Washington’s magnanimous spirit of Low Church Anglicanism was well reflected in his letter to Marquis de Lafayette. “Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception.”²¹ This view was anathema to High Churchman Seabury. But Washington did not keep his broad church views close to his chest and only communicate them to his close friends, like Marquis de Lafayette. He actually seized a moment in answering a public address from the General Convention of Bishops to make this point. Writing from New York on August 18, 1789, the president answered an address from the General Convention of Bishops, clergy, and laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina:

On this occasion...it would ill become me to conceal the joy I have felt in perceiving the fraternal affection, which appears to increase every day among the friends of genuine religion. It affords edifying prospects indeed, to see Christians of different denominations, dwell together in more charity and conduct themselves in respect to each other, with a more Christian-like spirit than ever they have done in any former age, or in any other Nation.²²

What Washington described as a gracious “Christian-like spirit” differed markedly from the impact of the High Church practice. Low Churchman advocate Reverend Gallagher writes referring to President Washington and Chief Justice John Jay:

When one considers the offensiveness of language and action which unfortunately so largely characterizes the Protestant Episcopal Church, with respect to fellowship with the greater bodies of Evangelical Christians around them, it is refreshing to contemplate the spirit and action of these two greatest and grandest of American Episcopal laymen.²³

So the Low Church’s critique of the narrower apostolic succession view of the High Church manifested itself in Washington’s lack of desire to correspond with the newly ordained Bishop Seabury. When Washington wrote to the Episcopal Church leaders and celebrated the ecumenicity of the churches in America, this actually was only true of the Episcopal Church in its Low Church expression, such as that seen in Virginia and under Bishop Samuel Provoost of New York City, and initially of Bishop William White of Philadelphia. Thus, Washington’s letter of ecumenical diversity marked by a “more Christian-like spirit than ever” was a gracious yet challenging critique of the Episcopal Church, wherein several of its clergy maintained the apostolic succession teaching of Bishop Seabury. Therefore, those who hold up as evidence that Washington was a Deist and that’s why he refused to have anything to do with Bishop Seabury are reading too much into the matter.

GEORGE WASHINGTON VERSUS REVEREND JAMES ABERCROMBIE

A similar but less obvious expression of Washington’s theme of Christian grace in his Anglican Church appears in his response to a letter from the rector, church wardens, and vestrymen of the United Episcopal Churches of Christ Church and St. Peter’s. This was in response to Bishop White and his church leaders as Washington was leaving Philadelphia at the end of his second term in office. Written on March 2, 1797, the president acknowledged the expression of their approval of his work and the promise of their prayers. He was confident that he would enter retirement with a heartfelt satisfaction stemming from his own conscience, the people’s approval, coupled with the hope of future happiness. But Washington also commented on an aspect of his experience in the local church context. He said,

It is with peculiar satisfaction I can say, that, prompted by a high sense of duty in my attendance on public worship, I have been gratified, during my residence among you, by the liberal and interesting discourses which have been delivered in your Churches.²⁴

One can understand President Washington’s high sense of duty in attending public worship, since the congregation prayed for the president’s salvation every public service. But Washington also affirmed his peculiar satisfaction with the “liberal and interesting discourses delivered in your churches.” (In this context, the word “liberal” means charitable or gracious.)

Apparently he even embraced the public rebuke given by the Reverend James Abercrombie to the president for leaving before the Communion service.²⁵ That certainly was an “interesting” sermon. But had it been a “liberal” or a generously charitable sermon? Perhaps with the same gracious and challenging manner as was proffered in his answer to the Episcopalians’ address eight years earlier, Washington was giving a gentle critique. Did the churches under Bishop White and Reverend James Abercrombie’s leadership allow “room” or “latitude”²⁶ for varying views and practices that inevitably existed in the church? In other words, Washington was rebuked from the pulpit for leaving before Communion was served. He here not only received the rebuke, but gently made the case for a Low Church, instead of the High Church approach.

While we wish to respect fully Reverend Abercrombie’s theological concerns, it has often seemed strange to us that a newly ordained understudy of a bishop would seek to preach a sermon consciously to rebuke the President of the United States that worshiped in the bishop’s church. Would it not normally have been the prerogative of the bishop of the church to privately discuss such things and minister to the spiritual needs of the president? Was this due to Abercrombie’s theological zeal, his immaturity of ministry, or was it due to an expression of a personal vindication? It seems to us that all three of these causes were involved.

