• Hercules Mulligan

  

  Who was Hercules Mulligan, anyway?

• My Other Blogs

  • Alexander Hamilton Patriot
  • Founder's Bookshelf
  • Herculean Reflections
  • Meet the Founding Fathers
  • The Founder's Bookshelf

• Recent Comments

  • Congress’ first prayer « Lent & Beyond on The First Prayer in the United States Congress
  • Mrs. Mecomber on It’s NOT OK
  • Bobby on The Purpose of the U. S. Constitution
  • Mark on Who Was Hercules Mulligan, Anyway?
  • Mark on Who Was Hercules Mulligan, Anyway?
• 
• 

Reviewing the Testimonies of the Reverends Wilson and Abercrombie

Many of the witnesses that have been called forth from years past to testify in favor of George Washington’s skepticism are the Reverends James Renwick Wilson and James Abercrombie. Their testimonies that Washington was an unbeliever are usually used as unequivocal support that he was indeed an unbeliever. These testimonies are usually used to contradict those of Washington’s own family members, who were convinced that he was a Christian.

However, the testimonies of Abercrombie and Wilson are accepted as proof of Washington’s unbelief because they claim that Washington refused to take communion. This supposed refusal is taken in turn, as proof that Washington was not a Christian. Let me simply say that this is very poor proof, for several reasons:

• Not all Christians take communion, and one does not have to take communion to be a Christian. Christianity is not a religion of sacraments and rituals, but of faith and corresponding works.
• Historians cannot always assert the motive of people for doing or not doing certain things. Since we are 200 years removed from Washington and his time (and the religious atmosphere of 18th-century America was much different than today), and there are many possible motives for Washington to have avoided taking communion, it is even more difficult for us to positively determine why, according to these two witnesses and a few others, Washington did not take communion.

I could go on this head for a while, but that is not the purpose of this post. Even in the decades succeeding Washington’s death, people were debating his beliefs hotly also, although the general consensus among the American public was that he was a Christian. Others contested that consensus, and appealed to the words of men like Wilson and Abercrombie.

I would like to present to my readers a lengthy excerpt from the Appendix of Discussion on the Existence of God and the Authenticity of the Bible (1853), which is a debate in the correspondence of Origen Bacheler (the Christian) and Robert Dale Owen (the skeptic), pp. 225-235. Over the course of these pages, more was discussed than the topic in question, so only the relevant parts are presented. You can read the pages yourself here.

… The sentence from Weems’ Life of Washington, produced by Mr. Owen is shown by its style to have been only designed as a sally of fancy. A wonderful reason this, for rejecting as false the grave, historical part of the account. As to Jefferson’s testimony touching the skepticism of Washington, he has given none such: he did none pretend to be the author of it; nor did Morris pretend that Washington told him he did not believe in Christianity. And the statement of Jefferson, that Washington in his public documents spake favourably of Christianity but once, I have amply refuted, by extracts from the documents themselves. That the Rev. Mr. Jackson, more than thirty years after the death of Washington, has not chanced to find any of the few surviving scattered individuals who communed with him, (if indeed any are still living,) is about as strong evidence of his skepticism, as that he did not deliver a long Christian valedictory in his dying hour, when he could hardly articulate a syllable on account of his quincy. I have proved positively that he was a professor of religion; that he was a communicant; that he was in the habit of secret prayer, &c. &c.: and I have now only to add, that if he cannot be proved to have been a believer in Christianity, no man can.

I do not perceive the irrationality of the question proposed by Ethan Allen’s daughter to her father. She very naturally concluded that if he would give his real opinion at such a time, and if that opinion was, that infidelity would not do to die by, it would be a reason why it should not be confided in at all, and would likewise show that the reasons which her father had urged in its behalf were unsound even in his own estimation. It was therefore the highest rationality, to put this question precisely under the circumstances that she did.

Jefferson might construe that into skepticism which perhaps another would not. As John Adams was a member of a congregational church, he was either a believer in Christianity or a hypocrite. Should Mr. Owen therefore succeed in proving him to have been a skeptic, he will in so doing likewise prove him to have been a hypocrite; in which case, he would be perfectly welcome to him. Considering, however, the mistakes to which Jefferson was liable, and the testimony furnished in Rev. Mr. Whitney’s letter, I rest very easy on this point.

Franklin’s case will do very well without further defence, while his epitaph remains, and his condemnation of his youthful skepticism retains a place in his memoirs.

