“Truth requires me to say that General Washington never received the communion in the church of which I am parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant... I have been written to by several on the point of your inquiry; and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you.” Bishop White had previously written the same to Colonel Mercer, in 1832: “As your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during service, I owe it to truth to declare that I never saw him in the said attitude.”
Thus, we have seen, it is clear that Bishop White said he never heard Washington give a statement of faith in Christianity to him. The bishop also declared that he never saw Washington commune or kneel in the worship services. It is also true that Rector James Abercrombie, another of Washington’s clergyman, preached a sermon on the duty of communing that resulted in Washington never attending thereafter on a Communion Sunday at this church in Philadelphia. In fact, Reverend Abercrombie later called Washington a Deist. Allegedly, he said to one who was pursuing the question of Washington’s Christianity or Deism, “Sir, Washington was a deist!”5—although subsequently retracting his statement, saying instead, that he could not conceive of someone being a Christian if he did not commune regularly.6
Moreover, Boller cites a letter from Reverend Abercrombie that explains his sermon and gives a report from an unnamed senator to the effect that Washington heard the message and took the rebuke and intended to respond by not attending on a Sunday when the Eucharist was celebrated. Dr. Abercrombie had an even more interesting story to tell about Washington and the sacrament. It appeared in his letter to Origen Bacheler in 1831 and Bacheler, for obvious reasons, chose not to make it public:
...observing that on Sacrament Sundays, Gen’l Washington immediately after the Desk and Pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation, always leaving Mrs. Washington with the communicants, she invariably being one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon of Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly those in elevated stations, who invariably turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President, as such, he received it. A few days later, in conversation with, I believe, a Senator of the U.S., he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who in the course of the conversation at the table, said, that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit, for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candour; that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one of them, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he afterwards never came on the morning of Sacrament Sunday, tho’ at other times, a constant attendant in the morning.7
And it is also the fact that Washington noted earlier that he did not commune, even though Mrs. Washington did, since he and his granddaughter left prior to communion, and then sent the carriage back for Mrs. Washington after the communion service was complete. This is supported by a letter from “Mrs. Nelly Custis,” written to Washington historian Jared Sparks.8
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PROFESSOR BOLLER’S EVIDENCE
Nelly Custis’ letter is highly significant for our purposes. Washington’s adopted granddaughter, Nelly Custis, was a married woman by the time she wrote this letter. Boller writes, “according to Mrs. Custis....”9 He overlooks her married name, which was Mrs. Nelly Custis Lewis. Nelly was born in 1779, and was only ten in 1789 when the Washingtons took her and her younger brother George Washington Parke Custis to New York to be with them as he served as president. She was only about seventeen when the president’s second term was done. She did not marry until February 22, 1799, Washington’s birthday, the last one he lived to see. So her name was Mrs. Nelly Lewis, although she signed her letter Nelly Custis, her maiden name. But she did not sign it Mrs. Nelly Custis.
We can forgive Professor Boller’s oversight, for it doesn’t greatly impact the argument. We are also grateful that the professor is not insistent on full consistency with the logic of his argument. Thankfully, he does not make the faulty inference that Miss Custis must have been a Deist, since she didn’t stay for Communion either. And since Reverend Abercrombie noted that Washington left “with the greater part of the congregation,” we don’t suppose that Professor Boller would have us infer that the majority of Episcopalians in Washington’s day at the Reverend Abercrombie’s church were Deists too.
