2 J. I. Good, History of the German Reformed Church in the United States, 1725-1792 (Reading, Pennsylvania, 1899), pp. 616-617. WGW, vol. 33, 9-30-1793, note: “The house occupied by Washington in Germantown is stated by W. S. Baker to have been owned by Col. Isaac Franks. It was on Germantown Avenue, about 6 miles northwest of Independence Hall, in Philadelphia. Reverend J. B. Stoudt states that the President occupied the first floor of Reverend Lebrecht Herman’s parsonage as an office.”
3 WGW, vol. 32, 7-3-1792. To Governor Henry Lee. “Dear Sir: Your letter of the 20th. Ulto.?? was presented to me yesterday by Mr. Williams, [William J. Williams] who, as a professional man, may, or may not be, a luminary of the first magnitude for aught I know to the contrary. But to be frank, and I hope you will not be displeased with me for being so, I am so heartily tired of the attendance which, from one cause or another, I have bestowed on these kind of people, that it is now more than two years since I have resolved to sit no more for any of them; and have adhered to it; except in instances where it has been requested by public bodies, or for a particular purpose (not of the Painters) and could not, without offence, be refused. [WGW note: The portrait was not executed until September, 1794, in Philadelphia. Having been refused a sitting at the above time, Williams offered the Masonic Lodge No. 22 of Alexandria the finished work, if the lodge would request him to make a portrait. The lodge approved this idea Aug. 29, 1793. The resultant portrait was executed in pastel, and is now in the possession of the lodge.] I have been led to make this resolution for another reason besides the irksomeness of sitting, and the time I loose by it, which is, that these productions have, in my estimation, been made use of as a sort of tax upon individuals, by being engraved, and that badly, and hawked, or advertised for Sale. With very great Esteem and regard I am &c.”
4 Jackson, Twohig, Diaries of George Washington (Monday October, 10, 1785)
5 Washington had in his library another anonymous work by Reverend Samuel Seabury: Free Thoughts, on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress, held at Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 1774; wherein their Errors are exhibited, their Reasonings confuted, and the fatal Tendency of their Non-Importation, Non-Exportation, and Non-Consumption Measures, are laid open to the plainest Understandings; and the only Means pointed out for preserving and securing our present happy Constitution: in a Letter to the Farmers, and other Inhabitants of North America in general, and to those of the Province of New-York in particular. By a Farmer. Lane in A Catalogue of the Washington Collection, pp. 177-78 writes, “Prior to this, the colonial interests had been discussed in two pamphlets printed without the name of author or publisher, and one of them, entitled, ‘Free thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress’ was signed ‘A. W. Farmer,’ and attributed at the time and since to Isaac Wilkins, then an influential member of the loyal Provincial Assembly of New York, and an intimate friend of the rector of the church in Westchester.... A bitter feeling was excited towards the unknown author of these pamphlets, which were extensively and gratuitously circulated among the people of New York and other provinces. Vengeance was denounced upon him, and failing to find him, copies of the pamphlets were gathered and brunt, and in some instances they were tarred, feathered, and nailed to the whipping-post, as an indication of the treatment which their author would receive if he were detected.... But who was the spirited writer that signed himself ‘A. W. Farmer’? Seabury at an earlier day, had entered into a compact with his clerical friends, Dr. Chandler of New Jersey, and Dr. Inglis, rector of Trinity Church, New York, to watch and confute all publications in pamphlets or newspapers that threatened mischief to the Church of England and the British government in America. Out of this compact undoubtedly sprung ‘Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Congress at Philadelphia,’ which was from his pen, as were the other publications that immediately followed on the same side of the question.” Beardsley. Life and Correspondence of Samuel Seabury, D.D. the task of defending the cause of the colonies against the attacks of “A.W. Farmer” was confided to Alexander Hamilton, then a youth of eighteen, about to close his studies at King’s College.”
6 Notes from A Revolution That Led To A Church by F. Lee Richards (Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1990). “The break with England seriously impacted the Anglican Church. The revolution caused the loss of half the clergy, meaning many rural churches had to close.
