of 345 Eucharistic Article in Concordat 335, 336 Ewer, Bp. of Llandaff 117, 118, 119 Exceptionable part of English Pr. Book, Comments of Bp. S. on.. 334 Exigencies of history 358 Ex officio membership of Bps 300 Expenses of Candidates 90? 9i Extemporary words in Liturgical Practice 337 Eyre, Charles 369 F Fairfoul, Abp. of Glasgow 243 Fairfield 19 Falconer, Bp 252 Family 52, 53, 64, 40^-405 Fanning, Col I35 Farm 51-55 Farmer, A. W 150-170, 132, 140, I45, 152, i53, 160, 162, 167 432 INDEX. Farmers and Landowners 138 Farmer Tamphlcts I39, M^ m6, 151, i<>6 Authorship of 166-170 Farmer, refuted I53 Fathers ^^4 Federal idea distinguished 161 Federal Union 128 Festival days 8 Fettered condition of English Bps 259, 260 Fibbing 159 Fibs, tax on I59 Field of work 279-296 Fifty-fifth year 366 First years of Ministry 7-22 Flesh meat indeed I5 Fletcher, Gov 38, 39 Flushing 44, 53, 55, 58, 61, 63, 64, 66, 70 Fogg, Rev. D 189, 202, 223 Foote, Sir Isaac 89 Fowle, Mr 369 Fowle, Rev. R 395 Fox 173, 175 Frampton, Bp. of Gloucester 244 France 180 Frederica 378 Freebody, Samuel and Thomas 385, 387, 388 Free Masons i49 Free Thoughts pamphlet 138, 151, i53 Frere, John 369, Z7Z Freezing out policy 260 Free, valid and purely Eccl. Episc 221-240 Friend to America 152, 160 Fulham 6 Funeral 409, 411, 412 Full Vindication 152 G Gaine's Gazette 83, 93, 102 Gaine's (Hugh) Quarto Ordinal 35i Gadderar, Bp 252 INDEX. 433 Gardiner, Benjamin 385, 388 Gardiner, Dr. Sylvester 255 Gardiner, Rev. Walter 292, 293, 294 Gazette and Mercury 89 Gazette and Post Boy 61, 64, 71, 89, 108, no, 121 General Convention 236 General Theological Seminary 11, 397, 405, 419 Gentleman of figure 94, 96, 104, 105 Georgia 136, 378 Germany 84 Gibson's Codex 2^ Gifts and Creatures 344 Giles :. 57, 79 Gordon, Hist. Am. Revolution 125 Gospel Messenger 279 Governors' Quasi Episcopal jurisdiction ^y Glebe 42 Glocester 80, 81 Glasse, Rev. Dr 369, 373 Grace Church, Jamaica 31, 46, 48, 51 Great Britain 180, 201, 256 Greek and Eastern Liturgies 343 Greek Obedience, Bps. of 222 Grennall, Thomas 62 Griffith, Rev. Dr 306 Groton 2 Gummey, Rev. Dr 346, 385 H Habiliments 350 Haddan's Apostolic Succession 358 Hague 215 Half pay 321, 369 Halifax 190, 255, 256, 279 Hall, Hugh 97, 108 Hall, Rev. Peter 327 Hallam, Rev. Dr 402, 406, 410, 412, 414 Hamilton, Alexander 139, 152, 153 Hamilton and A. W. Farmer, how far agreed 165, 166 Hamilton, Bp. of Galloway 242, 243 434 INDEX. Hamiltonizcd aspects of American System 165 Handwriting 10 Hanover 5 Happy Union 3-i Hardy, Sir Charles 46, 47 Harpy Claws 162 Harrison, J 108, 1 10 Hart, Rev. Dr 284, 330, 338, 339, 34^, 343, 348 Hartford College 80 Hastings, Hugh 37 Hatton, Garden 270 Haven, Rev. Mr 126 Hawks & Perry 48, 181, 250 Health 406, 407 Hempstead 2, 3, 4, 38, 289, 291, 389 Heterodoxy 32? Hicks 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Hicks Controversy 26-30 Hickes, Rev. Dr. Geo., Non-jnring Bp 252 Hindrances to Consecration 204 Historical Club 285 Hobart, Bp I74, 397, 39^ Hobart, Rev. Dr i74 Hoffman, Dean n, 257 Hoffman, Hall 257 Holiness of character dist. from that of person 386 Holt's Gazette and Post Boy 61, 65 Holland 84, 247 Holy Communion, Service for 283 Holy Eucharist 355, 402 Holy Gifts 341 Holy Ghost, Invocation of 334, 34i, 342, 344 Holy Spirit and Word 344 Hooker Mr. J. C 417 Hooper, Rev. Joseph 83,283,290,361,411 Hopkins, Rev. Dr. J. H 131 Hopkinson, Francis 3^9 Home, Dr. Geo., Dean of Canterbury 228, 255, 259 Horton, Simon 46 Hours spent with Bp. Seabury , 329 INDEX. 435 House of Bishops 329, 330, 33i, 347, 350 House of Deputies 329, 330, 347, 348 Howe 147, 148 Hubbard, Rev. Dr 207, 260, 276, 321, 383, 407 Hudson 401 Huntington 3 Huntington, Gov 286, 287 I Illusions 199-220 Illusory hope 135 Imperialism 178 Incongruities of opposition to Episcopate 115 Incumbent 8 Independence of Colonies on each other 161, 162 Independence of 13 States 172 Indelible impress of Scotch on American Episcopate 252 Independent 90, 91, 92, 98, loi Independent teachers 79 Indian trade 154 Induction 35, 36 Influence of Bp. Seabury's Theology 397-400 Inglis, Rev. Dr 136, 138, 145, 178, 179, 186, 363, 364, 372, Z72>, 404 Initiatory pamphlet Z73 Inscription on Altar tomb by Dr. Jarvis 415, 416 Institution 35, 36, 341, 343 American Office of 36n and Collation, Distinction between 35n of Eucharist 11 of Sacrament 12 Instructions, Royal, to Governors 42 to go to Scotland 190 to N. Y. Deputies 302 Instrument of Settlement in Jamaica 47, 48 Instruments of Settlement in St. Peters' W. C 74, 75 Insulting implication 270 Integral part of Church Catholic 294 Interments under Church 412, 413 Intrusion, Charge of considered 289-294 Invitation to Gen. Conv. accepted 319 436 INDEX. Inventory on administration of property of intestate 371 Invocation 341, 342, 343, 347 Ireland 154 Irregular practices 267 J Jamaica .. .23, 31, 32, 38, 45, 47, 5 1, 52, 53, 59, 60, 63, 68, 74, 76, 77, 151 James 1 242 James VI 242 James II 37, 244 Jarvis, Abraham (Bp. Conn.) 185, 186, 207, 215, 216, 260 266, 276, 280, 282, 304, 321, 383, 398 Jarvis, Rev. Dr. S. F 414, 415 Jebb, Bp 400 Jews 15 Johnson, Rev. Dr. Sam'1 78, 113, 114, 128 Johnson, Dr. Wm. Samuel 141 Jones 373 Jones, Hon. Thomas 180 Jordan, Miss Mildred 258 Journal, Bp. Seabury's 254, 392, 395, 405, 406, 407, 420 Judicial functions 300 Junius 166 Jurisdiction, Abandonment of by English Bps 295 Dififerent views of Bp. Seabury's 287 Regular in Scotland 248 Twofold Episcopal 281 Uneasiness as to extension of 281 K Ken, Bp. Bath and Wells 244 Kick for the Whipper 89 Kilgour, Bp. of Aberdeen 229, 231, 232, 233, 234 King's American Regiment 135, 143 King's Chaplain 369 King's College 3, 1 14 King's Dispensation 188, 203 King's Printer 369 King William's Parliament in Scotland 230, 248 Kirk of Scotland 79 INDEX. 