In this chapter we continue to address the objection that Washington was not a Christian because he did not partake of Christian Communion. As we have already seen in the last chapter, the very way the argument has been presented by Professor Paul Boller, Jr., author of George Washington & Religion, is flawed. In this chapter we intend to take Professor Boller at his word, when he claimed that he would use only evidence that would hold up in a court of law.2 As we cross-examine his argument, we find that it woefully fails, based upon the very standard he erected for himself. Our point will be to show that when credible witnesses from an historical perspective are permitted to speak, which Professor Boller permits when convenient for his argument, Washington’s Communion practices fit consistently with all of the known facts and with his Christian character.
THE EPISCOPAL CLERGYMEN AND “MRS.” CUSTIS TAKE THE STAND
It is claimed by Professor Boller that Washington never communed at all, because of the statements made by Philadelphia Bishop William White and his assistant, the Episcopal priest Reverend Dr. James Abercrombie. But the facts speak otherwise. The evidence we have already considered in the previous chapter argues that Washington communed in Virginia, in Morristown, New Jersey, and in New York City.3
There is significance in the fact that Washington communed under the new government and under the new bishop, Samuel Provoost, as testified by Mrs. Alexander Hamilton. In essence, his return to the Episcopal table was an affirmation of his historic Anglican faith, yet it was still consistent with his belief that the breach with the British crown was a just and righteous act of resistance to monarchical tyranny. The Episcopal Church was no longer the Anglican Church, although its clergy still were ordained in the order and succession of the Anglican prelates or bishops, overseen by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the Episcopal Church in the United States was not the King.
The American version of the Book of Common Prayer now had prayers for the president and Congress, but not for King George. The American head of state, however, was not the head of the Episcopal Church, even if he was Episcopalian. Washington’s lofty, political position did not translate into a high, ecclesiastical position. This meant that Washington held the anomalous position of being the leader of his country, but only a follower in his church’s government. He was an honored member of his church, but his views of ecclesiastical matters, whatever they may have been, or however deeply held, were merely personal. As we shall see, his strongest ecclesiastical view he chose to reveal to history only in the quietness of his diary. Otherwise, we are left to explain his views mainly by his basic motto—deeds not words.
The facts do indicate that he did not commune while he served as president in Philadelphia. This is admitted by all sides of the debate concerning Washington’s religion, as we will see in a moment. Just to put this into context, we need to explain a few aspects of the customs of that time. In the Episcopal Church in the late 1780s, it was customary to have Communion only three or four time per year. (Only later did the Episcopal Church change to have the sacrament each Sunday morning). Second, it was customary for the service to contain a break between part one of the service— —the liturgy of the word—which included the sermon, and part two, the liturgy of the Table, which included Communion. Often during that time, according to the record of Reverend James Abercrombie, who will be quoted below, “the greater part of the congregation” would get up and leave—Washington often being one of them. That being said, people on all sides of the debate on George Washington and religion have agreed that it was his custom to not receive Communion while he was in Philadelphia attending services at Christ Church. Reverend John Stockton Littell, advocate of Washington’s Christianity writes, “It is a fact that Bishop White could not testify to Washington’s making his communions nor even to his religious faith.”4
Similarly, advocate of Washington’s Deism, historian Rupert Hughes wrote,
His refusal to take communion was admitted by his own clergyman, William White, Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America from 1787 to 1836. Colonel Mercer had written to ask if General Washington “occasionally went to the communion,” or “if he ever did at all.” Bishop White answered:
“Truth requires me to say that General Washington never received the communion in the church of which I am parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant... I have been written to by several on the point of your inquiry; and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you.” Bishop White had previously written the same to Colonel Mercer, in 1832: “As your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during service, I owe it to truth to declare that I never saw him in the said attitude.”
