An Address to the Episcopalians of the United States: Considering the Propriety of Supporting the Episcopal Theological Seminary at New-Haven.
By an Episcopalian.
No place: no publisher, 1820.
As a Protestant Episcopalian, I feel myself deeply interested in every measure which involves the honour and prosperity of the Church to which I belong. It would be a waste of words to prove that of this description is every thing which relates to the business of Theological education.
I have perused, very seriously, the various pieces which have appeared in the public prints, relative to the Episcopal Theological Seminary, at New-Haven; and also the journals of the General Convention, on this subject, and the plan and address of the Board of Trustees of the Seminary. I have also made very particular inquiries of the members of the late Convention, and others capable of giving me information; and I beg leave respectfully to submit to the consideration of my fellow Episcopalians, throughout the Union, the following facts and observations, which are offered under a very serious impression of their important bearing on the honour and prosperity of our Church.
It is undoubtedly a fact, that other institutions are contemplated, besides this at New-Haven; and that there was full reason to believe that this would not receive the support of Episcopalians generally. The measure of establishing it at New-Haven appears to have been a measure of conciliation. But I am informed, on the best authority, that, while all the members of the Convention were deeply impressed with the importance of effectual provision for Theological education, some were opposed, on principle, to a Theological Seminary; others indifferent on the subject; and others disposed to unite with the friends of the General Institution in removing it to New-Haven, provided it was understood that there might be diocesan schools, with the arrangements for which the General Seminary was not to interfere. This, it appears, was particularly the case with regard to the Church in New-York. I am utterly astonished that any person can doubt this fact, or presume to represent any attempts to establish diocesan institutions, as an opposition to the general one, when I notice, on the journals of the Convention, (page 57,) that the Bishops adopted the resolutions, on this subject, with a proviso, allowing diocesan institutions, even expressing the opinion, that the subscribers to the General Seminary were not bound to pay, in consequence of its removal. But, independently of all this, it is absurd to suppose that the General Convention can compel any diocess or any individual to support the General Institution. They have not attempted to do so—they merely request the Bishops, or standing committees, where there are no Bishops to [3/4] adopt such measures as they may deem advisable to collect funds, in aid of the Theological Seminary. Surely a request is not obligatory, and non-compliance is not an offence. And who can suppose the Bishops or Standing Committees bound to comply with this request, when the Bishops expressly declare, that the General Institution is not to interfere with “any plan now contemplated, or that may hereafter be contemplated, in any diocess or diocesses, for the establishment of Theological Institutions or professorships;”* I perceive from the journals, (page 65,) that the former Theological Seminary, while the school was at New-York, transmitted a circular address to each Clergyman of the Church, requesting his co-operation and influence in favor of the institution. The request, from all that I can learn, was in very few instances attended to; and yet, who ever thought of impeaching the delinquents with a resistance to the authority of the Church.
The support then of the institution at New-Haven, is merely voluntary—it may or may not be patronized by any diocess or individual, as may be deemed proper. And the inquiry may be fairly, and of right, made into the propriety of supporting it.
And here it must be evident, that, in supporting the General Seminary in name, we should probably support a local one, as to the management of its concerns. These are confined to twenty-four Trustees, nominated every three years, by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the General Convention, from various parts of the Union, together with the Bishops of the Church. Of these Trustees, seven constitute a quorum to do business—and at present there are exactly seven Trustees in Connecticut, (exclusive of the Bishop,) residing with a day’s ride of New-Haven. Who can fail to see that the institution, in its management, will, after all, be an institution of the diocess of Connecticut, under the management of the Bishop and some of his Presbyters and Laymen? Can it be supposed, that, occupied as the Bishops and Clergy of the Church are, they can or will leave their diocesses and congregations, some of them at several hundred miles distance, to attend a meeting of the Trustees of the Seminary at New-Haven? In fact, then, it will, as to management, be a Connecticut institution. To this there would be no objection, were it a diocesan one. But is the Protestant Episcopal Church throughout the United States prepared to commit an institution, involving so deeply her interests and honour, to the management of any one diocess in the Union, however respectable? There is, indeed, a provision in the plan of the institution, adopted by the trustees, that any diocess, granting funds for a professor, shall have the right of nomination. Still the control of the professors, when appointed, and the direction of the institution, and all rules concerning it, are confided to Trustees, seven of whom constitute a quorum. There are right (including the Bishop) in Connecticut—and it is most probable, that these eight will generally be [4/5] a majority of those who attend. This was the fact, as I am informed, at the late meeting: a majority of those present were from Connecticut, and only one Bishop attended—the Bishop of the Church in that state.
