Thus, Washington’s Low Church ecumenical spirit also explains why he was comfortable with the image of the Eucharist and used it in strategic places in his public writings. This fact strips Professor Boller’s conjecture regarding Washington’s alleged non-communing of all its force: “It is quite probable that at no time in his life— though we have no firsthand evidence of any kind for the pre-Revolutionary period— did Washington consider his mind and heart in a proper condition to receive the sacrament. Hypocrisy is surely no Christian virtue; and the pietists might well have applauded Washington’s basic honesty and integrity in this matter.”38
Would not the height of hypocrisy be to quote the very biblical verse that gives us the name of the chalice—“the cup of blessing”—and do so in a context that describes all Americans being offered such a cup to drink as a symbol of national blessing, and yet all the while not believing in the image at all? Rather, Washington’s use of the image underscored his own historic practice and willingness to come to the Table and, so symbolically called on the entire nation to come to the national Table of spiritual blessing. In so writing, Washington was not reflecting the exclusivity of the apostolic succession view of the High Church. As a Low Churchman, he called on all Americans to partake of the divine blessings given at the Table of national liberty.
Bishop Samuel Provoost of New York was a patriot, a Low Churchman and a personal friend of Washington. He served as chaplain to the U.S. Senate while it met in New York City.
Washington’s Low Church sympathies and friendship with Low Churchman Bishop Samuel Provoost, John Jay, as well as Reformed Clergyman William Linn39 and his antipathy to Bishop Seabury, set the stage for Washington’s limited relationship with Bishop William White. The ecumenical gatherings assembled by President Washington in New York at the family table do not seem to have occurred in Philadelphia, when Washington was under the spiritual jurisdiction of Bishop White.40 Why did Washington choose to change this? Did Bishop White’s compromise with the High Church Bishop Seabury, at the expense of Washington’s Low Church Virginian Episcopal views and the Low Church views of his friends Bishop Provoost and Chief Justice John Jay, help to make this a reality? It is an argument from silence, but it seems to conform with the known facts in a much greater way than the superficial charge that Washington was a Deist because he didn’t take Communion in Philadelphia.
WASHINGTON’S NON-COMMUNICATION WITH BISHOP WILLIAM WHITE
We concur that all of the evidence indicates that George Washington did not communicate with Bishop White about spiritual matters in Philadelphia, nor commune at his church’s Table. We believe that this can be explained in part when we understand the significant results that occurred from Bishop White’s relationship with Bishop Seabury. When Bishop White cast the swing vote for Bishop Seabury, he not only set aside the rule of laymen in the Episcopal church, a view that Washington’s Virginia Committee on Religion had advocated for years, but he also set aside the 1785 Proposed Prayer Book with its July Fourth service. The new Episcopal Church had gone the opposite direction of what Low Churchmen, such as Washington’s friend John Jay, had hoped to establish.
Washington’s careful silence concerning controversial or difficult matters was habitual, whether in matters of ecclesiastical or government politics.41 Even though he clearly did not approve of the Bishop Seabury approach, with his reserved dignity, Washington remained silent, yet loyal to his church.
Bishop White had compromised with Bishop Seabury, and in so doing, distanced himself from Bishop Provoost. The results of the compromise were sweeping. A summary of these results can be listed as follows:
1. An elevation of the High Church’s emphasis on apostolic succession.
2. A rejection of the Latitudinarian or Broad Church spirit of ecumenical fellowship and communion
3. The elevation of the episcopacy over the governance by laymen.
4. An implicit rebuke of Virginian Episcopalianism, as practiced by Washington for all of his life before the war.
5. A rejection of the views of his friends John Jay and Bishop Samuel Provoost of New York.
6. A negative light was cast on Washington’s closeness with Presbyterian and Reformed churches and his acts of communing with them.
7. An honoring of the Tory clergy, such as the Reverends Ogden, Seabury, Duché, Inglis, placing them on par with the pro-Revolutionary clergy, such as Bishop Provoost and Bishop White himself.
8. The loss of Washington’s ecumenical fellowship meals under his presidency in Philadelphia, as had been previously held in New York with Reverend Linn, Chief Justice Jay, and Bishop Provoost.
9. The rejection of the American Proposed Book of Common Prayer.
10. The loss of the July 4th service, which would have been a natural American commerative service to replace the historic British November 5th celebration of Guy Fawkes Day.