A more honest explanation can be offered, since most Deists throughout history have not been in the habit of attending Christian churches. It should be remembered that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer Morning Prayer Service was twelve pages long plus a full length sermon, and the Communion service was an additional twenty-six pages long, plus the time required for the administration of the Eucharist.10 The reason for the “greater part of the congregation leaving” likely had to do with the reason that twelve-year-old Miss Nelly and ten-year-old Master George Washington Parke Custis left with their grandfather, while Mrs. Washington spent the remainder of the morning in worship. We do not intend to suggest that the president didn’t take Communion in Philadelphia primarily because of child care. Overlooking such minor considerations, we cannot, however, overlook that grown up Mrs. Nelly Custis Lewis, writing to historian Jared Sparks on February 26, 1833, profoundly disagrees with the inference that Boller draws from her letter. She did not write her letter to show that General Washington was a Deist. Instead, after a full recital of Washington’s Christian life, she concluded,
I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian....Is it necessary that any one should certify, “General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity”? As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country.11
This leaves us wondering whether Professor Boller in his research did not carefully read Mrs. Nelly Custis Lewis’ well-known letter, or if he simply chose to suppress its real thrust because it made his claims for Washington’s alleged Deism so tenuous. Further, why does Professor Boller take Mrs. Nelly Custis Lewis’ letter out of context? Her remarks were not intended to argue that Washington had never communed in his life, but that he had never communed in Christ Church and St. Peter’s Church in Philadelphia under Reverend Abercrombie and Bishop White.
It is clear that the context of her statement limits his leaving the service during the time of her own childhood while they were in “New York and Philadelphia” where “he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition. . . . No one in church attended to the service with more reverential respect.”12 Nelly, of course, would have had no recollection of Washington’s communing on April 30, the day of his Inauguration, as reported by Mrs. Alexander Hamilton, since Miss Nelly, young George Washington, and Mrs. Washington had not yet arrived in New York. And certainly the custom of leaving early and sending the carriage back would not have applied when the family was back at Mount Vernon, where a trip to church required a nine mile bouncing journey over muddy and rutted country roads to either the Pohick church or the church in Alexandria.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE—A CRITICISM OF CONVENIENCE
Next, let us consider Professor Boller’s evaluation of the evidence that he offers as proof of his theory that Washington’s non-communing in Philadelphia proves that he was a Deist. He states,
Abercrombie’s report that Washington “had never been a communicant” together with the statements of Mrs. Custis and Bishop White, surely must be regarded as conclusive. . .By contrast, the various stories collected by the pietists to prove that Washington received the sacrament at Morristown and elsewhere are based on mere hearsay statements made many years after Washington’s death.13
Professor Boller declares that his evidence is vastly superior to that of the “pietists” who argue for Washington’s communing on “hearsay” reports. His is based on the report of Reverend Abercrombie, “Mrs. Custis,” and Bishop White. But let’s take a moment and consider the “report” of Reverend Abercrombie:
A few days later, in conversation with, I believe, a Senator of the U.S., he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who in the course of the conversation at the table, said, that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit....
Notice that the Reverend Abercrombie’s report is not built on a personal conversation with the president. From whom did the reverend receive it? From an unnamed senator. Or was it a senator, since the Reverend Abercrombie says, “I believe, a Senator of the U.S.”? Strange indeed that an Anglican clergyman ministering in the nation’s capitol at the time could have had such a confidential conversation about the faith of the president with one of his closest confidants and not even know if he was a senator!
The point here is not to argue that Reverend Abercrombie’s “hearsay” evidence cannot be true, but to note that Professor Boller’s claim of superior evidence is questionable. The claims for Washington’s communing in Morristown are built on exactly the same kind of evidence as here given by Reverend Abercrombie and relied upon by Professor Boller—that is an eye witness account, once or twice removed. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington reportedly received Communion in a Presbyterian service in Morristown, New Jersey. The report of this comes from Reverend Dr. Timothy Johnes’ son-in-law, Reverend Dr. James Richards, who was also a minister. Both sources fall into the category of oral history; both can be presumed to be trustworthy, and thus, neither one is necessarily superior.
Further, when a careful consideration is given of the words allegedly said by the unnamed possible senator, it becomes clear that Washington was not making universal pronouncements about his lifetime views of Communion. He was merely stating his practice in the churches in question. The words of the Reverend Abercrombie (referring to Washington) again are clear,
...that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one of them, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station.
