George Washington and Communion:
Did Washington Take Communion?
“
Such is our situation, and such are our prospects: but notwithstanding the cup of blessing is thus reached out to us, notwithstanding happiness is ours, if we have a disposition to seize the occasion and make it our own.
”
George Washington September 19, 1796
1
One of the most often repeated arguments against the thesis of George Washington the Christian is the fact that during a significant period in his later life he apparently did not participate in communion. This issue has been repeated so often and emphasized so much that we devote the next three chapters to consider the matter with care. We believe those who hold George Washington to have been a Deist have ignored some significant facts related to the communion argument. The claims of this argument against Washington’s Christianity cried out for a cross-examination.
DID WASHINGTON PARTICIPATE IN THE LORD’S SUPPER?
The claim that Washington allegedly did not participate in the Lord’s Supper has carried weight on both sides of the debate.
Some of the chief arguments for the debate of this question are:
1. Washington’s clergy said they did not see him partake of the Lord’s Supper.
2. For example, Reverend Abercrombie of Christ’s Church Philadelphia preached a sermon against not partaking of the Eucharist on a Communion Sunday when Washington was present. Washington never attended there on a Communion Sunday thereafter. Unlike modern Episcopal churches that have weekly Communion, Communion in Washington’s Virginia was practiced about three or four times per year, depending on the availability of a clergyman.
3. Washington’s granddaughter, Nelly Custis, said that he left with her after the worship service was over, (i.e., before Communion) and the carriage was sent back for Martha Washington.
4. The conclusion reached from this by those who hold that Washington was a Deist is that this proves that he was not a Christian who believed in the atonement of Christ. Since Washington was not a hypocrite, his non-communing fits this consistently held Deistic perspective.
In addition to the above, however, the following must be considered as well:
1. It was universally reported that Washington always communed before the Revolution.
2. Partaking of Communion would be consistent with his highly active and faithful role as a parishioner, vestryman, and church warden.
3. His personally selected most expensive pews in two different Virginia churches were close to the Communion Table in the churches he attended in Virginia (Pohick in Lorton and Christ Church in Alexandria).
4. Even his non-participation during and after the War is open to question:
a. A strongly held Presbyterian tradition argues that he communed at a Presbyterian Church in Morristown, New Jersey, during the Revolutionary War.
b. The German Reformed tradition claims that he communed on one occasion in their church in Germantown, outside of Philadelphia, during his presidency.
c. Reports from officers—Major Popham and General Porterfield—claim that they witnessed his communing in New York City when he was president.
d. Mrs. Alexander Hamilton told her family that she communed with President Washington on the day of his presidential Inauguration, April 30, 1789, in New York City.
e. Various testimonies reported by Bishop William Meade and Reverend E. C. M’Guire support Washington’s communing.
Nevertheless, all agree on this: There is indisputable evidence that Washington did not commune for a period of time. To put the question as pointedly as possible—does non-communing mean that one is not a Christian? A variation on the question is also important for our concerns here as well. Does cessation of Communion for a lengthy period of time imply that one has rejected Christianity? Are there other explanations that are historically consistent and also consistent with Christian faith and practice that provide an explanation?
As we seek to address this matter in relationship to Washington’s religion and to his Christianity, we have come to a point where written documentation directly from the lifetime of Washington is minimal. This means that we cannot appeal to church records, for these sorts of records, if they ever were kept, are no longer in existence (to our knowledge). In some cases, we cannot even prove who all of the pastors were in Washington’s home church of Pohick during his lifetime. Similarly, we cannot establish with absolute certainty who the clergyman was who baptized Washington.
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.