My opponent has made a rather slim work, in his attempt to substantiate his assertion, that three quarters in our revolutionary struggle were sceptics. Ethan Allen was not a leader, unless there were a great many leaders; for he was only a colonel. Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Patrick Henry, three of the most conspicuous leaders, were decided friends of Christianity. This will not be disputed. Washington and John Adams were communicants in churches. Franklin shows himself to have been a believer in the Bible. And there were many other distinguished leaders, such as Laurens, Gates, Greene, Putnam, Montgomery, Warren, &c., &c., none of whom has my opponent even attempted to prove have been sceptics. What then becomes of his assertion? ORIGEN BACHELER…. R. D. O. Albany, November 12, 1831.

P.S. I am now enabled to furnish two further documents relative to the private opinions of distinguished republicans. One is, an extract from a sermon delivered on the 23rd October last by Rev. Dr. Wilson, a clergyman of Albany, and reputed to be a man of as much zeal and learning as any in the city; a sermon, I may incidentally remark, in which Dr. W. says, in speaking of the framing of the Constitution of the United States, that “the proceedings as published by Thompson, the secretary, show, that the question was gravely debated in Congress whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it;” that “the men whose arguments swayed to vote God out of the Constitution, to declare that there should be no religious test, and that Congress should make no law to establish religion, were atheists in principle; that among our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than unitarianism;* that among all of the governors of Pennsylvania and New-York only two of the former and one of the latter were professors of religion. &c.” In this sermon, as reported in the Daily Advertiser of this city (of the 29th October last) occurs the following paragraph:

“Washington was a man of valour and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man, but he was not a professor of religion, at least not till after he was president. When the Congress sat in Philadelphia, President Washington attended the episcopal church. the rector, Dr. Abercrombie, has told me, that on the days when the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was to be administered, Washington’s custom was to rise, just before the ceremony commenced, and to walk out of the church. This became a subject of remark among the congregation, as setting a bad example. At length the doctor undertook to speak of it, with a direct allusion to the president. Washington was heard afterwards to remark, that this was the first time a clergyman had thus preached to him, and that he would henceforth neither trouble the doctor nor his congregation on such occasions. And ever after that, upon communion days, he absented himself altogether from the church.”

As this important paragraph, being only from a newspaper report of a sermon, could hardly be considered authentic, I myself called, accompanied by a gentleman of this city, on Dr. Wilson, this afternoon. After giving my name, and stating the object of my visit, I read to the doctor, at his request, the above paragraph. When I had completed, he said: “I endorse every word of that.” He further added: “As I conceive that truth is truth, whether it makes for or against us, I will not conceal from you any information on this subject, even such as I have not yet given to the public. At the close of our conversation on the subject, Dr. Abercrombie’s emphatic expression was, for I well remember the very words, ‘Sir, Washington was a deist!’ Now,” continued Dr. Wilson, “I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges himself as a professor of Christianity. I think any man who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a deist, and nothing more. I do not take upon myself to say positively that he was, but that is my opinion.”

Dr. Abercrombie, the associate of Bishop White in the pastoral care of Christ’s Church in Philadelphia, is now alive, to corroborate the statement of his brother clergyman. So much for WASHINGTON, of whom you say, if he cannot be proved a Christian, no human being can.

The admissions of opponents are, as you once reminded me, “so much pure gold.” I therefore the more willingly adduce so unquestionable authority. R. D. O. John Adams and his son, he thinks, were unitarians; in inquired himself, he said, of Madison what were his opinions on religion, and Madison “evaded any expression whatever of his religious faith;” of Monroe’s opinions, he says, he knows little, except that he never heard of any religious profession from him; and Jackson, he believes, though not a regular professor either, is the most religious president we have ever had. O. B. …

“With regard to the Postscript of Mr. Owen from Albany, I have to observe, that I have dispatch three letters to the Rev. Dr. Wilson, requesting him to give the names of those atheists whose arguments swayed the Convention that formed the Constitution of the United States to vote the name of God out of it; but no answer have I succeeded in getting from him. This assertion of the doctor must therefore pass for an unsustained one. Indeed, in the very next breath, in the sermon under consideration, he contradicts it by saying, that some of the men were deists. So much for his testimony on that point. Besides, the fact that a religious test is excluded from the Constitution, is no proof that its framers were not even Christians. I have received a letter from Rev. Dr. Abercrombie; but as he wishes not to appear before the public in print, I shall not insert it. I will only say, that he denies all recollection of having told Rev. Dr. Wilson that Washington was a deist, and says it was evidence he was a professing Christian, though he did not commune in his church. The following additional testimony relative to the religious character of Washington I have received from Rev. Mr. Jackson of Alexandria:

Alexandria, Nov. 22, 1831. ‘I have heard my grandfather, the Rev. Lee Massey, who was a rector of Pohick Church, near Mount Vernon, say, that General Washington was a communicant in his church. The above information was given in answer to a question after returning from Pohick Church, where I occupied the general’s pew. The substance of the grandfather’s reply was, that he (the general) was a communicant, and that a better Christian never lived or died. MARGARET M. GREER

DEAR SIR,

Your letter found me in the bustle of changing my residence. I have however given it my attention. The above certificate is the best information I can at present obtain, and ought to be sufficient. Mrs. Greer is a very respectable lady, and may be depended upon. A daughter of the Rev. Mr. Massey is expected in town, from whome I have the hope of obtaining some of General Washington’s letters.

The parish of Pohick has not had a rector, I believe, since the general’s death. He afterwards attended in Alexandria. This accounts for the church not giving the evidence which you desire.

I beg you will make use of me again, should the case require.

Yours very respectfully, WILLIAM JACKSON
[To] Mr. Origen Bacheler, New-York. Alexandria, Dec. 7, 1831.

DEAR SIR,

I am sorry, after so long a delay in replying to your last, that it is not in my power to communicate something decisive in reference to General Washington’s church membership. The branch of the family from whom I hoped to obtain information, are yet absent from Mount Vernon on account of sickness, and I now begin to think it doubtful whether they will be there this winter. Nor can I find any old person who ever communed with him, though not one expresses any doubt on the subject. It may seem strange that none can certify the fact; but it is not difficult to account for, when we remember, that the parish to which he belonged has not had a rector for, perhaps, thirty years; that the number of the communicants in the episcopal churches after the revolution was very small, and those probably, in general, persons advanced in years; and further, that none of the church records can be found. All these circumstances render it exceedingly difficult to obtain such testimony as is desirable. Universal tradition in the families of those whose parents or friends were acquainted with the general, is, that he was a regular communicant.

I may say again, that all his relations in this part of the country are decidedly of opinion that he was a professed and real Christian, and in full standing as a member of the protestant episcopal church. I regret that the pains I have taken to gain satisfactory evidence have not been more successful, though I think it ought and will be deemed sufficient by all but such as are determined to believe, that they have the sanction of his great name on the side of infidelity.

Wishing you may be more successful in some other quarter,

With respect yours,
WILLIAM JACKSON
[To] Mr. Origen Bacheler, New-York.

… In view of the foregoing, the reader will see what dependence is to be placed on the pretensions and assertions of sceptics with regard to the religious opinions of our other distinguished men. Could the inquiry be made, we have now fair grounds for concluding, that it would result in their cases as it has resulted in those now under consideration. I have but to add by way of conclusion, that it appears by the Evangelist, that Rev. Dr. Wilson is an opposer of revivals in religion. This circumstance will have its proper weight with the public, whenever they think of his concessions to Mr. Owen.

ORIGEN BACHELER.

Mr. Owen, apparently, never rebutted Mr. Bacheler’s counter-arguments. The whole of this conversation is well-worth studying. Many of the lies that have been used to say that Washington was definitely an unbeliever are contradicted. First of all, the statement attributed by Abercrombie (“Sir, Washington was a deist!”) is at best, unconfirmed, if not totally false. What then, did Abercrombie think of Washington’s Christianity?

The letter of Rev. Abercrombie to Mr. Bacheler, which Bacheler alluded to above, did finally make it in print, and can be read in this issue of the Magazine of American History. It was found in the cover of one of the volumes of Abercrombie’s published sermons, owned by himself, and it was found with the above-quoted selection of Rev. Wilson’s sermon.

The Abercrombie letter is somewhat lengthy, so I will only present the last half, but you may read the reprint in its entirety here

[O]n 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 invariablybeing one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon on Public Worship, to sate the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of 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, and, as such, he received it. A few days after, 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 conversation at the table, said, that on the preceding Sunday, he had received a very just reproof from the public, 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 become a communicant, were he to become one then, 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 Sundays, tho’, at other times, constant attending in the morning.