Thus, we have seen, it is clear that Bishop White said he never heard Washington give a statement of faith in Christianity to him. The bishop also declared that he never saw Washington commune or kneel in the worship services. It is also true that Rector James Abercrombie, another of Washington’s clergyman, preached a sermon on the duty of communing that resulted in Washington never attending thereafter on a Communion Sunday at this church in Philadelphia. In fact, Reverend Abercrombie later called Washington a Deist. Allegedly, he said to one who was pursuing the question of Washington’s Christianity or Deism, “Sir, Washington was a deist!”5—although subsequently retracting his statement, saying instead, that he could not conceive of someone being a Christian if he did not commune regularly.6
Moreover, Boller cites a letter from Reverend Abercrombie that explains his sermon and gives a report from an unnamed senator to the effect that Washington heard the message and took the rebuke and intended to respond by not attending on a Sunday when the Eucharist was celebrated. Dr. Abercrombie had an even more interesting story to tell about Washington and the sacrament. It appeared in his letter to Origen Bacheler in 1831 and Bacheler, for obvious reasons, chose not to make it public:
...observing that on Sacrament Sundays, Gen’l Washington immediately after the Desk and Pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation, always leaving Mrs. Washington with the communicants, she invariably being one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon of Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly those in elevated stations, who invariably turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President, as such, he received it. A few days later, in conversation with, I believe, a Senator of the U.S., he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who in the course of the conversation at the table, said, that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit, for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candour; that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one of them, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he afterwards never came on the morning of Sacrament Sunday, tho’ at other times, a constant attendant in the morning.7
And it is also the fact that Washington noted earlier that he did not commune, even though Mrs. Washington did, since he and his granddaughter left prior to communion, and then sent the carriage back for Mrs. Washington after the communion service was complete. This is supported by a letter from “Mrs. Nelly Custis,” written to Washington historian Jared Sparks.8
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PROFESSOR BOLLER’S EVIDENCE
Nelly Custis’ letter is highly significant for our purposes. Washington’s adopted granddaughter, Nelly Custis, was a married woman by the time she wrote this letter. Boller writes, “according to Mrs. Custis....”9 He overlooks her married name, which was Mrs. Nelly Custis Lewis. Nelly was born in 1779, and was only ten in 1789 when the Washingtons took her and her younger brother George Washington Parke Custis to New York to be with them as he served as president. She was only about seventeen when the president’s second term was done. She did not marry until February 22, 1799, Washington’s birthday, the last one he lived to see. So her name was Mrs. Nelly Lewis, although she signed her letter Nelly Custis, her maiden name. But she did not sign it Mrs. Nelly Custis.
We can forgive Professor Boller’s oversight, for it doesn’t greatly impact the argument. We are also grateful that the professor is not insistent on full consistency with the logic of his argument. Thankfully, he does not make the faulty inference that Miss Custis must have been a Deist, since she didn’t stay for Communion either. And since Reverend Abercrombie noted that Washington left “with the greater part of the congregation,” we don’t suppose that Professor Boller would have us infer that the majority of Episcopalians in Washington’s day at the Reverend Abercrombie’s church were Deists too.
A more honest explanation can be offered, since most Deists throughout history have not been in the habit of attending Christian churches. It should be remembered that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer Morning Prayer Service was twelve pages long plus a full length sermon, and the Communion service was an additional twenty-six pages long, plus the time required for the administration of the Eucharist.10 The reason for the “greater part of the congregation leaving” likely had to do with the reason that twelve-year-old Miss Nelly and ten-year-old Master George Washington Parke Custis left with their grandfather, while Mrs. Washington spent the remainder of the morning in worship. We do not intend to suggest that the president didn’t take Communion in Philadelphia primarily because of child care. Overlooking such minor considerations, we cannot, however, overlook that grown up Mrs. Nelly Custis Lewis, writing to historian Jared Sparks on February 26, 1833, profoundly disagrees with the inference that Boller draws from her letter. She did not write her letter to show that General Washington was a Deist. Instead, after a full recital of Washington’s Christian life, she concluded,
I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian....Is it necessary that any one should certify, “General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity”? As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country.11
This leaves us wondering whether Professor Boller in his research did not carefully read Mrs. Nelly Custis Lewis’ well-known letter, or if he simply chose to suppress its real thrust because it made his claims for Washington’s alleged Deism so tenuous. Further, why does Professor Boller take Mrs. Nelly Custis Lewis’ letter out of context? Her remarks were not intended to argue that Washington had never communed in his life, but that he had never communed in Christ Church and St. Peter’s Church in Philadelphia under Reverend Abercrombie and Bishop White.
