In 1755, Washington played the role of Chaplain when he led a funeral service for his commanding officer General William Braddock. Washington read the funeral service by torchlight, as his British soldiers were fleeing from the Indian warriors, whose surprise attack had killed or wounded every officer. Washington was the only officer to escape unharmed. In the service he read from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, giving his fallen General a Christian funeral.²⁰ The Scriptures and prayers Washington read that sorrowful night by torchlight included:

I AM the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. St. John xi. 25, 26.

I KNOW that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shalt stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another. Job xix. 25, 26, 27.

WE brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the Name of the Lord. 1 Tim. vi. 7. Job I. 21.

O MERCIFUL God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the resurrection and the life; in whom whosoever believeth shall live, though he die; and whosoever liveth, and believeth in him, shall not die eternally; who also hath taught us, by his holy Apostle Saint Paul, not to be sorry, as men without hope, for them that sleep in him; We meekly beseech thee, O Father, to raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness; that, when we shall depart this life, we may rest in him, as our hope is this our brother doth; and that, at the general Resurrection in the last day, we may be found acceptable in thy sight; and receive that blessing, which thy well-beloved Son shall then pronounce to all that love and fear thee, saying, Come, ye blessed children of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world. Grant this, we beseech thee, O merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, our Mediator and Redeemer. Amen.

Thus, we know that the lips of Washington spoke the name of Jesus Christ as he shared the comfort of the Gospel through the historic liturgy of the Anglican Church.

Later in his life, he was very active in worship. The records show that he went to church on Sundays while he served in the office of the presidency. When he retired, he continued to worship in the church. For much of his life, Pohick Church in Lorton, Virginia, was his main church; after the War, Christ Church in Alexandria was his place of worship. Both buildings are still standing today. If you visit them, you can still see the pew boxes he worshiped in and that his records show he purchased for himself and his family. What did Washington pray when he went to these churches? They included Christian prayers from the Book of Common Prayer that he prayed aloud with the entire congregation. These prayers are confessions of sin and repentance and calling upon Jesus Christ for mercy and forgiveness. To the retort that the prayer book was not that important to Washington, consider that he not only ordered a family Bible for Mount Vernon, he also ordered prayer books for each member of his family, and specially ordered one for himself that was to be sized to fit in his pocket, so he could carry it with him.²¹

THE COLONIAL CHURCH’S REREDOS

At the Anglican churches Washington worshiped in or visited, the parishioners would read from the “reredos” during the service. This was a large wall plaque behind the altar with words painted on it. These words were from the Bible and Christian teaching and were usually emblazoned on three panels. One consisted of the Apostles’ Creed;²² the next had the Lord’s Prayer.²³ And the third panel listed out Exodus 20, i.e., the Ten Commandments,²⁴ and sometimes included the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12.²⁵ There was a very practical motive for these texts to be placed on the main wall of the church—books and printing were very expensive in colonial America. This was a more economical means to provide the essentials of the Children’s Catechism and the essentials of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer for an entire congregation.

The authors of this present book visited Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia, and they have a reredos there. That particular reredos is said to be the very one that was used in Washington’s day. We also discovered a similar reredos when we visited Pohick Church in Lorton. (The Union Army occupied the abandoned and deteriorating colonial brick church building and inflicted further damage. It was restored to a reasonable facsimile of its colonial interior during the years 1901-1916.) You can also see the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments at Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg, where Washington attended when he was participating in the House of Burgesses. This is true also of Trinity Church in Newport, Rhode Island, where Washington also had his own pew. (Please see the different reredoses in the photos.) As the congregation followed the Anglican liturgy, they would read out loud these holy texts from the reredos.

WASHINGTON’S WORSHIP IN VIEW OF HIS CONSCIENCE AND CHARACTER

Washington was a man with a sensitive conscience and a strong character. We want to take a moment to develop that point, so we can return with a clearer understanding of Washington’s religious practices. Why would a man of integrity engage in so many Christian activities, unless he really believed the Christian message?

The force of this question is strengthened by Washington’s repeated statements concerning the power of his own conscience and his deep concern for his character.²⁶ To General Nathanael Greene, he wrote on October 6, 1781, “I bore much for the sake of peace and the public good. My conscience tells me I acted rightly in these transactions, and should they ever come to the knowledge of the world I trust I shall stand acquitted by it.” On Dec. 7, 1783, he wrote to the Legislature of New Jersey, “For me, it is enough to have seen the divine Arm visibly outstretched for our deliverance, and to have received the approbation of my Country, and my Conscience….” To Henry Lee he wrote on September 22, 1788, “While doing what my conscience informed me was right, as it respected my God, my Country and myself, I could despise all the party clamor and unjust censure….” If Washington did not believe in something, his conscience would not permit him to participate. If he did not subscribe to the Apostles’ Creed, why then would he have said it? If he did not believe in Jesus Christ, why would he not have passed on participating in the service? This is particularly pertinent, since it was his character that caused him to be the unquestioned leader of our youthful nation. Consider what congressional leader and future President John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail on February 21, 1777,

