Project Canterbury

The Beginning of American Episcopacy.

[from William Burgon. The Lives of Twelve Good Men. pp 470-475]

THE Rev. Dr. Beardsley (Rector of S. Thomas’s Church, New Haven, Conn U.S.A.), out of the abundance of his zeal for the Church which he adorns, insists that the story in the text,—so far as President Routh is concerned,—must needs be pure fable. He contends that Dr. Routh cannot have dissuaded Dr. Seabury from availing himself of the friendly overtures of the Danish Church: cannot, at a critical juncture, have strenuously directed him to the Scottish succession for Episcopal Orders. And this, notwithstanding the President’s often-repeated declaration that he did both these things. "The question" (he assures us) "lies between Routh and the truth of history." And he hints at the infirmity to which flesh is liable "when approaching a century of natural existence."

If Dr. Beardsley will be at the pains calmly to peruse the Memoir which stands first in the present volume, he will be convinced, long ere he reaches the concluding (115th) page, that his view is untenable. The President’s veracity has never yet been challenged. The accuracy and retentiveness of his memory were unexampled His minute acquaintance with American affairs astonished even Americans who visited him within a few years of his decease. That such an one should have invented the story he so often and so circumstantially related, is incredible.

This matter has been made important by Dr. Beardsley, who considers that Dr. Seabury and the rest of the Connecticut clergy ‘would be placed in an awkward position’ if the truth of the President of Magdalen’s statement were admitted.

That they would have been placed in a very awkward position indeed had Dr. Seabury resorted to Denmark for consecration, is true enough: but that any inconvenience whatever results to him or to them from his having been effectually warned of his danger at a critical moment, I see not. Since however my narrative has been so unceremoniously handled, besides carefully re-writing and enlarging what will be found at pp. 15-18, I venture to submit to Dr. Beardsley certain principles which (it is thought) should guide us in dealing with historical testimony.

When two distinct and somewhat different aspects of the same transaction are set before us,—proceeding from opposite quarters, but both alike vouched for by thoroughly trustworthy persons,—our business (it is presumed) is first, To inquire whether they do not admit of reconcilement; with a view to their being both suffered to stand. We may not begin by importing into the discussion national or personal prejudices. We may not accuse the principal witness of having fabricated his facts,—only because those facts are distasteful to ourselves. We may not prop up our own contention, by making much of some minute inaccuracy of detail, which we have (or think we have) detected in our opponent’s narrative; but which evidently does not touch the life of the question at issue,—nor may we so distort or exaggerate any particular feature of the evidence as to produce the semblance of contrariety where none actually exists. And yet, (as logicians are aware,) even contrariety, unless it amounts to contradiction, admits, for the most part, of even easy reconcilement. As for charging a witness of unquestioned veracity with falsehood, it is the last shift of a controversialist who is conscious of the weakness of his cause. History cannot be written,—Truth must be regarded as a thing unattainable,—if we are to disbelieve incidents, not improbable in themselves, which persons of the highest honour, truthfulness, accuracy, clear-headedness, solemnly declare did happen; and repeatedly assure us happened to themselves.

Now, the one piece of evidence relied on by my worthy opponent, is the following passage in a letter from the Rev. Daniel Fogg (a member of the ‘Woodbury conference’) written to a friend 5 or 6 weeks after Seabury had set sail for England:—

"We Clergy have even gone so far as to instruct Dr. Seabury, if none of the bishops of the Church of England will ordain him, to go down to Scotland, and receive ordination from a nonjuring Bishop."

But what does this necessarily amount to? It may mean no more than this,—That after it had become known that Leaming declined the voyage to England, (for it was Leaming, not Seabury, who was nominated at Woodbury,) and before Seabury’s anxious and hurried embarcation for our shores,—certain of the Connecticut Clergy conveyed to the latter at New York a message to the effect above recorded. But,—Is it certain that Seabury ever received their message? And,—Were the "instructing" parties men of sufficient mark for their advice on such a point to command his attention? And,—With what amount of authority was the "instruction" conveyed? All we know for certain is that Seabury himself did not consider that he had left America "instructed" as to what was to be his alternative course of action. This is proved by his letter written twelve months later, in which he says that he shall wait for another month, and then apply to the Scottish Bishops—"unless he should receive contrary directions from the Clergy of Connecticut."

Dr. Beardsley’s claim that these were Seabury’s "Original instructions"—"the instructions given from Woodbury in March, 1783," &c.,—is a pure assumption. In a letter to myself (dated Nov. 13, 1878,) he writes,—"The fact that the Connecticut Clergy at their meeting at Woodbury gave instructions about it, strips Routh’s claim of the very semblance of truth."—I shall content myself with warning my esteemed correspondent (I), against inventing his ‘facts’: and (2), against drawing illogical inferences from them. For it is at least undeniable that Seabury did not act like one who had come over furnished with any "instructions" at all,—except to obtain consecration in England at the earliest possible moment, and to return.

