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 increase than the decline of his life. For in view of all that he accomplished in that period, it appears as the crown and culmination of his career; and it is for what was then accomplished that he has been chiefly known and esteemed since his departure.
In the effort 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 circumstances; and of the things in which he was personally concerned, either by his own action, or by the actions of others which were brought to bear upon him. Even without definitely knowing what his action in every case was, we may form some idea of him from a better knowledge of the situations 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 was.
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 temporal 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 enterprise. 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 application 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 deficiency, 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 support, which continued to be paid until the close of his life. The chief instruments in this bounty were the Revd. Jonathan Boucher, then Vicar of Epsom, and William Stevens Esqr. 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 connected 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 ordinarily 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 partiality 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 handsome 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 for one year, from the time of your arrival, as Bp., in Connecticut; 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. Anthy 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 contribution, and tho' I have no authority to tell you, I here set down their names. The Dean of Canterbury, the Revd. Dr. Poyntz, a Prebendary of Durham, the Revd. Dr. Glasse. King's Chaplain: John Frere Esqr.; Chas. Eyre Esqr. King's Printer, Thomas Calverley Esqr., my neighbour here, your old and true friend Wm. Stevens Esqr., 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 contribution 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 expressed 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 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 reimbursement 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 London; 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 medical 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 depressing, 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 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 £100 sterling 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 expression 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 extant 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 compare 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 during her life; but for the seven years he lived after, his daughters being very young, and when come to any maturity, married 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 the good Bishop's food during the last seven years of his life." [History of the Church in Scotland, III, 7.]
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 Seabury'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 pipe, a portly and well colored meerschaum, is now in possession of his great-great-grandson, Hon. Samuel Seabury.]
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 incomplete. 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 anticipations 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 American 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 Jan?. 10th with a P. S. of the 12th came safely to hand; but, as you conjectured, I had not the pleasure of seeing Mr. Wood, to whom you entrusted it. I should have liked to see him for several reasons, and, particularly, as he is destined to reside in Virginia, where, with regard to ecclesiastical principles, and, I fear, religious practices, instead of clear heads and sound hearts, they discover little besides wounds, 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 letter 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 Mr. 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 natural tendency, or had when you obtained it, a probable tendency, 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 portion 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 management against them: and he is clearly of opinion, that if the Bishops in England will signify that this right must be restored, 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 Apostolical Commission which you hold. Consistently with this resolution, 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 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 conjectures 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, without the assistance of Presbyters can, when the exigencies of the case require 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:
'Wesley himself and friends betrays,
By his own sense forsook:
While suddainly his hands he lays
On the hot head of Coke.'
[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?"]
I am impatient to hear what measures have been taken towards providing for you a support, in some measure answerable 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 disappoint me.
I am, my dear Bishop,
totally and unalterably yours, Eliz: Town Feb: 16th 1786 T. B. Chandler
Rt. Revd 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 was leaving England, which Chandler brought with him, and which subsequently came into Bishop Seabury's possession and still remains among his papers. Beardsley makes a quotation from it, but it is of so much interest and value in its bearing on the history of Methodism in the English Church, and the independent organization of the Methodist 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 imposition of hands an authority of superintendency over the Methodists in this Country) for consecration by Bishop Seabury 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. [Memoirs, pp. 167-170, 343-348.] 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 involved 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 situation, 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.
Revd. & Dear Sir.
As you are setting out for America, and I for a more distant Country, I think it needful to leave with you some account of myself and my companions thro' life. At 8 years old, in 1715, I was sent by my father, Rector of Epworth, to Westminster School, and placed under the care of my eldest brother Samuel, 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 thinking. I went to the weekly Sacrament, and persuaded two or three young scholars to accompany me; and likewise to observe the method of study prescribed by the Statutes of the University. This gained me the harmless nickname of Methodist. 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 ascendant 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 ordained 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 Ministers 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 England. The lost sheep of this fold were our principal care; 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 England; but no longer. Should you forsake Her, you would renounce me.'