It may be said, this arrangement is necessary, in order to secure a quorum. But then there ought to have been some plan to secure the proper influence to the Church at large, in an institution which goes under her name. This was attended to in the arrangement, while the institution was at New-York. Its management was confided to a Committee, consisting of the three adjacent Bishops, in Pennsylvania, New-Jersey and New-York, three Presbyters, and three Laymen—a very judicious distribution, in reference to the important check of the three orders on each other:—yet no plan which this committee might adopt, for carrying the institution into effect, was to be valid, until submitted to all the Bishops, and approved by a majority of them. No such provision now exists—and the consequence has been, that a plan of an institution, visibly affecting the dignity and prosperity of the Church, was adopted (and is binding) at a meeting of a minority of the whole board of Trustees, and only one Bishop present. It is easy to see what great influence such an institution may possess. Is it wise to patronize it, when its influence may, and generally will, be controlled and directed by the Bishop, and three Presbyters, and four Laymen of a single diocess? Take another view of the subject—suppose that the institution excited the attention of the Church generally; and that Bishops, and Presbyters, and Laymen flock from all parts of the Union, to meetings of the Trustees at New-Haven. How and when are those twenty-four Trustees, exclusive of the Bishops, elected? Every three years, by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies in General Convention. Who does not foresee, judging from what we know of human nature, that if the institution become of such importance as to excite general and deep interest, the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies will, every three years, be the scene of contention between different diocesses and different theological parties, for the control of an institution, having so important an influence upon the general character of the Church? And who, that views the waters of bitterness which will thus be poured forth, and, unable to trace the whole extent or the termination of their ravages, should be considered as hostile to the unity of the Church in deprecating a measure which lets them loose, and in lifting up a respectful but earnest voice against it.
The Trustees, at the meeting already noticed, in July last, have put forth an address, and adopted, as before mentioned, a plan for the organization of the institution. The Bishop of the Church in Connecticut, was the only Bishop present. In both the address and the plan, there are some matters which had better have been otherwise, and some were exceedingly exceptionable. The writer of these remarks is a friend to liberality, properly understood; and no one would more cordially hail its progress among all Christians. By liberality, he understands a kind judgment of the motives, [5/6] characters and views of others; a courteous behaviour to them; proper respect for their virtues; and, above all, maintenance of them in their just rights and privileges—all which is very consistent with exclusive views and opinions on all subjects. But the writer, in common, he concludes, with every correct mind, cannot be pleased with cant of any description, sill less with the cant of liberality—and he is sure, he speaks the sentiments of every noble-spirited friend of the Church, when he deplores any thing which lets her down from her elevated station, to a contest for popularity. The New-Haven address states, that while the institution was in New-York, no “general appeal was made to the liberality of the members of the Church.” This is not correct;* for one of the measures which would come under the denomination of a general appeal, adopted by the former Theological Committee, was an address on the subject of a Theological Seminary, directed to “the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.” This was as it should be, as might be expected, from the members composing the Committee; and particularly from their dignified and venerable Chairman, the Bishop of Pennsylvania. For when all other denominations of Christians want all the funds which they can collect, for the support of their own Theological schools, who would think of directing an appeal, in favour of an Episcopal school, to them; or would consider such a measure in any other light than the cant or affectation of liberality—knowing neither those who employ it, nor those to whom it is addressed? The New Haven address, in favour of the Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, appeals to “the Christian public.”
But still further—a section of one of the articles of the plan of the New-Haven Seminary provides as follows:
“The Seminary shall be equally accessible to students of all religious denominations, exhibiting suitable testimonials of character and qualifications. But no one, while a member of the institution, shall be permitted to disturb its harmony, by maintaining any thing contrary to the system of faith, discipline and worship, which shall be taught in it.”
