Article VI. Of The Sufficiency Of Holy Scriptures For Salvation.
In this article there are two important heads, and to each of them a proper consequence does belong. The first is, that the holy scriptures do contain all things necessary to salvation: the negative consequence that ariseth out of that is, that no article that is not either read in it, or that may not be proved by it, is to be required to be believed as an article of faith, or to be thought necessary to salvation....After the main foundations of religion in general, in the belief of a God, or more specially of the Christian religion in the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, are laid down; the next point to be settled is, what is the rule of this faith, where is it to be found, and with whom is it lodged?. . . We on the contrary affirm, that the scriptures are a complete rule of faith, and that the whole Christian religion is contained in them, and no where else.... (p. 79.)
17 WGW, vol. 37, 1-7-1773. To Reverend Jonathan Boucher. “From the best enquiries I could make whilst I was in, and about Williamsburg I cannot think William and Mary College a desirable place to send Jack Custis to; the Inattention of the Masters, added to the number of Hollidays, is the Subject of general complaint; and affords no pleasing prospect to a youth who has a good deal to attain, and but a short while to do it in.” WGW, vol. 36, 1-22-1798. To David Stuart.
Washington leaves this today, on a visit to Hope Park, which will afford you an opportunity to examine the progress he has made in the studies he was directed to pursue.
I can, and I believe do, keep him in his room a certain portion of the 24 hours, but it will be impossible for me to make him attend to his Books, if inclination, on his part, is wanting; nor while I am out, if he chuses to be so too, is it in my power to prevent it. I will not say this is the case, nor will I run the hazard of doing him injustice by saying he does not apply, as he ought, to what has been prescribed; but no risk will be run, and candour requires I declare it as my opinion, that he will not derive much benefit in any course which can be marked out for him at this place, without an able Preceptor always with him, nor then, for reasons, which do not require to be detailed.
What is best to be done with him, I know not. My opinion always has been that the University in Massachusetts would have been the most eligable Seminary to have sent him to, 1st, because it is on a larger Scale than any other; and 2nd, because I believe that the habits of the youth there, whether from the discipline of the School. or from the greater attention of the People, generally, to morals and a more regular course of life, are less prone to dissipation and debauchery than they are at the Colleges South of it. It may be asked, if this was my opinion, why did I not send him there? the answer is as short, as to me it was weighty; being the only male of his family and knowing (although it would have been submitted to) that it would have proved a heart rending stroke to have him at that distance. I was disposed to try a nearer Seminary, of good repute; which from some cause, or combinations of causes, has not, after the experiment of a year, been found to answer the end that was contemplated. Whether to send him there now, or indeed to any other public School, is at least problematical, and to suffer him to mispend his time at this place, will be disgraceful to himself and me.
The more I think of his entering at William and Mary, (unless he could be placed in the Bishop’s family) the more doubtful I am of its utility, on many accounts; which had better be the subject of oral communications than by letter. I shall wish to hear from you on the subject of this letter. On occasion of severe reprimand, I found it necessary to give Washington sometime ago, I received the enclosed from him. I have little doubt of his meaning well, but he has not resolution, or exertion enough to act well. (See also, WGW, vol. 36, 1-22-1798. To David Stuart.)
18 See Edwin S. Gaustad, A Documentary History of Religion In America to the Civil War, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 202-03.
19 Ibid, p. 203.
20 WGW, vol. 29, 2-20-1788. To Samuel Griffin.
21 To see how Washington’s life reflected the three primary missions of William and Mary’s founding charter, see the chapters: “Washington Vs. Deistic Ethics” for moral issues, “George Washington’s Family Life” for the importance of proper college education for young people, and “Washington’s Virginia and the Anglican Mission to the Indians” for missionary outreach. As to teaching the catechism and assenting to the Articles of the Christian faith, Washington had Anglican and Episcopal tutors for his children and he himself had signed the oath of subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles when he became a Vestryman.
22 “Washington was assigned to his old Committee, that of Propositions and Grievances ... Privileges and Elections, and later to the new Committee of Religion.....He served on the same three regular committees as in the previous House—Propositions and Grievances, Privileges and Elections, and Religion.” Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington: A Biography (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951) III.218, 237.