Many persons are extremely dissatisfied with numbers of the general officers of the highest rank. I don’t mean the Commander-in-Chief. His character is justly very high, but Schuyler, Putnam, Spencer, Heath, are thought by very few to be capable of the great commands they hold.²⁷

In this context, consider Washington’s consistently strong words about his deep commitment to candor, honesty, and character. To the Earl of Loudoun, in March 1757, Washington wrote, “My nature is open and honest and free from guile.” To Henry Knox he wrote on July 16, 1798, “But my dear Sir, as you always have found, and trust ever will find, candor a prominent trait of my character.” To President John Adams, he wrote on September 25, 1798, “…let the purity of my intentions; the candor of my declarations; and a due respect for my own character, be received as an apology.” In the same letter he said, “…I would have told you with the frankness and candor which I hope will ever mark my character….” To General Gates he wrote on January 4, 1778, “Thus Sir, with an openness and candor which I hope will ever characterize and mark my conduct have I complied with your request.” To James McHenry, he wrote on April 8, 1794, “…with my inauguration, I resolved firmly, that no man should ever charge me justly with deception.” He wrote from Valley Forge on January 2, 1778 to the President of Congress, “I did not, nor shall I ever [accept a gentleman as a friend that I regard as an enemy], till I am capable of the arts of dissimulation. These I despise….” In other words, Washington sought to act so that he could not be accused of telling lies. To Alexander Hamilton, he wrote on August 28, 1788, “I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain (what I consider the most enviable of all titles) the character of an honest man….” To Edmund Randolph, July 31, 1795, “I am [not] disposed to quit the ground I have taken, unless circumstances more imperious than have yet come to my knowledge should compel it; for there is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.” He wrote to Timothy Pickering, February 10, 1799, “Concealment is a species of misinformation.” To Timothy Pickering, August 29, 1797, “Candor is not a more conspicuous trait in the character of Governments than it is of individuals.” To James Madison, November 30, 1785, “It is an old adage, that honesty is the best policy. This applies to public as well as private life, to States as well as individuals.” To Richard Washington, April 15, 1757, “What can be so proper as the truth?”

To say Washington was a Deist—even a “soft Deist”—would imply that he did not have a problem violating his conscience each time he worshiped in his church. It is difficult to imagine how Washington, with his expressed concern for his character and his open commitment to honesty and candor, along with his sensitive conscience, could repeatedly and consistently make a public reaffirmation of a faith that he really did not believe.

The burden of proof is clearly on the side of those who claim that Washington was a Deist. To Washington, integrity and conscience were vitally important. A good conscience and hope of divine approval were essential for Washington’s sense of integrity. Thus he wrote August 18, 1786, to Marquis de Chastellux, “Perhaps nothing can excite more perfect harmony in the soul than to have this string [avoidance of vanity and false humility] vibrate in unison with the internal consciousness of rectitude in our intentions and an humble hope of approbation from the supreme disposer of all things.”

As a man of honor, he did not determine his actions for outward recognition. To his friend the Marquis De Chastellux, he wrote on August 18, 1786, “I consider it an indubitable mark of mean-spiritedness and pitiful vanity to court applause from the pen or tongue of man.” To Dr. James Craik, March 25, 1784 he wrote, “I will frankly declare to you, my dear doctor, that any memoirs of my life, distinct and unconnected with the general history of the war, would rather hurt my feelings than tickle my pride whilst I lived. I had rather glide gently down the stream of life, leaving it to posterity to think and say what they please of me, than by any act of mine to have vanity or ostentation imputed to me . . . I do not think vanity is a trait of my character.”

George Washington was either a true churchman or spiritual imposter. He once wrote to Robert Stewart on April 27, 1763. To guarantee the truth of his letter, he used the phrase: “On my honor and the faith of a Christian.” Clearly his honor and integrity meant a great deal to him. From this statement, we see that his honor was inseparable from and strengthened by his faith as a Christian.

WASHINGTON AND THE EUCHARIST

One of the main arguments Paul Boller (and other skeptics of Washington’s Christianity) makes is that Washington rarely, if ever, received Communion. This is an important matter and must be considered. First of all, there are eye witness written accounts that the General did receive communion regularly as a young man, when his church provided it three or four times a year.²⁸ Second, there is both oral and written testimony that he received Communion on occasion, both during the Revolutionary War and as President. Third, does one have to receive Communion each time it’s offered to be a Christian?

