And now we see what a Naturalist is -- probably some kind of reactionary communist ultimately.

Naturalism was inspired by a quote from the southern American historian/political theorist George Fitzhugh in which he equated socialism and slavery [in a positive way; he considered both good].

I got curious what that ideology would look like in practice: not based on slavery qua slavery per sey, but specifically combining a socialist view of economics with an a priori commitment to the idea of natural inequality.

What separates TTL naturalism from fascism is that naturalists aren't necessarily wedded to the concept of the nation, or the cult of the state. A kind of aristocratic socialism, rule by a hereditary monarchy, etc, are all considered acceptable "natural" variations. So, as you can imagine, there will be a lot of different schools.

Of course, naturalism will have its own radical counter-ideology, but it will emerge later and I'm still fine-tuning the details. Whiggry and Neither-nor Toryism are both considered moderate on the ideological spectrum of TTL, and there will be a couple of other moderate/centrist groups/philosophies as well.
 
Just a quick note to say that this week's update has been delayed due to RL work stuff, but hopefully will be out tomorrow. I'm hoping to do the usager controversy, the Swedish embassy, and the election of 1720. Early discussions of the dialogue between the nonjurors and the Eastern Orthodox might make it in as well.

By 1725, there are going to be four separate churches coming out of all this, and a drastic realignment of British politics.

And if you like this, and haven't done so already, check out Britain of Panthers and Lions and James II, King of America; both are great TLs contemporaneous with this one. I'll try to differentiate the direction of Bishops Oaths and Kings from both in terms of the political direction I'm going.

Right now, I have a rough outline to 1760, and plans to go further.
 
Part 5.1.
Part 5. Swedes, Schisms and the Orthodox Opening: 1718-1720.

From: A History of the Primitive Catholic Church:



It was early in 1718 that Jeremy Collier, then Primate of the nonjurors in North America, called for a general synod of the clergy under his care, for the purpose of discussing the "restoration amongst us of four ancient usages found in King Edward's first prayer book, but abandoned thereafter". These ancient usages were: the mixed chalice at communion (water mixed with wine), omission of the words "militant on earth" in the phrase "let us pray for the entire state of Christ's church", the epiclesis, or prayer for the invocation of the Holy Spirit on the Eucharistic elements, and the prayer of oblation after communion, which referred to the Eucharist with the language of sacrifice (1). Collier's Bishops, and the majority of his clergy, met in Philadelphia in March 1718, at which time Collier presented his argument in favor of the usages. Of the Bishops and clergy present, most supported the position of their primate. Fothergill and Cook were extremely supportive for different reasons: Cook, because these usages would make their liturgy closer to the 1637 Scottish prayer book in use among some of his congregants in the Scottish settlements, and Fothergill, because he saw the production of a new North American prayer book that might incorporate some of the best elements of the Celtic past as a decidedly positive development (2). Only the aging Bishop John Talbot raised cautious objections: that these usages would further alienate their congregations from both the national church and their fellow nonjurors across the ocean. Thus, Talbot argued for the authorization of a new rite alongside the 1662, rather than replacing it. Collier was loathed to take this step, for "I judge the usages an improvement, as they will, in every particular, conform our church to the practices of the fathers, and of the church entire in catholic and primitive times." Nevertheless, he did acknowledge that "we ought to retain communion with those who cannot, at this time, accept the usages, while ever more urging them to amend their practice." (3). Talbot, reluctantly, assented to this formulation, and so Collier and Fothergill began work on the production of the first ever prayer book of what would become the Primitive Catholic Church...



From: The Usager Crisis and the Time of five churches by Cyril Macdonald, Edinburgh University Press Series on Nineteenth-century Church History, 2012.





Hilkiah Bedford, Primate of the Nonjurors in England, received word of the general meeting called by Collier by the middle of 1718, and it caused no little uproar among the English nonjurors. On one hand, Collier, while advocating for a change in the liturgy used in England, was presently only claiming the authority to make this change for his congregations in North America, and not for the church as a whole. On the other, the implication of his argument was that these usages were essential to the Anglican claim to a continuity of practice with the primitive church. Bedford, therefore, penned a "letter of remonstrance" to Collier, in which he castigated him for acting unilaterally without the "consent of the mother church in England". Still, Bedford was inclined to permit local use of the rights in question (4)...



From: A History of the Primitive Catholic Church:



Had the matter been left between Bedford and Collier, it might have remained a matter limited to liturgical and episcopal propriety. Collier's response to Bedford was rather temperate, pointing out the obvious difficulty of rapid communication with England, and reminding him that, in point of fact, Collier had been consecrated, and established as a local primate, before Bedford. Still, it was a cautious letter, and accepted that what was done in North America and in Britain might differ... Thomas Brett and Thomas Deacon, however, were both incensed by Bedford's response, and wrote rather strongly in defense of the usager position (5). Brett argued from the perspective that the usages were essential to the liturgy of the church, drawing on several citations from church fathers and councils to make his case (6). Deacon, meanwhile, argued that, if any church ought to be superior over the other among the nonjurors, the North American—which was both larger, showed more vibrant growth, and had a more senior primate—should be supreme over the English—which might "at best hope to be reabsorbed into the national church as a junior partner at some point in the future" (7)...



From: The Usager Crisis and the Time of five churches.



