Reverend Peter Marshall's Commentary Archive

 Was George Washington a Christian? – Part Two  

"Why do you not know how to interpret the present time?" (Luke 12:56)     

     In last week’s commentary I examined the secularists’ accusation that George Washington was not a Christian. They invariably call him a Deist, and try to pin that label on the rest of the Founding Fathers as well. They like to quote Paul Boller, Jr.’s 1963 work entitled George Washington & Religion, in which he accused our first President of being a Deist.  

The issue of Washington’s Christianity is pivotal in the current moral and spiritual civil war for our nation’s soul, for if these secularists can make a convincing case that the Founding Fathers were not Christians it would be a huge boost for their campaign to undermine the Biblical foundations of America. 

Last week, to define Deist for my readers I quoted Noah Webster’s original 1828 American dictionary: “one who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion.”  I added that the Deists emphatically rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ, the authority and inspiration of Holy Scripture, and the personal nature of God, among other things.  They believed that God created the world but then wandered off and ignored it, and has never been heard from since.   

In examining carefully the voluminous research that objective historians have done on our first President, his spiritual life and character, and in doing my own research into his letters and speeches, I can say that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that George Washington was not a Deist.  He was not even close to being a Deist.   

Washington was a thoroughly Christian, low-Church Virginia Anglican, who subscribed in all points to orthodox New Testament doctrine. 

Last week we took up several important proofs of Washington’s Christianity: First, I shared some of the evidence that he was man of prayer, and pointed out that most Deists never bothered with prayer.  They didn’t think God cared, and besides, since they didn’t believe in sin, there was nothing to pray about, anyway!  Second, I made the important point that Washington was quite familiar with his Bible.  In Peter Lillback’s magnificent book on Washington’s Christian faith, Sacred Fire, he has listed in an appendix over 200 different Biblical phrases or passages, or allusions to Biblical passages. Many of these Washington used over and over in his letters and speeches.  It is really quite remarkable how often Biblical passages or incidents cropped up in his thinking and writing.  This man knew the Word of God. 

And he reverenced it, as well.  Last week, I quoted from his famous Circular to the States, written to the thirteen State Governors right after the end of the War for Independence.  In that letter, he listed several developments that had blessed America, and then he wrote: “and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation (emphasis mine), have had ameliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of society.”  The word “Revelation” back then generally referred to the Bible, and more specifically to the Gospel of Christ revealed in the New Testament.  Notice that he capitalized it, which though standard usage at that time, reveals his acceptance of the inspiration of Holy Scripture.  And remember, Deists didn’t believe in revelation, because they didn’t think that God revealed anything about himself.  

Let’s look at the secularists’ claim that the Father of our country never used the names “God” or “Jesus” – which to them is evidence of his supposed Deism.  For example, in 1926 historian Rupert Hughes wrote that, “there is no direct allusion to Christ, and the word Christ has been found in none of Washington’s almost countless autographs.”   

This is sloppy history writing.  Mr. Hughes didn’t do his homework!  In 1779, some Delaware Indian chiefs came to General George Washington’s encampment, bringing three of their sons that they wanted the whites to educate.  In his prepared speech the General said to them: “You do well to wish to learn our arts and our way of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ (emphasis mine).  These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”  That’s putting it rather bluntly!  No Deist would have been caught dead telling anyone that the most important thing they could learn was the religion of Jesus Christ.  They simply didn’t believe it. 

Granted, Washington hardly ever used the name of Jesus, either in speech or in writing, and he only referred to God by name about one hundred times.  But, does this make him a Deist?  Hardly.  What it makes him is a typical devout 18^th Century Virginia Anglican.  In Washington’s time Anglicans were very reticent about using the names of Jesus or God.  As odd as it sounds to our modern ears, they were very concerned not to profane the sacred names by casual reference to them.  Of course, because the Nicene Creed was regularly recited by Washington in the Anglican worship service on Sundays, he would have often professed the names of Jesus and God out loud.  But that was sacred usage, with which he would have been totally comfortable. 

Martha Washington, who was a very strong Christian believer herself, almost always used indirect and honorific titles in place of the names of Jesus and God.  Also, in Washington’s personal sermon collection, there is a July 4, 1793 anniversary message from a Presbyterian minister named Samuel Miller who refers to God as: “the supreme Arbiter of nations,” “the grand Source,” “the Deity himself,” “the Sovereign Dispenser of all blessings,” “the Governor of the universe,” and so forth.  Mr. Miller was certainly no Deist.  So, this was common practice at the time, even for ministers of the Gospel. 

