If such ecclesiastical records do not exist, it is not startling that we do not have records that indicate when or how often Washington communed. Similarly, we do not possess quotations from Washington declaring his desire to commune at the Lord’s Table or his specific rejection thereof, although, as we will see, there is early written testimony that such a written record may have existed.

We thus must keep in mind a basic premise established earlier. Washington may give us written clues about his beliefs, but he never wanted or intended to create an explicit statement of faith. Instead, he claimed that his deeds spoke more loudly than his words. So if and when we discover that Washington communed, and if and when we discover that he chose not to, we must ask what those actions meant.

As we seek to interpret them, we must do so in a manner that reflects what we already know about his life, previous actions, and expressed and written beliefs. We must seek both his deeds, and where possible, we must explain them in conjunction with his words. The words of those closest in time to Washington’s life are also important for our debate. So let us start with the summary of this question, as penned by Bishop Meade, who wrote the following more than half a century after Washington’s death:

One question only remains to be settled: Was Washington a communicant of the Church? That he was might be reasonably inferred from the indication of youthful piety, his religious, his ministerial offices at the head of his regiment, the active part taken in the concerns of the parish, his habits of devotion, his regular attendance at church, his conscientious observance of the Sabbath, his strict fasting on appointed days.

It is also believed that he was a communicant, from the testimony of the Reverend Lee Massey, as handed down through his family, and also of others which have come down to us. The testimony which has often been adduced to prove that, during the war, he did commune on a certain Sabbath in a Presbyterian church at Morristown, New Jersey, ought to be enough to satisfy a reasonable man of the fact. Add to these the declaration of so many, in the sermons and orations at the time of his death. But still it has been made a question, and it may be well to consider on what ground. It is certainly a fact, that for a certain period of time during his Presidential term, while the Congress was held in Philadelphia, he did not commune. This fact rests of the authority of Bishop White, under whose ministry the President sat, and who was on the most intimate terms with himself and Mrs. Washington. I will relate what the Bishop told myself and others in relation to it. During the session or sessions of Congress held in Philadelphia, General Washington was, with his family, a regular attendant at one of the churches under the care of Bishop White and his assistants. On Communion-days, when the congregation was dismissed, (except the portion which communed,) the General left the church, until a certain Sabbath on which Dr. Abercrombie, in his sermon, spoke of the impropriety of turning our backs on the Lord’s table,—that is, neglecting to commune,—from which time General Washington came no more on Communion-days. Bishop White supposes that the General understood the “words turning our backs on the Lord’s table” in a somewhat different sense than was designed by the preacher; that he supposed it was intended to censure those who left the church at the time of its administration, and, in order not to seem to be disrespectful to that ordinance, thought it better not to be present at all on such occasions. It is needless to attempt to conjecture what may have been the reason of this temporary (as we hope it was) suspension of the act of communicating. A regard for historic truth has led to the mention of this subject. The question as to his ever having been a communicant has been raised on this fact, as stated by Bishop White, and we have thought it best to give the narrative as we heard it from the lips of the Bishop himself.²

So a key objection made to the claim that Washington was a Christian is that for a while, perhaps even years, he went without receiving Communion. While it can be asserted that one can be a Christian and not always partake of the Lord’s Table, still, this raises a legitimate question concerning Washington’s religious beliefs. Was Washington a disbeliever in the atonement, to which the Communion points?