Some of our Lay-preachers very early discovered an inclination 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 82d year, my brother, my old intimate friend and companion should have assumed the Episcopal character, ordained Elders, consecrated 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 surprized into so rash an action? He certainly persuaded himself 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, protestations, 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
Revd. and dear Sir, Your faithful & obliged servt & brother
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 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 Methodists 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 Revd. 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 ordain any of the Methodist lay preachers whom he should find duly qualified. Looking upon the Methodists, as they had been tip to that period, as members of the Church of England, 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 qualified; 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 Trinity Church who desired to have him appointed an assistant in that Parish, and failing that they organized another congregation and founded the parish of Christ Church. [Berrian's History of Trinity Church, pp. 183-4.] It appears from letters of James Rivington and Mr. Pilmore that while they were under the displeasure, or at least discountenance, 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 conducive 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 Convocation which had a very serious outlook. The following letters may illustrate the Bishop's way of dealing with such cases.
"New London Augt 25, 1786
I fully intended when I was at Norwich to have called on you, but was prevented by the business in which I was necessarily engaged, and must therefore do by letter what I then 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 desire 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 Revd Mr. Richard Mansfield, on the twentieth day of September next, to see whether mutual explanations may not remove that offence which your proceedings at Wallingford and Norwich have, we conceive, justly given to them and myself.
I am Revd Sir your affect: Bror and
hum1, servt. S. Bp. Epl. Chch Connect."
The attendance of Dr. Tyler having been unavoidably prevented, 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 consideration 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 connection with you. And I yesterday received a letter from Mr. Jarvis informing me that he with Mr. Ilubbard would be at my house on Tuesday next, but that they could not go to Norwich, 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 only business is on your account. I hope Mrs. T's situation will permit your leaving her for a day or two without inconvenience; and if you should choose to have the Church Wardens of your Church with you, I shall not only have no objection, but shall be glad to see them. Please to present my regards to Mrs. Tyler, & believe me to be
Your affectionate huml. Servt.
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, although tempered with mildness, patience and charity; and there is so far as I am aware but one instance in which it appears 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 pronouncement, 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 Milford, in Connecticut, this 25th day of September, 1793."--the copy now before me being marked in writing as "Redde in St. James Chc'h New London by Mr. Chs Seabury on Sunday the 13th Oct. being the 20th Sunday after Trinity 1793, after sermon in the afternoon."
The Revd. Mr. Sayre had been at one time settled in the Church at Newport, R. I., and had been succeeded by the Rev. Wm. Smith. [The Revd. William Smith above mentioned (not to be confused with the Rev"1. 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 1, 1785, until his appointment to Stepney, 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^. William Smith was a man of most profound and elegant scholarship. He is entitled to the credit of having habitually used the Scottish Prayer of Consecration from his first coming to this Country; and his intelligent appreciation of its history and import made him eager to welcome and set forward by all means in his power the influence of Bishop Seabury in the fulfilment of the spirit of his agreement with the Scottish Bishops. The letter of Mr. Smith to Bishop Seabury, cited in Dr. Gummey's work above named, pp. 223-227, with the author's comments upon that letter, are not the least interesting part of that most valuable book.] 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 expected in the divided state of your Church; for that it was divided and torn under Mr. Sayre you must know. And I cannot for my life see why you and Mr. Freebody who were so justly anxious for the peace of the Church then, should be so inattentive to it now. Peace and unity are Christian duties and just as necessary whether Mr. Sayre or Mr. Smith be your Minister; and it is the same and as great a sin to rend and divide the Church, and destroy its peace under Mr. Smith, as it was under Mr. Sayre. For who is Mr. Sayre? and who is Mr. Smith? but Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God? The former was, the other now is so to your congregation. You may like Mr. Sayre better than Mr. Smith--you may suppose him to be a better man; but holiness of person comes not here under consideration--holiness of Character is what you are to regard, and in this respect they are both equal--they are both Ministers of Christ. Which is the better man is a matter of mere opinion, and you may be deceived. And besides God has not made you their judge--they are God's servants and to their own master they stand or fall. Your opinion of them is out of the question--your estimation of the one or censure of the other are foreign from the point. While Mr. Sayre was your Minister you did well in abiding with him in worship and ordinances. But does your Church cease to be the Church of Christ because you have got another Minister? Or do you act wisely in cutting yourself off from the worship and Communion of Christ's Church, because you do not like your present Minister as well as you did the former one?