James Abercrombie had been trained under Bishop White and so shared his views. He was a late arrival in ministry due to several adversities that had kept him in various business positions which he had disdained. He had only been ordained a year or so when he unleashed his sermonic assault aimed at the president. So immaturity was clearly a factor, but there seems to have been a principle of personal vindication as well. As it turns out, Washington had passed over Abercrombie for a government position, even though he came with strong advocates and recommendations.

Apparently, in 1793 Abercrombie had sought the office of treasurer, but Washington denied the application in compliance with a resolution forbidding the appointment of two persons from the same state in any one department. Frustrated and disappointed, Abercrombie renewed his efforts to be ordained as an Episcopal priest and rapidly succeeded.²⁷

In his new role, Abercrombie was now in a position—consciously or unconsciously—to assuage his frustration toward Washington, who had rejected him as treasurer. So in his historic sermon aimed in large part toward President Washington, Reverend Abercrombie simultaneously pressed a High Church insistence on consistent Communion and seemed to even the score with the president as well.

This interpretation would appear uncharitable if it weren’t also sustained by Reverend Abercrombie’s judgmental remarks years later where he exclaimed that President “Washington was a Deist!” He then begrudgingly backed away from his verdict, admitting that George Washington was a member of the same church as Abercrombie was and thus was a professing Christian.²⁸

THE BATTLE OF THE BISHOPS: BISHOP WHITE CASTS THE VOTE THAT BREAKS THE TIE

As we continue our story of the development of the Episcopal Church’s government in the United States after the Revolutionary War and its influence on Washington, we turn next to Washington and Bishop White. William White, the Bishop of Philadelphia was undoubtedly a patriot, holding fast during the war (when other Anglicans were Tories). White was an ecclesiastical diplomat to the differing factions of the church. Bishop White was also an outstanding visionary of the church. All of these things would seem to qualify him for the ear, let alone the heart of his fellow Episcopalian, the president. To understand Washington’s studied silence to Bishop White, consider the struggle that existed between America’s first three ordained Episcopalian bishops. We believe the simple answer is that Washington did not agree with Bishop White’s choices in some complicated church politics. While outwardly a Low Churchman, he sometimes acted as a High Churchman, to Washington’s displeasure.

Samuel Provoost and William White were ordained in 1787 by the Anglican Bishop of London. They had been keen supporters of the American cause. In fact, White had been the successor to Reverend Jacob Duché, after he had left his role as chaplain to Congress and fled to England in the wake of British conquest of Philadelphia. White not only served in Duché’s stead at Christ Church Philadelphia, but also as his replacement as the chaplain to the Continental Congress.

Bishop William White

Bishop Provoost served as chaplain to the Senate under the new Constitution. Provoost was such a loyal American and Low Churchman that he did all he could to prevent the union of his Episcopal churches in New York with the leadership of Loyalist and High Church Bishop Seabury.

How then could there be a united Episcopal Church in America, given the Tory and High Church sympathies of Seabury and the patriotism and Low Church perspectives of White and Provoost? These latter two bishops, as Low Churchmen, were sympathetic in some measure with the theological school called “Latitudinarianism.” This system was so named by its opponents because of its desire to give greater “Latitude” in theological and ecclesiastical matters.²⁹ One of the Latitudinarian distinctives was the broader view of Communion we have already mentioned. This meant that the Anglican clergyman could minister in good conscience to those outside the Episcopalian sphere. Thus Latitudinarians, like the early Bishop White and Bishop Provoost, held a theological perspective that did not emphasize the primacy of the apostolic succession of the Anglican or Episcopal tradition which was so critical for Seabury’s view of the church.³⁰

The process of creating the Protestant Episcopal Church began on September 27, 1785, when the General Convention met in Christ Church in Philadelphia, the church where the then Reverend William White served. Bishop Seabury refused to attend, because no provision had been made for a bishop to preside. Reverend Samuel Provoost was not yet a bishop at this time, and Provoost refused to work with Seabury, since he was a Loyalist and had advocated for the meeting to be conducted without the presiding of a bishop.³¹ The newly-ordained Seabury rightly feared the impact that the spirit of independence of the American laity could have on his rule in the church.

The Reverend White, also not yet consecrated as a bishop, was chosen to preside. The assembly drew up a plan for obtaining the episcopate and began to elect bishops. William White became the bishop-elect for Philadelphia and David Griffith was the bishop-elect for Virginia. In New York, the choice fell to Samuel Provoost.

