Up to the commencement of the Revolution, the Church of England was the established religion, in which your mother had been educated with strictness, if not with bigotry. From strength of parental example, her attendance on public worship was unremitted, except when insuperable obstacles occurred; the administration of the sacrament was never without a cause passed by; in her closet, prayer was uniformly addressed to the throne of mercy and the questioning of the sacred truths she never permitted to herself or heard from others without abhorrence. When we were united, I was a deist, made so by my confidence in whom I revered, and by the labours of two of my preceptors, who, though of the ministry, poisoned me with books of infidelity. I cannot answer for myself that I should ever have been brought to examine the genuineness of Holy Writ, if I had not observed the consoling influence which it wrought upon the life of my dearest Betsey...for several years since I detected the vanity of sublunary things above; and knew that the good of man consisted in Christianity alone.32
The Committee on Religion, in part, saw their concern to impede the advance of Deism in Virginia. In light of this, The Committee on Religion would have been a strange place for a person to serve, if his religious attitudes were actually like those described by Pulitzer-prize winner Joseph J. Ellis in his 2004 bestseller, His Excellency: George Washington. If Washington really was “A lukewarm Episcopalian, [who] never took Communion, [and] tended to talk about ‘Providence’ or ‘Destiny’ rather than God”33 he would not have been very effective for the Committee’s work.34 Given the purpose of the Committee,
• Would the Burgesses have begun the committee’s work with a founding member who was, according to Ellis, “Never a deeply religious man, at least in the traditional Christian sense of the term.”?
• Would a Committee whose purpose was to address Deism select a member who “thought of God as a distant, impersonal force, the presumed wellspring for what he called destiny or Providence.”?
• Would the Burgesses have elected a “secular saint” who was not sure “Whether or not there was a hereafter or a heaven where one’s soul lived on...”?
• Did the decline of religion in Virginia need someone for whom the question of salvation in heaven “struck him as one of those unfathomable mysteries that Christian theologians wasted much ink and energy trying to resolve”?
• Would it have been a good choice to launch such a committee with one who believed that “The only certain form of persistence was in the memory of succeeding generations, a secular rather than sacred version of immortality....”?35
Should Ellis be correct in calling Washington “America’s greatest secular saint,”36 it seems to us that the House of Burgesses might have better elected Washington to the Committee on Deism, since Colonel Washington allegedly had such a deep commitment to the tenets of Deism and such little interest in religion. Just to be clear, however, the Committee on Deism did not exist. Deism was one of the chief issues that the Virginian Committee on Religion sought to address.
THE NEED FOR TEACHERS OF CHRISTIANITY: WASHINGTON ON THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT BILL
According to historian Allan Nevins, the Revolutionary War had brought, “it appears, an increase of crime in Virginia, and this was attributed by many to be a decline of religion. Among those who believed in legislative support of all the churches to check this decline were not only [Patrick] Henry and R. H. Lee, but Washington and John Marshall.”37 Thus, a bill entitled the General Assessment Bill was put under consideration.
The background of the bill was the perceived need to support religion in the post-war era, especially since the Anglican Church in Virginia had been disestablished. Washington had written about the matter to Samuel Chase in January, 1785.38 The direct effect of the bill would have been state funding of teachers of the Christian religion. Nevins explains
A plan had found favor with the Presbyterians, and an eloquent advocate in Patrick Henry. Briefly, it proposed that the State should establish all Christian denominations, make them equally state religions, and support them by regular taxation; it was pressed vigorously in the next few years by many outside as well as inside the Episcopal Church.
Henceforth the “general assessment” was the chief religious question before the Legislature. Our available evidence shows that by the end of 1783 the plan of taxing everyone for the support of all Christian ministers had gained wide favor, and was approved by a majority of Episcopalians, Methodists, and perhaps Presbyterians; but it was opposed by the Baptists and many in all other denominations who agreed with Jefferson that any link whatever between church and state was an evil...39
It was this bill that brought forth the famous “Memorial and Remonstrance” of James Madison.40 Ultimately, the resistance succeeded and the bill failed. The concern was the inherent danger to religious liberty if the government put any funds into religious support, even if the support was broadly conceived and all churches would be beneficiaries.