During his presidency in Philadelphia, it was Washington’s regular custom to not receive the Eucharist. To Boller, this is evidence he was not a Christian. This is, however, not a proof that he was a Deist. Washington was joining many in his parish who left after the completion of the service proper and before the Lord’s Supper service was to be held. Bishop William Meade explains,

If it be asked how we can reconcile this leaving of the church at any time of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper with a religious character, we reply by stating a well-known fact,—viz: that in former days there was a most mistaken notion, too prevalent both in England and America, that it was not so necessary in the professors of religion to communicate [receive communion] at all times, but that in this respect persons might be regulated by their feelings, and perhaps by the circumstances in which they were placed. I have had occasion to see much of this in my researches into the habits of the members of the old church of Virginia. Into this error of opinion and practice General Washington may have fallen, especially at a time when he was peculiarly engaged with the cares of government and a multiplicity of engagements, and when his piety may have suffered some loss thereby.²⁹

Washington’s adopted granddaughter, Nelly Custis, confirms this fact: “On communion Sundays he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.”³⁰

Washington biographer Jared Sparks suggests a reason from his military days that may have prompted his non-participation. “It is probable that after he took command of the army, finding his thoughts and attention necessarily engrossed by the business that devolved upon him, in which frequently little distinction could be observed between the Sabbath and other days, he may have believed it improper publicly to partake of an ordinance which, according to the ideas he entertained of it, imposed severe restrictions on outward conduct, and a sacred pledge to perform duties impracticable in his situation.”³¹

We believe Sparks was correct when we consult Washington’s diaries and letters as to what he did on Sundays after church, these provide a reason why he left after the worship service was complete and before the periodic communion service began. In his letters he relates that this was one of the few times he had in a profoundly busy military, political, and business life to handle his vast private correspondence and to address the massive responsibilities of running his huge Mount Vernon Plantation.³² The secret of Washington’s ability to accomplish so much was his mastery of time management. Consider his statements on time. “What to me is more valuable, my time, that I most regard,” he wrote to James McHenry, September 14, 1799. Similarly, he wrote to James Anderson on December 10, 1799, “…time, which is of more importance than is generally imagined.”

One might well disagree with Washington’s choice between his personal demands and the participation in the Eucharist. But it is clear that it is a non-sequitur to infer, as Boller and those who argue for Washington’s Deism do, that Washington’s choice demonstrates a disbelief in Christ. His decision to not commune on many Sundays cannot cancel out his faith demonstrated in countless acts of Christian conduct and publicly expressed in phrases such as “the divine author of our blessed religion,”³³ and privately expressed in affirmations such as “on my honor and the faith of a Christian.”³⁴

Finally, Boller did not take the time to investigate all the evidence for Washington’s communing, or if he did, he chose not even to acknowledge the significant evidence that George Washington did receive Communion as president. This testimony comes from the daughter of his fellow general, Phillip Schuyler. Why should we trust the testimony of Elizabeth Schuyler?—because her married name was Mrs. Alexander Hamilton. She claimed to have communed with President Washington on the day of his inauguration in New York.³⁵ But there may be an even far better explanation. Two subsequent chapters will explore this question in depth: Did Washington take Communion? Why did Washington not commune as president in Philadelphia?

CONCLUSION

George Washington either was a Christian or he manipulated Christian actions, words, and worship for political ends, merely pretending to be a Christian. Why would he so often refer to God, Providence, Heaven, and the Divine unless he really meant it? Why did he insist on having chaplains? Why did he attend church so consistently, when it was difficult to get there? Was Washington just putting on a show when he spoke about God—even in private correspondence—and for whom? Again, it seems to us that Paul Boller and other modern scholars are remaking George Washington in a secular image, just as much, even more so than the “pietists” that Boller so pointedly criticizes for supposedly remaking Washington in their image. For Washington to use religion for such personal ends may seem consonant with modern and post-modern values. But for Washington to have conducted himself this way, he would have been utterly inconsistent with all of his own claims for his character and the ideals of his era. Moreover, to accomplish this re-creation of Washington, not only is he removed from his historical Anglican and Virginian context, but a great deal of evidence must be either ignored, suppressed, or left unconsidered or undiscovered. Instead, we desire to let the full weight of the evidence be heard.

That evidence includes such humble admissions on his part that he was being saddled with a great responsibility—a responsibility he could only possibly fulfill with the help of the Almighty. We close this chapter with this earnest prayer that he offers for his reputation and with his own promise to seek to perform his daunting duties. This comes from the June 19, 1775, letter he wrote to his brother-in-law, Burwell Bassett:

I am now embarked on a tempestuous Ocean, from whence perhaps, no friendly harbor is to be found. I have been called upon by the unanimous Voice of the Colonies to the Command of the Continental Army. It is an honor I by no means aspired to. It is an honor I wished to avoid, as well from an unwillingness to quit the peaceful enjoyment of my Family, as from a thorough conviction of my own Incapacity and want of experience in the conduct of so momentous a concern; but the partiality of the Congress, added to some political motives, left me without a choice. May God grant, therefore, that my acceptance of it, may be attended with some good to the common cause, and without Injury (from want of knowledge) to my own reputation. I can answer but for three things, a firm belief of the justice of our Cause, close attention in the prosecution of it, and the strictest Integrity.³⁶

THREE

Did Washington Avoid the Name of Jesus Christ?