Excuse me if I say that I apprehend that the objection to the Consecration prayer which Mr. Smith uses is a very weak one, and is owing more to humour than to a thorough knowledge of the Church of England. It must be a strange conscience that cannot communicate under its use. The alteration which you advert to I must suppose is agreeable to you.
It was made for those Church people who were too weak to digest strong meat, but must be fed with milk. [The alteration referred to was, it is conjectured, the change made of the words "may become the body and blood, &c," into "that we receiving . . . may be partakers of his ... body and blood."] I think the alteration for the worse, but not to be an essential one, as All Glory is ascribed to God--the Elements are blessed with thanks given--there is an oblation of them made to the Almighty Father--the descent of the Holy Ghost is invoked to sanctify them--and all is concluded in the name, and thro' the merit of Jesus Christ--all of which are wanting in the English Office. Indeed the present Consecration prayer in the English book is not the original prayer of that Church--It was altered to its present state to please the Presbyterians, and in hopes of bringing them back to the Church, but the experiment failed.
With regard to the number of communicants under Mr. Sayre I have no right to decide. I never saw more than 60 at the Altar. But I beg to ask, has no influence been used to keep communicants away since Mr. Smith has been with you? Has not your example and Mr. Freebody's been a stumbling block to others in the way of their duty? These are serious considerations, and I hope will be regarded by you. Indeed, my dear Sir, you seem not to apprehend the fatal consequence of your present conduct, both to yourself and others. From what I have observed in you, you are one of the last men I should have suspected of acting as you have done in straying away from the Church, and excluding yourself from her communion. I have expressed myself freely, because I hope to prevail with you to return to what appears to me to be evidently your duty. Was I in your place, I would submit the matter to the Vestry and be absolutely governed by their determination and I would tell them I was determined to be so. It will give you more satisfaction in the end, than it will do to carry your point at present. Tho' you may have had no voice in Mr. Smith's election yet he is your minister--as much so as any one can be by election, for in elections the majority must decide. With regard to the legality of his election 1 can say nothing unless I knew more of your settled rules and customs. And even supposing these to have been infringed, Mr. Smith is still your Minister till he shall be regularly removed. The determination cannot rest with one or two, or any small number--on nothing less than the power which placed him there, or some power supreme.
Let me beg you to think of these things, and I hope I shall soon have the happiness of knowing that both you and Mr. Freebody have returned to the peace and unity of Christ's Church. My regards attend Mrs. Gardiner. Accept my best wishes--God direct and bless you--
Your affecte friend and very humble servt.
S. Bp. Connect."
The persons concerned in the difficulties mentioned in the foregoing letter were Messrs. Samuel and Thomas Freebody and Benjamin Gardiner. Two previous letters had been written to them by Bishop Seabury, copies of which are in the letter book, and have been printed by Dr. Beardsley. The copy of this letter not being in the letter book, but on a separate sheet, was probably overlooked by him. It is perhaps the best of the three; and at any rate may serve to complete the account which he has given. [Beardsley's life of Bp. Seabury, pp. 391-395.]
The following brief letter seems worthy of a place in this miscellany, as illustrative of Bishop Seabury's continuance of affectionate relations with his father's family. It has been noted in an earlier chapter that the Bishop's mother died in his infancy, and that the place of mother was supplied to him by his father's second wife from her, and is as follows:
The letter referred to is
"North Hempstead July the 15, 1787
Revd and Dear Sir:
I do myself the pleasure to write to you and let you know that your pupil Mr. Daniel Whitehead Kissam is become your Nephew. He was married to Miss Elizabeth Tread-well on the 26 of June. They desire their most humble com-plyments to be presented to you and beg your blessing. The family here are all well and I hope you enjoy a large share of health. As to my own part I have not had any severe attack of the Rheumatism since last Fall but I feel continual aches and pains and I suppose I shall while I continue in this state of tryals. And I beg your prayers that I may so pass through things temporal that I lose not things eternal. Your brother Adam's family are well I believe though I have not seen any of them lately. I was in hopes I should have seen Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Campbell here before this: [Two of Bishop Seabury's daughters.] I hope they will not return without seeing me. My best regards attend all your dear children. I hear your brother David was in New York about a week agoc but I have not seen him as yet. I wish you all the happiness this dull world can give you and must conclude by telling you that I am your
Bishop Seabury's work in the development of the Church in the Diocese of Connecticut belongs to the history of that Diocese; and his work in the parish of St. James, belongs to the history of that parish. It is not practicable to extend these memoirs by any account of either; nor to do anything further than to illustrate certain personal characteristics by incidental actions in the line of duty, whether diocesan or parochial.
