“There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted, for the abolition of slavery. But there is only one proper way and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and this by legislative authority.”
2. To LAFAYETTE, May 10, 1786.
“To set the slaves afloat, at once would I believe be productive of much inconvenience and mischief; but, by degrees, it certainly might and assuredly ought to be effected, and that, too, by legislative authority.”
3. To JOHN FRANCIS MERCER, September 9, 1786.
“I never mean, unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it, to possess another slave by purchase, it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which Slavery, in this country may be abolished by law.”
4. To ALEXANDER SPOTSWOOD, November 23, 1794.
“With respect to the other species of property, concerning which you ask my opinion, I shall frankly declare to you that I do not like even to think, much less talk of it. However, as you have put the question, I shall, in a few words, give you my ideas of it. Were it not then, that I am principled against selling negroes, as you would do cattle at a market, I would not in twelve moths from this date, be possessed of one, as a slave. I shall be happily mistaken, if they are not found to be very troublesome species of property ere many years pass over our heads.”
5. To GEORGE LEWIS, November 13, 1797.
“The running off of my Cook, has been a most inconvenient thing to this family; and what renders it more disagreeable, is, that I had resolved never to become the Master of another Slave by purchase ; but this resolution I fear I must break. I have endeavoured to hire, black or white, but am not yet supplied.”
APPENDIX NINE
George Washington and the Anglican
Theology of Latitudinarianism
Our study of George Washington has sought to be accurate and scholarly, but also accessible. So we decided that our discussion of Washington’s place in the detailed theological movements of the Anglican tradition did not fit into the main story that we have sought to tell. Nevertheless, an accurate understanding of the theological current in which Washington found himself is a critical link in the argument to establish his Christianity and his non-deistic approach to religion. Accordingly, we’ve included this discussion as an appendix. The following comparison between the theological school of thought called Latitudinarianism and Washington’s writings will establish this point. This discussion, however, necessarily encompasses some theological jargon, and therefore, we must offer some historical and theological background.
A DEFINITION OF LATITUDINARIANISM
As we saw in an earlier chapter discussing Washington’s partaking of Christian Communion, Washington was willing to participate in the Eucharist outside of his own Anglican Communion. Washington’s personal willingness to commune with those of the Presbyterian tradition reflected his Low Church attitude. This was part of a stream of Anglican theology and practice that had come to be known as the “Latitudinarian” perspective.1 This movement received its name because it sought to give more theological room—latitude—to those who disagreed with the established church, such as the non-conformists who were often Presbyterians, Congregationalists or Independents. It sought to give more latitude in doctrinal controversy within the church as well. It attempted to soften the hostility against Roman Catholicism, without yielding on historic Christian Orthodoxy or basic Protestant theology. So as a result of this effort at a more gracious spirit of Christian community and theology, “a more Christian-like spirit,” to use one of Washington’s phrases,2 the Latitudinarians had the dishonor of being seen as heretics by the stalwarts of nearly every tradition. As a result, the word “Latitudinarian,” at first, became a word of contempt, or theological name-calling.
Martin I. J. Griffin Jr., church historian, explains:
From the beginning, the term “Latitudinarian,” or its occasional early variant “Latitude-Man,” denoted heterodoxy or religious laxity. One of the most common charges, often expressed, was that a “Latitude-Man . . . being of no religion himself, is indifferent what religion others should be of.” The Latitudinarians, it was said, took no trouble to profess any particular religion, because they considered all religions almost equally saving. Did they not outstrip “a very heathen” in preaching that “a good life will carry men to heaven, though they be Jews, Turks, Antichristians, or never such damnable heretics in point of faith”?3
This movement was accused of being Presbyterian,4 Calvinist,5 Socinian,6 Arminian,7 Pelagian,8 and Erastian.9 Some of these beliefs are mutually exclusive. This kind of misunderstanding is what happens when criticism is based only on impressions and not careful study. Griffin, continues,
Such were the common acceptations of the word “Latitudinarian” in the seventeenth century. Stripped of the confusing inessentials always attendant upon name-calling, the charges against the Latitudinarians can be reduced to three which reflect the main sources of contemporary alarm about their teachings. One was that they tried to make religions too “reasonable.” A second was that their doctrine of grace and their scheme of salvation were Pelagian. A third was that they were too permissive and lax in their opinions on Church government and liturgy. The basic theme of the accusations from the side of doctrinaire Calvinism was that the Latitudinarians gave too much to reason, not enough to revelation; too much to nature, not enough to grace. From High Church Anglicans and Roman Catholics came the charge that they were but Presbyterians in Anglican surplices, and that they gave insufficient importance to the doctrinal teaching authority of the Church.10 (emphasis ours)
