Mrs. Hamilton then said to me, “My son, I have taken you to Wall Street and there depicted the inauguration; then to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Washington attended divine service, and received the Holy Communion. I want you to transmit these facts to future generations, as some have asked, “Was Washington a communicant of the Church, did he ever partake of the Holy Communion?’14
So who should we believe in regard to their testimonies about Washington’s communing or non-communing? Reverend Abercrombie? Reverend Hamilton? Reverend Johnes? We believe all of them, because there is clear evidence that supports why Washington would have communed in Virginia, Morristown, New Jersey, and New York, but not in Philadelphia.
So as we conclude this section, we believe that the appropriate question to ask is whether a Christian can be a good Christian and not always commune? Reverend John Stockton Littell, author of George Washington: Christian, answered this question in regard to General Washington: “During a short period it is probable that while he did not give up assisting in worship, he left the Church before Communion. It would perhaps be too much to expect that at all times he should have maintained an equally strong religious life, or that his perseverance was perfect and without a flaw.”15 However one answers this question, the point is that Washington’s non-communing in Philadelphia is not proof that he was a Deist. But why did Washington not commune in Philadelphia?
The reason that George Washington did not commune in Philadelphia, as we shall see in the next chapter, is due to a combination of concerns. First, there was the factor of his massive and accumulating duties as president and his constantly pressing need to keep his Mount Vernon plantation profitable after eight years of neglect and absence during the War. He had served the entire time as commander in chief without salary and so disposable cash was limited. Now after just a few years back at home, he had to leave for another substantial absence to serve as president that turned out to be eight more years away from home. Sunday was his only day for personal matters and for staying abreast of his vast personal correspondence.
But, on top of this pressure to use every moment for his personal concerns, there also was a major struggle occurring between the High Church and the Low Church in the new Episcopal denomination that also impacted Washington. In the next chapter, we will consider Washington’s relationship with Bishop Samuel Provoost in New York. Washington, like Bishop Provoost, was an adherent of the Low Church theology. When Washington came to Philadelphia, however, he chose to keep a studied distance from Bishop William White, who had compromised the Low Church position with the High Church bishop Samuel Seabury of New England. This contributed to the lack of connection between Washington and Bishop White. How Bishop White’s connection with Bishop Seabury impacted the Low Church and influenced Washington’s connection with Bishop White will be the focus of our next chapter.
THE DEIST EXPLANATION DOES NOT FIT THE KNOWN FACTS
The fact is that the explanation that Washington was a Deist, and that is why he did not commune in Philadelphia, does not account for all the known facts. Obviously, we have no direct statement from Washington as to why he did or did not commune. So whatever explanation one offers, it must fit all of the known facts. That is the problem with the Deist explanation. It does not fit.
As we continue to see, there are may reasons why Washington could not have been a Deist. He described himself as a Christian on various occasions,16 but he never used the word Deist, let alone even once claiming to be a Deist. He criticized the Deist beliefs that rejected divine Providence17 as well as the Deist rejection of the necessary support of religion and morality for political happiness.18 He repeatedly and openly affirmed key Christian doctrines, the very ones that, when affirmed, necessarily prohibit one from being a Deist, including: the existence and superior value of revelation, the Bible being the word of God, scripture and Holy Writ,19 the existence of true religion, the reality of both revealed and natural religion,20 the excellence of the Christian religion,21 the divinity of Christ, the depravity of human nature, his first national Thanksgiving Proclamation calling on the nation to find forgiveness of sins in the “Lord and Ruler of Nations,”22 a New Testament title for Christ (Revelation 12:5; 19:16), the importance of imitating Christ,23 the desire to advance Christianity and encourage its missions to non-Christians,24 and the looking forward to the millennial era of peace on earth.25
He even bore Christian witness while president on several occasions, such as in his Inaugural Address that was so openly Christian that the Presbyterians no longer worried that Christianity was not directly mentioned in the new U.S. Constitution.26 He delighted in Christian prayers and participated in distinctively Christian reciprocal prayers.27 He approved of biblical and Gospel-based sermons and even commended anti-Deist sermons;28 all of this coupled with his open and unstinting support of religion and morality, piety, and ministers of the Gospel.29 Then, as we saw in the previous chapter, using the very same type of evidence that Professor Boller accepts when convenient for his argument, we find that Washington was also a communicant.