In enacting this section, the Trustees must have supposed, that [6/7] the invitation contained in it, would not be accepted, or, that it would. On the former supposition, that it would not be accepted, here is the Episcopal Church, in the person of the Trustees of the Theological Seminary at New-Haven, condescending to a cheap art of obtaining popularity, by an offer, which, they knew at the time, would not be accepted. Of if they supposed it would be accepted, how insulting to students of other denominations, the condition with which it is coupled. They are “not permitted to disturb the harmony of the institution, by maintaining any thing contrary to the system of faith, discipline and worship, which shall be taught in it;” as much as to say to them—young gentlemen, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists—see how liberal we are; we open the doors of our temple to you, but the moment you enter it, your mouths are closed, except to utter the sentiments, however repugnant to your principles, which we shall inculcate. How insulting, I repeat it, the condition of this offer; and yet, I impeach not its necessity, and even its expediency, if the invitation be made. For, undoubtedly, it would not be a very “harmonious” assemblage of Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist students in Divinity, contending for their variant systems. But what does this prove? That the offer should not have been made.—Let Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, take care of their own students in Divinity, and Episcopalians of theirs. This is dignified liberality; this is the true mode of preserving harmony. If the offer, however, must be made, connect not with it a degrading condition. It may be pleaded in excuse, this is only following the example set us by other denominations—not exactly, for I suspect they lay no such injunction as that stated, on the students of a different faith, who enter their schools. But example cannot sanction what is incorrect; and I am concerned for my Church, when I see her character involved in this (I must so consider it) undignified attempt to obtain popularity. But further—if the candidates for the ministry of other denominations are to come to our Theological school, must we not be equally liberal, and send some of our candidates to theirs? And is this to be desired?
There is another very extraordinary feature in the plan of the Theological Seminary at New-Haven. It is provided, that “every student who shall be assisted in the pursuit of his theological education, to the amount of $100 per year, shall, on his receiving holy orders, officiate, if required, as a missionary, under the direction of the Board of Directors of the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, for the term of from one to three years, according to the discretion of the said Board, provided a suitable provision be made for his support.”
This measure is a violation of the Canons of the Church. They prescribe that candidates for orders, when ordained, shall be under the direction, while in Deacon’s orders, of the Ecclesiastical authority by whom they were ordained. But what says the Theological Seminary at New Haven? No—you shall be under the direction of [7/8] the Board of Directors of the Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States; and that not merely while you are in Deacon’s orders, but, if they think proper, for the term of three years.
And what is this Foreign and Domestic Missionary Society? Let me digress, for a few minutes, while I say—I know of no such society in existence. To constitute a society, there must be a meeting of its members to enact measures for the attainment of its object, be it secular, literary, or religious. To the journal of the last General Convention of the Church, there is annexed a constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Missionary Society in the United States, for Foreign and Domestic Missions.” But I find no provision for any meeting of the society, nor, of course, for any exercise of the powers of its members. The presiding Bishop of the Church, is indeed President; the other Bishops are Vice-Presidents; but they never have an opportunity of presiding—the society never meets—who can say that it exists. True, there is a Board of Managers, of twenty-four members, appointed by the General Convention, to conduct its affairs, who are thirteen Presbyters, and nine Laymen; the Laymen all resident in the city of Philadelphia; and, will it be believed, among these managers, not a single Bishop. The Presiding Bishop of the Church is indeed President, and the Bishops Vice-Presidents of the Society. But the society never meets. In other societies, the President and Vice-Presidents are, ex officiis, members of the Board of Trustees, or Managers. Not so here; the Managers of the society, consist of the thirteen Presbyters, and nine Laymen. A Bishop of the Church, in the United States, according to the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Society, has no more right to meddle with its concerns, than the Bishop of Calcutta: and thus the business of Foreign and Domestic Missions, in which, surely, the agency of the Bishops would be important, is placed entirely beyond their control.
Let not the writer be misunderstood: he is not contending for any high claims of Bishops; he approves, most cordially, of the principles which associate Bishops, Clergy and Laymen, in the offices of the Church. But surely there are none who will contend, that the Bishops of the Church should be excluded from any participation in the management of a Society for Foreign and Domestic Missions.
But further—of these thirteen Presbyters, and nine Laymen, who are managers of this society, (and who, it would seem, if there be any society, constitute the society itself,) there are twelve resident in Philadelphia, and six constitute a quorum. Thus, then, the whole business of Foreign and Domestic Missions, as far as it comes within the powers of this society, may be conducted by three of the youngest Presbyters in the city of Philadelphia, who are the only Clerical Managers there, with any three of the nine Laymen resident in that city. No Bishop, not even the venerable Presiding Bishop of the Church in Pennsylvania, has any right to make his appearance among them, or to lift up his voice in their concerns. Could all [8/9] this have been understood by the Convention? Here I confess is a mystery.