437 Kissam, D. W 389 Kiss taxing i59 Knox, Alexander 400 Knox's Book of Common Order 337 Laity, Assent of 3^7 Lake, Bp, of Chichester 244 Lamb, Bp. of Brechin 242 Langdon, Dr 126 Last words of Bp. Seabury in his Journal 420 Laud, Abp 337 Law of Moses 14 Lay Preachers 379, 381 Lay representation. Change as to 319, 320 Leaming, Rev. Dr 185, 186, 191, 192, 205 207 208, 215, 216, 218, 260, 266, 276, 282 Leap Year 408, 409 Legal processes i55 Legalized Sanctified Rebels I77 Legislative substituted for judicial powers 318 Leighton, Bp. of Dunblane 243 Letter from Boston to lady in New York 360, 361 Letter to Bp. Provoost 307, 308 Letter to Bp. Provoost, extract from 308 Letters of N. Y. and N. J. Convention to England 79-88 Lexington I53 Liberty Paper, Edes & Gill 98 Liberius 121 Liberties of America 169 Line of Bp. Seabury traceable through Scotch and English Episc. . 243 Lincoln 378 Bp. of 6 Liturgical traditions affected by loss of Episcopate 336, 337 Liturgical Work 325 Liturgies 334, 342, 344 Liturgy and Offices 12, 47, 263, 407 Litany 8, 407 Livingston, Gov. Wm 89, 114, 118, 120, 121, 136 Lizzard 255 438 INDEX. Lloyd, Bp. of LlandafT 243 Lloyd, Bp. of Norwich 244 London 6, 7, 135, 254, 255, 256, 306 Bp. of 4, 168, 172, 201, 203, 213 Longacre 231 Long Island 23, 141, 142 Lord's Supper 12 Lost Cause 171 Lovelace, Gov 44 Louisiana i75 Lowe, Rev. John 289 Loyalists 132, 172, I73 Lugubrious forecast I77 M MacKean, Rev. R 80, 81 Madison, Bp 237, 238, 250, 251, 353, 354, 356 Mahomet 169 Magaw, Rev. Dr 319 Magdalen College 224 Malagrida I75 Manning, Rev. James 230, 238, 240 Manor 35 Mansfield, Lord 380 Mansfield, Rev. Richard 383 Manuscripts, loan of 201 Market crosses 337 Marriage 25, 26 Marston, Nathaniel 27, 28 Martene 338 Maryland 80, 81, 162, 167, 236, 298, 339, 347, 354 Massachusetts 136, 292, 305, 321 Material Oblation 34i Mather, Moses 18, 19 Maxwell, Bp. of Ross 337 Mayhew, Rev. Dr 117 Mede, Joseph 14 Medicine 4 Mediation of Scottish Episcopate 241-253 INDEX. 439 Medical practice in New York 149 Medical Skill 412 Meerschaum 372 Memorial to Commissioners of Treasury 135-144 to General Assembly of Connecticut 141 Memorialist's inadvertence 139 Memorials 416-419 Merchants of New York 138, 152, 160 Mercy and Justice, laws hindering 200 Merry, 258, 403 Method of Study 378 Methodists 375, 381 Methodism 377 Methodist Society, Rules for 379 Metropolitan 350 Middletown 185, 266, 282, 417 Ministry, British 173 Misconceptions of plea for Episcopate 115 Missal, Roman 344 Missionary 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 31, 32, 47, 62, 63, 75 82, 151, 167, 175, 185, 187, 189, 268, 269, 270 Missionaries 19, 21, 33, 48, 79, no, 228 268, 269, 270, 378 Mission in New Brunswick 277 Missionary Episcopate, Angl. Communion 418 Mississippi 84, 87 Mitchell, Rev. Anthony 337 Mitre 361-365, 4i5, 4i7 Mob, sovereign lord the 158 Molasses 156 Montague, Bp. Bath and Wells 242 Moore, 11, 60, 74, 186, 282, 355, 374, 397 Moravian Bps 263, 267 Morice, Rev. Dr 255, 258, 265, 270, 277, 368 Morley, Bp. of Worcester 243 Morris, Ch. J 45, 46n Motheaten Cloths 155 Mother and daughter correspondence 390, 391 Mumford, Abigail i Thomas i 440 INDEX. N Narragansett 290, 292 Nassau Island 