As an instance of such illustration, there appears among the papers a brief correspondence, of the year 1788, which tells a sad story of misguided affection and consequent sorrow, and resulting temptation to crime, apparently averted by the Bishop's counsel. Hardly any incident could more plainly reveal the truly pastoral spirit of the man, than does his dealing with this distressing case. It reminds one of the gracious, compassionate, hopeful tone of the Saviour's--"Go and sin no more."
A woman unknown to him writes him, May 23d, of the fall of her daughter, who, driven to despair, was contemplating suicide, unless she could procure deliverance from shameful exposure by unlawful means; and in most pathetic terms, beseeches his counsel in her sore distress, asking him to leave his answer in a designated spot, where she can find it without being discovered; and thus writes the man of God to her:
' I require and charge thee, O woman, whosoever thou art, as thou wilt answer it at the dreadful day of judgment when the secret of all hearts shall be disclosed, that you use no means to procure miscarriage to your unhappy daughter. It will be wilful deliberate murder. And I charge thee, O daughter, to use no violence to thy own life, nor to the life of thy unborn infant. Self murder is the worst of all crimes; and it allows no room for repentance. Has the shame of men more weight with you than the fear of God? I pity you both from my heart; and would do any lawful thing to conceal your shame, and heal your sorrow. But let me save you from the dreadful destruction that is before you. God sees you; and God will judge you. Let not one sin, a sin of infirmity only, tempt you to such foul and black crimes. I have no curiosity to know who you are; but I wish to advise you; I wish to comfort you; I wish to lead you to repentance, that you may find the mercy and forgiveness of God. If you think I can be of any service to you, I promise to keep your secret, and make no unfriendly use of it. But I conjure you by the love of Christ, let not a great sin, be committed to hide a smaller one. May God's grace be with you and keep you in his fear. Take kindly what I have written, for it is only intended for your good. I shall pray for you; and do you pray to God for yourselves, that he would look in mercy upon you, and deliver you from this temptation of the evil one. Believe me your affectionate friend,
The good result of the counsels of the foregoing letter may be inferred from the following brief response which has been preserved with it, and which is apparently from the daughter herself, though of course no name is appended either to it, or to that of the mother:
"Saturday Evening the 24th of May 1788
The great and mighty God of Heaven has made thee an instrument of preventing me from committing one of the blackest of crimes, for which I humbly thank my God and thee, promising that I will obey thee in every shape, which thou shalt see at the coming of the great day when we must all render an account for the deeds done in the body.
I thank you for your kind offer of assistance but a few months absence must accomplish the matter. So I end with promising to render due obedience.
I am Sir
Your eternal friend--"
The same intense earnestness and profound solemnity which characterize this brief but significant paper of Bishop Seabury pervade also the pages of his Journal, to which reference has been often made; and indeed, appear to have permeated his whole life. There is always evidence of his abiding consciousness that he was not his own, but that he belonged wholly to God, in whose presence, and under whose fatherly protection and guidance, he lived and moved and had his being. Such habitual devotion, and the utter simplicity of the faith and love out of which it grew, belong to a type of Christian character which the world knows little of, and which the Church, one is sometimes tempted to think, has well nigh forgotten. But it has existed, and doubtless still does exist; though to describe it now would be but describing the fashion of a kind of life which some of us can well remember to have been brought up in, but which few., alas, can be conscious of having continued to keep. I feel myself unequal to the task, and shall not essay it: but no account of the Bishop's life would be complete without the recognition of the characteristics which have been noted, and of which the Journal and other records afford so much evidence. Yet it is not to be inferred that these characteristics at all obscured the cheerfulness and brightness of temper and demeanor which were natural to him. Quite the contrary seems to have been the case; and there are many stories which show the easy, kindly and agreeable conversational habit which he had; and the keen perception of humor, and quick flashes of wit by which his conversation was often enlivened.