Paul Boller cites sources—namely Reverend Bird Wilson—that he believes demonstrate that Washington in his later years disregarded the sacrament: “Dr. James Abercrombie, assistant rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia, which Washington attended while President had confided to him [Reverend Bird Wilson] that Washington never partook of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper during his presidency. On sacrament days, Wilson quoted Abercrombie as saying, ‘Washington’s custom was to rise, just before the ceremony commenced, and to walk out of church.’”³

Abercrombie also wrote the following—although he would not own up to these words when asked about them later: “That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, 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, and considered as a channel of divine grace.”⁴

Yet, Boller is also honest to cite a source that undercuts this point. Reverend William Jackson of Alexandria, Virginia states, “Universal tradition in the families of those whose parents or friends were acquainted with the General, is, that he was a regular communicant.”⁵ Others, such as Moncure Conway, argued that George Washington in mature life was a Deist—his earlier practices then being nullified by his practices later in life.⁶

As we proceed with this debate, let us note two things. First, Boller’s argument does not appeal to Washington’s writings. Boller cannot produce anything written by George Washington himself to substantiate Washington’s alleged non-communing, or even more importantly, that he did not believe in Christ’s atonement. This means his entire argument is built on silence overlaid with Boller’s doubt. Second, to support his claim, he relies entirely on the historical data collected from others’ words. So, we will follow his example and answer his claim from the testimony of others who addressed this matter. But, we will do more than this. At the conclusion of this chapter, we will also appeal to Washington’s writings, for we do not have to appeal merely to an argument from silence. Washington does refer indirectly to the Eucharist in his writings, and does so in very visible places.

WRITTEN TESTIMONIES OF THOSE WHO SAW WASHINGTON TAKE COMMUNION

Mrs. Washington’s granddaughter, who lived for twenty years in the Washington family, wrote: “I have heard my mother say General Washington always received the Sacrament with my grandmother before the Revolution.”⁷ Some of the testimonies of Washington’s partaking of Communion have been preserved by Bishop William Meade and Reverend E. C. M’Guire.

One such affirmation of Washington’s partaking of Communion is from the testimony of General Robert Porterfield, preserved in a letter from General S. H. Lewis, of Augusta County, Virginia, to the Reverend Mr. Dana, of Alexandria, dated December 14, 1855.

General Porterfield said ... that he had known General Washington personally for many years... “[Washington] was a pious man, and a member of your Church, [the Episcopal.] I saw him myself on his knees receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ....”⁸

Additional testimony corroborating this tradition was secured through the research of E. C. M’Guire in 1836,

Among the aged persons residing in the neighbourhood of Mount Vernon, and the descendants of such others as have recently gone down to the grave, there is but one opinion in regard to the fact of his having been a communicant in Pohick Church, previous to the revolutionary war. The writer himself had it from a respectable lady, that she once heard her mother unqualifiedly declare, that General Washington was a communicant in that church, in the vicinity of which she had her residence, and on the services of which she attended. A living grand-daughter of the Reverend Lee Massey, rector of Mount Vernon Parish, for some years after Washington’s marriage—says, her grandfather on a specified occasion, told her the same thing in answer to a particular inquiry on the subject.⁹

Another account of Washington communing is given by M’Guire. He gives the testimony of one who claimed to witness Washington partake of communion. In this instance it was in New York City. M’Guire writes,

The following extract is from a volume of sermons recently published by Dr. Chapman, of Portland, Maine. It is here added, because of the authenticity and conclusiveness of the testimony furnished by it, on the subject before us. He [George Washington] lived at a period when there were less verbal pretensions on the subject of religion, than have become exceeding fashionable in modern times. And the consequence is, that in his life, we have more of the substance than the parade of piety. Still he was an open and avowed follower of the Lord of glory. From the lips of a lady of undoubted veracity, yet living, and a worthy communicant of the church, I received the interesting fact, that soon after the close of the revolutionary war, she saw him partake of the consecrated symbols of the body and blood of Christ, in Trinity Church, in the city of New –York.¹⁰

Another testimonial from an eyewitness of seeing George Washington receiving Communion also refers to a later time in his life—the time he served as president. This comes from Major Popham, who served with Washington during the Revolutionary War.¹¹