The rather polemical works of Brett and Deacon prompted an even more intemperate response from the English non-usagers, in particular Matthias Earbery, John Blackbourne, and Charles Leslie (8). Of these, Leslie's pamphlet, which countered Brett, was the most effective, for it pointed out that Brett's stated position was in conflict with Collier's own claim that communion should not be broken for the lack of the usages (9). And if communion should not be broken over them, then the argument that they were necessary to bring the church into continuity was spurious... Earbery and Blackbourne's arguments were both less effective and more polemical, but they were also more widely received, for Leslie's reputation had not fully recovered from the debacle of his attack on Thomas Ken before the latter's death. On the other hand, one Bishop in Britain rose to respond to Leslie: Archibald Campbell, a Scottish Bishop who had been dispatched to the aid of the English nonjurors. Campbell was in the process of spearheading a dialogue between the nonjurors and the Greek Orthodox, an opportunity created by the presence of a Greek Orthodox mission to the English court, on behalf of the Greeks of the east, led by Arsenius, Bishop of Thebais (10). Thus, Campbell wrote a substantial response to Leslie demonstrating that, in fact, the absence of the usages did alienate the English church from the east (11)...



From: Bonwicke and Rambo.



The mission to the Church of Sweden is probably the least-known of Bonwicke and Rambo's international journeys. Yet, it would set the stage for much of their future work... while Bonwicke met with the Swedish Bishops, Rambo was dispatched among the Swedes and forest Finns to recruit more colonists for Pennsylvania and points beyond. Thus, it was Rambo who, throughout 1718 and 1719, journeyed across Sweden, seeking to convince the locals of the benefits of America. He had some little success among the forest Finns, writing to Bonwicke late in 1718 that "I believe a few thousand of them may, when all is said and done, immigrate to Pennsylvania... Bonwicke's mission made somewhat less head-way. By this time, Swedish interest in the Jacobite’s had largely faded, and so there was very little interest in a full communion agreement with the nonjurors. However, there was considerably more interest in the issue, raised by Bonwicke, of episcopal oversight for any Swedish congregations in North America. Thus, Bonwicke was able to persuade the Swedish church to recognize the validity of the orders of the Pennsylvania nonjurors, to recognize their orders in turn, and to provide for an agreement wherein the priests or communicants of one church might, in extreme circumstances, come under the authority of the other's Bishops (12). Thus, Bonwicke could report success to his superiors in Pennsylvania despite the fact that none of the Jacobite’s' aims were improved in the slightest... yet the most consequential development on the trip may have been Bonwicke and Rambo's introduction to a number of Balts and Finns who were familiar with both Russia and the Russian church. Notable among these was a young Church of Sweden pastor of Finnish extraction named Balthazar Kalinin, who had previously served as secretary to the chaplain of the Swedish ambassador in Russia (13). As a result, Bonwicke was able to obtain copies of several important works of Russian Orthodox liturgy and theology, which had been translated into Greek, and render them into English. These works would prove invaluable as the correspondence between the nonjurors and the Eastern Orthodox developed... As they left Sweden, sailing first to London to meet with Bedford and later back to Philadelphia, Bonwicke became fully apprised of the usager controversy, and quickly took the part of his North American colleagues...



From: A History of the Primitive Catholic Church.



Notable among the usagers outside of North America was Thomas Wagstaffe the Younger, who had now been traveling in the East for some years. Indeed, Wagstaffe wrote that "I consider the usages Bishop Collier seeks to restore to be essential to any reunion with our sundered brethren of the east." To Wagstaffe's great good fortune, he had made friends in the court of the Sublime Port and, as such, was able to obtain permission to venture to Syria, Mesopotamia and the Holy Land, where he might consult with the various churches regarding their liturgies. It was during these travels that Wagstaffe seems to have first encountered the then profoundly fragmented Church of the East...

Notes:




1. These "ancient usages" are OTL: see Collier's pamphlet "Restoration of Ancient Usages", which is available on Project Canterbury.

2. For some evidence of what this might look like, the reader should examine the compilation of widely-used Celtic prayers from the nineteenth-century known as the Carmina Gaedelica, as well as some of the ancient monastic and devotional writings of the Celtic Church. This will all also come up again later in a slightly different context.

3. Here, Collier is being more moderate than IOTL, probably because, in practical terms, he's got a much more substantial congregation and has been serving as a Bishop for a lot longer. Actual pastoral experience tends to moderate some of the more extreme liturgical opinions, at least within the Anglican context.

4. IOTL, Bedford was also a non-usager, and was in fact consecrated a Bishop in their line. Here, as the effective Primate of the English nonjurors, he's also a bit more moderate than either he was, or the IOTL leader of the nonjurors, Nathaniel Spinkes.

5. Both Brett and Deacon were hard core usagers IOTL.

6. The basic usager position IOTL, and similar to actual works Brett wrote.

7. Deacon, as Collier's step-son, is more personally offended on Collier's behalf here: IOTL his arguments were quite similar to Brett's.

8. These were also the most extreme non-usagers IOTL.

9. IOTL, Leslie argued basically the same thing, and backed the usagers into a corner by doing so. Many non-usagers referred to their usager opponents as "essentialists".

10. Again, this is as per OTL. For a full account of the OTL correspondence, see Lathbury.

11. While he never did this IOTL, ITTL, Leslie's argument that, if the usages are not essential than it can't be said that they are necessary to bring the English liturgy more in line with the primitive liturgy gives him the opportunity.

12. Basically, this is the agreement the C of E and Church of Sweden made in 1908. Here, the Swedes don't feel threatened at all by the Pennsylvania nonjurors, but do see an opportunity to provide episcopal oversight to any future Swedish congregations at minimal cost. Of course, this agreement is predicated on the Primitive Catholics not doing anything that's seen as directly contradictory to core Lutheran doctrines.