Quotations from the Journal have already been, and perhaps will yet be made: and these may suffice to illustrate the tone of the whole. It is, as has been observed, a fragment--complete in itself, but only relating the visitations and journeys of a period of somewhat more than four years, from May 1791, to October 1795. In that period there is the record of fifteen journeys, with the account of the distance of six thousand, six hundred and sixty-six miles travelled; and one thousand two hundred and eighty persons confirmed; and constant mention of Eucharistic celebrations, and sermons preached, with several baptisms, and various ordinations to the Diaconate and the Priesthood. The journeys of that day, it need not be said, were not the journeys of modern luxury and convenience. Sailing vessels for water journeys, and for the land journeys, the stage coach and the post chariot sometimes, but for the most part nothing more luxurious than the "sulky" of frequent mention; varied often with fifteen or twenty miles of horseback riding, which must have revived the Bishop's remembrance of the many hard rides of ante-bellum days. This sulky was, however, probably not strictly such, since the Bishop's daughter Maria, and his sons Edward and Charles, and sometimes one or other of his Clergy, are frequently said to have accompanied him in his journeys. It was possibly more like what was sometimes called a Gig; and bore about as much relation to the coach which "Peter Parley" attributes to him, as his modest parsonage bore to an Episcopal Palace. [Shea's life and Epoch of Hamilton, p. 308, note.] His sulky and harness are appraised in the Inventory above mentioned at £12--and his horse is rated at the same figure: and princeliness like this he had not always been able to afford; as would appear from one of his earlier letters to Bishop White, in which he excuses himself from a journey to Philadelphia as one beyond his present means to undertake, since at that time he was not even the owner of a horse.
Notwithstanding his labours in season, out of season, during the period which it has now been attempted to describe; and notwithstanding all the discouragements by which he was oppressed, the Bishop found time not only for the writing of many sermons, but also for the preparation and publication of several works, all of interest, and some of permanent, and indeed of inestimable value; and with a brief account of these we may draw to an end this somewhat desultory chapter, and make way for a view of the closing scenes of the life which we have been considering.
The Bishop, it is perhaps hardly necessary to say, was not, properly speaking, a literary man. He wrote well, but literature was not his profession: and he put his writings into print, not for remuneration to himself, nor for the amusement or instruction of the reading world in general, but perhaps in maintenance of important principles endangered at the time, or perhaps in self-defense; or, again, from the desire of putting into form of comparative permanence thoughts that it seemed necessary to preserve from being overlooked or forgotten. Writing was with him always a means to an end, and not an end in itself. Beside those publications which have been already noted in the former part of his life, there appear to have belonged to the time of his Episcopate some fifteen works, which were either pamphlets or small books, the largest and most important of these having been the two volumes of discourses published in 1793. In a bibliographical sketch contributed to the American Church Review, in July 1885, a detailed account of all his publications known to the writer has been given; and the purpose here is to call attention to some of the most important of these.
In the year 1790, he published without his name a tract of 55 pages duodecimo entitled "An Address to the Ministers and Congregations of the Presbyterian and Independent Persuasions in the United States of America. By a member of the Episcopal Church."
In 1791, he published a discourse delivered in the ordinary course of duty, but which attracted such an extraordinary amount of hostile criticism as to make it worthy of particular description. The title page is as follows:
"A Discourse delivered in St. John's Church, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, at the conferring the Order of Priesthood on the Rev. Robert Fowle A. M. of Holderness on the festival of St. Peter, 1791. By the Right Rev. Samuel Seabury D. D. Bishop of Connecticut.
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Gal. iv. 16.--the devil--is a liar and the father of it. St. John, viii. 44.
--the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. I Tim. iii. 15.
Printed at Boston by Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer T. Andrews, Faust's Statue, No. 45 Newbury Street, For George Jerry Osborne jun. Printer, in Portsmouth.
MDCCXCI." [22 pages. Octavo.]
The somewhat peculiar selections which adorn this page may be supposed to refer not so much to the discourse, as to the hostile criticism above mentioned.