With peace in 1783, a process to rebuild the Church began, which reached its climax in 1789. Journal of the Proceedings of the Bishops, Clergy and Laity, of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America in a Convention held in the City of Philadelphia, from Tuesday, September 29th to Friday, October 16th, 1789 Printed in Philadelphia: by Hall and Sellers in 1790.
7 From note in Diaries of Washington. “John Lowe (1750—1798), a minor Scottish poet, was born in the Galloway district of Scotland and educated at the University of Edinburgh. He came to Virginia in 1772 and became a tutor in the family of John Augustine Washington. He later ran an academy in Fredericksburg attended by Fielding Lewis’s children. After his ordination at St. George’s Church, Hempstead, Long Island, he became minister at Hanover Parish in King George County, Va.”
8 WGW, vol. 32, 10-20-1792. To Dr. William Davies Shipley.
9 Ibid., vol. 37, last Will and testament.
10 This occurred in Scotland by “non-juror” bishops. To be a “non-juror,” as we have already noted, meant that such a bishop was one who had not taken an oath of loyalty to William and Mary, the Protestant monarchs of the House of Orange. who ascended to the English throne in 1688. concluding the “Glorious Revolution.” What were the principles of the non-jurors? Thomas Lathbury, A History of the Nonjurors: Their Controversies and Writings; With Remarks on Some of the Rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer (London: William Pickering, 1845), pp. 419-20, says, “As William supported Presbytery in Scotland, because the Episcopalians refused to recognize him as their Sovereign, the Presbyterians have no room for boasting that their system was adopted in preference to Episcopacy. It certainly was not chosen on account of its purity, as they choose to imagine or to assert, but because King William found them more ready to render him their support, than the Bishops and Clergy. Whether the refusal of the latter was a blot upon their memory, posterity will decide. At all events, they were honest in their course, for it led to the loss of all their worldly goods. The bishop of Edinburgh’s reply was frank and open. He had not expected any such Revolution, and he had the courage to say so. Perceiving that the Bishops and Clergy would not support him, the King threw himself into the arms of the Presbyterians.” He adds on pp. 423-24, “All the Clergy, who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to the new Sovereigns, were removed from their Parishes; and “from their refusal, they soon acquired the appellation of Nonjurors.”. . . Such Episcopal Clergymen as took the Oath of Allegiance, and acknowledged Presbytery as the only legal establishment, were allowed by the State to retain their churches, and also to be admitted, with the Presbyterian clergy, to a share in the Ecclesiastical government. To assent to Presbytery, as established by law, did not involve any opinion respecting its Scriptural or primitive character, which no Episcopalian could possibly admit. Besides, as no form of Prayer was imposed by the Presbyterians, the Clergy could proceed in the management of public worship, nearly in the same manner as previous to the Revolution. Accordingly a considerable number of the Episcopal Clergy complied, and continued in their respective Parishes.”
11 Search P.G.W. on line under John C. Ogden. None of his letters were personally answered by Washington and several were not answered.
12 See chapter 2 “Deism Defined: Shades of Meaning, Shading the Truth”
13 See chapter 11 “The Sacred Fire of Liberty”
14 Reverend Ogden wrote to Washington 7 times. George Washington’s Secretary Tobias Lear responded to one on behalf of Washington. The rest were left unaddressed. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-in/query/P?mgw:14:./temp/~ammem_3u3s::
15 First, there was the Protestant-Catholic sensitivities. Seabury had been ordained by the Protestant Bishops who had been most sympathetic to the Roman Catholic heir to the British throne. Second, Seabury’s ordination amounted to a new connection with post-wWar England, establishing the American Episcopate, which Virginia and Washington and the Committee on Religion had resisted. Third, Bishop Seabury’s ordination by the non-jurors appeared to sever a direct connection with Anglican ordination, which was not consistent with the methodical approach of George Washington. If there was eventually going to be a Bishop in America, Anglicans, including Washington, knew that the genius of the Anglican Church’s authenticity required that they take the necessary steps to assure the appropriate connection with the British bishops. Fourth, it put an Anglican bishop in New England, which meant that episcopacy would soon be moving south to Virginia. And there were even more disquieting issues at work for Washington and fellow low churchmen caused by the ordination of Bishop Seabury.