It is clear that the context of her statement limits his leaving the service during the time of her own childhood while they were in “New York and Philadelphia” where “he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition. . . . No one in church attended to the service with more reverential respect.”12 Nelly, of course, would have had no recollection of Washington’s communing on April 30, the day of his Inauguration, as reported by Mrs. Alexander Hamilton, since Miss Nelly, young George Washington, and Mrs. Washington had not yet arrived in New York. And certainly the custom of leaving early and sending the carriage back would not have applied when the family was back at Mount Vernon, where a trip to church required a nine mile bouncing journey over muddy and rutted country roads to either the Pohick church or the church in Alexandria.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE—A CRITICISM OF CONVENIENCE
Next, let us consider Professor Boller’s evaluation of the evidence that he offers as proof of his theory that Washington’s non-communing in Philadelphia proves that he was a Deist. He states,
Abercrombie’s report that Washington “had never been a communicant” together with the statements of Mrs. Custis and Bishop White, surely must be regarded as conclusive. . .By contrast, the various stories collected by the pietists to prove that Washington received the sacrament at Morristown and elsewhere are based on mere hearsay statements made many years after Washington’s death.13
Professor Boller declares that his evidence is vastly superior to that of the “pietists” who argue for Washington’s communing on “hearsay” reports. His is based on the report of Reverend Abercrombie, “Mrs. Custis,” and Bishop White. But let’s take a moment and consider the “report” of Reverend Abercrombie:
A few days later, in conversation with, I believe, a Senator of the U.S., he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who in the course of the conversation at the table, said, that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit....
Notice that the Reverend Abercrombie’s report is not built on a personal conversation with the president. From whom did the reverend receive it? From an unnamed senator. Or was it a senator, since the Reverend Abercrombie says, “I believe, a Senator of the U.S.”? Strange indeed that an Anglican clergyman ministering in the nation’s capitol at the time could have had such a confidential conversation about the faith of the president with one of his closest confidants and not even know if he was a senator!
The point here is not to argue that Reverend Abercrombie’s “hearsay” evidence cannot be true, but to note that Professor Boller’s claim of superior evidence is questionable. The claims for Washington’s communing in Morristown are built on exactly the same kind of evidence as here given by Reverend Abercrombie and relied upon by Professor Boller—that is an eye witness account, once or twice removed. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington reportedly received Communion in a Presbyterian service in Morristown, New Jersey. The report of this comes from Reverend Dr. Timothy Johnes’ son-in-law, Reverend Dr. James Richards, who was also a minister. Both sources fall into the category of oral history; both can be presumed to be trustworthy, and thus, neither one is necessarily superior.
Further, when a careful consideration is given of the words allegedly said by the unnamed possible senator, it becomes clear that Washington was not making universal pronouncements about his lifetime views of Communion. He was merely stating his practice in the churches in question. The words of the Reverend Abercrombie (referring to Washington) again are clear,
...that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one of them, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station.
These words are addressing the actions of the president serving in Philadelphia in his busy and “elevated station,” not those of the vestryman and church warden from Virginia, or the believer who felt drawn to commune beyond the bounds of his own communion in the midst of war, disease, and exposure to the elements. To interpret these “hearsay” words of “he had never been a communicant” would be to deny his leadership in the Anglican Virginian parish and vestry as church warden, and to select one piece of questionable historical data and give it an unwarranted and undocumentable prominence over the other equally legitimate, oral, historical claims.
At best, these words, which we accept as authentic, argue that Washington did not commune as president in Philadelphia. Since we agree with Professor Boller on this point, it is incumbent upon us to explain why such would be the case. We must answer the question of what made communing in Philadelphia different than communing in New York, Morristown, and Virginia. But, before we address this central question, there is one last reason why Professor Boller’s argument will not stand up “in a court of law.”