In his Journal, writing between the delivery of the discourse and its publication, Bishop Seabury remarks:
"While I was at Boston, Mr. Osborne's paper, of Portsmouth, July 6, and Mr. Russell's of Boston, of the same date I believe, accused me of saying in the sermon at Portsmouth, 'That the belief of the truth spoken by one not inducted into the priestly office in an Episcopal form is not the Faith of God or a Divine Faith!' The sermon I suppose will soon be public, and will speak for itself. One position I shall enter here from the Portsmouth paper, because of its extraordinary tendency: 'If a Devil should deliver a good Gospel sermon shall we disbelieve because the preacher is a devil and not a Church Priest?' Again: 'I am as much bound to believe the truth spoken by his Plutonic majesty, as I am to believe the same truth when delivered by his Lordship of York, or his Holiness of Rome.' To expose the nonsense and profaneness of these assertions needs not a word. They speak for themselves, and evidently show what spirit they are of."
In his "Advertisement" to the discourse the Bishop says: "The misrepresentation of a passage in the following sermon, and the publick abuse of the author, are the reasons for its publication. As far as it goes, it contains his deliberate sentiments on the subject, which he has no disposition to retract. He has expressed them freely, because he thought it his duty; and because in a free country he supposed he had a right to do so. And he still hopes he has as undoubted a privilege to explain and establish the Episcopacy of the Church as others claim to revile and destroy it. Should any one be disposed to nibble at particular expressions he is heartily welcome: the principles, he flatters himself, will abide the trial of reason and Scripture. Nonsense, he knows, will have its paroxysms, and that they will sometimes be violently abusive, especially when the secrecy of a newspaper can effectually conceal an author in venting his ignorance and malice. The blessed Redeemer was reviled as a drunkard--the holy Baptist as a demoniac--St. Paul as a babbler--they were defamed--made as the filth of the world--the off scouring of all things--and by whom? In such company it is the author's highest honour to be found, suffering reproach as they did in the cause of truth?"
In the same year, Bishop Seabury republished a Catechism published by Dr. George Innes, consecrated Bishop of Brechin, in Scotland, in 1778. An abridgment of this re-publication was published in New York, as recommended by the Bishop and Clergy, in 1802, but without mention of the source from which it was compiled or the compiler. This became known as the Old New York Diocesan Catechism, and went through various phases of publication until the 11th edition was reprinted for the Diocese of Maryland by its Bishop, the Right Revd. Wm. R. Whittingham, D. D., who had been connected with the Diocese of New York, and professor of Ecclesiastical History in the General Theological Seminary. The same learned Editor, in 1851, published a new edition of his first reprint, and added to it the parts omitted from the original in the abridgment; and from this second reprint the statements here made in respect to the tract have been drawn. Bishop Whittingham's object in the care with which he collated the abridgment with the original was, as he remarks, "to show the substantial agreement of both Catechisms; the constant character of that of the Diocese of New York, through almost a quarter of a century, in eleven editions; the pains bestowed upon it in that time, and material changes in its form, but in form only, and the consequent certainty, that from 1790 to 1824, the doctrine of the First Bishop of our Church continued to be the avowed and officially recommended doctrine of its greatest Diocese."
This reference to the history of the tract is extremely significant, and points to the influence of Bishop Seabury's theology not only in Connecticut but also in New York, where, during the period indicated, Bishop Moore and Bishop Ho-bart were, in the retirement of Bishop Provoost from active duty, successively the responsible heads of the Diocese; and moreover in the Diocese of Maryland under the Episcopate of Bishop Whittingham whose name was a strong tower for all who sought the establishment of Church principles. Why Bishop Whittingham speaks of 1824 as if it were the end of the period in which the doctrine of the "First Bishop" continued to be the officially recommended doctrine of New York, I do not know. Possibly he had in mind only the Catechism as the exponent of that doctrine: but as to the doctrine itself, no one who knows the theology of Bishop Seabury, and that of Bishop Hobart, can fail to observe the substantial unity of doctrine in both. Nor is it other than that which might be expected, that Bishop Hobart, who in the earlier part of his Episcopate, for a considerable period between the decease of Bishop Jarvis, and the accession of Bishop Brownell, to the Episcopate of Connecticut, performed the duty of a Bishop in that Diocese, should have become familiar with the Seabury traditions, and thus have been the better able to use and apply them in his own robust and well-balanced teachings, which gained him so much reputation, not only in New York but throughout the Church, as, for the time being at least, somewhat to obscure the recognition of the influence of Bishop Seabury, which, after all, lay