13. An OC, but one who is both plausible and necessary.
 
Part 5.2.
From: Jacobites and Nonjurors: Complexity and Contention.



It was by no means clear that either party in the usager controversy actually desired the pretender to intervene. Yet, from the Jacobite perspective, preference for the non-usagers was both an easy and a natural decision (14). First and most practically, the Bishops of the non-usager persuasion were much more ardent Jacobite’s than were the usagers. Second, those in the South Carolina settlement worried that the usagers would drift too far away from the national church, thereby making it more difficult to bring the clergy of South Carolina into the nonjuring fold. Finally, James hoped to rule over England and England's church, which meant defending its rites. Thus, James wrote a letter to the Nonjurors on the Controversy over Usages. In this document, James makes it abundantly clear that his preference was for both the English and North American churches to avoid any alterations to the 1662... James' letter was received warmly by Bedford, Leslie and the other non-usagers, who used it as an argument in support of their position. Unsurprisingly, Collier had a different view...



From: The Usager Controversy and the Time of five churches.



Jeremy Collier had, by 1719, essentially lost all interest in a Jacobite restoration. And so he cavalierly dismissed James' argument as "the opinion of one papist layman living in France, and with no authority over our church". The non-usagers pounced on this declaration, accusing Collier of abandoning the very monarchs on whose behalf the nonjurors had left the Church of England in the first place. Yet the greatest impact of the king's pronouncement came in South Carolina, where the second settlement's clergy, led by Bishop Ralph Taylor, followed their king's desire and declared themselves to be non-usagers. From the perspective of the English party, this substantially weakened Collier's argument. For, while the thirty-nine articles did make provision for the church in every land to adopt its own liturgies as it deemed best—an argument Collier deployed in support of his North American prayer book—the nonjurors of England counter-claimed that Collier's party could no longer claim the support of their full communion in North America...



From: A History of the Primitive Catholic Church.



Collier would fire back against the South Carolina nonjurors in what would prove his most polemical work. To distinguish his Pennsylvania church from that of South Carolina, he impugned the second settlement as "a den of slavers and men whose principles are more Jacobite than nonjuror". Drawing heavily on Ken's homily against slavery, as well as the writings of Leslie and the recent pamphlet Natural Man and Unnatural Society, he made several clear demarcations in principle between what he described as "two provinces entirely distinct in outlook". In so doing, Collier criticized "the implicit subordinationism" of both natural slavery and natural divine right as constructed by these authors, and reasserted the vision of church, state and society he had argued against Hoadley (15)...



From: The Usager Controversy and the Time of five churches.



While the usager controversy divided the nonjurors, they had sent a proposal for concordat with the Eastern Orthodox, an effort directed by Bishop Campbell. Among their proposals was the adoption of the 1549 communion liturgy. Now, however, Campbell worried that the non-usagers would put this concordat in jeopardy, at a time when they were still awaiting a response. Campbell seems to have written to Collier around this time, inviting the North American usagers to continue the correspondence, alongside Campbell himself, and John Gadderer, another Scottish usager Bishop. Collier responded favorably but cautiously, affirming his interest in "all ventures that might lead to the reunion of God's church" (16). Through some means, a copy of this letter came into the hands of Leslie, and on this basis, he made the argument that Collier was attempting to set up a schismatic body in Great Britain, in conjunction with "a few wild Scots and on the hope of protection from the bigoted Greeks". Combined with the non-usager position in South Carolina, this led Bedford to move to a more uncompromising position. In a letter dated February 1719, he informed Collier that any attempt to move forward with the new prayer book would place the Pennsylvanians out of communion with the rest of their nonjuring fellows... To the Pennsylvanians, and even those abroad, such as Wagstaffe, this was seen as high-handed in the extreme, particularly given Collier's "clear seniority to Bishop Bedford, both in his episcopal consecration and the length of his primacy"...



From: A History of the Primitive Catholic Church.



Collier called yet another clergy gathering, this one to be held at Glastonbury. At this historic gathering, he found that feeling was very much in favor of proceeding with the prayer book, and against the high-handed actions of their English compatriots. In the words of Thomas Deacon: "It is not right that the restoration of wholesome practices from the primitive church should be prevented by a church beholden to a Catholic king, and ever accommodating to a noxious puritanical spirit." Letters of support were also read from Thomas Wagstaffe, Ambrose Bonwicke the younger, Archibald Campbell, and John Gadderer. Bishop Talbot, and some of the clergy from lower Delaware, objected, not only because of their desire to maintain communion with their English comrades, but also because many of their congregants owned slaves, and so rejected many of Collier's assertions regarding their congregation (17). In the end, these southern Delaware nonjurors left Glastonbury, refusing to sign on to the new prayer book. Nevertheless, more than nine tenths of the clergy, representing all but five congregations of the Pennsylvania nonjurors, supported Collier's intent to introduce the new prayer book in 1720...



From: The Usager Controversy and the Time of five churches.