But Washington did not fully agree with the opponents of this bill that would have provided support for teachers of the Christian religion. Clearly, he was a strong advocate of religious liberty. But he was also a strong advocate of Christian teaching to advance the moral well-being of the community. He believed there was a way both to support the funding of Christian teachers and to protect religious liberty. His political instincts however, told him that the bill could not carry and, if passed, it would probably create ongoing tension, due to an outspoken but substantial minority. In his October 3, 1785, letter to George Mason, Washington explained:
Dr. Sir: I have this moment received yours of yesterday’s date, enclosing a memorial and remonstrance against the Assessment Bill, which I will read with attention. At present I am unable to do it, on account of company. The bill itself I do not recollect ever to have read: with attention I am certain I never did, but will compare them together.
The bill in question was to provide for teachers of the Christian religion in Virginia by means of a specified tax, the money to be paid out on order of the vestries, elders, etc., of each religious society to a teacher or minister of its denomination. It could also be used to provide places of worship.
Altho, no man’s sentiments are more opposed to any kind of restraint upon religious principles than mine are; yet I must confess, that I am not amongst the number of those who are so much alarmed at the thoughts of making people pay towards the support of that which they profess, if of the denomination of Christians; or declare themselves Jews, Mahomitans or otherwise, and thereby obtain proper relief. As the matter now stands, I wish an assessment had never been agitated, and as it has gone so far, that the Bill could die an easy death; because I think it will be productive of more quiet to the State, than by enacting it into a Law; which, in my opinion, would be impolitic, admitting there is a decided majority for it, to the disquiet of a respectable minority. In the first case the matter will soon subside; in the latter, it will rankle and perhaps convulse, the State.41
The point here is that Washington desired to have Christian education supported by state funds if non-Christians could be exempt. Washington’s view of the separation of church and state—-a phrase that he never used—-was a friendly separation that kept the duties of the church and state distinct, but sought to have them cooperate for the good of all.42
So Washington was open to the taxation of Christians for Christian causes, as long as non-Christians could find relief from such taxes. If Washington had been a Deist, who rejected all claims of revealed religion, he would have opposed the state sponsorship of Christian programs. He did not view the proposed legislation as a necessary violation of religious liberty if “Jews, Mahomitans or otherwise” could “obtain proper relief.” Four years later, serving under the United States Constitution, his idea of the friendly cooperation of the distinct spheres of church and state was still his modus operandi. He believed that it was the clergy’s duty to “instruct the ignorant, and to reclaim the devious.”43 However, he also felt he could promise under the Constitution or “Magna-Charta” of America, that “in the progress of morality and science, to which our government will give every furtherance, we may confidently expect the advancement of true religion, and the completion of our happiness.”44
WASHINGTON ON AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE
As a Low Churchman, a leader of religious matters in his church (as vestryman and church warden) and in his government (as a member of the Committee on Religion), George Washington, was confronted with the question of an American Episcopate. During the Colonial era, the fact that there were no bishops in America caused difficulties for the progress of the Anglican Church. Yet the colonists were wary of the power that bishops would wield in America. Editor of the Writings of Washington John C. Fitzpatrick notes,
One of the grievances of the Colonies was this question of the Established Church’s rule from London. Young men from America who desired to enter holy orders were obliged to travel to England to be ordained, and few, if any, could stand the expense. The American episcopate was thus, like the American governors, an alien body and not likely to be in sympathy with the people.45
So when plans began for the sending of a bishop to America, there was unrest. The fear of the New Englanders was that there was a plot to impose bishops on the colonies against their will. One popular political cartoon depicted an angry mob of New Englanders pushing a ship back toward England, because it was bringing a bishop. The bishop in the cartoon prayed, “Lord, now lettest thou thy Servant depart in Peace.”
Other elements of the cartoon included Calvin’s writings being thrown at the bishop, and protests of “No Lords Spiritual or Temporal in New England”; “Shall they be obliged to maintain bishops that cannot maintain themselves?” and “Liberty & Freedom of Conscience.” To put it mildly, the New England colonies were not ready for an American Episcopate.