23 Inasmuch as Virginia had been most forward in support of Massachusetts, Adams was especially eager to meet the Virginia delegates, four of whom, Peyton Randolph, Benjamin Harrison, Richard Henry Lee, and Richard Bland, arrived in the afternoon of September 2. A little converse with them, and Adams declared, “These gentlemen from Virginia appear to be the most spirited and consistent of any. Harrison said he would have come on foot rather than not come. Bland said he would have gone, upon this occasion, if it had been to Jericho.” After a breakfast-table talk with Lee next morning, Adams set Lee down as “a masterly man.” Physically, Randolph was “a large, well looking man,” Lee “a tall, spare man,” Bland “a learned, bookish man.” Silas Deane drew a better portrait of Randolph: “Of an affable, open, and majestic deportment, large in size, though not out of proportion, he commands respect and esteem by his very aspect.” It was Deane who described Harrison as “an uncommonly large man... rather rough in his dress and speech”; but it was Adams who later characterized him as “an indolent, luxurious, heavy gentleman, of no use in Congress or committee, but a great embarrassment to both.” This, however, was when enthusiasms had cooled and the wires of purposes had become crossed. As the other Virginia delegates, Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry, and George Washington, did not arrive until Sunday, they failed to get their portraits hung in the Adams gallery at this time. It was Deane again, who a few days later supplied sketches of them. Pendleton was “of easy and cheerful countenance, polite in address, and elegant if not eloquent in style and elocution.” Henry was “the compleatest speaker” he had ever heard. (Congress had then had some “samples” of the celebrated Virginian’s oratory.) Colonel Washington was a tall man, of a “hard” countenance, “yet with a very young look, and an easy, soldier like air and gesture... speaks very modestly and in determined style and accent”. What particularly placed him high in the estimation of the New Englanders was the speech he was said to have made in the House of Burgesses, when he offered to raise and arm and lead one thousand men himself at his own expense for the defense of the country. “Edmund Cody Burnett, The Continental Congress, (New York: The MacMillian Company, 1941), p. 29-30.
24 Meade, Old Churches, I. p. 174. See also, Meade, II. p. 292-293.
25 Meade, Old Churches, II. P. 140.
26 For Richard Henry Lee, see Meade, Old Churches, I. p. 171, II. 140-142. For Edmund Pendleton, see Meade I. pp. 414-416. For the Randolphs see Meade I. p. 181-183, II. p. 292-293, For R. C. Nicholas, see Meade I. 184-185. For Colonel Bland, see Meade, I. 183. For Patrick Henry, see Meade II. p. 12.
27 Federer, America’s God and Country, p. 289.
28 Meade, Old Churches, I. p. 175, II. P. 293.
29 WGW, vol. 36, 1-22-1798. To David Stuart. “The more I think of his [George Washington Parke Custis] entering at William and Mary, (unless he could be placed in the Bishop’s family) the more doubtful I am of its utility, on many accounts; which had better be the subject of oral communications than by letter.”
30 Meade, Old Churches, I. 182-183.
31 Ibid, II. p. 292.
32 Ibid, I. 182.
33 Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington, p. 45.
34 Paul K. Longmore, The Invention of George Washington (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 92-93. “When the Assembly convened on 8 May 1769, Washington as usual received appointment to the powerful committees of Propositions and Grievances and of Privileges and Elections. A week later, he was put on the newly created standing Committee for Religion. This marked another significant step in his rise in the House. For the remainder of his membership, he would serve on these three standing committees. He was becoming an increasingly influential and prominent Burgess. Washington now stood in the second circle of power, just outside the central core of leadership.
“Signs of corruption alarmed Virginia’s leaders: Robinson scandal, the sensational Chiswell murder care, pervasive materialism among the gentry, a consequent massive increase in private debt, reputedly widespread immorality among the Anglican clergy, declining influence of the established church, and the rise of disruptive religious sects. The Committee for Religion was established to combat these ominous trends. It included leading members of the House: Colony Treasurer Robert Carter Nicholas (Chair), Attorney General John Randolph, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Edmund Pendleton, and George Washington.
“The committee worked to police the established church by regulating parish vestries. It drafted plans to block a proposed Anglican episcopate and keep the church under indigenous control. It sought to defuse the divisive question of religious dissent by preparing legislation that would extend toleration to Baptists. In short, its actions were part of the effort to restore communal unity and public virtue at a time when both seemed jeopardy. This task was essential as the province confronted the Crown. Virginia’s unified front from 1769 to 1775 suggests that the effort succeeded. It was not coincidence that the colony’s leaders created the Committee for Religion at the same time they fashioned means to resist the Townshend duties and other recent arbitrary measures.
The remonstrances of the Virginia Assembly in 1768 against the Townshend duties had angered Crown officials. They has sent a new governor, Lord Botetcourt, to enforce imperial policy vigorously. Unbeknownst to Virginians, he carried instructions either to persuade provincial leaders to stop their protests against parliamentary authority, or failing that, to dissolve the Assembly and call for new elections. Meanwhile, the House of Lords, probably at the instigation of Lord Hillsborough, invoked a statute from the reign of Henry VIII to threaten the leading militants in Massachusetts with transportation to England to face charges of treason.”
35 Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington, p. 151.