Talbot approached James Blair, Bishop of Virginia, late in 1719, about the possibility of realigning the southern Delaware congregations he had planted under the latter's authority. Blair readily agreed, and Talbot's ordination and episcopal consecration were provisionally recognized. In 1720, the convocation would vote to uphold Blair's actions, thereby acknowledging the validity of nonjuror orders de facto. In the fullness of time, this decision, based on the exigencies of the colonial shortage of Bishops and clergy, would have a dramatic impact on the English nonjurors... at the same time, receiving Collier's letter declaring his intent to proceed with the new prayer book, co-signed by most of his Bishops and clergy, Bedford and his own usager Bishops formally voted to excommunicate the Pennsylvanians, along with Campbell, Gadderer and Wagstaffe. Yet, some of the English and Scottish nonjurors, particularly some of the younger members of that community, found themselves in sympathy with the non-usagers, and so they followed Campbell and Gadderer out of the non-usager nonjuring communion. Among these was the Scotsman John Griffin, who sailed to Pennsylvania late in 1720. Griffin's task was both to obtain copies of the new prayer book, and to be ordained a Bishop, so that the non-usagers would have the canonical three Bishops in Britain...



From: A History of the Primitive Catholic Church.



The first prayer book, known ever after as the 1720 book or simply the 1720 in Primitive Catholic circles, was the most similar to the 1662 of all their efforts. The changes in this first prayer book essentially consisted of a restoration of the usager language directly from the 1549 liturgy. Many of its liturgical reforms would be expanded and, in the view of the church, perfected by the somewhat better known 1727 prayer book, which would incorporate the liturgical and archaeological-historical discoveries of Wagstaffe, and his extended mission to the east... Still, there were some significant changes in the 39 articles of religion. Article 21, on the authority of councils, was replaced entirely, with the new text reading:



"The Holy Ghost assisteth the Church in judging rightly concerning matters of faith, whereupon both general and particular orthodox councils, convened after the example of the first council of Jerusalem, may reasonably expect that assistance in their resolutions. Nevertheless, we allow them not the same authority as is due to the sacred text of scripture, and where they have added doctrines and practices not plainly supported by apostolic teaching, they may be dispensed with by the governors of the Church where charity or necessity require." (18).



Likewise, Article 37, on the authority of civil magistrates, was reformed to address "the relations of powers temporal and spiritual" as follows:



"Christ alone is the head of the Church, which title ought not therefore to be assumed by any one, much less by any secular power, how great soever, and that Bishops under him have a vicarious headship, as his proper representatives and vicegerents, being thence subject in spirituals to no temporal power on earth. The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted. Yet this civil authority hath not the right of control over Christ's church. Therefore, the independency of the Church in spirituals upon all lay powers is recognized, and consequently, all lay deprivations, of Bishops in particular, are abhorrent to the right ordering of the church as handed down from the Apostles." (19).



Finally, article 28, on the Eucharist, was removed and replaced with:



"The Holy Eucharist is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. The presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is a perfect mystery, through the invocation of the Holy Spirit, upon the elements, whereby the faithful do verily and indeed receive the body and blood of Christ, they believe it yet to be after a manner, which flesh and blood cannot conceive; and there being no sufficient ground from Scripture or tradition to determine the manner of it, but only Christ's sure and efficacious promise that his body and blood are really and truly present therein, the manner of this presence shall be left indefinite and undetermined: so that everyone may freely, according to Christ's own institution and meaning, receive the same in faith, and also worship Christ in spirit, as verily and indeed present, without being obliged to worship the Sacred symbols of his presence." (20).



All of these revisions to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion would be upheld in the 1727, along with the removal of the article on use of the homilies (21). Yet, for many, the most important contribution of the 1720 came in none of these fine-grained distinctions of liturgy and theology, but rather in the book's official title: "The prayer book of the Primitive Catholic Church in North America". It was from this prayer book, then, that the name by which the church would forever after be known was taken...





From: The Usager Controversy and the Time of the five churches.



No sooner did Griffin return from North America with the new prayer book, than a response to the initial concordate proposal from the Eastern Orthodox was received along with the person of Thomas Wagstaffe, its courier. Though Campbell attempted to put a good face on it, Collier, when he received it, was "almost entirely despondent", according to a letter he wrote to Cook and Fothergill, his two episcopal colleagues. The nonjurors' proposal had been quite detailed and specific, both in terms of points they were willing to yield and points on which there were substantive disagreements. Doubtless, they hoped for some spirit of compromise among the eastern patriarchs, particularly on the issue of images and trans-substantiation. Yet, they were to be disappointed, for the response of the East was essentially an inflexible restatement of their own positions (22). Collier was initially inclined not to respond further, and "rather to focus on the needs of our communion here" (23). Yet, at Campbell's urging, he determined to send men to England to work with the three Scottish Bishops on a response. Thomas Brett, after being consecrated by Collier, Cook and Fothergill, was dispatched to England. There, he was instructed to meet with the Swedish embassy and, if he was willing, with Wagstaffe; to assist the Scots in consecrating the latter a Bishop; and to perhaps entreat the three younger men to travel to Russia, along with their response, in the hope of stirring the Tsar to a more direct aid for their cause. Thus dispatched, Brett would arrive in England late in 1720, whereupon he, Campbell and Gadderer participated in the consecration of Wagstaffe the younger...





From: Jerusalem's Role in the English Protestant Imagination: From Puritans to Primitive Catholics. By Isaac Harris. Review of Church History vol. 92, issue 8, summer 2006.