The second General Convention of the Episcopal Church met in Philadelphia on June 20, 1786. An attempt was made to deny the validity of Seabury’s ordination, but bishop-elect White managed to defuse this action. Later, a letter dated July 4th arrived containing the good news that the British Parliament had authorized the consecration of American bishops. Before adjourning, testimonials were signed for the consecration of White, Provoost, and Griffith. Reverend Griffith from Virginia, however, could not raise the money for the trip, so Provoost and White left for England and were consecrated on February 4, 1787, in Lambeth Palace.

In this instance, the Low Church views of Washington’s Virginia spoke loudly, when no one stepped forward to provide the funds to send their bishop-elect, the Reverend David Griffith, to London to be consecrated as their new bishop. Virginia’s resistance to an American Episcopate continued to be expressed.

When the news of White’s and Provoost’s departure reached Seabury, he was in a state of anxiety. What was to become of him and the churchmen of New England? His emphasis on Episcopal authority and his exclusion of the laity from church councils had made him unpopular outside of his own sphere in New England. Episcopalians outside of New England, especially in the South, where clergy and laity saw little need for bishops, shared Washington’s lack of desire to work with Bishop Seabury. This was especially seen in the opposition of now newly ordained Bishop Samuel Provoost.

Bishop Seabury determined it was time to pursue a diplomatic course and wrote conciliatory letters of congratulations to the two men. He urged them to meet with him to discuss a plan for church union. Bishop Provoost never answered Seabury’s letter, but Bishop White responded diplomatically, welcoming the joint meeting.

The members of the Episcopal Constitutional Convention met in Christ Church, Philadelphia, July 28, 1789, but Bishop Provoost pleaded illness and was unable to attend. Bishop White presided over a single body, or chamber. Although many may not have liked Seabury, all factions had become weary of discord. To refuse to recognize Bishop Seabury’s consecration would perpetuate the divided state of the church. Finally, it was unanimously resolved, “that the consecration of the Right Reverend Dr. Seabury to the Episcopal Office is valid.” The way was then open for the reconciliation of Episcopalians throughout the country.

A further amendment created a House of Bishops. White also wrote to Bishop Seabury affirming his support. By creating two houses, the General House of Laymen and the Body of Bishops, a bi-cameral system of governance was established that in some ways paralleled the United States bi-cameral House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

The second session opened on September 30th. Bishop Provoost, feeling that harmony in the church had been bought at too high a price, refused to attend. On October 16, 1789, the Constitution and Canons and the Book of Common Prayer were ratified by “the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America....”³²

Bishop White’s cooperation with Bishop Seabury, however, came at the expense of Low Churchman Bishop Provoost. The bi-cameral government of the church meant that the bishops would ultimately rule in the Protestant Episcopalian Church through the House of Bishops. Consequently, Bishop William White cast the vote that broke the tie in favor of the High Church views of Bishop Seabury. But the Low Church sentiments of Anglicans such as Washington, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, and Bishop Samuel Provoost did not disappear. Low Churchmen remained loyal to their new church, but also as much as possible to their Low Church principles.

WASHINGTON’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE THREE AMERICAN BISHOPS

Washington was cognizant of the battle of the bishops and he knew of or had met all three newly ordained American bishops.

One of the special duties of a bishop was to ordain the clergy. Washington’s diaries twice mention ordination. As we have already seen, the first was the ordination of Bishop Seabury. The second was the service of ordination that Washington saw in June 1787 by Bishop White in Philadelphia. This was history-making for Washington. He had never seen an ordination, since previously the laying on of hands had to be done in England.

Normally,³³ the Bishop of London had ordained the American Anglican clergy. Given this Episcopalian epic-making event of an American ordination, it is no surprise that Washington recorded the event in his diary. Washington’s diary mentions that two gentlemen were ordained to be deacons: “June 1787, Sunday. 17th. Went to Church. Heard Bishop White preach, and see him ordain two Gentlemen Deacons.”³⁴

Because Washington was a Low Churchman and had an interest in the ordination of clergy by the new American bishops, it is important to understand his relationships with these bishops. He would not correspond with High Church Bishop Samuel Seabury. But what was his relationship to Low Church Bishop Samuel Provoost and mediating Bishop William White? True to Washington’s and Provoost’s Low Church principles, there is evidence of warm interfaith fellowship. This ecumenical fellowship occurred during Washington’s presidency in the New York context under Bishop Provoost.

