As I see it, high church Anglicanism equals (or at least strongly correlates with) Tory political theology. And America rebelled against Toryism.
Peter A. Lillback addresses this issue in his tome on George Washington's religion. I may have given the misimpression Lillback is a bad scholar along David Barton grounds. I think his book is flawed on a number of different grounds. I don't think he proves Washington was an "orthodox Trinitarian Christian." And a respectable academic editor (which the book lacks) would have taken it from 1200 pages or so to 800 to make it more organized and readable. Dr. Lillback is nonetheless a legitimate scholar.
But Lillback argues that Washington was a "low church Anglican." Indeed, I would say Washington fit into the "low church latitudinarian Anglican" wing. The problem (for those who support Lillback's thesis) is that wing, because of its doctrinal latitude did indeed include Trinitarians of the Calvinist bent and otherwise, but also included more deistic and unitarian minded theists as well (they were also often called "liberal dissenters").
The "high church" wing took Anglican doctrine more literally. They were not "latitudinarian." Arguably they were more "Anglican fundamentalists" in the sense they took everything their church officially taught literally.
Indeed, one mild criticism of Gregg Frazer's new book which lays out the case for the American loyalists is that it's almost entirely (but not entirely, there was at least one Presbyterian loyalist minister) drawn from Anglican sermons preaching high church Anglican Tory doctrine of submission to the monarchy and parliament in the face of Romans 13.
Since George Washington systematically spoke about God in generic terms, never mentioning Jesus in his private correspondence, etc., the only way to make him into a Trinitarian is through Anglican doctrine (which is explicitly Trinitarian). And Lillback tries to make Washington into an "oath fundamentalist." Washington did indeed take Trinitarian oaths when becoming a vestryman and a godfather. Jefferson took those oaths when becoming a vestryman, but refused to be a godfather because of their Trinitarian nature. Jefferson was driven nuts thinking about the Trinity. Washington was not.
But the problem is those oaths are high church! They demand allegiance and obedience to the King as head of church and state. It's actually quite fascinating that so many notable American founders were Anglicans who rebelled against mother England and then became Episcopalians. And it's not just laity. There were ministers, some more orthodox than others, who also supported the rebellion. And others, more high church oriented, who remained loyalists.
When trying to explain why Washington systematically avoided communion in the church, Lillback stressed Dr. Abercrombie -- the minister who called Washington out as either a "deist" or not a "real Christian" for avoiding communion -- was a Tory loyalist. In other words, GW didn't want to be in communion with this guy. But, any Anglican who supported the rebellion technically had a problem with official Anglican doctrine.
One of the Anglican leaders who testified that Washington avoided communion, Bishop William White, actually supported the rebellion. This is what his Wiki page notes: "Though an Anglican (Episcopalian) cleric who was sworn to the king in his ordination ceremony, White, like all but one of his fellow Anglican clerics in Philadelphia, sided with the American revolutionary cause.[6]"
Interestingly, that footnote 6 says:
Only William Stringer, a recent immigrant f[ro]m Ireland in 1773, remained a Loyalist among the Anglican clerics in Philadelphia. In a Letter to Lord Dartmouth on March 6, 1778, from Philadelphia, Stringer reports that he is the only clergyman in Philadelphia who has acted consistent with his ordination oath of allegiance to the King and duty as a minister. See The Manuscripts of the Earl of Dartmouth, Volume 2, p. 460.Bold face mine.
After America's revolution succeeded, by necessity the Anglican churches had to "reform" their doctrines to scrub the language of the British monarchy technically ruling over them. From what I know, all but one became Episcopalians who left most everything in place, except that language that needed scrubbing.
Though one Anglican Church in New England, King's Chapel used the opportunity to reform itself into unitarianism. Its Wiki page says:
It became Unitarian under the ministry of James Freeman, who revised the Book of Common Prayer along Unitarian lines in 1785. Although Freeman still considered King's Chapel to be Episcopalian, the Anglican Church refused to ordain him. The church still follows its own Anglican/Unitarian hybrid liturgy today.
12 comments:
Indeed, one mild criticism of Gregg Frazer's new book which lays out the case for the American loyalists is that it's almost entirely (but not entirely, there was at least one Presbyterian loyalist minister) drawn from Anglican sermons preaching high church Anglican Tory doctrine of submission to the monarchy and parliament in the face of Romans 13.
Yes, it's painfully dull. Page after page of the same small handful of Tory preachers making the same small handful of arguments.
It's a shame Gregg didn't cover both sides of the controversy. For one, the revolutionary arguments are far more varied and interesting and are drawn from a far wider swath of Christian thought and theology [including Catholics and Calvinists].
When trying to explain why Washington systematically avoided communion in the church, Lillback stressed Dr. Abercrombie -- the minister who called Washington out as either a "deist" or not a "real Christian" for avoiding communion -- was a Tory loyalist. In other words, GW didn't want to be in communion with this guy. But, any Anglican who supported the rebellion technically had a problem with official Anglican doctrine."""
I think u should read sacred fire and get the context of "church." The above statement misleads, not the least of which includes, abercrombies later admission that GW was a Christian and he had an ax to grind because GW passed him over for a government position .
"abercrombies later admission that GW was a Christian and he had an ax to grind because GW passed him over for a government position ."
Can you quote Abercrombie's "admission." Abercrombie may have have had an "axe to grind," but so what? That doesn't necessarily poison his well.
One of the reasons why I'm posting here on Anglicanism and its defenestration. If Washington and company lost the war, they would have been arrested, charged, tried and hung as committing treason.
But they won and the Tories/Church of England lost tremendous ground.