Of the assertion made by Dr. Wilson in the conclusion of a paragraph of your letter, I cannot say I have not the least recollection of such a conversation, but had I made use of the expression stated, it could not have extended father than the expression of private individual opinion. That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, 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, and considered as a channel of divine grace. This, Sir, is all that I think it proper to state on paper. In a conversation, more latitude being allowed, more light might, perhaps, be thrown upon it. I trust, however, Sir, you will not introduce my name in print.

I am, Sir, Yrs. James Abercrombie (original added)

(I, “Hercules Mulligan,” apologize to Rev. Abercrombie for not honoring his wish that his letter not appear in print, but I add as my excuse the insatiable interest of the public, as well as the general good.)

These were the personal considerations of Rev. Abercrombie. There are several things I would like to point out about his letter:

1. Rev. Abercrombie was only an assistant rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia, which Washington attended during the latter years of his presidency, but not throughout his life. As can be detected from the letter, Abercrombie’s reflections on Washington’s religion come from a distant observer over a comparatively short period of time; Abercrombie was not as intimately acquainted with Washington as Washington’s own friends, family members, and neighbors. As an eyewitness, Abercrombie is a good witness, and appears to be speaking sincerely from the letter above; however, he is not as qualified an authority on Washington’s motives and habits as those closer to Washington.
2. Abercrombie said that he believed Washington a “professor of Christianity” (the fact that Washington attended church on Sunday was sufficient for him). But Abercrombie said that, in his own opinion, no one could be a real (or regenerate) Christian if he did not take the communion. Abercrombie gave the usual Anglican explanation: you can’t have God’s grace imparted to you without the communion, and since Washington was not a communicant, he didn’t have God’s grace. However, a biblical understanding of the matter does not support Abercrombie’s (or the theological Anglican) opinion. The Bible says that grace comes only through faith in Jesus Christ (see, for instance, Paul’s epistles). Therefore, I believe that Abercrombie’s conclusion is inaccurate.
3. Abercrombie states that someone (who he thought was a U. S. Senator), who had dined with President Washington shortly after Abercrombie’s admonition, told Abercrombie that Washington told him (the Senator) that he had never been a communicant. Supposing that this is a true relation of what Washington said (and let me say that not all witnesses agree with this; see here and here), we still cannot conclude that Washington was not a communicant because of unbelief, for the reasons already mentioned. What is further interesting about the account that Abercrombie stated above, is that Washington stated his reason for not becoming a communicant in the middle of his presidency:were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station.” In other words, Washington did not even want to give the slightest appearance of hypocrisy. This is totally consistent with Washington’s behavior, and with the behavior of a Christian whose religion he views as an obligation to God, and not to please man.

I therefore conclude that the evidence favors Washington’s Christianity (especially in light of the other evidence I have covered here and here), and that the opposition (which bears the burden of proof) has presented nothing definitive or conclusive.

I will deal with related subjects in the future, as I find the opportunity.

• Lijit Search

  Lijit Search

• 

  

  

• Archives

  Select Month January 2011 October 2010 January 2010 December 2009 September 2009 August 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 January 2008 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

• Categories

  Select Category 9-11 abolition Alexander Hamilton Alexander Hamilton Institute American Revolution anecdotes Benjamin Franklin Benjamin Rush Bible Bill of Rights biography blogging Christian nation Christianity Common Sense Constitution controversy correspondence creationism Daniel Webster debate debt Declaration of Independence democracy documentaries dream education Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton equality Federalist Papers Federalists first amendment Fisher Ames Founders' intent Founders' roles Founding Father's Quote Friday Founding principles France George Mason George Washington Gerrit Smith government Hamilton College Henry Knox Hercules Mulligan historical anecdotes homeschooling humanism humor Illuminati James Madison James McHenry Jay Treaty John Adams John Jay John Witherspoon Joseph Story July 4 law Law of Liberty lesser-known Founders liberty links and resources memorial miscellaneous reflections moral standard mothers New York Noah Webster notice Obama Patrick Henry personal political commentary politics prayer president primary sources Providence in history quotes reason religion and America Religion and the Founders republics resources reviews revisionism revolution Richard Henry Lee Ron Paul Samuel Adams Second Amendment slavery spirit of party Tea Party Thomas Jefferson Thomas Paine Uncategorized US Constitution video virtue