23, 48, 59 Necessity — Supposition groundless 264, 267 Nettles 237 New Brunswick 9, 11, 16, 17, 23, 25, 31, 47, 132, 136, 145, 151, 297 Newcastle, Duke of 45 New Hampshire 126, 190, 305, 321, 395 New Haven 141, 167, 207, 287 New Jersey 9, 48, 63, 78, 80, 81, 112, 1 18, 136, 162, 297, 298 New London i, 2, 3, 146, 261, 270, 279, 280 364, 370, 382, 402, 406, 407, 420 New Milford 384 Newport 82, 279, 289, 294, 384, 385 New Rochelle 76 Newtown 11, 24, 44, 46, 48, 55, 60, 62, 64, 76 New York 3, 24, 2)1, 65, 71, 78, 80, 81, 85, 98, 99 TOO, 103, 112, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 141, 146, 149, 153, 154, 161, 162, 185, 197, 202, 261, 266, 279, 297, 298, 370, 381 Nevin, Rev. Dr 417 Nicene Creed 331 Nickname of Methodist 378 Nicol, Mrs. Matthias 405 Norn de plume 89, 152 Non-importation and exportation 138, 153 Non-j urors 5 Distinction bet. English and Scotch 246, 248, 249 regarded as schismatical in England 245 Non-juring Bps 237, 239, 240, 244, 245 Succession — English 222 Non-jurors Book 342, 343 Non possumus of Bps., King & S. P. G 200, 201 Nonsensical objection 311 Norfolk 405 Norman, Wm. E 401 North, Lord 147, 159, 205, 214 Northites and Foxites 176 Norton Street 255 Norwich 382, 383, 410 Nova Scotia 189, 206, 214 INDEX. 441 O Oaths, Inability to take 265 Obadiah 22 Objections not personal 202, 203 Statement of 204, 211, 217 Oblation 34i, 343, 344 Oblatory words 347 Obligation to English Consecrators 250 Offering 341 Offer to Consecrate Elements 13 Oglethorpe 27^ Oliver, Rev. Thomas Fitch i39 Onderdonk, Henry, Jr 31, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 54 Open Questions i33, I79 Order of Institution, Oblation and Invocation 343 Am. Prayer Agreeable to Primitive Custom 343 Orders, Valid Succession of Scotch 248 Ordinary 8, 2^ Ordination, First 282 Separation 380 Organization, Two Processes of 295 Osborne, Geo. Jerry 395 Osborne's Paper 395 Otis 117 Lucretia 404 Outlawry of American Freedom 156, 157, Overwhelming Minorities 160 Owen, Rev. John 2 Oxford 80, 81, 143, 213, 224, 225, 378, 398 Degree 136 Hood 361 Street 144 P Packet, N. Y 289 Palace \ 3, 393 Papacy 195 Papers and Essays agst. Government 136 Parker, James 94, 95, 96, 99, 105, 106, 108, no Rev. Henry A Preface, and 255 Rev. Samuel '. 189, 282, 309, 313, 339 442 INDEX. Parliament 36, 79 Parochial Districts, Origin of 32 Parlour of Parsonage 402 Partakers, that we may be 338 Particular Business of Bps 328 Partisanship 162 Paschal Supper 34^ Pastoral Letter 283 Pastoral Life 412 Pastoral Spirit 390 Paths Open and Course Pursued 220 Patron 35 Pennsylvania 197, 297, 298 Pension 135, 167 Pensioner on Divine Providence 264, 369 Percival 184, 243, 244 Perpetuity 287 Perry, Bp 26, 54, 188, 189, 191, 192 Per Saltum 243 Persecutions of Scottish Clergy 230, 231 Personal Appearance 406 Person, Singular or Plural of First 285 Peter Parley 393 Petrie, Bp 232, 233, 234 Petrified Christianity 365 Philadelphia 119, 138, 152, 161, 162, 236, 256 257, 267, 288, 298, 331, 348, 381 Philadelphia Plan for Episcopate 188 Pickwickian Sense 102 Pilmore, Rev. Mr 375, 381 Plot for Enslavement of Colonies 126, 127 Policy, Instances of Bad 264 Policy of Bp. White 312, 313 Political Aspects of Episcopal Question 116 Experiences 130-149 Position 132 Questions, Considerations as to 132-134 Saint 175 Politicians, Civil and Ecclesiastical 199 Pomf ret 190 INDEX. 