Founding of the Episcopal Church, Part VI

Previously in This Series

The Third General Convention met in two sessions in 1789 in July-August and September-October, with the main goal of uniting the Protestant Episcopal Church in all the states.  Samuel Parker had forced the convention's hand with a proposal that required the cooperation of all three American bishops.  To handle this proposal, the plan was for the middle and southern states to create a church organization unofficially in bottom-up fashion at the first session, then to invite the delegates from the New England states to attend the second session, at which they could suggest changes and sign onto a process that involved a House of Bishops, and finally for everyone to approve the whole package.  In this way the New England states could be comfortable that the whole process had been handled in top-down fashion, starting from the bishops.

First Session of the Third General Convention, Details

Carrying out the plan involved negotiating some bumps along the way, which in turn required a number of inspired ideas.  Two parliamentary devices were used to make it possible to proceed tentatively at the first session and officially at the second.  One was to have most actions at the first session occur in a committee of the whole, which then reported its recommendations to the General Convention at the start of the second session.  The other was to treat the ecclesiastical constitution as a new document that was being created, rather than an amended one.  For stability, it was to include an amendment procedure that would require amendments to be held over to the next General Convention before becoming final.  The parliamentary device was not to finalize this new constitution until the second session, so that any needed adjustments could be made in the second session without holding them over for three years. 

William White presided, Samuel Provoost being absent because of illness.  Parker's document was laid before the convention early in the first session, and Parker managed to deflect criticisms that the recommendation of Edward Bass as Bishop of Massachusetts and New Hampshire had not been endorsed by any laymen.  Two letters from Samuel Seabury were read to the convention, and it was apparent that Seabury had misunderstood something from reading the journal of the 1786 convention.  Seabury's status had been questioned briefly at the 1786 convention, and the discussion had been cut off quickly and laid to rest.  Behind this questioning was a distinction between the English apostolic succession and the Scottish one, a distinction that was of interest only to the British.  Specifically the Scottish succession descended from the English one, but the two groups got involved at some point in a political argument over the "correct" line of succession to the British throne; the English bishops swore allegiance to one line (the "juring" bishops), and the Scottish bishops swore allegiance to the other (the "nonjuring" bishops).  The distinction between juring and nonjuring was not of concern to the United States. 

The delegates disposed of this issue emphatically.  The journal says, "Resolved unanimously, That it is the opinion of this Convention, that the consecration of the right Rev. Dr. Seabury to the Episcopal office is valid." 

The question of Bass's nomination as bishop was referred to the committee of the whole.  All speakers spoke warmly of proceeding with the consecration once Connecticut had joined with the other states.  White as president was not permitted to speak, but he had a hesitation that he communicated to others during breaks.  It seems that some oral agreements were made with the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the consecration of Provoost and White.  One of those agreements was certainly that the number of such consecrations in England would be at most three.  Provoost and White felt that the agreements obliged them to have at least three done in England before proceeding with any consecrations in the United States.  White's memoirs delicately refer to a standoff, saying that a number of speeches implied "that the result of the deliberation must involve the acquiescence of the two bishops of the English line; while it was thought by the only one of them present, that no determination of theirs would warrant the breach of his faith implicitly pledged, as he apprehended, in consequence of measures taken by a preceding convention." 

After lengthy discussion William Smith offered the committee a resolution with five resolves: one saying that a complete order of bishops is in place, a second saying that the three bishops are fully competent to carry out all duties of bishops in the United States, a third saying that the churches in the convention should do their utmost toward granting "every just and reasonable request of their sister Churches in these States," a fourth asking the three bishops to consecrate Bass, and a fifth providing for addressing the archbishops and bishops in England to find out whether Provoost and White are under any further obligation and whether any such an obligation can be removed.  This matter was then set aside for the second session.

The other matter needing attention in the first session was the constitution, which was to be rewritten to respond to Seabury's objections.  One inspired idea in the rewrite gave more prominence to the position of bishops in the General Convention while leaving the laity sufficiently involved.  This outcome was accomplished by recognizing two separate houses in the constitution, a House of Bishops and a House of (Clerical and Lay) Deputies.  It is not clear where this notion came from.  The arrangement superficially resembles the division of Congress into the House of Representatives and the Senate, but on closer inspection it more closely resembles the division of the British Parliament into the House of Commons and the House of Lords.  In any event the division of the governing body of the Episcopal Church into two houses was to take effect as soon as there were three bishops in states adhering to the ecclesiastical constitution.

