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.”