It was my great good fortune to have attended St. Paul’s Church in this city with the General during the whole period of his residence in New York as President of the United States. The pew of Chief-Justice Morris was situated next to that of the President, close to whom I constantly sat in Judge Morris’s pew, and I am as confident as a memory now labouring under the pressure of fourscore years and seven can make me, that the President had more than once—I believe I say often- attended at the sacramental table, at which I had the privilege and happiness to kneel with him. And I am aided in my associations by my elder daughter, who distinctly recollects her grandmamma—Mrs. Morris—often mention that fact with great pleasure. Indeed, I am further confirmed in my assurance by the perfect recollection of the President’s uniform deportment during divine service in church. The steady seriousness of his manner, the solemn, audible, but subdued tone of voice in which he read and repeated the responses, the Christian humility which overspread and adorned the native dignity of the saviour of his country, at once exhibited him a pattern to all who had the honour of access to him. It was my good fortune, my dear madam, to have had frequent intercourse with him. It is my pride and boast to have seen him in various situations,—in the flush of victory, in the field and in the tent,—in the church and at the altar, always himself, ever the same.¹²

WASHINGTON’S COMMUNING AT THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF MORRISTOWN NEW JERSEY

Another account of Washington communing is from Morristown, New Jersey, during the Revolutionary War. This remarkable account alleges that Washington partook of Communion in a Presbyterian setting. Given that the English Civil War of the 1640s was fought by Puritan Congregationalists and Presbyterians against Anglican Loyalists, and that tensions had carried over into the colonies of the New World, one would not have expected an Anglican to commune at a Presbyterian table. The unexpected character of such an event is part of what makes this tradition plausible. It is difficult to understand how the story would have been concocted, let alone have gained credence, in the era from which it emanated, had there not been something that prompted the story’s development.

H. A. Ogden’s rarely acknowledged painting of George Washington receiving Holy Communion at Morristown in the spring of 1777

This painting appears in color in the middle of this book

Generally speaking, oral history, although imperfectly, does preserve traditions that are rooted in history. Although there is no extant, eyewitness, written account of the event, the testimony supporting the traditional story is worthy of consideration, given the letters already cited from military persons who claimed that they had participated with Washington in Communion services.

Moreover, even though there are no written historical records immediately from that era to establish the event, earlier generations affirmed its authenticity. For example, it was included in the Presbyterian Encyclopedia published in the late eighteen hundreds under the article entitled, “General Washington.”¹³ Similarly, an historical marker was placed in Morristown, New Jersey, by the Daughters of the American Revolution to commemorate the event.¹⁴ Also, a painting of the Washington Communion story hung for many years in the Presbyterian Hospital of Philadelphia. Today, this painting is in the parish house of the Presbyterian Church in Morristown, New Jersey.

The tradition of Washington’s partaking of Communion in this Presbyterian setting can be assembled from several early written sources. Support for the claim that Washington had the freedom of conscience to commune outside of his Anglican tradition is added by J. I. Good, historian of the German Reformed tradition in America. Dr. Good writes:

When Washington was driven out of Philadelphia by the yellow fever in 1793, he made his home for several months in the family of Reverend Mr. Herman, the pastor at Germantown. There is a tradition that he attended the Reformed church then, and on one occasion took communion with the congregation.¹⁵

The first printed story of the Morristown event was in 1829. The account was written by Reverend Dr. Samuel H. Coxe, who was then the pastor of Laight Street Presbyterian Church in New York City.¹⁶ According to Coxe, during the week preceding the semiannual celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the Presbyterian church, Washington rode to the home of the pastor of the church, Reverend Timothy Johnes, to inquire whether a non-Presbyterian could commune at the service. The answer Washington received affirmed that Christians from other denominations were welcomed. Washington then declared his intent to be present for the service.