CONCLUSION: WASHINGTON’S ALLEGED DEISM — IF IT DOESN’T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT
The thesis that Washington was a Deist simply does not fit the facts and must be rejected. Since Washington never wrote a single word saying that he no longer believed in Communion, or that he rejected Christianity, the claim that he rejected Christianity and Communion is built entirely on an argument from silence. The claim that Washington was a Deist is deafeningly refuted by the host of explicit Christian declarations from his pen and actions. Washington wanted to be interpreted by his actions, and so he often left a few words to help us to know what his actions meant. Given his motto was “Deeds not Words,”30 as Nelly Custis also wrote in the same letter misapplied by Professor Boller to defend a Deist interpretation of Washington, we must now ask what combination of words and deeds explains his communing in some places, but not as president in Philadelphia? Whatever explanation we offer, it must comport with all of the known facts.
TWENTY TWO
The Struggle for the Episcopal Church:
Washington’s Non-Communication and Non-Communion in Philadelphia
“Monday October 10th [1785]....A Mr. Jno. Lowe, on his way to Bishop Seabury for Ordination, called & dined here. Could not give him more than a general certificate, founded on information, respecting his character; having no acquaintance with him, nor any desire to open a Correspondence with the new ordained Bishop.”
George Washington’s Diary
1
In this chapter, we will give possible reasons why Washington did not commune in Philadelphia. While Washington nowhere gave an explicit reason for not communing under the ministry of Bishop William White of Christ Church, Philadelphia, there appears to be pertinent reasons to understand why he might have chosen not to do so. It is clear to us, that the Deist explanation simply does not fit the facts for several reasons.
Washington communed elsewhere and, according to the history of the German Reformed Congregation of Germantown, Washington even communed with them as president while in Philadelphia, when he was sequestered from the city during the yellow fever epidemic. During this time, he spent several weeks at the home of the German Reformed clergyman, Reverend Lebrecht Herman, where he kept his office.2 Washington never hinted that he had changed his faith in any way, and continued to identify himself as a Christian by his words and actions. So what reasons might there be to explain his non-communion at the Episcopal church in Philadelphia?
First, there was Washington’s Low Church (also referred to as “broad church”) tradition that impacted his attitude toward the three first American bishops. Further, we believe Washington’s relationship with Bishop William White in Philadelphia was significantly influenced by the struggle in the Episcopal Church over the theological views advocated by the High Church. These circumstances, when coupled with the pressures of time, made the temptation to not remain for the lengthy Communion service compelling.
Moreover, Washington’s massive and growing duties of the presidency, as well as the continuing demands on his time for the successful management of his vast Mount Vernon plantation, not only resulted in his limited communication with Bishop White, but in his non-communing at the Eucharist where Bishop White presided. The common practice of many of the Episcopal congregants of not remaining for the Communion service became Washington’s habit while president in Philadelphia. So Bishop White never saw Washington commune in the churches where he officiated.
Similarly, time demands and the tyranny of the urgent compelled him to protect Sunday afternoons for his personal concerns and voluminous correspondence. Sunday was his only day off, which often was inadequate to address the constant problems that Washington faced from the Mount Vernon front as well as his desire to maintain correspondence with the many who were dear to his heart and important to his life. Time pressures became so severe as president that he nearly forgot his gracious and dignified manner when he bluntly refused to sit for any more portraits unless a reputable group requested him to do so.3
WASHINGTON’S CONCERNS WITH BISHOP SEABURY
When the New England Anglicans began the first American Episcopate, it is clear that Washington and other Low Church adherents did not support the first American bishop, Samuel Seabury. In the privacy of his diary, Washington wrote what was probably his strongest written statement on an ecclesiastical matter,
“Monday 10th [1785]. Thermometer at 68 in the Morng. 70 at Noon and 74 at Night. Thunder about day. Morning threatning but clear & pleasant afterwards. A Mr. Jno. Lowe, on his way to Bishop Seabury for Ordination, called & dined here. Could not give him more than a general certificate, founded on information, respecting his character; having no acquaintance with him, nor any desire to open a Correspondence with the new ordained Bishop.4
Why would Washington not have wanted to correspond with the newly ordained Bishop Samuel Seabury? In part, it was due to the differences they had over the cause of liberty. As a New England Anglican, Seabury had been a keen Loyalist and stinging critic of the American revolutionary cause.5 Furthermore, Bishop Seabury was also an adherent to the High Church doctrine of apostolic succession, a view that was de-emphasized by the Anglican Low Church.6 Washington’s diary shows that he carefully chose his words spoken to his guest John Lowe (who was himself a Scottish Anglican and a tutor in the Washington household)7 before he recorded his personal lack of desire to correspond with the newly ordained Seabury.