16 The early mid 1800’s saw a renewed emphasis upon the Episcopalian doctrine of apostolic succession. Some representative works include: John Henry Hopkins, The Primitive Church, Compared with The Protestant Episcopal Church of the Present Day: Being an Examination of the Ordinary Objections against the Church, in doctrine, worship, and government, designed for popular use; with a dissertation on sundry points of theology and practice, connected with the subject of episcopacy, etc. (Burlington: Vernon Harrington:, 1836); Reverend Wm. Ingraham Kip, The Double Witness of the Church, (New York: D. Appleton & Co, 1843); Reverend A. P. Perceval, An Apology For the Doctrine Of Apostolic Succession: With An Appendix On The English Orders (New York: Protestant Episcopal Tract Society, 1839); W. D. Snodgrass, Discourses on the Apostolical Succession (Troy, N.Y.: Stedman & Redfield, 1844).
17 In an anonymously published treatise by Bishop Seabury that Washington had in his library, we find his theological application of apostolic succession to the Presbyterian and Independent Churches that surrounded him in New England: An Address to the Ministers and Congregations of the Presbyterian and Independent Persuasions in the United States of America. By a Member of the Episcopal Church [by Samuel Seabury], pp. 40-41, 49, 51.
The Presbyterians and Independents departed from the church, making a schism in it. It is therefore reasonable they should make the first advances towards a reunion. I know not how this reason can be evaded but on two grounds: one is justifying the schism ; the other is, the at the local situation of both parties in this country takes away the imputation of schism. .... I conclude again, that those presbyters who separated from the church of England did not, and could not bring off with them the apostolical power of ordination, because they never had received it. Their separation made them schismatics, but gave them no new ecclesiastical powers. ... “Do you then,” you will ask, “unchurch us all? Have our congregations no authorized ministers? No valid sacraments?” I answer, I unchurch nobody. If you were true churches before I wrote, you are so still. If you were not, all the bustle you can make will do you no good. Quietness and patience will be the best palliation for your disease—a radical cure can only be effected by your return to the church from which you departed. You ask, “have we no authorized ministers? No valid sacraments?” To these questions, I fear, I shall return disagreeable answers. You have ministers of the people, I confess; and if I may be allowed to make a supposition (and I have made a good many without any leave at all) I must suppose that such as your ministry is, such are your sacraments. These, in short, are matters that neither concern me, nor my argument, any farther than as they influence my benevolence in your behalf. To be a member of the true church of Christ is a matter of important concern to every body. I have pointed out this true church to you; into it you can enter; and in it you will have, in your own judgment, an authorized ministry, and valid sacraments. I hope you will avail yourselves of this information and then, and not till then, all your doubts and misgiving will be at an end.
18 As the American Episcopalian Church took hold, several defenses of its doctrine of apostolic succession appeared. Here is a representative list from the 1830-40’s: John Henry Hopkins, The Primitive Church, Compared with The Protestant Episcopal Church of the Present Day: Being an Examination of the Ordinary Objections against the Church, in doctrine, worship, and government, designed for popular use; with a dissertation on sundry points of theology and practice, connected with the subject of episcopacy, etc. (Burlington: Vernon Harrington:, 1836); Reverend Wm. Ingraham Kip, The Double Witness of the Church, (New York: D. Appleton & Co, 1843); Reverend A. P. Perceval, An Apology For the Doctrine Of Apostolic Succession: With An Appendix On The English Orders (New York: Protestant Episcopal Tract Society, 1839); W. D. Snodgrass, Discourses on the Apostolical Succession (Troy, N.Y.: Stedman & Redfield, 1844).
19 Reverend Mason Gallagher,. A Chapter of Unwritten History. The Protestant Episcopacy of the Revolutionary Patriots Lost and Restored. A Centennial Offering. Philadelphia: Reformed Episcopal Rooms, 1883.