George and Martha Washington entertained Chief Justice John Jay and his wife, the vice president and Mrs. Adams, who were Congregationalists and Low Churchman Bishop Provoost as well as others. His diary records a meal shared on Sunday, April 11, 1790, which included Provoost and others.³⁵

Such a fellowship meal occurred again in December. Washington’s diary shows that in December 1789, Bishop Provoost, Chaplain of the Senate and Bishop of New York City, Chief Justice John Jay, as well as Reformed Clergyman and Chaplain of the House of Representatives, William Linn were present for dinner also.

Washington’s ecumenical spirit³⁶ enabled him to be close to Reformed clergyman Reverend Linn. During the war, he had forged deep friendships with Reformed and Presbyterian churches and their leaders.³⁷ Presbyterian clergyman, Reverend Samuel Davies had prophesied of Washington’s service for his nation in the aftermath of the Braddock disaster. Also, his warmth toward his Reformed and Presbyterian clerical acquaintances is born out in letters and friendships between Dr. James Craik, Reverend William Linn, Dr. John Witherspoon, and Reverend William Gordon. As noted earlier, Washington chose to stay with the Reformed pastor Limbrecht Herman in Germantown for several weeks in 1793, during the yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia.

Thus, Washington’s Low Church ecumenical spirit also explains why he was comfortable with the image of the Eucharist and used it in strategic places in his public writings. This fact strips Professor Boller’s conjecture regarding Washington’s alleged non-communing of all its force: “It is quite probable that at no time in his life— though we have no firsthand evidence of any kind for the pre-Revolutionary period— did Washington consider his mind and heart in a proper condition to receive the sacrament. Hypocrisy is surely no Christian virtue; and the pietists might well have applauded Washington’s basic honesty and integrity in this matter.”³⁸

Would not the height of hypocrisy be to quote the very biblical verse that gives us the name of the chalice—“the cup of blessing”—and do so in a context that describes all Americans being offered such a cup to drink as a symbol of national blessing, and yet all the while not believing in the image at all? Rather, Washington’s use of the image underscored his own historic practice and willingness to come to the Table and, so symbolically called on the entire nation to come to the national Table of spiritual blessing. In so writing, Washington was not reflecting the exclusivity of the apostolic succession view of the High Church. As a Low Churchman, he called on all Americans to partake of the divine blessings given at the Table of national liberty.

Bishop Samuel Provoost of New York was a patriot, a Low Churchman and a personal friend of Washington. He served as chaplain to the U.S. Senate while it met in New York City.

Washington’s Low Church sympathies and friendship with Low Churchman Bishop Samuel Provoost, John Jay, as well as Reformed Clergyman William Linn³⁹ and his antipathy to Bishop Seabury, set the stage for Washington’s limited relationship with Bishop William White. The ecumenical gatherings assembled by President Washington in New York at the family table do not seem to have occurred in Philadelphia, when Washington was under the spiritual jurisdiction of Bishop White.⁴⁰ Why did Washington choose to change this? Did Bishop White’s compromise with the High Church Bishop Seabury, at the expense of Washington’s Low Church Virginian Episcopal views and the Low Church views of his friends Bishop Provoost and Chief Justice John Jay, help to make this a reality? It is an argument from silence, but it seems to conform with the known facts in a much greater way than the superficial charge that Washington was a Deist because he didn’t take Communion in Philadelphia.

WASHINGTON’S NON-COMMUNICATION WITH BISHOP WILLIAM WHITE

We concur that all of the evidence indicates that George Washington did not communicate with Bishop White about spiritual matters in Philadelphia, nor commune at his church’s Table. We believe that this can be explained in part when we understand the significant results that occurred from Bishop White’s relationship with Bishop Seabury. When Bishop White cast the swing vote for Bishop Seabury, he not only set aside the rule of laymen in the Episcopal church, a view that Washington’s Virginia Committee on Religion had advocated for years, but he also set aside the 1785 Proposed Prayer Book with its July Fourth service. The new Episcopal Church had gone the opposite direction of what Low Churchmen, such as Washington’s friend John Jay, had hoped to establish.

Washington’s careful silence concerning controversial or difficult matters was habitual, whether in matters of ecclesiastical or government politics.⁴¹ Even though he clearly did not approve of the Bishop Seabury approach, with his reserved dignity, Washington remained silent, yet loyal to his church.

Bishop White had compromised with Bishop Seabury, and in so doing, distanced himself from Bishop Provoost. The results of the compromise were sweeping. A summary of these results can be listed as follows:

1.   An elevation of the High Church’s emphasis on apostolic succession.