USA250: Anglican unity and accord after the Revolutionary War

On Friday 2nd February 1787, Dr. William White and Dr. Samuel Provoost, citizens of the United States and ministers of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, were introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Moore, to King George III. William White presented a "preconceived address" to the King:

we were happy in the opportunity of thanking his majesty, for his license granted to his grace the archbishop, to convey the Episcopal succession to the Church in America.

The King responded:

His grace has given me such an account of the gentlemen who have come over, that I am glad of the present opportunity of serving the interests of religion.

It was a quite remarkable meeting, related in White's Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (1820). White and Provoost had both been Patriots during the Revolutionary War. Now, by the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and welcomed by George III, they were, two days later, to be consecrated to the episcopal office by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and bishops of the Church of England. A sign of the spirit of reconciliation which animated the entire proceedings had been given when the Bishop of Durham, John Egerton, "commended the moderation manifested in our service for the fourth of July" - the service included in the 1785 revision of the Prayer Book by the General Convention, giving thanks for American independence and liberties. White says of Egerton's comment:

This was gratifying; as it had been pronounced by some on our side of the Atlantic, that the said service would of itself be sufficient to induce a rejection of the application of the American Church.

It is a revealing statement. If the American War had been understood by the Church of England as a crusade in defence of 'Church and King' it is unimaginable that Egerton, a senior Bishop of the Church of England, would have described the Fourth of July service as characterised by "moderation". The fact that he did indicates how the American War was not understood to be a defence of 'Church and King' by the bishops Church of England - or its Supreme Governor.

The entire process by which the Protestant Episcopal Churches in the various independent American States came to receive the episcopate in the historic succession through the Church of England was itself testament to how neither Protestant Episcopalians as citizens of the United States or those of the Church of England as subjects of King George III viewed the American War as an ideological conflict, much less - as JCD Clark has suggested - a 'war of religion'. This is indicated in the Address of the 1785 General Convention to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the bishops of the Church of England:

When it pleased the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, that this part of the British empire should be free, sovereign and independent, it became the most important concern of the members of our communion to provide for its continuance: And while, in accomplishing of this, they kept in view that wise and liberal part of the system of the Church of England, which excludes as well the claiming as the acknowledging of such spiritual subjection as may be inconsistent with the civil duties of her children, it was nevertheless their earnest desire and resolution to retain the venerable form of Episcopal Government, handed down to them, as they conceived, from the time of the Apostles; and endeared to them by the remembrance of the holy Bishops of the primitive Church, of the blessed Martyrs who reformed the doctrine and worship of the Church of England, and of the many great and pious Prelates who have adorned that Church in every succeeding age.

The Address went on to declare that the Protestant Episcopal Churches of the independent States "profess[ed] the same religious principles with the Church of England". Note how the Address interprets the Revolutionary War as a civil conflict for political and national independence. As indicated in yesterday's post, this was also how the Church of England viewed the conflict at its conclusion. Indeed, in the midst of the conflict, as Gibson notes in his The Church of England 1688-1832: Unity and Accord (2001), Richard Hurd, Bishop of Worcester, in a 1778 sermon to the SPG, referred to the Revolutionary War as "unfortunate civil disputes". 

In February 1786 - a mere two and half years after the signing of the Treaty of Paris - the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, with bishops of the Church of England, responded to the Address of the General Convention:

We are now enabled to assure you, that nothing is nearer to our hearts than the wish to promote your spiritual welfare, to be instrumental in procuring for you the complete exercise of our holy religion, and the enjoyment of that ecclesiastical constitution, which we believe to be truly apostolical, and for which you express so unreserved a veneration. We are therefore happy to be informed that this pious design is not likely to receive any discountenance from the civil powers under which you live.

If the Church of England had a theological and ideological 'Throne and Altar' commitment, regarding the American Revolution as a rejection of that order, it is very difficult to imagine why it would have responded so warmly and quickly to the request from the Protestant Episcopal Churches in the American States for episcopal consecrations. As the reply from the Archbishops and Bishops demonstrated, they were also very willing both to accept the consent of the civil authorities in the respective American States and to ensure that Parliament acted to provide legal authority for the consecration of bishops without the requirement of the oath of loyalty to the King:

We are therefore happy to be informed that this pious design is not likely to receive any discountenance from the civil powers under which you live: and we desire you to be persuaded, that we, on our parts, will use our best endeavours,  which we have good reason to hope will bet successful, to acquire a legal capacity of complying with the prayer of your address.

