Charles Green’s death had a significant impact on Washington. He lost a physician, since his letters reveal that there were times when his pastor also provided medical care, such as the time he wrote for a house call when he was in such pain he could scarcely write the letter, or when Mrs. Washington had contracted the measles.²⁹ He also wrote to him from the Warm Springs, describing the location and potential health benefits.³⁰ He clearly lost a long-standing friend from the days of his father’s service on the vestry. But the passing of “Parson Green,”³¹ as he called him on one occasion, also meant that he and the other vestrymen would have to search for another clergyman for Truro Parish.

The regular duties of the parish did not cease with the passing of Reverend Green. On February 3-4, 1766, Washington and fellow vestrymen determined to build a new church, and Washington was appointed to the building committee of this church.³² As the contract was signed for this construction project, an attorney named Lee Massey was present and served as a witness. But he also served the vestry in another important way. The vestry record of the same meeting states,

Whereas Mr. Lee Massey, an Inhabitant of this parish, having this day offered to supply the place of a Minister therein, and the Vestry being of opinion that he is a person well qualified for the sacred function, have agreed to recommend him to the favour of His grace the Bishop of London and of the Governor of this Colony, for an Introduction to this said parish, and to receive him upon his return properly qualified to discharge the said office.

In consequence of the aforesaid Resolve a Recommendation to his Lordship the Bishop of London, and an address to his Honour the Governor of this Colony in favour of Mr. Lee Massey being made out, are ordered hereafter to be recorded.³³

Washington was present at this meeting, and, as can be seen from the minutes, he signed the letters that were sent to the Bishop and the Governor. Thus, with the approval of Church Warden George Washington, the well-respected Lee Massey was authorized to travel to London for Anglican ordination and thus take his first step to become the new minister of Truro Parish.

GEORGE WASHINGTON ON THE POHICK CHURCH BUILDING COMMITTEE

In 1767, Washington again served as Church Warden. In this very busy year for the parish, he saw the return and reception of the newly ordained Reverend Lee Massey as the new Minister of Truro Parish. He also was responsible for the oversight of the building of the Falls Church and its vestry house, the sale of the old glebe, and the accounts of the sale of the church’s tobacco and of the payments to the parish’s employees. But something even more dramatic happened at the annual meeting on November 20, which met to discuss the amount of Parish “tax.” This tax or levy was the assessment to be raised from the church members to build new churches and to operate the existing churches. In a vote that included every member of the vestry, since all were present, there was a split vote concerning the building of another new Church.

Resolved, that a Church be built at or as near the Cross Road leading from Holis’s to Pohic Warehouse as water can be had, which resolution was carried by a majority of seven to five.³⁴

A tradition has come down from this meeting that was first given by Washington biographer Jared Sparks in his Life of Washington and has been repeated by many others, including Bishop Meade.

The Old Pohick Church was a frame building, and occupied a site on the south side of Pohick run, and about two miles from the present site which is on the north side of the run. When it was no longer fit for use, it is said the parishioners were called together to determine on the locality of the new Church, when George Mason, the compatriot of Washington, advocated the old site, pleading that it was the house in which their fathers worshipped, and that the graves of many were around it, while Washington and others advocated a more central and convenient one. The question was left unsettled, and another meeting for its decision appointed. Meanwhile Washington surveyed the neighborhood, and marked the houses and distances on a well-drawn map, and, when the day of decision arrived, met all the arguments of his opponent by presenting this paper, and thus carried his point.³⁵

Pohick Church still stands today. You can visit it in Lorton, Virginia. As of this writing, the Reverend Donald S. Binder, Ph.D., serves as the rector. He notes:

Washington surveyed the land. He actually argued to have the church moved here because it was a more centralized location, had a surveyor’s map, drawn up so he could win the point with the rest of the vestry, and so the church was moved up here. It’s also on very high ground; you can really oversee the whole of Lorton Valley down below and so, he thought it was an appropriate place, to put a church, you know, closer to heaven, more or less, is the thinking.³⁶