443 Popery 333 Portraits of Bp. Seabury 256, 257, 258 Portland, Duke of 205 Portsmouth 126, 289, 395 Portugal 175, 184 Poverty 262 Powell, Adam 2 Elizabeth 2 Power 299, 328 Powers, Purely Ecclesiastical 267 Poyer, Rev. Thomas 45 Poyntz, Rev. Dr 369 Praemunire 219 Prayer Book 12, 283, 300, 306, 315, 333, 343 of 1549 Follows Roman Order 343 Prayer of Consecration 16, 236, 331, 338, 339 Precipitancy, Implication in Charge of 259 Precipitate 238, 259 Prej udice Promoted by English Bps 238 of English Bps. Short Sighted 252 Prelacy 85, 183 Prerogative 349-365 Presbyterians 45, 79, 136, 169, 247, 248, 381 Presbyterian Judicatories 230 Presentation 34, 35 Presidency of House of Bps 350, 351, 353 Bp. White's Account of 352 Extracts from Journal of House of Bps. as to 352, 353 Extract from Journal of Bp. Seabury as to 353, 354 Transfer to Bp. Provoost, Bp. White's Account of 354-356 President of House of Bps 351, 352 Presiding Bp 350, 351, 352 Sense of Term ; Prerogatives of 351 Presiding Officer 350 Pretender 5, 237 Price, Bp 222, 223 Priests' Orders 4, 6 Primacy 349 Primate 350 Primus 350 444 INDEX. Prophecy 331 Proposals for Episcopate, Cutler et al 113, 114 Proposed Prayer Book 326-328, 333, 339 Comments of Bp. Seabury on 328, 331, 332, 333 Proprieties, Observation of the 255 Protestant Episcopal Church 14 Protestant Minister, Good Sufficient 38, 40, 45 Providence, College of 239 Humble Pensioner of 264, 269 Province 9, 78, 81, 104, 133, 154, 160, 161, 180, 245 Provinces 17, 246 Provincial Congress 141 Provincial Establishment 37 Provincial Hospital 143, 148 Provincial Missionaries 18 Provoost, Bp. of N. Y 237, 250, 290, 291, 299, 301 302, 305, 306, 307, 309, 310, 312, 313, 314, 318, 329, 351, 352, 353 354, 356, 358, 381, 382, 397- Psalms, Mutilation of 331 Psalter 333 Public Opinion 157 Punnical Memory 169 Puritan Interest 182 Puritans 2 Pyramid on Head 361 Q Quakers 25, 44, 55, 56 Quebec 154 Queens 38, 48, 53 Questions before Electors 181-183 Quorum of First House of Bps 329 R Raritan 24 Ratification 299 Rationale American Pr. of Consecration 341, 342 Real Primitive Bp 380 Reasons against Separation 379 Rebels of East and West Chester 148 Legalized Sanctified 177 INDEX. 