PROFESSOR BOLLER’S LOGICAL FALLACY
Even after exposing all of these weaknesses in Professor Boller’s theory, there is still another problem with his claim that Washington was a Deist because he did not commune in Philadelphia under the ministry of Bishop White and the Reverend James Abercrombie. At the heart of the professor’s claim that Washington was a Deist, there is a logical inconsistency. The following argument’s logical fallacy is immediately apparent:
Ostriches do not fly.
George Washington did not fly.
Therefore George Washington was an ostrich.
Yet compare it with this logic:
Deists do not commune.
George Washington did not commune.
Therefore George Washington was a Deist.
While less apparent, the same logical fallacy is at work. The fact is that many who have considered themselves to be Christians have not communed for various reasons— the Quakers and the early Schwenkfelders never communed at all on theological and moral principles. Many Protestants have felt they could not commune in good conscience because they were not in communion with the clergy, the church, or the political head of the church where they have worshiped. Sometimes Christians have believed that it would be inappropriate for them to commune because of various personal challenges, difficulties, demands, or moral issues.
To put it logically, for the same reason that shoes are not crows just because both are black, so Washington and Deists are not both non-Christians because neither partook of Communion in Philadelphia at Christ Church.
Finally, let us notice the critique that the Reverend Abercrombie gives against Washington: “I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion.” We do not disagree with the words of the Reverend Abercrombie. But, we do disagree with the verdict that he delivered against Washington’s whole life. The evidence does not suggest that he never communed. While not communing under Bishop White in Philadelphia, the evidence is that Washington communed under Bishop Provoost in New York City.
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY—OR ARE BOTH TRUE?
To balance the charge brought by the testimony of the Reverend Abercrombie, which has been so heavily relied upon by Professor Boller, we submit the testimony of the Reverend Alexander Hamilton of the historic and illustrious Alexander Hamilton family:
It was a beautiful morning in May 1854, that the family coach drew up in front of the family home, 17 w. 20th. Street, New York City. There Mrs. General Hamilton (who had come on from Washington, D. C., with her son), her daughter-in-law, Mrs. John Church Hamilton, and A. Hamilton (the writer of this letter and present Reverend Alexander Hamilton) entered and rode to Wall Street, corner of Broad, New York City.
Then Mrs. General Hamilton, her daughter-in-law and great-grandson, Alexander, entered the former house of Alexander Hamilton. Going to the front window, Mrs. Hamilton said, “I, with Mrs. Knox and other ladies, looked from this window over to Federal Hall and saw George Washington inaugurated first President of the United States.
“Then we all walked up Broadway to St. Paul’s Chapel, Fulton Street. Washington, Chancellor Livingston, Genera Knox and your great-grandfather (meaning General Hamilton), went into the chapel and occupied the pew on the north side. We ladies sat just back of them, but Mrs. Washington was not present, being yet at Mount Vernon. A festal celebration was held, sermon preached by the rector, and the Holy Communion was also celebrated, at which Washington, members of his party and many others partook.”
Mrs. Hamilton then said to me, “My son, I have taken you to Wall Street and there depicted the inauguration; then to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Washington attended divine service, and received the Holy Communion. I want you to transmit these facts to future generations, as some have asked, “Was Washington a communicant of the Church, did he ever partake of the Holy Communion?’14
So who should we believe in regard to their testimonies about Washington’s communing or non-communing? Reverend Abercrombie? Reverend Hamilton? Reverend Johnes? We believe all of them, because there is clear evidence that supports why Washington would have communed in Virginia, Morristown, New Jersey, and New York, but not in Philadelphia.
So as we conclude this section, we believe that the appropriate question to ask is whether a Christian can be a good Christian and not always commune? Reverend John Stockton Littell, author of George Washington: Christian, answered this question in regard to General Washington: “During a short period it is probable that while he did not give up assisting in worship, he left the Church before Communion. It would perhaps be too much to expect that at all times he should have maintained an equally strong religious life, or that his perseverance was perfect and without a flaw.”15 However one answers this question, the point is that Washington’s non-communing in Philadelphia is not proof that he was a Deist. But why did Washington not commune in Philadelphia?