Bishop Samuel Seabury was the first American bishop. He was a High Churchman and an opponent of the American Revolution. Washington wrote in his diary that he did not wish to open correspondence with Bishop Seabury following his ordination as Bishop.
This was not a rejection of bishops per se, for Washington was always open to Episcopal bishops, including Bishop Provoost in New York and Bishop White in Philadelphia. As we will see throughout this chapter, he also enjoyed correspondence with an Anglican bishop8 and was remembered in the will of another, receiving from him a Bible which Washington subsequently bequeathed to his lifelong friend, neighbor, and, pastor, the Loyalist Reverend Lord Bryan Fairfax.9 His diary note emphasized the “new ordained Bishop”
Below the surface of Washington’s studied silence and carefully chosen words, there was a major problem that had only begun to be addressed in the Anglican fold. As noted above, Bishop Seabury from Connecticut had been ordained as the first American Episcopal bishop in 1783.10 Washington’s problem was not with bishops; it was with Bishop Seabury. He had sought ordination independent of the concerns of Anglicans in the Low Church tradition, and he did so from the hands of Scottish bishops, who were more sympathetic to the Catholic side of the royal family, not the normal bishop of London, who had Protestant sympathies. This ecclesiastical maneuvering left the Low Church patriotic laymen in America feeling uncomfortable with Bishop Seabury and with little incentive or enthusiasm to embrace his leadership.
Washington never revealed this attitude outside of his diary, except in his method of deeds, not words. His silence toward Bishop Seabury spoke loudly. Seabury never attempted to open dialogue with Washington; however, Seabury’s ally, Reverend John C. Ogden, did contact him. Washington never answered the letter, even though Ogden wrote several plaintive letters appealing to him to help the New England Episcopacy, since they faced stiff opposition from the New England Congregationalists.11
As we have seen, Washington’s silence was reserved for those with whom he simply did not want to risk having an embarrassing or explosive conversation. Examples of this include: Thomas Paine;12 irate opponents of the Jay Treaty;13 and New England High Churchman, the Reverend John C. Ogden.14 Washington’s unwillingness to correspond with Bishop Seabury, who had been ordained by Scottish rather than English bishops, also seems to be consistent with his determination to avoid bringing European conflicts onto American soil.15
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION IN THE ANGLICAN TRADITION16
In a popular study on apostolic succession that Washington had in his library, Bishop Seabury wrote an explanation for the Anglican Church that openly criticized the other English Protestant churches.17 In his view, no other church’s ordination or celebration of the Lord’s Supper were valid if they could not directly establish an unbroken line of the laying on of hands all the way back to the apostles.18 In Seabury’s mind, the ability to establish this unbroken apostolic succession for the Anglican clergy was what gave the Anglican Church its validity.
These beliefs of Seabury and many High Church Anglicans had a tendency to separate the Episcopal Church from other Protestant bodies descending from English sources, like Presbyterians and Independents. Not only did Seabury oppose Washington politically, he opposed Anglicans and Presbyterians communing together, as Washington had done at Morristown. Washington was comfortable to commune with Christians of other denominations because he was a Low Churchman. Seabury opposed such ecumenical fellowship, since his doctrine of apostolic succession insisted on the exclusiveness of the Anglican Church.
Low Churchman, the Reverend Mason Gallagher, explains how the Low Church tradition, reflected by George Washington and his close friend, fellow-churchman, and Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, distanced itself from the apostolic succession view of Bishop Seabury. We read that “Mr. Jay finding, on his removal to Bedford, no Episcopal Church in the vicinity, constantly attended one belonging to the Presbyterian nor did he scruple to unite with his fellow Christians of that persuasion commemorating the passion of their common Lord.”19 In other words, John Jay did not have a problem worshiping with his Presbyterian brothers in Christ, even though he was an Episcopalian. This mentality exemplifies the Low Church Anglican tradition, to which Washington also belonged.
When Washington was encamped with his army at Morristown, he allegedly wrote a note to Reverend Dr. Johnes, the Presbyterian pastor, inquiring whether he would be welcome to partake of the semi-annual Communion in his church on the following Lord’s Day. He stated that he was a member of the Church of England, but was without exclusive partialities as a Christian. “He accepted the invitation, and received with his fellow Christians of other name the memorial of the dying love of their common Lord.”20