445 Reception as Bp. of Connecticut 280, 282 Recommendations 298, 299, 37;^ Record on Tomb 415 Redeemer 14 Redemption 14 Reformation : Rebellion : Revolution 244 Regeneration 331 Regularity 306 Reinterment, Account of 412-414 Relations bet. Provoost and Seabury, Bp. White's Account of. .358-360 Remains, Observations on 414 Remnant of Old Scotch Line 242 Representation of Abps. agst. Art. VIII 317 Representative Consent, Discussion as to 162-165 Residence in Jamaica 51-73 Residence in St. James Parsonage 370, 402 Resolutions 301, 312, 313, 314 Restoration of Episcopate in Scotland 242, 243 Restrictions 306 Result of all the Waiting 220 Revision, House of 323 Revolution of Worship of God 345 Rhode Island 8, 82, 279, 292 Church under Jurisdiction of Bp. S 293 Richmond 38 Ricketts : 25 Legacies of 27 Riker's Annals of Newtown 31 Rivington, James 146, 153, 369, 370, 382, 400 Rivington's Gazette 138 Robust Constitution 406 Rockingham, Lord 173 Rodgers, Rev. Mr 85, 96, 97, 99 . Rogers' Account of Funeral 411, 412 Roman Canon 343, 344, 346 Roman Error and Catholic Usage 345 Roman Liturgy Compared with English 343 Roman Logic 358 Roman Modes of Rendering American Pr. of Consecration 345 Roman Obedience, Bps. of 222 446 Index. Romantic Possibilities 5 Rose, Bp. Ciiarles 234, 235 Rose, Bp. of Edinburgh, Interview with William 246 Ross and Moray 233 Rotation 353, 356 Routh, Dr. Martin 224 Royalists 132 Royal Succession, Resettlement of 244 Russell's Paper 395 Rye 140 S Sacrament of Lord's Supper 12, 14, 15 Sacrifice I4, IS, 34i, 342, 345 Sacrifice as Act of Worship, dist. from Sacrifice as Object of Wor- ship 345 Sacrificial Character 12 Sacrificial Ofifering 345 Saltonstall, Ann 404 Roswell 404, 406, 407, 413 Samuel of Connecticut 362 Samuel, Superscription and Signature 283, 284 Sancroft, Abp. Canterbury 245, 252 Succession 222, 244 Savannah 378 Sayre, Rev. James 384, 385, 386, 387 Savior 15 " Schismatical Church of England " 235 Scotch Services since 1755 342, 343 Society 104 Succession 217, 224, 240 Scotland 13, 119, 201, 202, 223, 224, 22^^, 228, 232 • • 236, 238, 247, 255, 259, 261, 305, 336 Scottish Episcopal Church 5, 12, 13, 222, 223 Bps 14, 224, 225, 226, 229, 230, 234, 235 236, 238, 247, 250, 335, 343, 380 Communion Office 336, 339 Consecration, Influence to Seek 223, 224 Episcopate, Confusion of Mind as to 240 INDEX. 447 Scottish Formularies, Historical Account of 336, 338 Line 222, 312 Prayer Book ^^y Seabury, Adam 2, 389 Caleb I Rev. Charles 7, 364, 384, 393, 404, 406, 413 Charles Saltonstall, and Sons of 404 Colonial Line of 2 Communion Office 343 David 2, 389 Edward 258, 393, 404, 406 Edward, Son of Charles 404 Elizabeth Powell 2, 389 Jane 2 Maria 393, 403, 405 Nathaniel 2 Richard Francis, and Sons of 404 Rev. Samuel, M. A i, 3, 402 Samuel, M. D 404, 406 Rev. Dr. Samuel 2, 10, 14, 280, 404, 409, Son of 405 Hon. Samuel 372, 405 William (Son of Charles) 404 William Marston 405 S-b-r-y, Mr 92, 108 S-b-y, Mr loi, 102 Sears 153 Seeker, Abp 117, 128 Sedg-wick, Theodore 115, 118, 120 Seeing Double, Literary Instance of 139 Sending a Bishop, Questions as to 272, 276 Senior Consecration 350 Sentiments as to Consecr. Ench. not New, but Emphasized 335, 336 Sermon, Bp's First on Landing 279 Sermons 3, 9, 395, 400 Setauket 364 Seven States, Representatives from 298 Sexton 8 Seymour, George Dudley 258 Sharp, Gov. Horatio 80 448 INDEX. Sharp, Granville 230, 236, 237, 240 John, Abp. York 236 Abp. St. Andrew's 243 William, Engraver 256 Shea, Ch. J i39, 152, 293, 4^9 Shelburn, Lord I73, I75 Sheldon, Bp. of London 243 Sherlock, Wm 48 Sherlock, Thomas, Bp. of London 6 Dean William 7 Sign of the Cross 333 Skipper 24 Skinner, Bp. Coadj. Aberdeen 225, 229, 230, 231, 234, 255, 304, 305 Skinner's Ecclesiastical Hist. Scotland 242, 243 Slate and Pencil 10 Small Ale to his Pipe 371 Smith, Attorney Thomas 95, 96, 105 Rev. Dr. Robert 301, 302 Rev. Dr. William 236, 280, 302, 304, 313, 315 318, 319, 339, 347, 348, 359, 375- Rev. William 386, 388 Account of 385" Society for Propagating the Gospel 3, 9, 16, 18, 19 21, 31, 33, 63, 64, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 100 105, 106, 108, 109, no, 133, 146, 148, 167, 200, 201, 228, 258, 268 ,269, 270, 368, 402. Society's List, to be Dropped from 262 South, Rev. Dr 7 South Carolina 298 South Groton 2 Specimen MS. Sermon 11 Spottiswood, Abp. Glasgow 242 Sprague's Annals 44 Stamford 18, 22 Staten Island 24, 148 Stamp Act 122 Standards of Antiquity 336 Stanley, Dean 365 State, Free, Sovereign and Independent 283 States of Civil Union 300 INDEX. 449 State Oaths 203, 207, 213 Stephen's Hist. Church of Scotland 243, 247 Account of Bp. Hamilton 371, 372 Second Liturgy 342 Sterne, Bp. of Carlisle 243 Stevens, Wm 306, 368, 369, 373 Stewart, Elizabeth 404 Mathew 413 Stiles, Dr. Ezra 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 1 12, 121, 127, 362 Stipend , 3 Stipends, Plea for Continuance of to Missionaries 268 Stone Church 45 Stone, Maker of Mitre 363 Stout, Commander 261 Straightened Means 367 Stuart Succession 5 Style 7, 10 St. Clair, Sir John 174 St. Andrew's Day 408 Andrew's, Aberdeen 417 George's, Hempstead 25, 74, 289 James, New London i, 3, 370, 384, 389, 402, 406, 412, 413 John's Church, Portsmouth 395 Lawrence 154 Matthias' Day 408, 409 Paul's Cathedral 419 Paul's Church, Rome, Memorial Window in 417, 418 Peter's, West Chester Rectorate 74-88 Success, Probability against 205 Sudden Death 407 Suffolk Resolves 138 Sulky, Horse and Harness 393 Superintendents 242, 248 Supervisors 157, 158, 161 Support for a Bishop 206, 212, 213 Surplice of Bp. Seabury 417 Swearing 158 Sweden 84 Swedish Bps 267 Swords, T. & J 400, 401 450 INDEX. Sydserf, Bp 243 Symbolical Oblation 341 Symbolizing with Rome 334 Symbols 15 Synod 79, 87, 136, 350 T Taber, Frances 404 Talbot 184 Taxation and Representation (or Legislation ? ) 162 Taylor, Charles Nicol 258, 403, 405 Taylor, Mrs. Charles Nicol 389,403,405 Temple, John 97, 109, 1 10 Testimonials of Bp. Elect 185-187 Thames River 2 Theological Position 11 Studies 4 Thirty Years' Correspondence 400 Thomas, Bp. of Worcester 244 Thomas & Andrews, Printers 395 Tickle, Esq., Timothy 89, 151 Tillotson, Abp 14, 245, 327 Timothy, St. Paul's Instructions to 361 not Apparent in Congregational Horizon 362 Titular Bps 242, 248 Torchlight Interment 413 Tories 86 Townsend 218 Town Hall 46 Tractarian Movement 398-406 Transition Period 23-30 Translation of Inscription of Dr. Jarvis 416 Transmission of Succession 356 Transubstantiation 334 Treasury, Commissioners of 135 Treaty of Peace 172-180 Tredwell, Dr. Benjamin 2, 61, 62, 63, 64 Miss Elizabeth 389 John 403 Trenton 63 INDEX. 