20 Ibid., Preface. But compare here, Lathworthy’s description of the latitudinarianism of Tillotson and Burnet, p. 156: “That many of the clergy of the Revolution [i.e., the British Glorious Revolution] were latitudinarian in their opinions, is, as we have seen, admitted by Mr. Hallam, than whom a more unexceptionable witness could not be adduced. This charge is strongly urged by Hickes against Burnet. In his sermon, Burnet had said, that Tillotson left men to use their own discretion in small matters. Hickes, commenting on this assertion, states, that the Archbishop was accustomed to administer the Lord’s Supper to some persons sitting, and that especially a certain lady of Dr. Owen’s congregation was so accustomed to receive it in the chapel of Lincoln’s Inn: that he walked around the chapel, administering the elements first to those who were seated in their pews, and then to those who were kneeling at the rails, not, however, going within himself, but standing without. This was a direct breach of the order of the Church, and may be regarded as an evidence of the extent of latitudinarian practices.” It seems that Tillotson did not stand alone in this particular: For Hickes asserts, that the Bishop of St. Asaph adopted the same practice, at Kidder’s church, in administering the Lord’s Supper to Dr. Bates, and other nonconformists. When we contemplate such proceedings of the part of men high in station in the Church, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the latitudinarian principles which prevailed to a considerable extent after the Revolution, did really place the Church in some danger. By the good providence of God, however, the Clergy in general were actuated by purer notions: and within a few years the danger was averted.
21 WGW, vol. 29, 8-15-1787. To Marquis de Lafayette.
22 Reverend Mason Gallagher, A Chapter of Unwritten History. The Protestant Episcopacy of the Revolutionary Patriots Lost and Restored. A Centennial Offering, (Philadelphia: Reformed Episcopal Rooms, 1883), Preface.
23 Ibid.
24 WGW, vol. 35, 3-2-1797.
25 We discussed this incident in the Chapter “Shadow or Substance?”
26 The theological system behind the Low Church was developed especially by English Bishop Gilbert Burnet. To see how Washington’s theology comports with the Latitudinarian system, please see the appendix entitled “George Washington and Latitudinarianism.”
27 In 1793, he solicited, under the most respectable patronage, the office of Treasurer of the Mint; but General Washington, in consequence of a resolution, which he had formed not to appoint two persons from the same State as officers in any one department, felt obliged to deny the application. He subsequently took an office in the Bank of the United States, but found it so totally uncongenial with his taste, that he resigned it, after the labour of a single day... When he [Abercrombie] communicated his wish to the Bishop and some Clergy, they warmly seconded it; and he was according examined, and ordained Deacon in St. Peter’s Church, Philadelphia, December 29, 1793. His preference was for a country parish; but his many friends in the city chose to detain him there, and in compliance with their wishes, he became Assistance Minister of Christ Church and St. Peter’s in June, 1794. On the 28th of December following, he received Priest’s Orders from Bishop White. In 1797, he was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society.
William B. Sprague, D.D. Annals of the American Pulpit (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1861) p. 50
28 Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 17-18.
29 See appendix entitled “George Washington and the Anglican Theology Latitudinarianism.”
30 But compare here, Lathworthy’s description of the latitudinarianism of Tillotson and Burnet, p. 156: “That many of the clergy of the Revolution [i.e., the British Glorious Revolution] were latitudinarian in their opinions, is, as we have seen, admitted by Mr. Hallam, than whom a more unexceptionable witness could not be adduced. This charge is strongly urged by Hickes against Burnet. In his sermon, Burnet had said, that Tillotson left men to use their own discretion in small matters. Hickes, commenting on this assertion, states, that the Archbishop was accustomed to administer the Lord’s Supper to some persons sitting, and that especially a certain lady of Dr. Owen’s congregation was so accustomed to receive it in the chapel of Lincoln’s Inn: that he walked around the chapel, administering the elements first to those who were seated in their pews, and then to those who were kneeling at the rails, not, however, going within himself, but standing without. This was a direct breach of the order of the Church, and may be regarded as an evidence of the extent of latitudinarian practices. It seems that Tillotson did not stand alone in this particular: For Hickes asserts, that the Bishop of St. Asaph adopted the same practice, at Kidder’s church, in administering the Lord’s Supper to Dr. Bates, and other nonconformists. When we contemplate such proceedings of the part of men high in station in the Church, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the latitudinarian principles which prevailed to a considerable extent after the Revolution, did really place the Church in some danger. By the good providence of God, however, the Clergy in general were actuated by purer notions: and within a few years the danger was averted.”