Later, however, “Latitudinarian” was replaced by the word “Broad church”11 that has for many come to be synonymous with the “Low Church.”12 The theologian who identified most with this movement was Bishop Gilbert Burnet, the author of the study of the Thirty-Nine Articles that Washington had purchased in March 1766. It is important to remember that Washington had taken a vow to uphold the Thirty-Nine Articles, there is no evidence that he ever changed his mind. This is a strong argument in favor of his Christian Orthodoxy. Probably the best summary of the Thirty-Nine Articles’ distinctives, especially as it made itself known as a theological expression in Washington’s Virginia, comes again from Griffin:
The religious strife of seventeenth-century England elicited…their characteristic teachings, which included a rational theology, a minimalism in theology, a tendency to exalt moral theology over speculative theology, and an insistence upon moderation and mutual tolerance in matters of religion and worship that were inessential.13
But what makes this movement most interesting for our concerns here is that it was conscious of the Christian doctrines of salvation and was also intentionally anti-Deist. In terms of the doctrines of salvation, we find the following that almost sounds as if it were from Washington himself. Quoting Griffin again:
“…true philosophy can never hurt sound divinity….” As Glanvill said, the Latitudinarians held as “one of their main doctrines” that “the principles which are necessary for salvation are very few, and very plain, and generally acknowledged among Christians.” The Bible alone was a sufficient rule of faith, for in it the few fundamentals of religion were set forth, Fowler said, even to the meanest intelligence, “with such perspicuity and clearness, that nothing but men’s shutting their eyes against the light can keep them from discerning their true meaning.”14
And, important for our purposes, Latitudinarians were not Deists. They affirmed that salvation was revealed in the scriptures, the very thing that Deists denied: “it is sufficient for any man’s salvation, that he assent to the truth of the Holy Scriptures, that he carefully endeavor to understand their true meaning, so far as concerns his own duty, and to order his life accordingly.”15
For our concerns here, did such sympathy for religious tolerance, a historic commitment to Christian Orthodoxy, and a strong emphasis on morality coupled with a belief in salvation and in revelation fit Washington’s character? This, in fact, is Washington’s theology.
Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr. and Lila Freedman, the scholar who completed Griffin’s study for publication after his death, have summarized and characterized Latitudinarianism with the following traits:
(1) Orthodoxy in the historical sense of acceptance of the contents of the traditional Christian creeds;
(2) Conformity to the Church of England as by law established, with its Episcopal government, its Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer;
(3) An advocacy of ‘reason’ in religion;
(4) Theological minimalism;
(5) An Arminian scheme of justification;
(6) An emphasis on practical morality above creedal speculation and precision;
(7) A distinctive sermon style;
(8) Certain connections with seventeenth-century science and the Royal Society.”16
While (7) and (8) are only tangentially connected to non-clergyman, and a non-resident of England, the first six items are close approximations of what one finds in Washington’s thought. The implications of points (1) and (2) should not be ignored. Like other Latitudinarians, Washington affirmed the doctrines of the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus Christ, the atoning death and bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authority of the Bible. No Deist could affirm such doctrines.
WASHINGTON’S THEOLOGY FITS THE LATITUDINARIAN PARADIGM
Washington in many ways parallels the distinctives of Latitudinarianism. But with these strong similarities, there are some unique distinctives that Washington himself brings to the discussion. So although Latitudinarianism is usually Arminian in emphasis, Washington seems to have Calvinistic emphases in his thinking as well. For example, Washington places a strong emphasis on God’s decree in his statements on Providence. He also shows a deep affinity with the Calvinistic doctrine of sin since he openly and repeatedly emphasizes human depravity. On other occasions, he referred to the hoped for “millennial” era, thereby revealing a Puritan post-millennial vision, which also was a Calvinist view. Given Washington’s “few and simple” points of religion, he did not develop any evident Reformed distinctives of salvation and seems to have left these matters much more in the area of human choice, which is closer to the Arminian perspective. He also seems to have wanted to emphasize the moral principles of authentic Christianity as an expression of one’s salvation. Thus, human obedience and activity are emphasized rather than the free grace of God. But we must be quick to note that Washington’s writings do refer to divine grace. For such reasons it seems appropriate to see a “modified Arminian,” or “inconsistent Calvinist” label resting comfortably, if not precisely, on Washington’s theological expressions.
If we review the items we’ve summarized above about Latitudinarianism, we can assemble a list to which we can compare the distinctives of the Latitudinarians with representative statements by Washington. In so doing, we discover Washington’s affinity with the Latitudinarian, or Low Church perspective.
