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.
If Washington were a Deist, he would have seen Jesus merely as a human, albeit perhaps an extraordinary teacher and a unique religious personality.11 This is important for our discussion, because when one takes a mere human view of Jesus, as did Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, it actually causes one to be more casual in referring to Jesus. After all, in the view of the Deist, Jesus was only a man, even though a noteworthy person of history.
But for those who hold an historic Christian view of Jesus, He is “fully God and fully man in one person.” This was the view of Washington’s Anglican tradition that followed the ancient Council of Chalcedon.12 In fact, the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer that Washington worshipped with until the birth of the Episcopal Church in 1789,13 required the regular use of what has been called the Athanasian Creed.14 At the conclusion of the Evening Prayer, the heading of Washington’s 1662 Book of Common Prayer gave this instruction: “Upon these Feasts; Christmas-day, the Epiphany, S. Matthias, Easter-day, Ascension-day, Whitsunday, S. John Baptist, S. James, S. Bartholomew, S. Matthew, S. Simon and S. Jude, S. Andrew, and upon Trinity-Sunday, shall be sung or said at Morning Prayer, instead of the Apostles Creed, this Confession of our Christian faith, commonly called the Creed of S. Athanasius, by the Minister and People Standing.” So on some thirteen Sundays each year, the Anglican Church affirmed these historic words of faith in the Trinity. If we very conservatively assume that Washington only made one of these Sunday services each year of his life until he became President at the age of fifty-seven, and at which time the newly organized American Episcopal Book of Common Prayer made this creed optional, that means that he would have already publicly affirmed the following words some fifty times:
Whoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith. Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholick faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals: but one eternal….So the Father is God, the son is God and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God . . . And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other: none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid: The Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, is God and man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and man of the Substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man: of reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who although he be God, and Man: yet he is not two, but one Christ;…Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty: from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies: and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good, shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil, into ever lasting fire. This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.15
The point to see here is that these words, (not to mention those found in the Apostles Creed), which no Deist could honestly recite, were for a devout Anglican a declaration that the name of Jesus was not just a human name, but a divine name too. As we will see over and over in this book, those who hold that Washington was a Deist have ripped him out of his eighteenth century Anglican context.
THE HISTORICAL ANGLICAN CONCERN FOR THE SACRED NAME OF JESUS
It was not merely a commonplace fact of historical discussion when one spoke of Christ. Rather, Jesus was a sacred name that had to be guarded and kept holy. Accordingly, as the rerodos—the wall behind the altar with sacred writings—that Washington read from instructed him: “Thou shalt not use God’s name in vain.” His childhood “Rules of Civility” reinforced this in rule 108, “When you speak of God or his attributes, let it be seriously and with reverence.” Thus in his commonplace activities of farming, military action, business, and politics, the holy name of Jesus Christ would not normally be spoken aloud, if one is outside of a worship setting. In this instance, to “avoid” speaking or writing this holy name should not be construed as an act of unbelief, but of reverence instead.16 A parallel with the Jewish tradition is observable here. Observant Jews have historically avoided speaking the name of Jehovah (YHWH); similarly, Christians have avoided saying the name of Jesus in common parlance.
The careful personal use of Christ’s name by a devout Anglican in the eighteenth century would have been coupled with an equal concern to prevent the profane use of his sacred name. Deists, by contrast, not sharing these scruples, might actually use Jesus’ name far more frequently. Such is the case with Jefferson and Paine. Jefferson often speaks of Jesus from his Unitarian perspective17 that denied both the miracles and the deity of Jesus, but nevertheless honored his teaching.18 Paine’s Age Of Reason refers to the human Jesus often since, in his view, Jesus is not divine.19 But if one holds to the full deity of Christ, as expressed in the Nicene Creed20 (from the 1789 American edition of the Book Of Common Prayer) that Washington regularly recited as President until his death, there is a deep feeling of reverence that is coupled with the name of Jesus Christ that seeks to preserve the sanctity of Christ’s name.
We believe that this is exactly what is found in Washington’s writings. In his General Orders, for example, he declares that his “feelings” had been “continually wounded” by the profanity and swearing of the soldiers. In his General Orders of July 29, 1779, he declares,
Many and pointed orders have been issued against that unmeaning and abominable custom of Swearing, not withstanding which, with much regret the General observes that it prevails, if possible, more than ever; His feelings are continually wounded by the Oaths and Imprecations of the soldiers whenever he is in hearing of them.