31 See footnote 10 of this chapter.
32 This summary is based on, “A Revolution That Created A Church.”
33 Normally, except for the consecration of Samuel Seabury by the Scottish non-juror bishops.
34 Jackson, Twohig, Diaries of George Washington, June 17, 1787. p. 224.
35 April 1790 Sunday 11th. Went to Trinity Church in the forenoon and [wrote] several private letters in the afternoon Jackson, Twohig, Diaries of George Washington, 4-11-1790, p. 114
“Thursday 15th. Returned the above Act (presented to me on Tuesday) to the House of Representatives in Congress in which it originated with my approbation & signature. The following Company dined here to day—viz— The Vice President & Lady, the Chief Justice of the United States & Lady, Mr. Izard & Lady, Mr. Dalton and Lady, Bishop Provost & Lady, Judge Griffin & Lady Christina, Colo. Griffin & Lady, Colo. Smith & Lady, The Secretary of State, Mr. Langdon Mr. King, & Major Butler. Mrs. King was invited but was indisposed.” Diaries, 4-15-1790, p.115..
36 Washington’s words concerning Christian charity to clergy was not only given to the Episcopalians. He also wrote to the Presbyterians about the conduct that demonstrates that men are “true Christians.”
WGW, vol. 30, 5-26-1786. Note to the General Assembly of Presbyterian Churches in the U.S. New York, May 26, 1789.
“On May 26 the general assembly of Presbyterian churches in the United States, meeting in Philadelphia, sent an address to Washington. His answer, which is undated in the “Letter Book,” follows immediately after the copy of the address. In it he wrote in part:
“While I reiterate the professions of my dependence upon Heaven as the source of all public and private blessings; I will observe that the general prevalence of piety, philanthropy, honesty, industry, and oeconomy seems, in the ordinary course of human affairs, particularly necessary for advancing and confirming the happiness of our country. While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally to be expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sanctity of their professions by the innocence of their lives and the beneficence of their actions; for no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.
“I desire you to accept my acknowledgments for your laudable endeavours to render men sober, honest, and good Citizens, and the obedient subjects of a lawful government.”
WGW, vol. 3, 9-14-1775, To COLONEL BENEDICT ARNOLD, “I also give it in Charge to you to avoid all Disrespect to or Contempt of the Religion of the Country and its Ceremonies. Prudence, Policy, and a true Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with Compassion upon their Errors without insulting them. While we are contending for our own Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to him only in this Case, they are answerable. Upon the whole, Sir, I beg you to inculcate upon the Officers and Soldiers, the Necessity of preserving the strictest Order during their March through Canada; to represent to them the Shame, Disgrace and Ruin to themselves and Country, if they should by their Conduct, turn the Hearts of our Brethren in Canada against us. And on the other Hand, the Honours and Rewards which await them, if by their Prudence and good Behaviour, they conciliate the Affections of the Canadians and Indians, to the great Interests of America, and convert those favorable Dispositions they have shewn into a lasting Union and Affection. Thus wishing you and the Officers and Soldiers under your Command, all Honour, Safety and Success.”
Ibid., vol., 35, 3-3-1797. To THE CLERGY OF DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS RESIDING IN AND NEAR THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, “Believing, as I do, that Religion and Morality are the essential pillars of Civil society, I view, with unspeakable pleasure, that harmony and brotherly love which characterizes the Clergy of different denominations, as well in this, as in other parts of the United States; exhibiting to the world a new and interesting spectacle, at once the pride of our Country and the surest basis of universal Harmony.
“That your labours for the good of Mankind may be crowned with success; that your temporal enjoyments may be commensurate with your merits; and that the future reward of good and faithful Servants may be your’s, I shall not cease to supplicate the Divine Author of life and felicity.”
His words concerning Roman Catholics
United States, March 15, 1790.
Note: From the “Letter Book” copy in the Washington Papers.
“...may the members of your Society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.”