These words are addressing the actions of the president serving in Philadelphia in his busy and “elevated station,” not those of the vestryman and church warden from Virginia, or the believer who felt drawn to commune beyond the bounds of his own communion in the midst of war, disease, and exposure to the elements. To interpret these “hearsay” words of “he had never been a communicant” would be to deny his leadership in the Anglican Virginian parish and vestry as church warden, and to select one piece of questionable historical data and give it an unwarranted and undocumentable prominence over the other equally legitimate, oral, historical claims.
At best, these words, which we accept as authentic, argue that Washington did not commune as president in Philadelphia. Since we agree with Professor Boller on this point, it is incumbent upon us to explain why such would be the case. We must answer the question of what made communing in Philadelphia different than communing in New York, Morristown, and Virginia. But, before we address this central question, there is one last reason why Professor Boller’s argument will not stand up “in a court of law.”
PROFESSOR BOLLER’S LOGICAL FALLACY
Even after exposing all of these weaknesses in Professor Boller’s theory, there is still another problem with his claim that Washington was a Deist because he did not commune in Philadelphia under the ministry of Bishop White and the Reverend James Abercrombie. At the heart of the professor’s claim that Washington was a Deist, there is a logical inconsistency. The following argument’s logical fallacy is immediately apparent:
Ostriches do not fly.
George Washington did not fly.
Therefore George Washington was an ostrich.
Yet compare it with this logic:
Deists do not commune.
George Washington did not commune.
Therefore George Washington was a Deist.
While less apparent, the same logical fallacy is at work. The fact is that many who have considered themselves to be Christians have not communed for various reasons— the Quakers and the early Schwenkfelders never communed at all on theological and moral principles. Many Protestants have felt they could not commune in good conscience because they were not in communion with the clergy, the church, or the political head of the church where they have worshiped. Sometimes Christians have believed that it would be inappropriate for them to commune because of various personal challenges, difficulties, demands, or moral issues.
To put it logically, for the same reason that shoes are not crows just because both are black, so Washington and Deists are not both non-Christians because neither partook of Communion in Philadelphia at Christ Church.
Finally, let us notice the critique that the Reverend Abercrombie gives against Washington: “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.” We do not disagree with the words of the Reverend Abercrombie. But, we do disagree with the verdict that he delivered against Washington’s whole life. The evidence does not suggest that he never communed. While not communing under Bishop White in Philadelphia, the evidence is that Washington communed under Bishop Provoost in New York City.
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY—OR ARE BOTH TRUE?
To balance the charge brought by the testimony of the Reverend Abercrombie, which has been so heavily relied upon by Professor Boller, we submit the testimony of the Reverend Alexander Hamilton of the historic and illustrious Alexander Hamilton family:
It was a beautiful morning in May 1854, that the family coach drew up in front of the family home, 17 w. 20th. Street, New York City. There Mrs. General Hamilton (who had come on from Washington, D. C., with her son), her daughter-in-law, Mrs. John Church Hamilton, and A. Hamilton (the writer of this letter and present Reverend Alexander Hamilton) entered and rode to Wall Street, corner of Broad, New York City.
Then Mrs. General Hamilton, her daughter-in-law and great-grandson, Alexander, entered the former house of Alexander Hamilton. Going to the front window, Mrs. Hamilton said, “I, with Mrs. Knox and other ladies, looked from this window over to Federal Hall and saw George Washington inaugurated first President of the United States.
“Then we all walked up Broadway to St. Paul’s Chapel, Fulton Street. Washington, Chancellor Livingston, Genera Knox and your great-grandfather (meaning General Hamilton), went into the chapel and occupied the pew on the north side. We ladies sat just back of them, but Mrs. Washington was not present, being yet at Mount Vernon. A festal celebration was held, sermon preached by the rector, and the Holy Communion was also celebrated, at which Washington, members of his party and many others partook.”