The initial concordate proposal from the nonjurors accorded the primacy to Jerusalem, out of all the ancient thrones of the patriarchs, though this primacy was considered a primacy of honor only (24). This was entirely consistent with the Anglo-Protestant emphasis on scripture, with the legend of an ancient mission from the Jerusalem church to the druids of Glastonbury, and with the fact that the Bishop of Thebais, Arsenius, was under the authority of that patriarch... the nonjurors certainly seem to have under-estimated the degree to which the order of the patriarchal thrones established among the Eastern Orthodox was seen as fix and immutable (25). Thus, Campbell, Gadderer and Griffin were disposed to drop this section of the concordate proposal entirely. Yet, the American Bishops were less certain. Leading the charge, in this respect, was Fothergill, the antiquarian, who wrote a brief but instructive pamphlet entitled Beginning From Jerusalem: Or, The Primacy of the Church of the Holy City Defended. Fothergill's argument draws heavily from Acts and the Pauline epistles, as well as the history of Eusebius and other early church authorities, to argue for the primacy of the Jerusalem church in earliest times; its early adoption of the monarchical office of Bishop (26); that, if Jerusalem was not considered the first church, because of the destruction of the Jewish church during Bar-Kochba's rebellion, then the next eldest church was clearly Antioch, which also had a long tradition of monarchical Bishops (27); and that patriarchates like Moscow and Constantinople were given equal footing with the truly ancient sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and Alexandria only by courtesy and due to political exigency (28). Beginning From Jerusalem was not officially adopted as doctrine by Collier, yet it would play a formative role in the ecclesiology of the Primitive Catholic Church, and the special place Jerusalem still holds in its life and thought...





Notes:

14. Such an easy decision, in fact, that he made the same one IOTL, with even less necessity for it. In fact, one of the best arguments that the nonjurors were more than Jacobite’s in clerical garb is just how many of them went against the pretender's non-usager preference IOTL. For more on this, see Overton.

15. Associating the naturalist argument for slavery and divine right with subordinationism, a Christology that places the son in an eternally subordinate position to the father and leads to Arianism, is definitely fighting words, but is also not totally unjustified. Indeed, some of the later nonjurors, who also became ardent Jacobite’s, produced a liturgy that was quite subordinationist. Ironically, the man behind that new liturgy, IOTL, was Thomas Deacon. In any case, the notion that arian-subordinationist Christology and naturalism go hand and hand is one that bodes for later developments ITTL.

16. IOTL, Collier, Campbell, Brett and Gadderer continued the correspondence with the East, though of course, all of them were in Britain.

17. Of course, there's no particular reason why the usager controversy has anything to do with slavery, but by this point, the issues have gotten so bound up with one another ITTL that division along these lines seems natural to everyone.

18. This language is taken from the concordate proposal the nonjurors made to the Eastern Orthodox. For the full text, see Lathbury. The original text of Article 21 is considerably less deferential to councils, and argues that they can only be called by the authority of a secular Prince, which is a complete non-starter for the Primitive Catholics. Interestingly, the first Episcopal prayer book in the U.S. removes this article, basically arguing that the "councils can err" component is covered elsewhere, while the "only a prince can call a council" part is rejected because, well, they don't have a prince.

19. Here, I stole from two sources: the concordate proposal again, and the revision to the article found in the first Episcopal prayer book.

20. There's a bit of the original Article 28 here, but most of this language is taken from the concordate proposal again.

21. The removal of the homilies came in the first Episcopal prayer book, and as a non-established church, the Primitive Catholics are doing it for many of the same reasons.

22. This is exactly as per OTL.

23. Basically, Collier's got a much bigger church with more responsibility ITTL than IOTL, and if the Eastern Orthodox aren't going to come their way at least a little, he's not inclined to pursue what he views as a waste of time.

24. This is IOTL. The text reads as follows: "That the Church of Jerusalem be acknowledged as the true mother Church and principal of ecclesiastical unity, whence all the other Churches have been derived, and to which, therefore, they owe a peculiar regard; That a principality of Order be in consequence hereof allowed to the Bishop of Jerusalem above all other Christian Bishops; That the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, with the Bishops thereof, his colleagues, be recognized as to all their ancient canonical rites, privileges, and pre-eminences; That to the Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople in particular an equality of honour with that of the Bishop of Rome be given, and that the very same powers and privileges be acknowledged to reside in them both alike; That the Catholic remnant of the British Churches, acknowledging that they first received their Christianity from such as came forth from the Church of Jerusalem, before they were subject to the Bishop of Rome and that Church, and professing the same holy Catholic faith, delivered by the Apostles, and explained in the councils of Nice, and Constantinople, be reciprocally acknowledged as part of the Catholic Church in communion with the Apostles, with the holy fathers of these councils, and with their successors."

25. The alternate historian here is being... generous... to the nonjurors; basically, the response of the eastern patriarchs amounts to a very long, very flowery way of saying "what are you guys smoking out there on your little island?"

26. Most church historians now think Antioch was first, but Simeon, who led the Jerusalem community after the destruction of the Temple, was referred to as a Bishop, and the Jerusalem church, headed by James, was seen as having the authority to tell Antioch what they could and could not do in the Council of Jerusalem, as chronicled in Acts 15. Of course, the Primitive Catholics also have the advantage of not exactly having a Bishop in any of these places and, hence, having no dog in the fight.

27. Ignatius of Antioch was talking about monarchical Bishops when, as far as we can tell, the concept was still unknown in the Roman Church; today, this isn't particularly controversial, but it would have been a shot at the papacy in the eighteenth-century context.

28. Basically true, but a very impolitic thing for Fothergill to say given that you could probably say the same thing about Canterbury.
 
Notes on part 5.