36 Ibid., p. 9.
37 Allan Nevins, The American States: During and After the Revolution 1775-1789, (New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, 1969), p. 435, n. 16.
38 WGW, vol. 28, 1-17-1785. To Samuel Chase. “As you expressed a desire to know what the Assembly of this State had done, or were about to do respecting an establishment for the teachers of religion, I do myself the honor to enclose you a copy of their proceedings in that matter.”
39 Allan Nevins, The American States, p. 434-435.
40 See Peter A. Lillback, Proclaim Liberty: A Broken Bell Proclaims Liberty To The World (Bryn Mawr: The Providence Forum, 2001), p. 88, n. 72. “It is sometimes inferred that Madison’s rejection of established religion was tantamount to a rejection of the Christian faith. While Madison was deeply opposed to Christianity’s use of force and persecution to advance its message, it is not true that he opposed Christianity per se. This is evident in his most famous treatise in the defense of non-governmental support of religion, ‘Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785.’ One of his arguments for not using public funds to support the teachers of religion in Virginia is that it would actually advance the growth of Christianity, a fact that history has thoroughly substantiated. Madison writes, ‘6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christina Religion itself. . . .12. Because the policy to the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.”
41 WGW, vol. 10-3-1785, To George Mason.
42 Ibid., vol. 30, 10-23-1789. To First Presbytery of the Eastward. “... you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country. To the guidance of the ministers of the gospel this important object is, perhaps, more properly committed. It will be your care to instruct the ignorant, and to reclaim the devious, and, in the progress of morality and science, to which our government will give every furtherance, we may confidently expect the advancement of true religion, and the completion of our happiness.”
43 Ibid., vol. 30, 10-23-1789.
44 Ibid., vol. 30, 10-23-1789. To First Presbytery of the Eastward.
45 Note in Ibid, on May 4, 1772.
46 Ibid., vol. 3, 5-4-1772. To Reverend Jonathan Boucher.
47 Ibid., vol. 3, 5-4-1772. To Reverend Jonathan Boucher.
48 Longmore, The Invention of George Washington, p. 93.
49 See Sawyer, Washington, I. 215.
50 Letter of Nelly Custis, Sparks, The Writings of George Washington, vol. XII, p.405-408.
51 “Samuel Seabury (1729—1796) was the first bishop of the Episcopal church in America. He had been an outspoken and active Tory before and during the Revolution, and his choice by the Episcopal clergy of Connecticut as their candidate for consecration caused much controversy among the American churchmen and laity. The fact that he was consecrated in Scotland rather than in England made some question the validity of his office, and he was a controversial figure until his death.” [a quote from where?]
52 Samuel Provoost (1742—1815) a native New Yorker, was the first Protestant Episcopal bishop of New York. Educated at Cambridge, he was ordained by the bishop of London in 1766. Upon his return to America, he served as assistant minister at Trinity Church in New York City, but his Whig sympathies so incensed the Loyalist members of the parish that he was forced to resign in 1771. After the evacuation of New York by the British, the vestry invited him to return as rector. In 1786 he was elected bishop of New York and was consecrated in England in the chapel of Lambeth Palace in Feb. 1787. In addition he still acted as rector of Trinity Church and was chaplain of the Senate.
53 William White (1748—1836), a native of Philadelphia, was the assistant minister and then, during the Revolution, the successor to Jacob Duché as minister for Christ and St. Peter’s Anglican churches in Philadelphia. White had recently returned from England, where earlier this year he had been consecrated an Anglican bishop, thus becoming empowered to consecrate deacons for the newly formed Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, which he was instrumental in organizing following the Revolution. White’s sister Mary was the wife of George Washington’s Philadelphia host, Robert Morris.
54 See Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, paragraph 82.
55 See justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1786/BCP; David Griffiths’, Bibliography of the Book of Common Prayer; Paul Marshall, Prayer Book Parallels; William McGarvey Liturgiæ Americanæ (1907).
56 “A FORM OF PRAYER AND THANKSGIVING TO ALMIGHTY GOD, For the inestimable Blessings of Religious and Civil Liberty; to be used yearly Fourth Day of July, unless it happen to be on Sunday, and then on following. The Service shall be as usual, except where it is hereby otherwise appointed. Among the Sentences at Morning Prayer shall be the following:
THe Eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting Arms. Deut. 33. 27. Israel then shall dwell in safety alone: The fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of corn and wine: also his heavens shall drop down dew. Verse 28. Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people favoured by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy Excellency. Verse 29. The Lord hath been mindful of us, and he shall bless us; he shall bless them that fear him, both small and great. Psalm 115. 12, 13. O that men would therefore praise the Lord for his goodness, and declare the wonders that he doeth for the children of men. Psalm 107.21. Instead of “O come let us sing, &c.,” the following Hymn shall be said or sung.