An interesting point is that the Deists were much more inclined to use the names of Jesus and God, precisely because of their lack of reverence.  Thomas Paine, whom Lillback calls a “soft” Deist, used the name of God often, although he also used “Creator,” and “Almighty.”    

Profaning the holy names of Jesus and God, especially in cursing, was something that George Washington hated.  In a General Order to his soldiers dated July 29, 1779, he deplored the fact that in spite of the “many and pointed orders (that) have been issued against that unmeaning and abominable custom of swearing…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.  The Name of that Being…is incessantly…profaned in a manner as wanton as it is shocking.”  He goes on to say that he hopes that “for the sake of religion, decency and order” the officers will put a stop to it.  Note that he is personally hurt by the swearing – obviously because of what the name of God means to him.  And, in an order meant to stop the profane use of God’s name, he refers to God indirectly, not wanting to use the name himself. 

Other typical examples of Washington’s use of indirect titles for Jesus include “our gracious Redeemer” and the “Divine author of our blessed religion.”  No Deist would ever use those titles!  Among his many indirect titles for God (about 95 of them!) we find “the Lord, and giver of victory”; the “Giver of Life”; the “Judge of the hearts of men”; the “great Lord and Ruler of nations”; and his favorite – “Providence,” with a capital “P.”  He used this one over 270 times!     

There are other minor, but nonetheless significant refutations of George Washington’s supposed Deism.  For example, he was a faithful vestryman (lay leader) in the Truro Parish of northern Virginia in the years prior to the War for Independence.  In the eleven years of his active service, he attended 23 of the 31 meetings.  Of the eight meetings he missed, he was sick once, at the House of Burgesses meetings twice, out of the county three times for sure, and possibly the other two as well.  Washington took his vestry responsibilities very seriously.  In order to be a vestryman, one had to affirm the creeds of the Anglican Church, and they were most definitely orthodox Christian!  Also, at different times he was asked to be a godfather for a total of eight children, which also required one to publicly affirm the creeds of the Church in a service.  Washington did this cheerfully.  But when Thomas Jefferson was asked to do the same thing, he declined the honor, because he could not honestly affirm the doctrines of the Anglican Church!   

What about the secularists’ accusations that George Washington hardly ever attended church, and refused to take Holy Communion when he did?  Do they have a case here?  Not really. 

Before the War for Independence, the Washington family probably attended church on the average of about once a month.  That doesn’t sound like much of a commitment to public worship for a Christian believer, but one has to take into account the fact that they had to travel about nine miles over wilderness roads to get to the Pohick Church – the nearest Anglican church to Mount Vernon.  Not only was the church unheated, but because it was a rural parish, the minister himself would only show up about once a month, if there was one available.   

During the war, the General was insistent on his soldiers attending divine services.  His first General Order, when he took command of the Continental Army, dated July 4, 1775 states: “The General most earnestly requires, and expects, a due observance of those articles of war, established for the Government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkenness (the first of a number of orders he would issue concerning this); And in like manner requires and expects, of all Officers, and Soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on divine Service (emphasis mine), to implore the blessings of heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense”.   

When there was no church service in the camp, he was not always able to get to church himself, but apparently he made efforts to do so.  Biographer E.C. M’Guire reported that “one of his secretaries, Judge Harrison, has often been heard to say, that ‘whenever the General could be spared from camp, on the Sabbath, he never failed riding out to some neighboring church, to join those who were publicly worshipping the Great Creator.’ ”   I

 noted in last week’s commentary the evidence that George and Martha Washington often attended church together during his Presidency.  For about a year after his retirement back to Mount Vernon, the Washingtons apparently didn’t attend church services.  Why, we don’t know.  Then they resumed, shifting their churchgoing to Christ Church, Alexandria, which by this time was having weekly services.   

Washington always observed the Sabbath – he never worked on Sunday, except for personal letter writing.  He always gave his staff, his servants, and his soldiers the day off to attend church.  He would not fox hunt on Sundays, though he sometimes traveled to fox hunts on Sundays.  If the family didn’t go to church, Washington would lead in devotions and read aloud one of the sermons that he had collected. 