-And so, we've reached the decided breaking-point for the nonjurors, beyond which we're looking at separate churches, which will develop in very different directions moving forward. The non-usager party, which we must call the Primitive Catholics moving forward, are decidedly non-Jacobite, while the usagers are becoming increasingly tied to jacobitism. [Which is pretty natural, given that the non-usagers now have more separating them from the C of E than just the question of what king receives their oaths].

-The correspondence with the Eastern Orthodox, as well as Bonwicke and Rambo's future travels in the Middle East with Wagstaffe, will actually cause some fairly substantial ripples beyond Britain and British North America respectively, but that will more start to show up in part 6. The main butterfly they've caused thus far is increased Swedish and Finnish migration, which will be centered in Pennsylvania. Of course, within British North America, the changes look to be much more profound.

-I forgot to mention this in-text, because this chapter was already really long, really theological and, frankly, required some detailed work, that Richard Dodwell sided with the usagers, and is currently serving at Glastenbury.

Next update will cover Atterbury, the South Sea Bubble, and the impact these two developments will have on British politics.
 
Political Interlude.
Political Interlude: the South Sea Bubble and the Great Realignment.



From: A History of the Tory Party. By Lord Reginald Godolphin. Copyright 1938, Oxford University Press, reissued as part of the Twentieth-century History Classics Series, 2010. Chapter 3: Church Politics and the Tory Resurgence.



At this time, the independence of the convocation was still a fairly new development. It seemed, at least to the high church party, that the principle that a king could not dissolve the convocations of the two provinces was firmly established, yet precisely what the convocations could do, how frequently they could or should meet, and how much autonomy this gave the church from the crown, all remained issues of uncertainty. To a large extent, this was by design, for the high church party was by no means ready to give up some form of the doctrine of royal supremacy. At the same time, the latitudinarians within the church were profoundly disconsolate at the defeat of Hoadley, their champion, and the degree to which matters in the church now seemed to be moving against them. If this party had hoped for a reprieve with Anne's death, the popular outcry in support of the convocation, which the discerning historian must now judge to have been a design of Bolingbroke's to restore the fortunes of his party, had certainly put them firmly on the back foot. Still, William Wake, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, was a moderate churchmen, and not at all antithetical to the latitudinarian position.



In 1720, this balance would be put to the test, when Francis Atterbury was accused of correspondence with the pretender. The accusation was made by a member of the Whig ministry, but there was precious little evidence (1). Still, there were rumblings from court that the king meant to see Atterbury prosecuted. Atterbury's deliverance came from what seemed, at the time, to be a most unlikely corner: Henry Saint John, Viscount Bolingbroke, who defected back to the Hanoverians in 1718. With the Bangorian controversy having failed to deliver a general election, Bolingbroke was increasingly disenchanted with the Stuart court, and so he reached out, through some of his friends in England, to the king, offering to turn state's evidence against the Jacobites in exchange for a loosening on the king's prescription against the Tories (2). After considering the offer, King George decided to accept, and quietly let some of the more extreme measures against the Tories lapse. Bolingbroke, as it turned out, had corresponded with Atterbury during the Bangorian Controversy, but the eventual resolution of the matter in favor of the church ultimately persuaded the Bishop that "we are not so latitudinarian as to make a Papist preferable to the Hanoverian" (3). Atterbury intimated to Bolingbroke that "things might stand otherwise, were the Pretender a loyal son of the Church of England, and had King George proven so lost to all godly virtue as to abrogate the rightful authority of the church". In fact, based on Bolingbroke's correspondence, Atterbury seemed inclined to urge Bolingbroke to abandon the Jacobites and strengthen the Tory cause in England. It is the opinion of many later historians that this latter language was actually a forgery inserted by Bolingbroke to defend Atterbury, and a few more conspiratorial historians claim Atterbury's correspondence with Bolingbroke was entirely fabricated by the latter so as to strengthen the Tories and make the Whigs look more villainous (4). At the time, however, the letters Bolingbroke turned over were persuasive enough that no further action was taken against Atterbury. Nevertheless, the high church party and Tories in parliament made much of what they described as a "whiggish persecution", intimating that Atterbury was a second Sacheverell...





From: Court and Country: Walpole, Bolingbroke and the Rivalry that Defined a Century. By Thomas Northcott, Oxford University Press, 1956. Re-issued as part of the Twentieth Century Historical classics series, 2010.



The Atterbury controversy could not have come at a worse time for the Whigs, for in an unrelated development, the South Sea Bubble collapsed in 1720, causing panic in the financial markets just as a general election approached. Emboldened by Bolingbroke's return, the Atterbury imbroglio and the popping of the South Sea bubble, the Tories waged a spirited election campaign, under the slogan “Saint John and Sanity”. In the end, the Tories were not able to obtain the kind of land-slide majority they won in 1710, largely due to the royal favor shown the Whigs and the perception of Tory jacobitism, but they did break the Whig majority of 1715, winning a narrow majority that could be sustained with the support of a few Whig defections (5). As a former Jacobite, however, Bolingbroke recognized that it would be impolitic for him to assume the reins of government. Thus, he proposed, and the king accepted, that the Duke of Somerset, a moderate Whig, should become first minister (6). Yet, Somerset's majority would be dependent on the Tories, and so Bolingbroke, for all practical purposes, was the dominant figure. It was at this point that he articulated his "country program". This involved: regular general elections, reapportionment of parliamentary districts to more accurately represent the population, limits on the size of the standing army, support for the Anglican Church and the right of the convocation to select Bishops without royal intervention, and an end to what he described as "Whig corruption" (7). As leader of the opposition, Walpole defended the Whig style of government and articulated his own program, involving: a strong military, favoritism for the mercantile classes over the rural gentry, and increased tolerance for Protestant dissenters combined with restoration of full royal control over the clergy (8)...

