Talk:Samuel Seabury

Seabury and the Scottish eucharistic rite
This article is somewhat contradicting itself concerning whether Seabury was instrumental in including the Scottish Communion rite in the 1789 prayer book. Someone added an alternate theory that it was William White, not Seabury, who pushed for its inclusion. It's OK to present different points of view, but the article shouldn't read as if it is saying two opposing views are both factually true. But someone other than I should do that. InkQuill 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the paragraph endorsing Marshall's interpretation may have been written by Marshall himself. See the three successive edits of 18 August 2007. I will leave the citation tag for a short time, but this really seems to me like something that needs to be changed to restore NPOV.Rose bartram (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the February 2013 article on Seabury

This update of an older wikipedia article (2010) on Bishop Seabury is accurate and well documented. However, it's incomplete. There is still ongoing debate in the church about Seabury's theology, which (according to Bp Marshall's carefully researched and documented book) covers more than the frequency of the Eucharist. And there are still those in the church who believe Seabury's only importance to the church was his consecration as bishop. I think these paragraphs from the 2010 wikipedia article should be added to the present one, perhaps under the title "Seabury Historiography 1970s-2004." Here are the needed paragraphs, with my suggested title:

Seabury Historiography 1970-2004

"Seabury played a decisive role in the evolution of Anglican liturgy in North America after the Revolution. His "Communion Office," published in New London in 1786, was based on the Scottish Book of Common Prayer rather than the 1662 liturgy in use in the Church of England. But how much credit Seabury deserves became a point of contention in the 1970s. The doctoral work of Marion Hatchett attempted to establish from documents and letters that Seabury had little interest in including the Scottish eucharistic rite in the 1789 prayer book, and that it was Bishop William White and others who urged the adoption of the liturgy. More recent studies by Yale professor Paul V. Marshall (work cited below) demonstrate from primary sources that the letters Hatchett relied on were written by William Smith, that Seabury was the only liturgically literate member of the House of Bishops in his day, and that William White at best did not understand the rite of the Scottish Church, much less endorse it. Furthermore, Marshall discovered documents not seen by Hatchett that indicate the active role Seabury took in liturgical revision in Connecticut and the extent to which the rank-and-file clergy were aware of his commitments. He demonstrated that Seabury kept very strictly his obligation to the Scots to study and quietly advocate their point of view in eucharistic matters. Hatchett has himself agreed that Marshall has the better data and interpretation.

Seabury's defense of the Scottish service—especially its restoration of the epiklesis or invocation of the Holy Spirit in the consecration of the Communion elements influenced the first Book of Common Prayer adopted by the Episcopal Church in 1789. The English 1662 Prayer Book Prayer of Consecration ended with the Words of Institution. But the Scottish Rite continued from that point with a Prayer of Oblation based on the ancient classical models of Consecration Prayers found in Roman and Orthodox Christianity (this prayer in the English Rite had been detached and placed at the end of the service as a kind of Prayer of Thanksgiving for Communion in order to avoid the suggestion that the Holy Eucharist was a Sacrifice or Offering to God by his Church in union with Christ). Thus the Episcopal Church's practice was brought closer to the tradition of the Roman church. In addition to the epiklesis Seabury argued for the restoration of another ancient custom: the weekly celebration of Holy Communion on Sunday rather than the infrequent observance that became customary in most Protestant churches after the Reformation. In "An Earnest Persuasive to Frequent Communion," published in 1789 in New Haven, he wrote that "when I consider its importance, both on account of the positive command of Christ, and of the many and great benefits we receive from it, I cannot but regret that it does not make a part of every Sunday's solemnity." Seabury was ahead of his time, but two centuries later the custom of weekly Eucharist was rapidly spreading through many Protestant and Anglican congregations under the impact of the Liturgical Movement." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celinda Scott (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 11 September 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The bishop is much more notable than his descendants as a significant figure in the American Revolution and as the second Presiding Bishop of one of the most significant Christian denominations (if not the most significant Christian denomination) in that period in American history. His lasting significance can also be demonstrated by the fact that the number of hits to his article in the last 30 days is more than tenfold that of either of the other Samuel Seaburys. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Samuel Seabury (bishop) → Samuel Seabury
 * Samuel Seabury → Samuel Seabury (disambiguation)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And before this, Samuel Seabury → Samuel Seabury (disambiguation). Best discuss whether he is a dominant meaning, as the suggester is an IPA user. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but of what relevance is the fact that I am an unregistered user? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (Answered at User talk:142.160.131.202.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As my being unregistered is no longer a concern with respect to this technical move request, on what basis do you "contest" it? Provided that your objections to the technical request have been alleviated, we can close the discussion prematurely.
 * And I'm unclear as to what you are directing me to see at the top of my talk page. If you are referring to 's comment, I am already aware of it. He put it there so as to encourage RC patrollers to appropriately examine my edits rather than templating blindly, which you can see from my talk page has happened all too often. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As my being unregistered is no longer a concern with respect to this technical move request, on what basis do you "contest" it? Provided that your objections to the technical request have been alleviated, we can close the discussion prematurely.
 * And I'm unclear as to what you are directing me to see at the top of my talk page. If you are referring to 's comment, I am already aware of it. He put it there so as to encourage RC patrollers to appropriately examine my edits rather than templating blindly, which you can see from my talk page has happened all too often. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.