Washington’s worshiping at the Morristown Church is also affirmed by an article in the 1859 edition of Harper’s Magazine, “The pulpit of the Morristown Presbyterian Church was occupied by Doctor Timothy Johnes, whose contemporaries describe him as a mild but eminently persuasive preacher, and as a most admirable pastor. Washington was a constant attendant on his preaching, both winters he spent in Morristown.”¹⁷

What transpired on the communion Sunday is described by an article from the Presbyterian Magazine,

It is the Sabbath. The congregation are assembled in an orchard, in a natural basin which Providence had made for them, to pay their homage to the Most High, and to commemorate the love of the Redeemer, even in the winter. Among their number is the commander in chief of the American army. With a willing and devout spirit he unites with the people of God in the ordinances of religion. After a solemn sermon from a venerable minister, a hymn is sung, and the invitation given to the members of sister churches to unite in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. A well-known military form rises in response to the invitation. With solemn dignity and Christian meekness he takes his seat with Christ’s people and partakes of the bread and wine. It is Washington at the communion table.¹⁸

The fact of Washington attending an outdoor worship service is also affirmed in a history of Morristown, “that Washington and other American officers and soldiers occasionally attended open-air services, held in the orchard in the rear of the Presbyterian parsonage, is now too well authenticated to question.”¹⁹

Some of the authentication of this story was assembled by Reverend E. C. M’Guire in 1836. In response to his inquiries if there was any written documentation still in existence of Washington’s request to be included in the Communion service at Morristown, he received letters from two individuals, Asa S. Colton and Dr. James Richards.

Asa Colton wrote, “Mrs. Johnes...gives it as an unquestioned family tradition, that General Washington wrote the note in question, and partook of the sacrament as it has been commonly reported. ... the family are still in possession of the orchard, and point out the very tree under which the sacrament was then administered, the church being at that time occupied as a hospital. The fact in question is regarded as certain by the older residents of the place, beyond all room for doubt.”²⁰

Dr. Richards, the pastor who followed Dr. Johnes in the pulpit of Morristown, wrote,

I can only say in reply, that I never saw the note to which you allude,—but have no doubt that such a note was addressed by Washington to Dr. Johnes, of Morristown, on the occasion to which you refer. I became a resident in that town in the summer of 1794, while Dr. Johnes was still living—and was afterwards the regular pastor of that congregation for about fourteen years. The report that Washington did actually receive the communion from the hands of Dr. Johnes, was universally current during that period, and so far as I know, never contradicted. I have often heard it from the members of Dr. Johnes’ family, while they added that a note was addressed by Washington to their father, requesting the privilege, and stating that though connected with the Episcopal Church, he felt a freedom and desire to commune with those of another name, if acceptable to them. Very often too have I heard this circumstance spoken of as evidence of that great man’s liberality, as well as piety.

There were hundreds at Morristown during the time of which I speak, who might if the fact of Washington’s receiving the communion there be true, have witnessed that fact—and who would not be slow to contradict it, on the supposition that it had not been witnessed by them or their friends. It is barely possible, that such a report might be put in circulation through error or mistake, and afterwards gain credit by time; but in my judgment in no degree probable, when all the circumstances of the case are duly considered. The family of Dr. Johnes, sons and daughters, were of mature age, and some of them active members of society, when this note is said to have been written, and the fact to which it related took place. It is scarcely possible that they should have been deceived; and their characters are too well known to suppose them willing to deceive others.²¹

All of this, then, prompts the question of why would they be worshiping outdoors in an apple orchard, particularly if it was winter? The Presbyterian Magazine explains,

There was a vast amount of sickness and suffering in the army; the smallpox prevailed fearfully, the Presbyterian and Baptist churches, and courthouse, were occupied as hospitals...so that there was no place for the meeting of the congregation, except in the open air.²²

The most extensive source of information for this event comes from an 1851 letter to the editor of the Presbyterian Magazine written in response to its article concerning Washington’s communing at the Presbyterian Church in Morristown. The correspondent was Reverend O. L. Kirtland, who had lived in Morristown since 1837. He had married into the family of the Reverend Dr. Johnes. Reverend Kirtland was at that time the pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church at Morristown. Writing of his own wife, Reverend Kirtland explained to the editor,