On recurring, however, to the journals, I find on the minutes of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, the last day of the session of the Convention, the following record:—“The Rev. Mr. Boyd, from the committee on the subject of a Missionary Society, reported in favour of forming such society, and offered a constitution, which was considered and accepted, with amendments, and sent to the House of Bishops.” On the minutes of that house, at a meeting, at 5 o’clock, P.M. of the same day, I find recorded, their concurrence in this constitution, with amendments. The strange defects and arrangements of the constitution must then be accounted for, by the rapidity with which it was carried through both houses, on the last day of the session of the Convention. The entire omission of the agency of the Bishops, must also be accounted for, from the circumstance, that, being appointed to preside over the society, and the presiding officers generally being members of the Board of Managers, the omission, in this case, could not be expected, and would naturally be unnoticed. How so defective and exceptionable a constitution could have been reported by the committee, who must, or ought to have had it for a long time under consideration, must still remain a mystery. But even the Board of Managers of this society, according to the constitution, are not in existence. The constitution provides, that they shall “be appointed by the General Convention.” The General Convention consists of the House of Bishops, and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. Of course, the Managers must be appointed by a vote of both houses. If the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, alone, had been meant, it would have been so specified, as is done in the case of the Trustees of the Theological Seminary. On the last evening of the session, it appears, from the journals, that the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies appointed certain persons Managers of the Missionary Society. This appointment was not sent to the House of Bishops—of course, it did not receive their concurrence. The Managers were not, therefore, appointed as the constitution provides by the General Convention; of course, they are not authorised to act. Is it not plain, that there is neither society nor Managers?*
The Theological students, educated at the expense of the General Seminary, are to be compelled to officiate, if required, (contrary to the canons) as missionaries, under the direction of the Missionary Society, for a term from one to three years. Now, suppose this Seminary obtains large funds, and educates a large number for the ministry—they are all to be under the direction of this Missionary Society; and thus, they may be under the control of six Presbyters or six Laymen, (Bishops being out of the question,) who are authorised to conduct the affairs of this society. What powerful influence will [9/10] they possess! Besides, individual states have their Missionary Societies, and they may want the students, educated at the seminary, for the destitute settlements of those states; but they cannot have them, unless it pleases the Foreign Missionary Society, who may be six Presbyters or six Laymen. What an extraordinary society! And what an extraordinary act, (to say nothing of its being uncanonical,) in the Trustees of the Seminary, to place such power in the hands of this society.
With respect to the Theological Seminary at New-Haven, it is evident, it will not be a general one—it will not receive general support; for plans are now in operation, and others are contemplated, for diocesan institutions. It will be general, too, only in name, as to its management; for it will virtually be under the control of the diocese where it is situated; and surely it is obviously improper, that the character of the Church at large, in so important a business as Theological instruction, should be in the keeping of the Bishop and of the Clergy and Laity of any one diocese. The inexpediency of this has been already verified in the proceedings of the Trustees, as a meeting at which but one Bishop was present, and who, with his Clergy and Laity, constituted a majority of the meeting, adopted measures, as has already been shewn, derogatory to the dignity of the Church, and taking from the canonical authority the control of certain candidates for orders, in order to place them under the control of a few Presbyters and Laymen, acting as the Managers of a society, which, in fact, cannot be said to have any existence.*
[11] May I not be permitted to suggest, that the error of the Convention has been in attempting to do too much; departing from the sage advice of their venerable senior Bishop, to confine their legislation to such matters as are necessary to constitute the Church one body, and leaving the rest to diocesan regulation—thus opening a door for endless jealousies and collisions.
In the address of the Trustees of the Seminary at New-Haven, it is stated, that “its contiguity to Yale College will afford it the advantage of the valuable library, and the public lectures of that institution.” And are we come to this? Is the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, the daughter of one of the first Churches of the Reformation, reduced to the necessity of depending on the aid of a literary institution, by charter, under the control, and in operation devoted to the interests, of another denomination of Christians? Must the candidates for orders, of a Church that has justly boasted of her scriptural doctrines—her Apostolic ministry, and he primitive worship, be dependent on the public lectures of a President and Professors, who subscribe to doctrines opposed, in some respects, to those which she professes to have derived from the Apostles’ times? And must she, in a public address, or any of her constituted authorities, pride herself in her humiliation? As an Episcopalian, I disclaim any share in the degrading boast. It was not, I am thankful, the act of my Church—of her Bishops—her Clergy, and Laity. Is it possible that it will be sanctioned by the Churchmen in Connecticut—by the Churchmen in the United States?