From: A History of the Tory Party:

Many of the leading men in the Tory Party cut their teeth in the Somerset ministry. A few, such as Edward Hyde, Fourth Earl Clarendon (9), were extraordinarily high Tories. Hyde, in particular, lived under the shadow of his notorious father, a man accused of both monetary and moral corruption in his time as colonial governor (10). As is often the case with sons living in the shadow of controversial fathers, this led Hyde the Younger to take a fairly uncompromising stand on both forms of corruption, a fact which made any profound personal friendship with Bolingbroke well nye impossible (11). There were also some few Whigs who crossed over to support the Somerset ministry. Prominent among them was the young William Godolphin, a relative of the moderate Tory statesmen Sydney Godolphin, and grandson of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough. William's alliance with the Somerset ministry was a none-too-subtle signal that the aging Duke, and his wife Sarah, the matriarch of the extended clan, saw the Tories as a possible means whereby their fortunes might be improved. Godolphin's relationship with Marlborough propelled him into the upper echelons of the Tory machine in the House of Commons rather quickly. His place there was ratified when, in 1721 he married Letitia Seamore Conway, daughter of the Tory Lord Francis Seamore Conway (12). Though their first son Henry died young, Godolphin's second son, and eventual heir, was born in 1724, and christened Edward...



From: Court and Country: Walpole, Bolingbroke and the Rivalry that Defined a Century.



Bolingbroke's program would see a few key aspects implemented during the Somerset ministry. In 1722, parliament passed the Elections Act, guaranteeing a regular election must be called within three years of the previous election. This was a compromise from Bolingbroke's desire for annual elections (13). The next year, the Constituency Reform Act changed the way in which districts were allotted, to make them more equitable (14). As a compromise with the Whigs, the qualifications for voting were relaxed, so as to expand the electorate in some of their key, mercantile-oriented constituencies (15). Finally, the 1723 Episcopacy Act vested the convocation with the right to propose a list of candidates for vacant bishoprics, of which the king and parliament could each veto 1. Each list must have at least three candidates, and no more than seven. Passed in both the Canterbury and York convocations at the same time as it passed parliament, the Episcopacy Act would, for the first time, limit the government's ability to determine the direction of the church. Yet, Bolingbroke was unable to pass a bill reducing the size of the standing army, due to alarm about the power of France. Indeed, the army bill would hurt the Tories in the election of 1724, leading Walpole's Whigs to a narrow victory and returning Walpole to government...



From: A History of the Tory Party.



Yet, Bolingbroke's last accomplishment during his first stint in government under the Hanoverians may have been one of the most consequential, for the future of that dynasty. For, in 1724, Bolingbroke persuaded Somerset to approve the marriage of Prince Frederick, third in line to the throne, to Lady Diana Spencer, grand-daughter of the Duke of Marlborough, and one of the more eligible young ladies of the English peerage (16). In 1725, the couple celebrated the birth of their first child, a boy, christened John Frederick, but better known to posterity as King John II...



From: Court and Country.


One of the few points of agreement between Walpole and Bolingbroke was their approval of the colonial scheme of James Oglethorpe, who desired to establish a debtor's colony in North America. Christened Georgia, the colony was officially established in 1720. It was Oglethorpe's intention that the colony should have no slavery whatsoever, so as to provide an opportunity for debtors to establish themselves as yeoman farmers, and in so doing, protect British colonial interests from the Spanish threat. Both Walpole and Bolingbroke approved of the idea, as did the King, and so Georgia was established on these grounds. Still, as the Tories were in power when Georgia was established, he felt it necessary to provide for the establishment of the Anglican Church in the colony (17). In a meeting with Oglethorpe, Bolingbroke urged him to recruit among the Scottish Episcopals, as well as the highlanders. Finally, he sought to recruit some of the non-usager nonjurors that were less ardent Jacobites to serve the new colony...



From: The Usager Controversy and the Time of five churches.



The combination of Atterbury's vindication and the Episcopacy Act would, in the fullness of time, prove disastrous for the non-usager nonjurors, for they demonstrated the degree to which the Hanoverians would, of necessity, be hands-off with respect to the Church of England. Thus, 1722 ended with a dramatic gesture: William Law's reconciliation to the Church of England. Having found the nonjurors to be "as schismatic as any nonconformists", Law acknowledged himself to be "most heartily reassured" by the independence the church had now achieved. Thus, he found himself able to overcome his scruples regarding the oath to the Hanoverians. Taking this oath on the first Sunday of Advent, 1722, Law was reinstated as a priest of the Church of England in good standing, celebrating his first divine service on Christmastide of that same year (18). In an eerie echo of the reconciliation of Ken, Law was duly consecrated a Bishop and dispatched to minister to the new congregation in Georgia. It was strongly hinted to Law that, should his service in Georgia prove effective, a higher position might eventually be found for him. Hilkiah Bedford and his fellows may not have felt Law's loss strongly, as he was only distantly related to their communion. Yet, though they did not know it at the time, Law's return to the church would prove to be a harbinger of things to come...



Notes:

1. Something similar happened IOTL, though it was definitively true.

2. ITTL, Bolingbroke stays with the Jacobites longer, because he's intrigued by the South Carolina project and its seeming success, but then leans back harder in the other direction by actually spying on them for the government after George I is forced to moderate by the Bangorian Controversy, and in so doing, tries to help his party at home.