I beg that it may be observed that I have nowhere asserted that, in 1782-4, the idea of resorting to the Scottish Bishops in order to secure for America the gift of Episcopacy originated with Martin Joseph Routh;—was for the first time conceived by him,—or, as an idea, was at any time exclusively his property. Such a statement,—(which might be thought to be implied by the narratives of Bp. Coxe, of Western New York, and of Bp. Eden, the Scottish Primus),—happens to be inconsistent with the known facts of history. The S.P.G. so early as 1703 had entertained the idea of sending a Suffragan to America; and even then, the Bishops of Scotland "were regarded as the channel through which that assistance could most readily be obtained." Cheerfully therefore do I make the sentiment of Bishop Williams my own,—"I am in no wise concerned to deny that the thought of applying to the Scottish Bishops may have been an entirely original thought in the mind of more than one person in England in the year 1783 and 1784." I do but demur to the statement which the same excellent friend proceeds to make: viz. that "the fact is proved . . . that this purpose was in the minds of our [American] Clergy long before it could have been conceived in England" … (What! before 1703?)

But in fact, that other learned Divines besides Routh were aware of the validity of the Scottish succession, and had their eyes intently fixed upon it at this very time, is certain. Thus, in 1782-3, Dr. George Berkeley suggested to Bp. Skinner, (coadjutor to the Primus of the Scottish Church,) that the Bishops of Scotland should consecrate a bishop for America In the autumn of 1783, a Mr. Elphimstone ‘pleaded the same cause in the same quarter. Originality of conception, I repeat, is not the thing here contended for. I am only concerned to insist on what really is a well authenticated fact, viz. that, (however it may have come to pass,) it fell to Martin Joseph Routh to disabuse Seabury’s mind,—if not of the intention to have recourse to Denmark for consecration,—at least of the notion that Denmark had it in its power to impart to him the wished-for boon. The President was able long after to reproduce the very words he had used to the envoys of the American Church in 1784. I ventured to tell them, sir, that they would not find there what they wanted." Equally certain is it that Routh insisted on the unquestionable validity of the Scottish succession; and that he further strenuously counselled application in that quarter exclusively.

Dr. Beardsley informs me that he finds no trace in the Seabury correspondence of any of the circumstances which obtain such prominence in my pages. I have been more fortunate. It needs (I think) but little skill in ‘reading between the lines,’ to discern clear allusions to every part of this matter;—as well, I mean, to those who had recommended Seabury to have recourse to the Scandinavian Bishops for consecration, as to him who had been so strenuous with him on behalf of the Scottish succession to the exclusion of every other,—in Seabury’s letter to Jarvis, dated June 26th, 1784:—

"I have had opportunities of consulting some very respectable Clergymen in this matter" (he writes): "and the invariable opinion is that, should I be disappointed here, . . it would become my duty to obtain Episcopal consecration WHEREVER IT CAN BE HAD. The Scottish succession was named. IT WAS SAID TO BE EQUAL TO ANY SUCCESSION IN THE WORLD, ETC. There, I know Consecration may be had."

Will any one doubt that, were Seabury among us at this day to be questioned, he would tell us that it was chiefly to Routh’s learning, and to Routh’s earnestness that he was alluding, when he penned the foregoing sentences? Who does not recognise the counsel to look to Denmark, to Norway, to Sweden for Episcopal Orders, as the result of some of those "consultations" with "very respectable Clergymen in this matter," of which Seabury speaks,—"Episcopal Consecration" to be obtained" "wherever it may be had"?—But that is not nearly all. Is it possible for any unprejudiced person to read what goes before without discerning,— if not an actual inclination on the part of the writer to avail himself of some other succession instead of the Scottish,—at least a considerable amount of indecision as to whether he might not with safety do so?" The Scottish succession was named," writes Seabury. "There" (he adds) "I know that Consecration may be had" You do? Then, Why,—if you came out from America ‘ instructed,’ in the event of your failing in England, to repair for Consecration to Scotland,—why do you still put off for three months making a move in that direction? Why refer that very question back to the Connecticut Clergy? . . . But the answer is obvious. The case is a transparent one. Made very sick by reason of ‘hope deferred’:—worn out by repeated delays and half-hearted professions—perplexed by conflicting counsels:—saddened by an exhausted exchequer,—Samuel Seabury’s brave heart and eagle spirit was at last severely tried. The supposed ‘Instructions’ with which he had come furnished from America are only to be found in Mr. Fogg’s letter. Seabury knew nothing at all about them.