451 Trinity 7, 332 Trinity College 257 Trinity, Newport 279 New York 289, 381, 382, 413 Triumph, Ship 261, 279 Tryon, Gov 149 Turner, Bp. of Ely 244 Twofold Object of Sermons 12 Twofold Theme 325 Tyler, Rev. Dr 382, 383, 384, 413 U Umbrage of English Bishops 237, 238 Underlings 309 Understanding as to Extension of Am. Episc 250 Union, Attitude of Bp. Seabury Toward 301, 304, 306, 307 308, 309, 310, 311, 315. of Divergent Lines in American Episcopate 252 and Unity 310 United Convention N. Y. and N. J 78, 79 University of Edinburgh 4 Unmitred Church 83 Upj ohn, Richard 413 Urquhart 44 Utica 279 V Vae Vietis 171-179 Variance bet. two Houses as to Action on Pr. Book 330 Variations bet. English and American Books ;^2>7 bet. Scotch and English Books 337 Vermont 205, 269 Vestries, Under Law of 1693 38 View of the Controversy 139, 152, 160, 162, 165, 167 View of Causes and Consequences Am. Revolution 167 Vigorous Resentment Attributed to Bp. Seabury 289, 292, 293 Violetta Ricketts (Seabury) Taylor 258 Virginia 161, 197, 250, 289, 298, 306, 2>72„ 405 Virgin Preacher 9 Voluntary Contributions from England 368 452 INDEX. W Wallingford 3^3 Walton 25 Wardour Street 205 Washington College 236 Watch Tower 136 Wedderburn, Bp. of Dunblane 337 Wells, Noah 18, 19, 20, 22 Welton 184 Wentworth, Benning 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 107 Wesley, Rev. Charles 375, 377 Epigrams on John 376 Letter to Chandler 376-381 Rev. John 377 Rev. Samuel 3/8,379 West, Benj amin 256 West Chester 38, 107, no, 136, 137, 138, 140, 142, 147, 151 Western New York 280 West Indies 154, 156 Westminster Abbey 243 School 377 Wetmore, Commissary 17 Whip for the American Whig 89, 90, 93, 94, 151 White, Wm. Bp. Penn 13, 188, 237, 238, 250, 251, 256, 257, 297 298, 299, 302, 305, 306, 307, 309, 310, 313, 314, 315, 319, 322, 328 329, 330, 331, 335, 346, 347, 351, 352, 353, 354, 374, 377, 393, White's Mahometanism 168 White, Bp. of Peterborough 244 Whitefield 56, 126 White Plains I37 Whittingham, Bp. of Maryland 397 Whosoever, Changed to We and all Others 339 Wickford 292 Wickham, Thomas 294 Wife of Bp. Seabury, Tradition as to 25, 26 Wilkins, Isaac 137, 140, 166, 403 Wilkins Mansion, Refuge in 140 William & Mary • 5, 244 William III 246, 252 Wilmot, J., Commissioner 136 INDEX. 453 Wilson 57, 79 Wine 14, I5, 34i, 344 Wisdom Justified of all Her Children 365 Withdrawal of Stipend 367, 369 Woodbridge 407 Woodbury I5S, 188, 189, 191, 202, 418 Word 344 Workmanship of the Prayer Book 3^7 Worship of God by Sacrifice, dist. from Worship of Sacrifice 345 Wounds and Bruises 373 Writings of Bp. Seabury 393-40I Wyllys, Secretary 260 Y Yale College i, 3, 82, 258, 362 Yewell 257 York 185, 192, 203, 204, 213, 214, 216, 225 York Papers 98 DUE DATE 957.73 Sel3 COLUMBIA 4- O Kittle do not PHOTOCOPY rO OJ ij