The old site was closer to Mason’s estate, Gunston Hall, while the new site was closer to Washington’s Mount Vernon. The first meeting may have occurred at the September 28, 1767, vestry, where four vestrymen were absent although Mason and Washington had been there. The strong opinions expressed on the location seem to be supported by the full attendance of the vestry at its next meeting, and the close 7-5 vote in favor of Washington’s location. It is easy to overlook how important the church’s life was in this era. At times the churchyard itself was the venue for important discussions and decisions regarding the future of America.³⁷ It is certainly fascinating to consider that here we find neighbors, Mason and Washington, two statesmen who would become critical to the foundations of a new nation, debating over the location of their church building. Clearly, church and state were important concerns for our Virginian founding fathers. The building committee for the new Pohick Church included both Washington and Mason, which seems to indicate that their debate and its ultimate outcome did not end their ability to work together.

Washington’s commitment in serving the church was time-consuming. He spent many hours at these long meetings serving the vestry. An exceptionally long meeting occurred on March 3, 1769. Washington’s diary confirms the vestry record: “Mar. 3d. Went to a Vestry at Pohick church and returned abt. 11 o’clock at night.”³⁸

GEORGE WASHINGTON’S FINAL VESTRY MEETING

With the arrival of 1774, Washington’s national leadership was to become a reality, and with it came the necessity to relinquish actual leadership in his local parish’s vestry, even though he was once again appointed Church Warden for the next year, 1775. His final meeting as an active vestryman makes clear that he did not leave his church with a spirit of indifference or unbelief. The last vote that he actually participated in says,

Ordered that the new Church near Pohic be furnished with a Cushion for the Pulpit and Cloths for the Desks & Communion Table of Crimson Velvett with Gold Fring, and that Colo. George Washington be requested to import the same, as also two Folio Prayer Books covered with blue Turkey Leather with name of the Parish thereon in Gold Letters, the Dimensions for the said Cushion and Cloths being left to Wm. Bernard Sears who is desired to furnish Colo. Washington with proper Patterns at the Expense of the Parish.³⁹

The vestry adjourned to meet the next day, February 25th. The record states, “Bonds being taken yesterday from Colo. George Washington for himself, and also as Attorney in Fact for Colo. George William Fairfax, now in Britain, . . .”⁴⁰

George remained a nominal vestryman until he resigned in 1782, at the end of the war. His public duties from this time on made it impossible for him to serve in any active way on the Truro Vestry. For example, on July 10, 1783, he wrote to his old friend and former vestryman, George William Fairfax, then residing in London, “I have not been in the State (Virginia) but once since the 4^th of May, 1775. And that was at the siege of York. In going thither I spent one day at my own house, and in returning I took 3 or 4, without attempting to transact a particle of private business.”⁴¹ In 1784, two years after General Washington resigned, Lund Washington was elected to the vestry in 1784, thus keeping a Washington on the vestry.⁴²

But Washington’s absence from the vestry and the church at Pohick did not end his influence or his interest. He provided funds for expensive decorations for the church that were done in gold leaf.⁴³

NO MORE STATE FUNDS FOR THE CHURCH

When the eventful year of 1776 arrived, there was a profound impact on the parish. Eventually, there would be no state support for the church, which became a final reality in 1786 with Disestablishment. The clergy would now have to be supported by the voluntary contributions of the church. With George Fairfax in England and General Washington leading the Continental Army, the needs of the Truro Parish became so great, that Reverend Massey ceased to preach and began to practice medicine. (Reverend Massey was first a lawyer, then a pastor, and lastly a physician.) The inherent tension between his vow to the King and his loyalty to his congregation may have played a major role as well, given the fact that he concluded his practice of law because of his disdain for moral tension in many of the cases he had to address as an attorney.