Addressing a Fundamental Argument

“…there is no direct allusion to Christ, and the word Christ has been found in none of Washington’s almost countless autographs”

Rupert Hughes, 1926

¹

“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.

”

George Washington, 1779

²

Let’s begin by noting that Washington historian Rupert Hughes is wrong when he writes in 1926, “…there is no direct allusion to Christ, and the word Christ has been found in none of Washington’s almost countless autographs.”³ For George Washington wrote in 1779, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”⁴ This incident clearly establishes that Washington was openly willing to use the name of Jesus Christ. Washington here was speaking to Delaware Indians, who had come seeking to learn the Christian religion and the ways of the Americans. They had even brought the sons of their chiefs to become students in their educational quest. In this context, Washington freely spoke the name of Jesus Christ to them since he was affirming the religious task of the Christian mission to the Indians. In his mind, the Delawares were doing well to learn the ways of the Americans, but their learning the religion of Jesus Christ was “above all” the other matters of their intended learning. We will later consider Washington’s high personal commitment to the evangelization of the Indians or “the Christianization of the aborigines” as he calls it, in the chapter on Washington’s Anglican Virginia and the Christian Mission to the Indians.

Author Paul Boller, Jr—again the author of the 1963 landmark book declaring Washington a Deist that has never been fully answered—seeks to dismiss the force of this quote by claiming it was an unthinking acquiescence to his aide’s theological viewpoint since he was pressed for time: “Secular freethinkers, reacting against the exuberances of the pietists, have been fond of pointing out that in all of Washington’s voluminous writings, there does not appear even a single reference to Jesus Christ. They are in error; there is one such reference. In a speech to the Delaware Chiefs at Washington’s Middle Brook headquarters on May 12, 1779 (which the pietists have unaccountably overlooked), appears this passage: ‘You will do well to wish to learn our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.’ But his speech, like many of Washington’s speeches during the Revolutionary period, was probably written by one of his aides, Robert Hanson Harrison, and Washington, who must have been pressed for time, seems simply to have signed the document without making any revisions.”⁵ The problems with Boller’s feeble argument are patent. First, Boller himself will later quote Fitzpatrick, the editor of the thirty-seven volumes of the Writings Of George Washington, “Washington ‘dominated his correspondence,’ Fitzpatrick went on to say, ‘and cannot be denied complete responsibility for it.’”⁶ Second, Boller does not have a shred of historical evidence for his claim. Note his words: “probably written by one of his aids,” “Washington … must have been pressed” and “seems simply to have signed.” So much for Boller’s insistence that his case for Washington’s Deism would be made only by evidence that would “hold up in a court of law.” We accept his own verdict of such flimsy explanations, namely, they “must be dismissed as totally lacking in any kind of evidence that would hold up in a court of law.”⁷

Finally, the implied irresponsibility in Boller’s explanation of Washington’s letting something stand under his signature reflecting his faith and values which he did not believe; and further, his having a subordinate who was so unaware of his commanding officer’s real beliefs that he would unwittingly impose them on his chief; and on top of this, for it to have been done in such a hurried non-methodical manner, especially when he was acting on behalf of the Congress of the United States, his ultimate superiors, …all make Boller’s argument so unlike all that is known about Washington’s character and conduct, that it exposes the utter unhistorical depths to which the skeptics must stoop to make Washington into a Deist!

And since this quote is Washington’s, which all the facts indicate it must be, it alone utterly destroys the thesis that Washington was a Deist. No Deist would, or could, say that “above all” learning available to a student, the best is to learn “the religion of Jesus Christ.” Boller, who often seeks to compare Washington to Jefferson and Paine, will not find even a hint of such praise for the Christian religion in their writings. The inescapable conclusion is that Washington was a Christian.

JESUS, HUMAN OR DIVINE?

Nevertheless, Washington scholar Rupert Hughes argued, “Jefferson said that Washington was a Deist.”⁸ But even Washington recognized the possibility that Jefferson may not have understood matters that were important to him.⁹ The reliability of Jefferson’s assessment of Washington is at least unclear, given that Washington’s most gracious appeal could not prevent him from resigning his position as Secretary of State on Washington’s cabinet, due to an intractable disagreement with Alexander Hamilton.¹⁰ Nevertheless, let’s take Hughes’ claim seriously.