The passage of the Consecration of Bishops Abroad Act 1786 not only provided the legal basis for the consecration of White and Provoost on 4th February 1787. It is also had theological significance: it was an explicit declaration that the Church of England's loyalty to the Crown and the British constitutional order, and its place in that order, was not to be understood in 'Throne and Altar' terms. As Burke would shortly declare, such views were those of "old fanatics of single arbitrary power" who "dogmatized as if hereditary royalty was the only lawful government in the world" - whereas the Settlement of 1688 was defined by "civil or political right", with the establishment of the Church of England being a parliamentary settlement. Any notion that the establishment of the Church of England was somehow beyond the authority of Parliament, Burke had stated in 1772, "certainly would put it far above the State, and erect it into that species of independency which it has been the great principle of our policy to prevent". 

The Consecration of Bishops Abroad Act 1786, therefore, pointed to the civil nature of the Church of England's place in the British constitutional order: not 'Throne and Altar' but 'by law established'.

What may, however, appear to support the contention that the Revolutionary War and its consequences had a 'war of religion' dimension is the one ground for caution given by the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England regarding the request from the Protestant Episcopal Churches in the American States. This regarded the General Conventions proposed revisions for the Book of Common Prayer. As the archbishops and bishops stated in their February 1786 reply:

we cannot help being afraid, that, in the proceedings of your Convention, some alterations may have been adopted or intended, which those difficulties [i.e. the new political context which made the BCP's state prayers improper] do not seem to justify. Those alterations are not mentioned in your address, and, as our knowledge of them is no more than what has reached us through private and less certain channels, we hope you will think it just, both to you and to ourselves, if we wait for an explanation.

Those private channels included Loyalist clergy in England who were indicating that significant doctrinal change was intended by the General Convention. When the 1785 revisions were communicated to the archbishops and bishops, their fears were realised:

it was impossible not to observe, with concern, that if the essential doctrines of our common faith were retained, less respect however was paid to our Liturgy than its own excellence, and your declared attachment to it, had led us to expect: not to mention a variety of verbal alterations, of the necessity or propriety of which we are by no means satisfied, we saw with grief, that two of the confessions of our Christian Faith, respectable for their antiquity, have been entirely laid aside; and that even in that which is called the Apostles' Creed an article is omitted, which was thought necessary to be inserted, with a view to a particular heresy, in a very early age of the Church, and has ever since had the venerable sanction of universal reception.

Perhaps this supports Clark's depiction in The Language of Liberty (1994) of the "Latitudinarian ... quasi-Presbyterian" character of the colonial Anglicans who supported the Patriot cause, marked by "open heterodoxy". Against this, he contends, were "High Church" clergy supporting the Loyalist allegiance. After the Revolutionary War, the Patriot victory helped to defined the emerging Protestant Episcopalian Churches in the American States. Without an "orthodox bloc", the General Convention proposed "fundamental changes" to Anglican faith and order:

set up an almost Presbyterian system of church polity, giving substantial power to the laity ... it proposed a whole series of doctrinal changes [to the Prayer Book] ... These proposed changes give a unique insight into the mentality of the Anglican Low Churchmen in the central and southern colonies on whose supported the Revolution had depended.

What makes this interpretation rather fantastical is, of course, the event that occurred on 4th February 1787: the episcopal consecration of White and Provoost by Church of England archbishops and bishops. It is indeed the case that the English archbishops and bishops expressed concern about the General Convention's 1785 revision omitting the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. What they proposed instead, however, was distinctly modest:

we hope you will think it but decent proof of the attachment which you profess to the services of our Liturgy, to give to the other two creeds a place in your Book of Common Prayer, even though the use of them should be left discretional.