Short-sighted is this temporizing policy—this barter for the favours of Yale College, of the dignity, distinction, character and solid interests of the Church! Who does not see that, of two literary and religious institutions, so contiguous, the more powerful must imperceptibly, perhaps, for a time, but surely and effectually, influence, if not control the latter? Can the Theological Seminary expect to vie with an institution, so respectable and powerful as Yale College? Will not the former be perpetually eclipsed, in lustre, by the latter—venerable for antiquity, solid in her establishments, respectable in her endowments, and numerous and eminent in her professors? Are there any so weak, or so blind, as to believe that the President, Professor and Guardians of Yale College will be so faithless to their trust, as to be disposed seriously to promote the extension of the Church, which holds doctrines, ministry and worship, different from, and opposed to, those which they are pledged to maintain and advance? They are wiser men than all this. From what we know of human nature, it is not uncharitable to think that they will conciliate—they will make advances—they will offer advantages, on the policy of ultimately influencing, if not controlling.
But is it then certain, that the Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church, is to be associated with Yale College? Must the hope which every high-minded Churchman has cherished, [11/12] that the Church would possess within herself those means of literary and Theological instruction, which others enjoy, be relinquished? What would we think of the Presbyterian Church, if she were to locate her Theological Seminary contiguous to an Episcopal College, (did one exist—alas! there is not one,) and acknowledge herself indebted to its smiles? What but that she was humbled, degraded—an objection of compassion, with other independent denominations of Christians. Surely, in locating the Seminary, reference should be had to the inspiring object, of ultimately connecting it with an Episcopal College. At New-Haven, every such hope is cut off. If it was proper that the Seminary should be transferred to a place, (to use the language of the address,) “equally removed from the expensive extravagances of a large city and the vulgar manners of an obscure village,” it was not on this account indispensable to transfer it to New-Haven.
The importance, in the view of the writer, of these facts and observations, must be his apology for presenting them. Let it not be said, that he is stirring up a strife: his object is to prevent it. For he considers the measures on which he has remarked, in many respects injurious, and calculated to produce endless collisions and jealousies. Obsta principiis. Now is the time to prevent these evils. The means of prevention may be unpleasant—but the evils would be worse.
Fellow-Episcopalians,—I trust I have said enough to induce you to pause—to delay—before you patronize the Seminary at New-Haven. The next General Convention may, indeed, transfer it to another place, and make other arrangements concerning it; but this is uncertain. Let provision be made for diocesan Theological instruction; and if, at any future time, the Church must unite in a General Theological Seminary, let it be connected with an object, from which it ought never to be separated—an object without which the Church must languish in reputation, as in strength and influence—an object therefore worthy of the warmest zeal, devotion, and liberality of her Sons—an Episcopal College.
AN EPISCOPALIAN
* This declaration, though a public document, appearing on the journals, and evidencing the views of the Bishops relative to the Theological Seminary, is not inserted among the other documents in the pamphlet published by Bishop Brownell, in behalf of the Trustees of the Seminary.
* By a general appeal, must be meant, either a general address, or particular applications—both were done while the Seminary was in New-York. A general address was made, by the Committee, to the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. An address was made on the subject, by Bishop Hobart, to the Committee of New-York. Particular applications were made by the agents appointed at the General Convention; by the Committee; and by special agents in the city of New-York, who had districts assigned them, and by Bishop Brownell, who, as he states, “travelled from New-York to Georgia on its concerns.” But, as it is understood, his object was also health, and the most southern climate, confined his applications to the towns on the post road. Besides this, a circular letter was addressed to every Clergyman of the Church in the United States, earnestly soliciting his co-operation and influence, in favour of the Seminary. How can it be said, that, while the institution was in New York, “no general appeal was made to the liberality of the friends of the Church?” No order appears in the resolutions of the Trustees, at their late meeting in New-Haven, with respect to an address. It is, however, signed, “By order of the Trustees: T.C. Brownell, President pro tem.;” and provision therefore must have been made for drafting it.
* The Managers of the Society, as well as the Trustees of the Seminary, were appointed, as I am informed, viva voce; a mode which prevents an unbiassed election, and places the appointments, virtually, in the hands of three or four members, and probably, even one.
* It may be said, that these Presbyters and Laymen were chosen by the General Convention—not so; only by the house of Clerical and Lay Deputies. And how were they chosen? Not by ballot, the only correct mode, but by the nomination of a committee. Besides the question occurs—is it safe, is it right, to pace so important a business under the control of so few Presbyters and Laymen, excluding entirely the Bishops of the Church.
Transcribed by Richard Mammana, 2019
Richard Mammana 