The duties of leading an army away from his financial base of plantation life also made it a challenge for George Washington to honor his substantial commitments. His obligations for the Pohick pews also included that of his friend George William Fairfax, who returned to England before the hostilities of arms broke out. On November 22, 1776, the vestry book states,

Mr. Peter Wagener and Mr. Thomazen Ellzey appointed Church Wardens, and ordered to receive from former Wardens all balances due the Parish, including General George Washington’s Bond and that of Col. George William Fairfax for which the General is liable, and to pay the several sums due the Parish Claimants charged this day, amounting to 119 pounds six shillings and four pence.

While it is clear that Washington did not serve as a vestryman in two parishes, although elected to serve in two, it is also clear that Washington determined to have a family pew in both the new Fairfax Parish and the continuing Truro Parish. This may have been an expression of love for the new Christ Church that was being built in Alexandria at the same time as the new church was being built in Pohick, or it may have been due to a sense of duty, since his Mount Vernon estate had been divided between the two parishes by the final redistricting of the new parish. It is even possible that the earlier tensions that had occurred within the vestry over the placement of the Pohick Church, coupled with the departure of his friend George William Fairfax, and the physical infirmities of Lee Massey, were motives for George to have a pew in Christ Church.

What we do know is that Washington paid the highest individual price for the pews that he purchased in both of the new churches, even more than Robert Alexander, for whom the new city had been named. At Pohick, his bid tied that of George Fairfax, for which George became personally liable when the Fairfaxes quietly fled the country in the face of the looming revolution.⁴⁴

The pew Washington purchased at Christ Church still exists and is in the front on the left, with a close view of the Communion table and altarpiece with the Creed, Commandments, and Lord’s Prayer. This pew is doubly historical, since Gen. Robert E. Lee later occupied it.⁴⁵

WASHINGTON’S DEEP INTEREST IN THE CHURCH PEWS

Insight into Washington’s deep interest in the pew at Christ Church Alexandria is evident in one of the most passionate letters that he ever wrote. For some reason the vestry in the new Fairfax Parish was considering the setting aside of the sale of the pews—which would have been unfair to those (such as Washington) who had already paid goodly sums for such pews. Since Washington was not a vestryman in Fairfax Parish, he had not had a role in this decision. But when he heard that this was under consideration, he wrote a scathing letter in protest. The letter to the vestry is to the attention of John Dalton and is dated February 15, 1773. It was written from Mount Vernon and it shows that Washington’s interest in the pew was not a mere show of religiosity or cultural duty.

Sir: I am obliged to you for the notice you have given me of an intended meeting of your Vestry on Tuesday next. I am an avowed Enemy to the Scheme I have heard (but never till of late believed) that some Members of your Vestry are Inclined to adopt.

If the Subscription to which among others I put my name was set on foot under Sanction of an Order of Vestry as I always understood it to be, I own myself at a loss to conceive, upon what principle it is, that there should be an attempt to destroy it; repugnant it is to every Idea I entertain of justice to do so; ... As a Subscriber who meant to lay the foundation of a Family Pew in the New Church, I shall think myself Injured; ... as every Subscriber has an undoubted right to a Seat in the Church what matters it whether he Assembles his whole Family into one Pew, or, as the Custom is have them dispers’d into two or three; ...

...considering myself as a Subscriber, I enter my Protest against the measure in Agitation. As a Parishioner, I am equally averse to a Tax which is intended to replace the Subscription Money. These will be my declared Sentiments if present at the Vestry; if I am not I shall be obliged to you for Communicating them, I am, etc. ⁴⁶

In no uncertain terms, Washington was decrying the proposal that the vestry of Fairfax County reallocate the church pews, even if he were repaid his subscription money. He had intended to establish a family pew. This vestry action would have removed the family spiritual legacy that George Washington had planned to create. This powerful missive apparently carried the day, since his family pew was awaiting him after the war, when he began his regular attendance in Alexandria, sometime around April 1785.