This was, to say the least, hardly a robust expression of High Church orthodoxy. The Church of England's archbishops and bishops were content to proceed with American episcopal consecrations if the use of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds was "discretional". This reflected how White himself had originally hoped that there would be a "discretionary power in the minister to use occasionally the Athanasian Creed".

In addition to this, they requested the restoration of the descent into hell clause in the Apostles' Creed, "in the sense in which it is understood by our church". This was a significant qualification, as it sought to answer concerns about the clause. The meaning of the 'he descended into hell', therefore, was the minimalist understanding as expounded by, for example, Jeremy Taylor:

He went down into the lower parts of the earth, or (as himself called it) into the heart of the earth; by which phrase the Scripture understands the state of separation, or of souls severed from their bodies.

From the English side, therefore, it is very difficult to see grounds for Clark's reading of a clash of High Church orthodoxy and Low Church heterodoxy. What is more, the proceedings of the 1786 General Convention undermine the notion of the Protestant Episcopal Churches in the American States being captives to latitudinarian heterodoxy. The descent into hell clause was restored to the Apostles' Creed by a significant majority. Restoring the Nicene Creed to the liturgy was unanimously agreed - as White noted, this happened "without debate or difficulty".

As for the Athanasian Creed, the General Convention refused to restore it to the Prayer Book, reflecting a long tradition of caution about this Creed within the Church of England. This proved to be no obstacle to proceeding with the episcopal consecrations. White records how a conversation between Provoost and the Archbishop of Canterbury in the days before the consecration indicated why the decision against restoring the Athanasian Creed was not a stumbling block:

The author will here record his opinion, afterward formed in England. It is, that the inclination of the archbishops on that head was, not to give any trouble, but only to avoid any act or omission, which might have been an implicating of themselves and of their Church. His reason is, that in one of the conversations of Bishop Provoost and himself with the archbishop of Canterbury, he brought this matter forwards; evidently intending to say as much of it as he did, and no more; and not wishing a discussion of the point. What he said, was to this effect: "Some wish that you had retained the Athanasian Creed: but I cannot say that I am uneasy on the subject; for you have retained the doctrine of it in your liturgy; and as to the creed itself, I suppose you thought it not suited to the use of a congregation." Then, without waiting to hear whether this were the reason or not, he passed to another subject; and never introduced that of the Athanasian Creed again.

What emerges from consideration of how both the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England, on the one hand, and the General Convention, on the other, addressed the issues around the 1785 revisions is not a picture of theological conflict between 'High Church orthodoxy' and 'Low Church heterodoxy', but, rather, a 'unity and accord' which quite easily negotiated different contexts and emphasises without attributing to them any sense of confessional or ideological differences.  

And so, on Sunday 4th February 1787, in the chapel of Lambeth Palace, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, with the Bishops of Bath & Wells and Peterborough, consecrated two American citizens, who had supported the Patriot cause during the American War, to the episcopate. It was, White notes, a small congregation, which was not unusual for 18th century episcopal consecrations. Among them was a guest who White had especially invited - his "old friend", Jacob Duché:

I had asked the archbishop's leave to introduce him; and it was a great satisfaction to me that he was there; the recollection of the benefit which I had received from his instructions in early life, and a tender sense of the attentions which he had shown me almost from my infancy, together with the impressions left by the harmony which had subsisted between us in the discharge of our joint pastoral duty in Philadelphia, being no improper accompaniments to the feelings suited to the present very interesting transaction of my life. 

Not mentioned by White but known - indeed, notorious - to his American readers was that Duché, formerly a Patriot, had, in 1777, become a Loyalist. Living in England, amongst other Loyalists, he now attended the episcopal consecration of his Patriot friend. It is difficult to imagine a more fitting illustration of how the Revolutionary War was, for the Church of England and for the Protestant Episcopal Churches in the American States, neither an ideological crusade nor a war of religion. It had been a civil conflict and now, the conflict between the opposing civil powers ended, Duché - who himself would return to Philadelphia in 1792, living quietly until his death in 1798 - witnessed how the ecclesiastical bonds of affection between the Church of England and American Protestant Episcopalians were, on both sides, quickly and tenderly reasserted. Such was the 'unity and accord' of 18th century Anglicanism.