What I am contending for, is not a new view of the case. I invite Dr. Beardsley’s attention to the following passage in a letter which the Bp. of Edinburgh (Dr. James Walker) addressed to the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval, 54 years ago, or just 50 years after Dr. Seabury’s visit to England. (The letter is dated March oth, 1834):—

"The Church of Norway and Denmark is similar in all respects; though unfortunately deficient in that most important point, the Episcopal succession,—which was so little known, that Dr. Seabury, when he failed to obtain consecration in England, was actually in treaty with the Bishop of Zealand. He was better directed to our then almost unknown Church and this direction was given by Lowth, then Bishop of London [1777-87]; and I have very lately heard, that the venerable President Routh was the means of directing Bishop Lowth to our Bishops."

The case before us, I repeat, is a transparent one. Contrariety—much less contradiction—there is here none. Directed by his countrymen to the English Archbishops and Bishops, to them Seabury persistently addressed himself. One cannot but suspect that had the Prelates of England been as apostolically minded as he was,—had they shared the Evangelical earnestness of those ten grand men who "met in voluntary convention" at Woodbury,—they would have made a way for conferring on that devoted soldier of the Cross the boon he so reasonably implored at their hands. But it was an evil and a dark time. Driven hither and thither for counsel and support, SAMUEL SEABURY was for a while beguiled into the mistaken supposition that valid Episcopal Consecration might be had from the Scandinavian Churches: of which fatal notion, MARTIN JOSEPH ROUTH was the man who disabused his mind effectually. ‘The Scottish succession,’ he assured Seabury, was ‘equal to any succession in the world:’ and he further convinced him at great length that this was his one only possible resource at the present juncture. . . It will have been with a lively recollection of that interview that Seabury ended his sentence with an ‘et cetera.’

Yes, in the evidence before us there is no contrariety whatever. The deeply interesting and highly honourable conditions of the problem, as far as America is concerned, are in no respect affected by, or inconsistent with, the personal recollections of one who was again and again heard, by several persons vet living, to recount them. And it will remain true to the end of time, that the service rendered to the Church of the United States by the President of Magdalen College when a very young man, was simply priceless; a service which cannot be too handsomely admitted,—or too heartily acknowledged,—by American churchmen at the present day.

That I may not be thought to have lightly assumed the trustworthiness of the story I have set down in the text, I shall here insert Bishop Hobhouse’s reply to Dr. Beardsley’s contention in the ‘Guardian’ newspaper:—

"Batcombe, Bath, Dec. 2nd, 1882.
"Reverend sir,—In reference to your letter to the ‘Guardian,’ just published, I venture to supply the following facts:—

1. That Dr. Seabury did visit Dr. Routh in Oxford.
2. That he was sent thither by Lord Chancellor Thurlow to consult Dr. Routh about the validity of the Danish succession.
3. That Dr. S. had been persuaded in London to apply to the Danish Bishops, and that Dr. Routh succeeded in dissuading him, in favour of the Scottish.
4. That though Dr. Routh was only 28 and a deacon, he was known as a learned man.—Lord Thurlow knew him through his clergyman brother, Mr. Thurlow.
5. That Dr. Routh lived in my parish, and often talked to me on such subjects.
—In 1853, when I was sailing for America with the S. P. G. Deputation to attend the General Convention, Dr. Routh sent a book and message to be presented by me to the presiding Bishop.—On that occasion, he recited the above facts as the cause of his special interest in the Church of the United States; and he repeated them on my return.
6. There was no failure whatever in his unexampled powers of memory, even in his 100th year. You may find it as hard to believe this, as to believe that at 28 he had acquired the position of an oracle in certain departments of learning: but both facts are certain. His mental history is unparalleled."

The testimony of an admirable living American Prelate,—Dr. A. Cleveland Coxe, Bishop of Western New York,—may be more acceptable to Dr. Beardsley. In his delightful volume (‘Impressions of England,’ 1856,—p. 138), my friend writes:—

"I had seen the Duke of Wellington and Samuel Rogers. There was one whom I desired to see besides, and on some accounts with deeper interest, to complete my hold upon the surviving past. For sixty years had Dr. Routh been President of Magdalen, and still his faculties were strong, and actively engaged in his work. I saw him in his 97th year: . . . the most venerable figure I ever beheld! Nothing could exceed his cordiality and courtesy; and though I feared to prolong my visit, his earnestness in conversation more than once repressed my endeavour to rise. He remembered our colonial Clergy, and related the whole story of Bishop Seabury’s visit, and of his application to the Scottish Church, which Dr. Routh himself first suggested. ‘And now,’ (said I,) ‘we have 30 Bishops and 1500 Clergy. He lifted his aged hands, and said, ‘I have indeed lived to see wonders,’ and he added devout expressions of gratitude to GOD, and many enquiries concerning our Church. I had carried an introduction to him from to the Rev. Dr. Jarvis; and at the same time announced the death of that lamented scholar and Divine, whose funeral I had attended a few days before I sailed from America. He spoke of him with affection and regret, and also referred to his great regard for Bishop Hobart."