11. The possible creation of tension between Washington’s presidential leadership and personal church membership, due to the elevation of the exclusive apostolic succession view.42 This naturally created ongoing worries for non-Anglican churches that feared possible religious pressures or persecutions from the new government.43
12. The addition of a sacerdotal or priestly element by the inclusion of the word “priest” for “minister” in the new prayer book. George Washington never used the word “priest” for any Protestant clergyman, even though he carefully honored Roman Catholic leaders, while not embracing their theology.44
Due to Washington’s reserved dignity, he would never have disclosed such critical and personal views to Bishop White for the very same reasons he chose not to correspond with Bishop White’s Episcopal partner, Bishop Seabury. We believe this explanation of why Bishop White would not know George Washington’s faith views is consistent with all of the known and relevant facts.
WHY DID PRESIDENT WASHINGTON NOT COMMUNE WHILE IN PHILADELPHIA?
So finally, then, why did Washington not commune as president in Philadelphia? We reiterate that we have no explicit writing from Washington’s hand as to why he did not commune in Philadelphia. Since he never said so directly, we cannot be dogmatic. But this we can say with confidence, that there is no need, nor evidence, that points to the Deist explanation of professor Boller and others. The explanation offered here is consistent with Washington’s Christian faith, his Christian church, and numerous explicit statements in his writings.
Washington, while in Philadelphia, was under the ministry of Bishop White, whose compromise forfeited the Low Church’s position in the Church by his reconciliation with the High Church leader, Bishop Seabury—at the expense of Washington’s friend, Bishop Samuel Provoost of New York. Thus, his non-communing under Bishop White, who allowed Seabury to subjugate the patriotic Low Church, could have been an expression of his strong conscience.
Perhaps, the absence of any record of personal or inter-denominational and ecumenical fellowship under Bishop White is also a clue. Perhaps, the strong apostolic succession views of Bishop Seabury, openly accommodated by Bishop White, left Washington concerned that as president, he might be too committed to the Episcopal Church, creating fears of an established church in America.
However these matters may be interpreted, it is also clear that Washington’s relationship with the Philadelphia Episcopal churches was only complicated by Abercrombie’s indirect but intentional criticism of Washington in his sermon.45
Finally, given Washington’s Low Churchmanship, he was not a frequent communicant by principle and by habit. He had not taken Communion often to begin with. For good or for ill, this was the Virginian Low Church tradition. By personal temperament, Washington would not have discussed this with Bishop White.46
Because of Washington’s methodical nature, when he would have decided to commune, given that he had no scruple about the frequency of Communion, as a Virginia Low Churchman, it would have been according to his own plan and at what he conceived to be the most appropriate time. As president, he had immense duties, and limited time. As a land owner and citizen he had farm, financial, and family duties.
Given his non-intimacy with Bishop White, his burdens of responsibility that demanded his time, his sense of disappointment that he would be communing under a bishop who took away lay leadership, the Episcopal celebration of of July 4th, and gave a Tory bishop the dominant voice in his childhood church, it is not surprising that Washington chose not to commune in Philadelphia.
Lastly, but not unimportantly, Washington did not commune because of his strict conscience. When the Reverend James Abercrombie issued his sermonic rebuke to the congregation, and specifically to President Washington, he was speaking with the theology of Bishop Seabury. Washington heard it with the spirit of a Low Churchman and respectfully disagreed. Non-communing in this instance comported with his character and personality as well as his conscience.
These same reasons probably governed his Communion practices in New York as well, but clearly to a lesser degree, since the evidence argues he communed on various occasions in New York under Bishop Provoost. His communing on Inauguration Day would be a perfect example of a time when Washington’s spiritual and civic duties coincided, and he thus openly communed.
CONCLUSION
The important point to understand here is that George Washington’s non-communing did not make him a Deist. Perhaps Washington should have communed more. But then, if we had Washington’s strong conscience and extraordinarily busy schedule, and understood his mind, perhaps we would think differently. The point is that the explanation offered here is consistent with Washington himself, honors all the known facts, and in no way requires the incongruent claim that Washington was a Deist.
Again, the facts are that Washington never criticized Christ or Christianity. He did criticize Deism. He also maintained his distance from Bishop Seabury and was uncomfortable with an Episcopacy operated by the High Church principle of apostolic succession. Thus, we conclude that Washington had personal, theological, and ecclesiastical reasons not to commune in Philadelphia. But none of them required him to have been a Deist.
TWENTY THREE
George Washington and the Enlightenment
“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart.