3. This is another point of divergence. ITTL, Atterbury ended up in exile in France, where he died.

4. "You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment."

5. IOTL, even the South Sea bubble was not enough to break Whig dominance of parliament: ITTL, there are just too many straws on the camel’s back, and the king has been forced into a position less intensely hostile to the Tories.

6. Somerset had a connection to the Tories—his son-in-law was William Wyndem, the leader of the Tories in the House of Commons—but he was a Whig in good standing and, accept for protecting his overtly Jacobite son-in-law during the 15, never ran into royal trouble. IOTL, the "proud Duke" retired from public life after the events of the 15; ITTL, he's brought back as an acceptable compromise candidate, since Bolingbroke's return to grace is so recent.

7. Very similar to the program of the Country Party IOTL, but with a more explicit defense of high churchmanship thrown in.

8. Very similar to Walpole's IOTL policies, all be it with more church politics. Walpole himself was actually moderate on church issues: for example, he opposed the prosecution of Sacheverell.

9. So, I stole this from A Britain of Panthers and Lions, and I feel no guilt because it's a great idea. IOTL, Edward Hyde, Baron Clifton, died of a fever at age 21 in 1713. ITTL, he live to inherit Clarendon from his father. This makes Henry Hyde, the OTL fourth Earl, Earl of Rochester instead.

10. Speculation about the Third Earl of Clarendon centers on his alleged cross-dressing, and financial corruption in his administration of New York. I think it's reasonable to conclude that his son would be fairly touchy on both counts, probably making him veer toward the social conservatism of his great grandfather, the first Earl, as well as scrupulous, well nye zealous, concern for any hint of financial corruption. In short, he's going to irritate a lot of people, which is always fun.

11. Bolingbroke was notorious as a libertine and a skeptic in matters of religion, which fits oddly with his Toryism, but makes more sense if you understand that he viewed himself as an old Roman, living the life of public statesmanship and private debauchery. So, yeah, while he and Hyde agree on most political matters, they will infamously not get along well personally.

12. IOTL, Letitia Seamore Conway died in 1723 and never married; here, both of these facts are changed.

13. Yep Bolingbroke wanted this IOTL as well, probably one thing the British people can be thankful he never got.

14. Fun fact: some estimates claim that, had today's method of apportioning districts been used, the Tories would have actually won every election from 1720-1745.

15. The upshot: fewer rotten Burroughs and pocket Burroughs, more voters.

16. IOTL, Walpole vetoed the match, and Frederick married a German princess instead.

17. This is all OTL, accept for the provision of clergy from the outset as a governmental priority and the recruitment of Scottish Episcopals and highlanders—though the latter happened subsequently OTL. While Oglethorpe was relatively devout, he was less concerned with Anglican conformity than the TTL Tory-dominated ministry.

18. IOTL, Law remained a nonjuror, eventually writing A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, a seminal work of evangelical piety. Subsequently, he became interested in mysticism and became a universalist. Here, his career will be significantly different.
 
Last edited:
Yet, Bolingbroke's last accomplishment during his first stint in government under the Hanoverians may have been one of the most consequential, for the future of that dynasty. For, in 1724, Bolingbroke persuaded Somerset to approve the marriage of Prince Frederick, third in line to the throne, to Lady Dianna Spencer, grand-daughter of the Duke of Marlborough, and one of the more eligible young ladies of the English peerage (16). In 1725, the couple celebrated the birth of their first child, a boy, christened John Frederick, but better known to posterity as King John III...
The fact that you could do this without even mucking with the timeline all that much, relatively speaking, puts a smile on my face.

I am a little confused about the last point, because it seemed to me after the previous entry that the non-usagers were doomed as having rather too little reason to remain separate from the Anglican Church in the long run, but now it seems like the usagers are in trouble? Or was there a typo or something?
 
Yet, Bolingbroke's last accomplishment during his first stint in government under the Hanoverians may have been one of the most consequential, for the future of that dynasty. For, in 1724, Bolingbroke persuaded Somerset to approve the marriage of Prince Frederick, third in line to the throne, to Lady Dianna Spencer, grand-daughter of the Duke of Marlborough, and one of the more eligible young ladies of the English peerage (16). In 1725, the couple celebrated the birth of their first child, a boy, christened John Frederick, but better known to posterity as King John III...

You have put a n too much in Lady Diana Spencer’s name and her son will be John II not III (unless you have an ATL King John II here)
 
The fact that you could do this without even mucking with the timeline all that much, relatively speaking, puts a smile on my face.

I am a little confused about the last point, because it seemed to me after the previous entry that the non-usagers were doomed as having rather too little reason to remain separate from the Anglican Church in the long run, but now it seems like the usagers are in trouble? Or was there a typo or something?

Both the Usagers and non-usagers are headed for trouble, actually, though different types. You've correctly deduced the problem for the non-usagers: basically, post-schism, their only reason for existing is Jacobitism, so their fates will rise and/or fall with it.

The Usagers have a different problem coming. most of them are now in North America, which will lead the smaller, more beleaguered-feeling usager remnant in Britain to make some... different choices.
 
You sometimes say nonusager when you mean usager and vice versa

I think I caught the glaring instance, with respect to the negative impact of Law's conversion. However, by the end of the next update, the term "usager" won't be applicable; they'll either be Primitive Catholics or something else.

From that point forward, "nonjuror" will be synonymous with "non-usager nonjuror".
 
Top