The father of Mrs. Kirtland was the son of the Reverend Doctor Timothy Johnes—lived with him, and took care of him in his old age, and till his death—remained in the homestead of his father, and died there in his 83rd year, November, 1836. Mrs. Kirtland was born in the same house, and never had her home elsewhere till a short time since. She recollects very distinctly that she was accustomed to hear her father speak of the fact that the religious services of the congregation were conducted in the orchard, in the rear of the house, whilst Washington was here during the Revolutionary War. This was one of the familiar facts often repeated during her early years. She has no doubt that a part of the familiar subject of the conversation of her father with the family, and with visitors, was, that the communion which General Washington attended was held in the orchard.

In the orchard there is a natural basin several feet deep, and a few rods in diameter. The basin was formerly considerably deeper than at present, having been partly filled in the process of tilling ever since the Revolution. Mrs. Kirtland recollects that her father used to say, that when the people assembled for worship, they occupied the bottom of that basin for their place of meeting. The minister stood on one side of the basin, so as to be elevated above his congregation. The whole field inclines towards the morning and mid-day sun. The rising grounds in the rear would, to a great extent, shield the congregation from the usual winds of winter. Indeed, the basin was formerly so deep, that the wind from any direction would mainly pass over them.

A brother of Mrs. Kirtland, several years older than herself, and other members of the family, tell me that their recollections are distinct, and in harmony with hers, touching the meetings in the orchard, the communion, and the presence of Washington there.²³

How does Boller disprove all of this historical evidence? The fact is that he doesn’t. The best he can muster is to just express his doubt and heap contempt on oral history. Boller writes,

Washington certainly could have attended a service at Morristown church during the Revolution. Theologically, he had, as the story put it, no “exclusive partialities”; and from time to time he did attend churches other than the Anglican church of which he was a member. The request for the sacrament, however, is extremely dubious, for there are strong reasons for doubting that Washington was in the habit of participating in the sacrament, even in his own church. And like the Potts story [the prayer story at Valley Forge], the Morristown episode, even in its simplest form, rests on nothing more than oral tradition. There is no reference to Timothy Johnes in any of Washington’s extensive writings. And the indefatigable efforts of nineteenth century authors to locate a written record of some kind substantiating the tale invariably ended in frustration and failure.²⁴

But let us for a moment analyze Boller’s argument. It is based on two things: doubt and the inadequacy of oral tradition. Doubt is an essential ingredient for all research into the facts of things. Yet, if one so desires, the bar of doubt can be placed so high that nothing can ever move anything to the level of sufficient certainty for acceptance. In fact, even written records can be disputed and claimed to be false or inadequate by a thoroughgoing doubt. This type of scholarly doubt enables one to distinguish between an authentic written document and a spurious or counterfeit text.

But doubt alone is not a sufficient argument. The only honest standard that can be employed in historical research is the same that is used in a legal process, namely, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So how does one establish a fact that is “beyond a reasonable doubt” in historical matters? If something existed for a period of time in oral tradition before it was written down, does that make it necessarily false? When Boller wrote in the 1960s, perhaps a facile rejection of oral history was acceptable. Such a sweeping and uncritical rejection of oral history today is simply unacceptable, given the vast amount of anthropological study done about pre-literary cultures’ use of oral history and the extensive historical research that has been done by oral history in the past several decades.²⁵

Probably the most startling example of a living oral tradition that is accepted by everyone in regard to Washington is the continuing use of his own words at his inauguration as the first president under the Constitution. The famous phrase, “So help me God,” is not found in Washington’s vast writings, because it was not written down by Washington. Nor is it in the Constitution, yet, every president following Washington has said these same words when he has taken the oath of office. The reason those words are still used today is due to the fact that this oral tradition was later recorded by others, who claimed to be eyewitnesses of Washington having said those words. Each president following Washington has kept this oral tradition of Washington’s words alive.²⁶