The testimony of Nelly Custis, the Washington’s adopted granddaughter, in regard to their church attendance is interesting.  “He (Washington) attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles.  In New York and Philadelphia (when he was President) 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.  My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from her early habits.  She always knelt.  The General, as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service.”   

The accusations that George Washington never took Holy Communion have been common, and began to be leveled not many years after his death.  It has become a significant part of the controversy over Washington’s religious belief and practice.  In response, let me point out that the custom in colonial Virginia was to only offer the Sacrament at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide (Pentecost Sunday), so many Anglicans only received it once a year.  In addition, as Bishop William Meade pointed out, “there was a 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… Into this error of opinion and practice General Washington may have fallen…”  Support for this theory is afforded by Nelly Custis, who wrote of her childhood at Mount Vernon: “On Communion Sundays he (Washington) left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother” (Martha Washington).  Since at that time the Communion services were as long as the service they had just attended, it was not unusual for two-thirds of the congregation to leave before the Communion service began.  Washington’s practice, though regrettable, was common for believers in his day. 

There are several testimonies of those who observed him take Holy Communion during the war.  General S.H. Lewis of Augusta County, Virginia, in a letter dated December 14, 1855 quoted General Robert Porterfield as saying that “he had known General Washington personally for many years… I saw him myself on his knees receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.”  There is also a story that Washington took Communion in the Presbyterian Church while the Continental Army was at Morristown, New Jersey for the winter of 1778-79.  Dr. James Richards, who followed Rev. Timothy Johnes, the pastor when Washington was in Morristown, noted that “the report that Washington did actually receive the communion from the hands of Dr. Johnes was universally current during that period, and so far as I know, never contradicted.  I have often heard it from the members of Dr. Johnes’ family, while they added that a note was addressed by Washington to their father, requesting the privilege…”   

Lastly, there is what I believe is a very credible story from the pen of the Rev. Alexander Hamilton, Mrs. Alexander Hamilton’s great-grandson.  In 1854, the Hamilton family held a reunion in New York City.  Mrs. Hamilton, by then an old woman of ninety-six, was Continental Army General Phillip Schuyler’s daughter.  She insisted on taking her seven-year-old great-grandson, along with other family members, to see St. Paul’s Church because she had something very important to tell him. When they got there she took him up to the chancel rail, and told him that she had been present in the church on George Washington’s inauguration day in 1789, when he had received Holy Communion.  She made it clear to him that she wanted him to know that she had personally witnessed Washington receiving the Sacrament, so he could tell others.  Rev. Hamilton recollected that her words were: “If anyone ever tells you that George Washington was not a communicantof the Church, you say that your great-grandmother told you to say that she had knelt at this chancel rail at his side and received with him the Holy Communion.”   

There are more points that I could make on the issue of whether George Washington was a Christian, for if one is willing to do the research into his life the evidence is there to be discovered.  However, the proof of Washington’s Christianity is not easily discovered, because he was an intensely private person.  Historian Benson Lossing writes: “It was a peculiar trait of his character to avoid everything, either in speech or in writing, that had a personal relation to him.” Many years after Washington’s death, Bishop William White, who knew him personally, wrote: “I knew no man who so carefully guarded against the discoursing of himself, or of his acts, or of any thing that pertained to him.”  He added: “His ordinary behavior, although exceptionally courteous, was not such as to encourage obtrusion on what he had on his mind.”   

But, suffice it to say in sum that there is plenty of conclusive proof that George Washington was a Biblically literate, Trinitarian and orthodox Anglican Christian believer.  A man of prayer, and a firm believer in the providential sovereignty of God, he was unafraid to publicly and frequently acknowledge his gratitude for the “signal instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced.”    May we follow his example!  

If you would like to read or copy additional commentaries, they are available on the commentary section of our website. Please note: If your spam filter is blocking the reception of the commentaries, you need to enter my email address (petermarshallministries.com) into your filter software, or if necessary, call you Internet Service Provider to get their help in telling you how to make the necessary adjustment so that your computer will receive the commentary.

Anyone wishing information about Mr. Marshall's availability to preach or speak at your church or event, donating to the ministry, or purchasing any of the products in the store, is invited to call the office (800-879-3298) or to visit and explore the web site: petermarshallministries.com.

You have received this message because you are currently subscribed to the Peter Marshall Ministries Commentary list.

Return to commentary Archive