A second inspired idea in the rewrite was to allow states to be represented only by clergy without penalty.  This outcome resulted from using language in the constitution saying that states are "entitled to a representation" by both clergy and laymen and then by introducing a formula for counting votes that did not penalize a state that by choice, illness, or accident had all its representatives of one kind (clergy or laity) at a particular convention.

On August 11 White wrote a brief but warm letter to Seabury concerning the requested consecration of Bass and telling of the unanimous invitation that would be coming shortly.  The letter of inquiry from the convention to the archbishops and bishops of England and an accompanying letter from White are dated August 14.  William Smith sent Seabury a lengthy personal invitation to the second session, detailing what had been done and why.  That letter and the official invitation from the committee of the whole to Seabury and the Connecticut clergy are dated August 16.  Seabury responded positively to White on August 27, asking him to thank Smith for his letter and saying that he hoped to see Smith in person soon.

Second Session of the Third General Convention

Acting on the invitation, Seabury attended the second session of the convention on September 30, as did two other clergy from Connecticut and also Parker, who continued to represent Massachusetts and New Hampshire.  All these people produced credentials as deputies, and Seabury produced his Letters of Consecration, which were read and ordered to be recorded.  The convention then resolved that it would go into a committee of the whole the next day "on the subject of the proposed union with the Churches in the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut, as now represented in Convention."  The next day a subcommittee of five with William Smith as chairman conferred with the deputies from the New England states, and it reported on October 2.

The result from the subcommittee was a clarification of the voting powers of the House of Bishops---that the two houses were to function as equals.  Seabury wanted it to be explicit that the House of Bishops could propose legislation to the House of Deputies and could also disapprove proposals from the House of Deputies.  The constitution was amended to allow the first but not all of the second: to address a concern expressed from Virginia, the amended constitution provided that legislation could be passed over a veto of the House of Bishops by a four-fifths vote of the House of Deputies.  This was not quite satisfactory from the point of view of top-down organization, and Seabury made his view clear on the point.  The outcome was that this side condition would be included for the time being but would be taken up at a later General Convention after delegates had had a chance to confer with their states.  With the amendment in place, Seabury and the others from New England signed a document assenting to the constitution on behalf of their states' churches, and the union was complete.

When the convention reconvened on Monday, October 5, there were now three bishops, one of them still absent because of illness.  Accordingly the two bishops at the meeting withdrew and formed the House of Bishops.  They agreed that the presidency of the House of Bishops would be determined by seniority for the time being, and Seabury was therefore the president.  William Smith was elected president of the House of Deputies.  A Standing Committee was created to handle recommendations of people to be consecrated bishop when those recommendations could not be acted upon in timely fashion by a General Convention; it was given instructions to be inclusive rather than exclusive.  Also some canons were passed that fleshed out the constitution.  Other than those items, the main remaining business of the convention was the preparation of a Book of Common Prayer.

About this topic White's memoirs summarize, "The journal shows, that some parts of it were drawn up by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and other parts of it, by the House of Bishops.  In the latter, owing to the smallness of the number and a disposition in both of them to accommodate, business was despatched with great celerity; as must be seen by any one who attends to the progress of the subjects on the journal."  Seabury wanted the Athanasian Creed included in morning and evening prayer, and the House of Bishops proposed an amendment introducing it with a rubric that permitted its use.  In conference the House of Deputies was adamant about omitting this creed, and Seabury reluctantly agreed to its omission.  Seabury was successful, on the other hand, in replacing the core of the service of Holy Communion by the Scottish version.  The resulting 1789 Book of Common Prayer includes some elements of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and some elements of the Proposed Book of 1786.  Comparing the three texts in detail is a book-length project and was carried out in W. McGarvey's 1907 classic Liturgiae Americanae.

The preface of the 1789 Book of Common Prayer was based on Smith's preface to the Proposed Book.  About half of that version was omitted, since there were fewer alterations than before, and a few sentences were modified.  Most sentences in the new preface, however, come directly from the 1786 original.  That preface remains in place today.  It is dated October 1789 and contains the following principle that guided its writers, namely that "this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship; or further than local circumstances require."

On the last day of the convention, October 17, 1789, a committee was appointed to edit and publish the book, and the new Book of Common Prayer went into use on October 1, 1790.

--Tony Knapp