very near the foundation of the whole structure of Church doctrine in this Country. One need not ignore, much less disparage, the sound theological learning, and clear and strong expositions of such learning, which contributed to the sustaining of Church principles by very many others, in the United States, if he is nevertheless persuaded, that the leading and controlling influence in the settlement of those principles in the minds of American Churchmen resulted from the systematic embodiment of the great traditions of the Church in the teaching of Bishop Seabury, supported and enforced, as they always were, by the demonstration of their entire conformity both to right reason, and to the authority of the Divine revelation as contained in Holy Scripture. And this influence, enhanced as it was by the force and genius of Hobart, and the faithful labours of many others, brought it to pass that when England was convulsed in the early middle years of the nineteenth century with the shock of the novelties of the Tractarian movement in Oxford, there appeared to the Churchmen in this Country to be nothing new or strange in this movement, but only that to which they had always been accustomed as the simple truth of the doctrine of the Church. To that school in the Church which in its high estimate of vital piety had been disposed to undervalue the sacramental system as conducive rather to formalism than to true personal religion, the Tractarian developments were the demonstration of what they had always claimed to be, the natural outcome of principles which they had been prone to regard as of soul destroying tendency. And to those also, to whom the Faith and Order of the Church were the divine provision for the fostering of true personal religion, such developments were nothing new, but only the recognition of that for which they had all along contended. And, so far as Bishop Seabury's influence in the promotion of this persuasion was concerned, while it is traceable to his whole course of life and teaching, it is particularly and eminently exemplified in his published discourses. In those discourses the fundamental principles of that teaching which came so prominently forward toward the middle of the nineteenth century in England, are all contained: and there is good reason to believe, not only, as has been said, that this teaching made the really sound part of the Tractarian doctrine familiar to American Churchmen before it was broached at Oxford; but also that the influence of Bishop Seabury's sermons was not without an effect in the production of the Oxford movement itself. This, after all, is but to say that the Oxford movement was only the result of an effort to make real and practical the great tradition of faith and order which had come to be looked upon as the theory of an elder day, but of which, nevertheless, consistent testimony had never ceased to be given in the Anglican Communion; and that of this tradition Bishop Seabury was one of the stanchest and most uncompromising witnesses. Yet to whatever other sources may be attributed the renewed recognition of this tradition, one can hardly help thinking that few influences were more instrumental in preparing the way for it than those of Bishop Jebb's writings; and to those who know how much Bishop Jebb was indebted for his Church principles to Alexander Knox in his "Thirty Years Correspondence" with that remarkable man; and how much Knox was indebted for his Churchmanship to his study of Bishop Seabury's sermons, there will appear strong confirmation of the belief that those sermons, little accounted of as in some quarters they were in their first publication, were used in the economy of the Divine Providence, as a means for the accomplishment of one of the greatest revivals ever known in the history of the Church. [For the suggestion of the sequence of influences noted in this last paragraph, I am indebted to a letter, of November 7, 1891, from the late Dean Hoffman, who thus reported to me what had been imparted to him in his intercourse with Churchmen, while sojourning in Great Britain.]
Of the two volumes of these sermons published by Bishop Seabury in 1793 ("printed by T. & J. Swords, for J. Rivington, Bookseller, No. 1 Queen Street," ) it was remarked, after his death by his friend the Revd. Jonathan Boucher, that they "are such as might have brought credit to any prelate in any age and in any Country." Mr. Boucher further states that their author "wished to have had them republished in England; and for that purpose furnished the author of this volume with six more discourses in MS. to be added to them. But such," continues Mr. Boucher, "is the obscurity, or possibly the unpopularity of a man of unquestioned learning and piety that no Bookseller has yet ventured to undertake the work." [A view of the causes and consequences of the American Revolution, by Jonathan Boucher, A. M. & F. A. S., Vicar of Epsom in the county of Surrey, p. 556. Note.]
The six sermons referred to by Mr. Boucher, are presumably the same which were printed in a separate volume after Bishop Seabury's death, by T. & J. Swords of New York, in 1798.
An edition of Bishop Seabury's sermons, the second volume of which contains all the sermons in the second volume of 1793, and also three of the six contained in the additional volume of 1798, was published at Hudson, New York, by William E. Norman, in 1815. No subsequent edition of them has yet been published.