Anglican Virginia was not ready for an American Episcopate either. From his vantage point of serving on the Committee of Religion in the House of Burgesses, Washington, the Low Churchman, wrote about an American Episcopate with less than enthusiasm. Writing on May 4, 1772 to Reverend Jonathan Boucher, the tutor of his stepson Jacky Custis, he said: “After a tiresome, and in my opinion, a very unimportant Session, I returned home about the middle of last Month ....”46 Washington continued:
The expediency of an American Episcopate was long and warmly debated, and at length rejected. As a substitute, the House attempted to frame an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, to be composed of a President and four other clergymen, who were to have full power and authority to hear and determine all matters and causes relative to the clergy, and to be vested with the [power] of Suspension, deprivation, and visitation. From this Jurisdiction an Appeal was to be had to a Court of Delegates, to consist of an equal number of Clergymen and Laymen; but this Bill, after much canvassing, was put to Sleep, from an opinion that the subject was of too much Importance to be hastily entered into at the end of a Session.47
Having a bishop, even in Washington’s Anglican Virginia, was an idea that had not yet achieved support. In fact, when the Committee on Religion had begun in 1769, it had “...drafted plans to block a proposed Anglican episcopate and keep the church under indigenous control.”48
CHANGES IN THE PRAYER BOOK CAUSED BY THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR
One of the changes to the Anglican faith that Washington personally experienced was the impact of the Revolution on the prayer book he so frequently used. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer had the worshipers in morning prayer asking that the Lord would grant the King “long to live,” and that he would “strengthen him that he may vanquish and overcome all his enemies....” Obviously, prayers for the King’s success could not continue in the church’s worship, if the church was convinced that he was assaulting them as a tyrant. After the Declaration of Independence, the vestry of the Bruton Church in Virginia, for example, covered over the prayer for the King. A hand written text replaced the original prayer with a prayer for the President instead:
O Lord our heavenly Father, the high and mighty Ruler of the universe who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth, most heartily we beseech thee, with thy favour to behold and bless thy servant the President of the United States and all others in authority; and so replenish them with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that they may always incline to thy will and walk in thy way; Endue them plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant them in health; and prosperity long to live and finally after this life to attain everlasting joy and felicity through Jesus Christ our Lord.49
After the War, President George Washington would regularly pray this prayer of salvation for himself and his congressional colleagues from his new American version of the Book of Common Prayer. As Washington prayed along with all who assembled with him in New York and Philadelphia, he prayed that he as president would “after this life attain everlasting joy and felicity through Jesus Christ our Lord.” We know that Washington worshiped regularly on Sundays as president for eight years. If he only worshiped on half of the Sundays, allowing for travel, health issues and other necessary absences, that means that he publicly prayed this prayer for himself over two hundred times as president. Nelly remembered his prayers vividly and said, “No one in church attended to the service with more reverential respect.”50 We wonder then, if Washington historian Joseph J. Ellis’s description of Washington as a “lukewarm Episcopalian” is the same Washington described by his granddaughter, who sat in the same pew as he did Sunday after Sunday admiring his most “reverential respect”? So then, did Washington ask for the gift of eternal life? We know he did so with deep, reverential respect on at least two hundred occasions.
But before the American Book of Common Prayer could become official, the American Episcopal Church had to be structured and its governance had to be addressed.
THE PROPOSED BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER OF 1785
With the consecration of Bishop Samuel Seabury51 in 1784, and Bishop Samuel Provoost52 and Bishop William White53 in 1787, an American Episcopacy became a reality in an independent America. The church was no longer under the crown of England or the Bishop of London. Children could be confirmed by American bishops and so be properly admitted to the Eucharist. American clergy could be ordained without traveling to London. And between the times of these two Episcopal consecrations, since White and Provoost were ordained together three years after Seabury, a 1785 American Proposed Book of Common Prayer (published in 1786) became available. While there were several changes made in the revised prayer book to the historic 1662 Anglican version, the most important ones for our discussion appear to be:
• It replaced prayers for the King with prayers for the nation;
• Changes were made to the 39 Articles,54 as well as the Apostles Creed;
• The word “Priest” was replaced on most occasions with the word “minister”;
• The Athanasian Creed was removed.55
And most interestingly for the new nation, it included an order for the celebration of July Fourth. The Service for July 4th was listed as “A Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving to Almighty God, for the inestimable Blessings of Religious and Civil Liberty; to be used yearly Fourth Day of July” and included the following prayer:
