George Washington, according to his family, took communion before the Revolutionary War. He did not take communion after the war. We have evidence from Washington’s financial papers that he supplied wine to Pohick Church for communion; we know that he gave money for the crimson hangings and things that would decorate the altar of the communion table. I don’t think this is a man who has a problem with communion, at least prior to the war. So, we have to ask ourselves, what would make his practice change? Why would he act differently after the war? And there are a number of reasons that he may have changed the way he was doing things.
What would such changes possibly be? We need to back up for a second and look at the word “Communion.” It means that you are in fellowship with others around the table. Washington realized that he could not be in fellowship with a king——the head of the Anglican Church, no less——that he viewed as a tyrant who was killing and stealing from his own people. And so, at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, we know Washington did not continue in the Anglican Communion.
Thus, how could a man like General Washington, a man of principle who was leading the active resistance to the King, the head of the church, at the same time commune in that same church? Hypocrisy was not for George Washington.38 Here is what Mary Thompson adds on the subject:
Prior to the Revolution, Washington was made a vestryman at his church; he remained a vestryman until shortly after he returned home from the Revolution. Almost immediately after he gets home he writes to the church, the local church, and says [in effect], “I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to give up being a vestryman.” He had to do that, because he had just led a revolution against the king—a revolt against the King of England, who was the head of the Anglican Church. And as a vestryman, he would’ve had to swear allegiance to the king and to be subject to the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Church. He couldn’t do that anymore. And I think that problem influenced his taking communion.39
In light of all of this, it is virtually a miracle that Washington ever returned to the Church of England (which became the Episcopal Church) after the war. He also continued his membership in his church after the state Church of Virginia was disestablished in 1786, and attendance was no longer a matter of law.
Nevertheless, none of these reasons really seem to warrant Washington’s choice not to participate in the Eucharist after the war was over, when he was in Philadelphia serving as the president under the spiritual care of Bishop William White and his assistant Reverend James Abercrombie. While it is a non-sequitur to infer, as Boller and those who argue for Washington’s Deism do, that Washington’s choice to not participate in Communion necessarily demonstrates a disbelief in Christ; nevertheless, his decision to not commune on many Sundays does not easily comport with his faith expressed in the phrase, “on my honor and the faith of a Christian.” Nor does it fit comfortably with his self-description as, “a mind who always walked on a straight line, and endeavoured as far as human frailties, and perhaps strong passions, would enable him, to discharge the relative duties to his Maker and fellow-men....”
Is there a better explanation? We believe there is. And so we will address this question in depth in the chapter entitled, “The Struggle for the Episcopal Church: Washington’s Non-Communication and Non-Communion in Philadelphia.”
WASHINGTON AND THE RECONCILIATION OF THE CUP OF BLESSING
As the Revolutionary War created the inevitable fault lines between the Tories or Loyalists on the one side and the Patriots on the other, the clergy were compelled to take a stand. Their decision was complicated by the fact that every Anglican curate had taken a vow of loyalty to the King. Communion in the Anglican context was not only with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, but it was also with the head of the earthly English kingdom, King George III. In fact, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer’s service for the Communion included two prayers explicitly for King George—one just after the “Collect of the Day”40—and then later in the service, a prayer for the church militant included another prayer for the King.41 But this crisis of conscience for a patriot did not just appear at the communion service, as the daily “Morning Prayer Service” also included “A Prayer for the King’s Majesty.”42
After the British evacuation of Boston in 1775, worship services were held in the city. On January 1, 1776, Christ Church, an Anglican congregation, was made ready for worship at the request of Mrs. Washington, who had come to winter with the General. In the diary of Dorothy Dudley, under that date, we learn of the beginning of American changes to the Book of Common Prayer,
Yesterday service was held in Christ Church. I was invited to be present. Colonel William Palfrey, at request of Mrs. Washington, read the service and made a prayer of a form different from that commonly used for the King . . . . General and Mrs. Washington, Mrs. Gates, Mrs. Morgan, Mrs. Mifflin, Mrs. Curtis, and many others, including officers were present. The General is loyal to his church as to his country, though he had identified himself with our parish [congregational] during his residence among us . . . . The General’s majestic figure bent reverently in prayer as with devout earnestness he entered into the service.43
As the conflict began to divide the Loyalist clergy and the patriotic people, particularly in the Anglican churches, close friendships began to be strained. This phenomenon impacted Washington and the clergymen that he knew. Washington’s struggle with Anglican clergy in the pre-revolution and revolution eras is especially highlighted by three individuals: his lifelong friend, Bryan Fairfax, his son’s tutor, Reverend Jonathan Boucher, and Reverend Jacob Duché, the rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia.
Washington’s ability to continue to relate to and to forgive these individuals is a testimony to his inner spirituality. To Washington’s and Fairfax’s credit, their friendship was never broken, even though Fairfax was a Loyalist. After all, he was to become the next “Lord Fairfax, Earl of Cameron.” He was given safe passage through American lines by Washington so he could sail to Britain to pursue efforts at reconciliation and perhaps for ordination as well. But he was not given permission to go to England by the British, because he refused to take the severe oaths that were required. Thus, he returned and spent the war years quietly in Virginia. Fairfax wrote a thank you letter to Washington on Dec. 8, 1777, that described the impact of the grace he had been extended by Washington:
There are Times when Favours conferred make a greater Impression than at others, for, tho’ I have received many, and hope I have not been unmindful of them, yet that, at a Time your Popularity was at the highest and mine at the lowest, and when it is so common for Men’s Resentments to run high against those that differ from them in Opinion You should act with your wonted Kindness towards me, hath affected me more than any Favour I have received; and could not be believed by some in N: York, it being above the Run of common Minds.
In a most remarkable letter of encouragement, written on March 1, 1778, from a most painful place—Valley Forge—Washington steered his friend to the comfort of God’s providential wisdom in the deep disappointment of his life.
The sentiments you have expressed of me in this Letter are highly flattering, meriting my warmest acknowledgements, as I have too good an Opinion of your sincerity and candour to believe that you are capable of unmeaning professions and speaking a language foreign from your Heart. The friendship I ever professed, and felt for you, met with no diminution from the difference in our political Sentiments. I know the rectitude of my own intentions, and believing in the sincerity of yours, lamented, though I did not condemn, your renunciation of the creed I had adopted. Nor do I think any person, or power, ought to do it, whilst your conduct is not opposed to the general Interest of the people and the measures they are pursuing; the latter, that is our actions, depending upon ourselves, may be controuled, while the powers of thinking originating in higher causes, cannot always be moulded to our wishes....The determinations of Providence are all ways wise; often inscrutable, and though its decrees appear to bear hard upon us at times is nevertheless meant for gracious purposes; in this light I cannot help viewing your late disappointment.44
Later, Fairfax would go to England to become ordained as a curate, and for a time be the pastor of Washington’s church in Alexandria. Fairfax later returned to England to receive his hereditary title also.
Washington’s relationship with Reverend Boucher was far more volatile. William Lane explains,
Having had friendly and even intimate relations with Washington, Boucher was very angry with the latter for his failure to use his influence in the country to protect him from the insults he endured, and under this feeling of resentment he wrote in August, 1775, a reproachful and bitter letter to Washington...“And yet you have borne to look on, at least as an unconcerned spectator, if not an abettor, whilst, like the poor frogs in the fable, I have in a manner been pelted to death. I do not ask if such conduct in you was friendly: was it either just, manly, or generous? It was not: no, it was acting with all the base malignity of a virulent Whig. As such, sir, I resent it: and, oppressed and overborne as I may seem to be by popular obloquy, I will not be so wanting in justice to myself as not to tell you, as I now do with honest boldness, that I despise the man who, for any motives, could be induced to act so mean a part. You are no longer worthy of my friendship: a man of honour can no longer without dishonour be connected with you. With your cause I renounce you.”45
When the war was over, Boucher sent him a copy of his book on the American Revolution that began with a five-page dedication to Washington. It revealed a great change of sentiment toward his former friend. To Washington’s great credit, he responded on August 15, 1798, with a graciousness borne of a forgiving spirit,
For the honour of its dedication, and for the friendly and favourable sentiments therein expressed, I pray you to accept my acknowledgments and thanks. Not having read the book, it follows of course that I can express no opinion with respect to its political contents; but I can venture to assert beforehand, and with confidence, that there is no man in either country more zealously devoted to peace and a good understanding among the nations than I am; no one more disposed to bury in oblivion all animosities which have subsisted between them and the individuals of each.46
The case of Reverend Jacob Duché is also one of a powerful reversal in sentiments. Duché had preached a sermon on Galatians 5:1 in Philadelphia before the war began that called for a bold stand for civil and religious liberty in Christ. This sermon he dedicated to Washington:
I have made choice of a passage of scripture, which will give me an opportunity of addressing myself to you as FREEMEN, both in the spiritual and temporal sense of the word, and of suggesting to you such a mode of conduct, as will be most likely, under the blessing of Heaven, to ensure to you the enjoyment of these two kinds of Liberty. STAND FAST, THEREFORE, IN THE LIBERTY, WHEREWITH CHRIST HATH MADE US FREE. . . . If spiritual Liberty calls upon its pious Votaries to extend their view far forward to a glorious HEREAFTER, CIVIL LIBERTY must at least be allowed to secure, in a considerable degree, our well-being here. And I believe it will be no difficult matter to prove, that the latter is as much the gift of GOD in CHRIST JESUS as the former, and consequently, that we are bound to stand fast in our CIVIL as well as our SPIRITUAL FREEDOM. . . .let us, nevertheless, ‘STAND FAST’ as the Guardians of LIBERTY.”47
But when the British had successfully conquered Philadelphia, and Americans were shivering in the cold of Valley Forge, Reverend Duché realized that his oath to the King could not easily be set aside as he remained behind at Christ Church in Philadelphia. He chose to “stand fast” in the liberty of Christ on the side of the King, rather than to “stand fast” with the patriots’ in their Christian cause of religious and civil liberty. Duché wrote an obsequious and treasonous letter to Washington that simultaneously defamed Congress. He explicitly called upon Washington to quit the struggle and to end the war for the nation’s good. Duché, turned Tory, wrote on October 8, 1777, calling for Washington to leave the field and negotiate a peace with Britain to end the war and give up the impossible dream of independence. 48
To this letter Washington responded with a brief note, and then wrote to the President of Congress on October 16, 1777,
I yesterday thro’ the hands of Mrs. Ferguson of Graham Park, received a Letter of a very curious and extraordinary nature from Mr. Duché which I have thought proper to transmit to Congress. To this ridiculous, illiberal performance, I made a very short reply by desiring the bearer of it, if she should hereafter, by any accident, meet with Mr. Duché, to tell him I should have returned it unopened, If I had had any idea of the contents, observing at the same time, that I highly disapproved the intercourse she seemed to have been carrying on and expected it would be discontinued. Notwithstanding the Author’s assertion, I cannot but suspect that this Measure did not originate with him, and that he was induced to it, by the hope of establishing his interest and peace more effectually with the Enemy.
In spite of this letter, calling on Washington to capitulate and to forfeit the cause of independence, years later after the war, Duché wrote to Washington requesting help with returning to his homeland of America. Washington’s response again revealed a kind restraint and a gracious spirit.
Headquarters, August 10, 1783
I have received your letter of the 2nd of April and reflecting on its contents, I cannot say but that I am heartily sorry for the occasion that has produced it. Personal enmity, I bear none to any man, so far therefore as to your return to this country depends on my private voice, it would be given in favour of it with chearfulness. But removed as I am from the people and the policy of the state in which you formerly resided and to whose determination your case must be submitted, it is my duty, whatever may be my inclination, to leave its decision to its constitutional judges. Should this be agreeable to your wishes, it cannot fail to meet my entire approbation.
Reverend Duché was buried at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Philadelphia only a few years after his return.
The point illustrated by these three Anglican clergymen that Washington knew personally was that his role as leader of the patriot army meant that he was almost certainly under the critical eye of the curates of his own church. It was not just with the King that he could not commune. He could hardly commune with a curate at any Anglican Communion service. This ecclesiastical reality created awkwardness for Washington that led him to worship in other churches. It is thus clear that his initial ceasing of partaking of communion coincides with the start of the Revolution, when Communion with the King and most of the clergy of the Anglican Church was broken. But notice too, that reconciliation and Christian forgiveness seem to have been part of his relational style with these clerical leaders who had opposed him.49
Forgiveness of one’s enemies is never an easy matter. Nor was it for Washington. But if Washington did not commune, it is at least clear that he lived out the ethics of the Eucharistic “cup of blessing.”50 He was able to reconcile with his clerical brethren who had stood against him: Reverend Fairfax the Tory, Reverend Boucher the bitter critic, and Reverend Duche the turncoat. A man with such magnanimity of Christian grace would normally be a partaker of the Lord’s Table.
Whether the evidence here is sufficient to convince the skeptic that Washington was a communicant at the Lord’s Table, there is indisputable evidence that Washington directly appealed to the offering of the Communion Chalice. In the skeptics’ haste to dismiss the alleged minimal use of scripture by our founding father, they have entirely missed his repeated references to the Christian sacrament of Communion.
The fact is that Washington does use the biblical Eucharistic phrase—“cup of blessing” as well as variations on this theme. The phrase “cup of blessing” is a direct quote of the Eucharistic text of the King James Version’s rendering of 1 Corinthians 10:16. This is the very verse that provides the English word “communion” to describe the Lord’s Table. The text says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ?” Washington’s actual words are,
At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own.
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.51 (emphasis ours)
Not only does he use the Eucharistic words, but he employs the phrase in a Eucharistic sense of America itself being at the divine Communion table. The cup of blessing is being reached out to America, if America will receive the proffered gift. The significance of this text only increases when it is placed in its immediate and greater context. What Washington wrote just before this was:
...the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had ameliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society. At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own.
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. (emphasis added)
The context of Washington’s remark is his declaration that what has most blessed America is the gift of divine revelation. This revelation, of course, is where the image of the Communion cup of blessing is to be found. And most significantly, this passage occurs in one of Washington’s most public documents—his circular letter to the thirteen governors at the end of the war on June 8, 1783. These two items—the excellence of divine revelation and the imagery of the communion cup—were not topics a Deist would have chosen to employ.52