Washington’s place in the church clearly mattered to him. Scarcely any other letter in all of George Washington’s writings carries the passion he displays in the above letter for his place in the church.

CONCLUSION

When we think of George Washington, we think of a great leader. One of the places he learned to lead was in the context of the church. The leadership principles that the father of our country put into practice in the army, in presiding over the Constitution, and in the presidency were learned in part in the service to his church.

It should be abundantly clear that not only did the church play an important part in Washington’s life, but Washington played an important role in the church as well. The record reveals a faithful and intense commitment of Washington to his churches, far beyond what one might expect from a Deist.

There were substantial requirements for a serious vestryman. He had to affirm the creed of the Anglican Church, which at that time was orthodox Christianity. Did it cost anything in terms of time, energy, and emotion to be more than a figurehead vestryman like Thomas Jefferson? The answer is that it cost a great deal, especially in an intensely busy life like Washington’s. Yet, his commitment to his church was not just the highest price for a pew and gold leaf for the sanctuary, but it was consistent attendance at meetings that sometimes went into the wee hours of the unlit, dark, colonial Virginia nights. Boller’s mistake is to assume that Washington’s activity in the vestry did not reveal any special religious zeal. That assumption is not only refuted by the bare recital of the facts of Washington’s vestry service in comparison with Jefferson’s inactivity, but Boller’s unsubstantiated claim also fails to hear how George Washington chose to speak most loudly and clearly to his family, friends, and neighbors. It is the same way he still speaks to posterity. Deeds not words!

FIFTEEN

George Washington

The Low Churchman

“The expediency of an American Episcopate was long and warmly debated, and at length rejected.”

George Washington, May 4, 1772

¹

The Anglican tradition in Virginia at the beginning of the American constitutional era had two streams of thought. They have been called the High Church and the Low (or broad) Church. The High Church under the leadership of Bishop Samuel Seabury in New England had certain distinctives that were not shared by the members of the Low Church, which was led by Bishop Samuel Provoost in New York. The Low Church reflected the traditional Anglican Church in Virginia, of which Washington was a part. The High Church emphasized apostolic succession. This view claimed an unbroken chain of ordination all the way from the Anglican bishops to the apostles. Adherents of apostolic succession claimed that the Anglican Church was the only church that could properly administer the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. This created an air of exclusivity and theological distance from other Protestant churches.

The Low Church, on the other hand, while not discounting the value of apostolic succession, felt it was not the foundational doctrine for the Church’s life. Instead of emphasizing the continuity of bishops by an unbroken succession of ordination, the Low Church focused on the importance of lay leadership. Instead of emphasizing an exclusive and uniquely legitimate Communion, the Low Church emphasized a broader Communion with other churches within the historic orthodox tradition of Christianity.

Interestingly, this division between the High Church and the Low Church not only reflected different theological ideas, but it also reflected the natural division of geography. The northern church of New England was High Church and the southern church of Virginia was Low Church. In between the two was Philadelphia, governed by Bishop William White and New York, governed by Bishop Samuel Provoost. Initially, these two Bishops espoused the Low Church tradition of Virginia. As a result of the ecclesiastical debates, and even though he was a great patriot and Low Churchman, Bishop White reached out to High Church Bishop Seabury to establish a union between the High and Low Church. This compromise was uncomfortable for the Virginians and bitterly opposed by Bishop Provoost in New York City. This was the milieu in which George Washington found himself in Philadelphia as he worshipped as president. In fact, colonial America had wrestled with the question of whether there should be a bishop in America at all.

Here and in a later chapter, we will seek to explain why Washington was initially opposed to an American Episcopate that would have lessened lay leadership by elevating the rule of bishops and why he also would have been uncomfortable to personally connect with Bishop White, whose alliance with Bishop Seabury thwarted the Low Church’s vision for the new Protestant Episcopal church.