| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 106.4

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 260 words from this article are provided below; about 495 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 106.4 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Canada and the United States

Peter M. Doll. Revolution, Religion, and National Identity: Imperial Anglicanism in British North America, 1745–1795. Cranbury, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 2000. Pp. 336. $49.50.

In this monograph, Peter M. Doll examines the quest for a "distinct imperial religious policy for the North American colonies in the fifty years around the American revolt" (p. 12). He argues that, over the course of the period from 1745 to 1795, the British government changed its role from "an authority which chose not to exert itself" to strengthen the colonial church to one that, after losing the thirteen mainland colonies, "was anxious to prevent any further defections from the metropolis" (pp. 12–13) Doll tells his story primarily from the perspective of High Churchmen who rejected the prevailing Erastian notion that the state was superior to the church, which meant in practical terms that politicians viewed the church as a political instrument. High Churchmen maintained instead that while church and state were inseparable, the church was independent from the state because its authority rested on scripture and the church fathers. They contended that neglect of the church in America loosened the colonists' religious loyalties and thereby risked the loss of all Britain's American possessions. But, alas, as Archbishop Thomas Secker discovered in arguing for an American episcopate, the government gave no more than lip service. Instead of formulating a religious policy favoring High Churchmen, the king's ministers affirmed the constitutional relationship between church and state "in principle and ignore[d] it in practice" (p. 30). . . .

There are about 495 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.