Picture yourself an American member of the colonial Church of England (COE) during or after the Revolutionary War. Your church was part of the royal government, the same government that people were fighting against. Perhaps you felt more allegiance to the Crown than your fellow colonists. After all, the Church of England in the United States (remember “Anglican” wasn’t a term in common use until the 19th century) attracted members of the merchant class, civil servants, royal governors, and others with strong ties to England.
If you left during the Revolution to go to Canada or return to England you weren’t alone. About 40% of Anglicans did. For those who stayed on after the war, their church was a shadow of its former self. Where the COE was the established (government-subsidized) church, such as the southern colonies and parts of New York, the church was quickly dis-established and lands sold off. Clergy, who took an oath of loyalty to the King, were caught in a dilemma: do you remain faithful to your ordination vows and support the King or side with the colonists who were part of the Revolution?
https://www.anglicanhistory.net/?p=153
The loyalists like Abercrombie obviously aren't going to be in leadership positions after the war. Bishop White, who supported the rebels, practically created American Episcopalianism. But yet, this is what he said of GW and communion:
"In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that General Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant ... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you."
Can you quote Abercrombie's "admission." Abercrombie may have have had an "axe to grind," but so what? That doesn't necessarily poison his well.""""
It's on p. 456 in sacred fire, where Lillback quotes Boller. Abercrombie was a fraud because he retracted his attack on GW being a deist. He felt guilty, probably couldn't sleep at night.
Abercrombie lied and his "well" is poisoned because after GW passed him over, he entered a new field of work. He changed his career path because of it.
He definitely had an axeto grind. Bishop white was a fraud too. Acting "low church" and supporting seabury at the same time, who wanted to enforce apostolic succession.
Lillback destroys your sides entire narrative.
LOL. You turn not only Abercrombie but Bishop White who practically created (or at least he led the project) American Episcopalianism into a fraud? Who is not a fraud? Bishop James Madison? That guy was so heterodox that Thomas Jefferson felt comfortable talking theology with him, talking up Priestley, Price and Freemasonry.
LOL. You turn not only Abercrombie but Bishop White who practically created (or at least he led the project) American Episcopalianism into a fraud? Who is not a fraud? Bishop James Madison? That guy was so heterodox that Thomas Jefferson felt comfortable talking theology with him, talking up Priestley, Price and Freemasonry""""
Where is the evidence that Bishop White led the formation of the Episcopalian church? GW and Jay were low church and allies of bishop Provost. I bet the evidence shows the high federalists knew the duplicity of bishop white.
We aren't talking about bishop Madison, even though you're probably right about him.
Abercrombie's label of GW is false.
No Rev. Abercrombie and Bishop White gave an honest eyewitness account of GW's systematic behavior in church.
As for Bishop White's leadership.
... What liturgical tradition would the new church use? How could the church use a prayer book that contained prayers for the King?
These questions were on the minds of soon-to-be-Episcopalians in the colonies.
A Pennsylvania rector, the Rev. William White, of Christ and St. Peter’s Churches in Philadelphia, stepped up and proposed several solutions including some thoughts on bishops, tradition, and how this new church should be governed. During that time a name for the new church was proposed as well.
The Rev. White was born in Pennsylvania in 1742 and ordained in London in 1770. He returned to Philadelphia in 1772 and served as the assistant at Christ Church and later became rector of both Christ Church and its sister church, St. Peter’s. While was sympathetic to the Revolution and served as chaplain to the Continental Congress (he would eventually become the United States Senate Chaplain).
In 1782 White wrote The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States Considered (available from here) where he addressed a number of issues. He began by acknowledging the spiritual connection with the COE but noted that the Revolutionary War dissolved any allegiance to it. White’s masterful argument for the development of an American church modeled on some features of the COE was based on very Anglican principles.
https://www.anglicanhistory.net/?p=153
Jonathan Rowe said...
No Rev. Abercrombie and Bishop White gave an honest eyewitness account of GW's systematic behavior in church."""
It was only an honest assessment at "their" church and Abercrombie lied. Even JM said GW was orthodox. His 1st inaugural draft proves it.
Did deists go to anglican churches here?
Wow. This was on that site. This proves he wasn't a calvinist.
"It is questionable also whether the sectarian Seminaries [Presbyterian]...his creed [articles of faith] however absurd or contrary to that of a more enlightened Age. According to such doctrines [Calvinism], the Great Reformation of Ecclesiastical abuses in
the 16th Century was itself the greatest of abuses."
JM to THOMAS JEFFERSON
Decr 31, 1824
That guy who said his face was grave was right. He was a bitter man.
Here's that quote;
"It is questionable also whether the sectarian Seminaries would not take side with William & Mary in combating the right of the Public to interfere in any manner with the property it holds. The perpetual inviolability of Charters, and of donations both Public & private, for pious & charitable uses, [214] seems to have been too deeply imprinted on the Public mind to be readily given up. But the time surely cannot be distant when it must be seen by all that what is granted by the Public Authority for the Public good, not for that of individuals, may be withdrawn and otherwise applied, when the Public good so requires; with an equitable saving or indemnity only in behalf of the individuals actually enjoying vested emoluments. Nor can it long be believed that Altho’ the owner of property cannot secure its descent but for a short period even to those who inherit his blood, he may entail it irrevocably and forever on those succeeding to his creed however absurd or contrary to that of a more enlightened Age. According to such doctrines, the Great Reformation of Ecclesiastical abuses in the 16thCentury was itself the greatest of abuses;"
Hutson says another letter refers to Presbyterian seminaries.
Well-written article, Jon, though I’m in the camp that accepts Washington’s profession of faith at face value. For all his faults (and he didn’t have that many), GW was a man of more or less unimpeachable integrity. He said what he meant and he meant what he said.
Post a Comment