Another American clergyman, the Rev. D. J. Aberigh-Mackay (in a letter dated 4th Nov. 1882, which appeared in the ‘Guardian’), bears similar testimony,—in consequence of a visit he paid to the President in July 1852. Other records to the same effect are to be met with elsewhere. But my friend Bp. Hobhouse’s testimony is so valuable, because he was intimate with the old President, and heard him often tell the story.

"The spark" (I have said) "became a flame which has kindled beacon-fires throughout the length and breadth of the great American continent." The progress of that ‘spark’ until it became a ‘flame’ was destined nevertheless to be gradual. In 1787 (Feb. 4h), Bishops White and Provoost were canonically consecrated at Lambeth by Dr. John Moore, Abp. of Canterbury (assisted by three other English Bishops), for the Dioceses of Pennsylvania and New York respectively: but,—

"It was with the understanding that they should not join with the Bishop of Scotch consecration in conferring the Episcopate upon any one else until another person should have been sent to England to be consecrated; so that It could always be said there were three Bishops of the English line, (the usual canonical number), who joined in the consecration which was to begin the line here [in America]. And this understanding was acted upon: for although there were in this country [America] in 1787, the three Bishops of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New York, the two latter, true to the English prejudice, would not join with the former in perpetuating the Succession, until they were supplemented by another who was consecrated in England in 1790."

The consecration of Bishop Madison of Virginia at Lambeth, (Sept. 19th 1790), by the same Archbishop of Canterbury, (assisted by two other English Bishops), completed the Episcopal College in the United States: and the consecration by Bishop Provoost, (assisted by Bishops White, Madison and Seabury), of Dr. Thomas John Claggett (Sept. 17th, 1792) as Bishop of Maryland, was the first canonical consecration in North America.... Since that time, the consecrations have been regularly and canonically maintained in the Anglican line, to which, as we have seen, the Scottish succession (which however is not another) has been happily united: and, at the end of a century of years, the Churches of England and America flourish with independent life and are in full communion. The American Bishops number at this instant seventy-one.

How splendidly the daughter Church has vindicated and illustrated the Apostolicity of her descent by the Catholicity of her teaching,—is known to everyone who knows anything at all about these matters. Worthy to be remembered in connexion with the greatest Bishops of Christendom are JOHN HENRY HOBART [1775—1830], Bp. of New York.—GEORGE WASHINGTON DOANE [l799-1859], Bp. of New Jersey:—JACKSON KEMPER [1789-1870], the great Missionary Bp. in the Western territories [1835-1859], and then Bp. of Wisconsin [1859-1870]:—WILIAM HEATHCOTE DE LANCEY [1795—I865], Bp. of Western New York:—an especially WILLIAM ROLLINSON WHITTINGHAM [1805-1879], Bp. of Maryland. But the foremost of the ‘goodly fellowship,’ the first American Bishop,—SAMUEL SEABURY [1739-1796], Bp. of Connecticut, was second in greatness to none of his successors: "that brave, patient, self-sacrificing soldier of the Cross, who dared a precious gift which binds her to the historic Church; and through it, to the great Day of Pentecost, and the Mount of the Ascension.". . . The words last quoted are the words of one whose name will be remembered by posterity in close connexion with the illustrious band before enumerated,—JOHN WILLIAMS, D.D., the present Bishop of Connecticut and Presiding Bishop of the United States. Long may he live,—(he will, I trust, allow me to call him ‘my friend,’)—to be a tower of strength to the great American Church!

I cannot conclude this long note without remarking that verily there have been times when Churchmen, Clergy and Laity alike, seem to have apprehended wondrous imperfectly that declaration of the great Head of the Church,— ‘MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD.’ Who will dare to deny that every condition of canonical consecration would have been fulfilled had the first Bp. of Maryland (Dr. Claggett) been consecrated by Bp. Seabury, assisted by Bps. White and Provoost?

To conclude.—A glorious future is reserved for the Church of the United States. Only let her be supremely careful, tide what tide, to ‘hold fast that which she hath that no man take her crown.’ Never may she,—yielding to the blandishments and importunities of false friends, or to the menaces and persecutions of avowed enemies —surrender ‘one jot or one tittle’ of that ‘Faith once for all delivered to the Saints,’ which is her priceless inheritance. Rather will she, (if she cares for the integrity of her existence,) ‘contend earnestly’ for the Truth, if need be, to the very death. Behold, HE ‘cometh quickly’!

return to Project Canterbury