The reason that George Washington did not commune in Philadelphia, as we shall see in the next chapter, is due to a combination of concerns. First, there was the factor of his massive and accumulating duties as president and his constantly pressing need to keep his Mount Vernon plantation profitable after eight years of neglect and absence during the War. He had served the entire time as commander in chief without salary and so disposable cash was limited. Now after just a few years back at home, he had to leave for another substantial absence to serve as president that turned out to be eight more years away from home. Sunday was his only day for personal matters and for staying abreast of his vast personal correspondence.
But, on top of this pressure to use every moment for his personal concerns, there also was a major struggle occurring between the High Church and the Low Church in the new Episcopal denomination that also impacted Washington. In the next chapter, we will consider Washington’s relationship with Bishop Samuel Provoost in New York. Washington, like Bishop Provoost, was an adherent of the Low Church theology. When Washington came to Philadelphia, however, he chose to keep a studied distance from Bishop William White, who had compromised the Low Church position with the High Church bishop Samuel Seabury of New England. This contributed to the lack of connection between Washington and Bishop White. How Bishop White’s connection with Bishop Seabury impacted the Low Church and influenced Washington’s connection with Bishop White will be the focus of our next chapter.
THE DEIST EXPLANATION DOES NOT FIT THE KNOWN FACTS
The fact is that the explanation that Washington was a Deist, and that is why he did not commune in Philadelphia, does not account for all the known facts. Obviously, we have no direct statement from Washington as to why he did or did not commune. So whatever explanation one offers, it must fit all of the known facts. That is the problem with the Deist explanation. It does not fit.
As we continue to see, there are may reasons why Washington could not have been a Deist. He described himself as a Christian on various occasions,16 but he never used the word Deist, let alone even once claiming to be a Deist. He criticized the Deist beliefs that rejected divine Providence17 as well as the Deist rejection of the necessary support of religion and morality for political happiness.18 He repeatedly and openly affirmed key Christian doctrines, the very ones that, when affirmed, necessarily prohibit one from being a Deist, including: the existence and superior value of revelation, the Bible being the word of God, scripture and Holy Writ,19 the existence of true religion, the reality of both revealed and natural religion,20 the excellence of the Christian religion,21 the divinity of Christ, the depravity of human nature, his first national Thanksgiving Proclamation calling on the nation to find forgiveness of sins in the “Lord and Ruler of Nations,”22 a New Testament title for Christ (Revelation 12:5; 19:16), the importance of imitating Christ,23 the desire to advance Christianity and encourage its missions to non-Christians,24 and the looking forward to the millennial era of peace on earth.25
He even bore Christian witness while president on several occasions, such as in his Inaugural Address that was so openly Christian that the Presbyterians no longer worried that Christianity was not directly mentioned in the new U.S. Constitution.26 He delighted in Christian prayers and participated in distinctively Christian reciprocal prayers.27 He approved of biblical and Gospel-based sermons and even commended anti-Deist sermons;28 all of this coupled with his open and unstinting support of religion and morality, piety, and ministers of the Gospel.29 Then, as we saw in the previous chapter, using the very same type of evidence that Professor Boller accepts when convenient for his argument, we find that Washington was also a communicant.
CONCLUSION: WASHINGTON’S ALLEGED DEISM — IF IT DOESN’T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT
The thesis that Washington was a Deist simply does not fit the facts and must be rejected. Since Washington never wrote a single word saying that he no longer believed in Communion, or that he rejected Christianity, the claim that he rejected Christianity and Communion is built entirely on an argument from silence. The claim that Washington was a Deist is deafeningly refuted by the host of explicit Christian declarations from his pen and actions. Washington wanted to be interpreted by his actions, and so he often left a few words to help us to know what his actions meant. Given his motto was “Deeds not Words,”30 as Nelly Custis also wrote in the same letter misapplied by Professor Boller to defend a Deist interpretation of Washington, we must now ask what combination of words and deeds explains his communing in some places, but not as president in Philadelphia? Whatever explanation we offer, it must comport with all of the known facts.