To hear so many public figures, or even ordinary people who publicly sound their opinions, say it, many might answer “yes” to the above question. So many people, on all sides of any issue, see so many wrongs in a country, including ours, that need to be corrected. It seems to be the fashion these days, indeed, the fashion throughout the ages, to seek solution to moral and social ills in reason and in legislation. We humans tend to look to the source of power for the righting of wrongs; usually, that source of power, intended for the preservation of truth and justice (when Superman is not available, of course), is the government. We go to the halls of legislation and law enforcement to right social and moral wrongs. In doing so continually, we are demonstrating the great confusion we have over (1) the purpose and capability of government and (2) the cause of moral and social problems.

I have discussed these two issues extensively on this blog, so I will not go into these issues presently. Instead, I will focus on answering the original question: “Can legislation and reason change America’s moral climate?”

I choose to answer this question, by presenting to my readers a parable, in the form of a dream that Benjamin Rush had in September of 1808, which he related in a letter to his good friend John Adams in that same month. Benjamin Rush was deeply concerned about the effects of alcoholism on the American populace, especially after observing how one of his patients had abused it. This moral pestilence troubled him deeply, and followed him into his sleep. Hence the dream:

After having recently observed the fatal effects of intemperance in the use of ardent spirits in one of my patients, and reflecting afterwards upon the incalculable evils they are spreading through our country, I went to bed a few evenings ago at my usual hour, and during the night I dreamed that I had been elected President of the United States [may I insert here, that Dr. Rush was a very humble man?*]. At first I objected to accepting of the high and honorable station [See? What did I tell you?], but upon recollecting that it would give me an opportunity of exercising my long-cherished hostility to ardent spirits by putting an end to their general use in our country, I consented to accept the appointment and repaired to the city of Washington where I entered upon the duties with spirit and zeal.

The secretaries brought me a number of letters and reports. I laid them upon a table and told them I would do no business until I got a law passed by Congress to prohibit not only the importation and distilling but the consumption of ardent spirits in the United States and counties in which spirits were consumed in the greatest quantities. Petitions flowed in upon me from all quarters to advise Congress to repeal the law, but I refused to comply with them.

One day sitting alone in my council chamber, a venerable but plain-looking man was introduced to me by one of my servants. I offered him a chair and delicately asked him what his business was with me. “I have taken the liberty,” said he, “Mr. President, to call upon you to remonstrate with you against the law for prohibiting the importation, manufactory, and consumption of ardent spirits. He said the law was well enough for a month or two, during which time all the drunken men had become sober, but, protracted as it was for nearly a year, it did such violence to the physical and commercial habits of our citizens that it had not and could not be carried into general effect; that many of the persons who had conformed to it had been sick form drinking nothing but cold water; that the plow and the wagon stood still from the want of that strength in the men which they formerly derived from their morning dram; that the stage drivers and coachmen everywhere fell from their seats from the same cause; that the clergy in many places were unable to preach and the lawyers to plead from the want of a little grog to moisten and oil their organs of speech; that women everywhere became unusually peevish and quarrelsome from a relaxation of their nerves brought on by the want of a little brandy in their tea; and that all the West India merchants, distillers, and tavern-keepers in the country were in an uproar; and that unless the water and small beer law were instantly repealed, we should soon have our country filled with hospitals and our jails with bankrupts.”

“Hold, sir,” said I. “You don’t know the people of the United States as well as I do; they will submit to the empire of Reason, and Reason will soon reconcile them to the restrictions and privations of the law for sobering and moralizing our citizens.”

“Reason! Reason! Mr. President. Why, you forget that it was Reason in the form of a Goddess that produced all the crimes and calumnies of the French Revolution, and that it was by a book entitled The Age of Reason that Tom Paine demoralized half the Christian world. You forget too that men are rational only, not reasonable creatures. … But Mr. President … permit me to mention an empire of another kind to which men everywhere are yield a willing, and in some instances, involuntary, submission, and that is the Empire of Habit. You might as well well arrest the orbs [planets] of heaven in their course as suddenly change the habits of a whole people. Even in little things they resist sudden innovations upon their ancient and general customs. Peter, the husband of the late Catherine of Russia, lost his life for an attempt to change a part of the dress of his subjects. The inhabitants of Madrid once rose in a mob to oppose an edict which was intended to compel them to use privies in order to prevent the accumulation of night soil in their streets. An hundred other instances might be mentioned of the fatal or mischievous consequences of opposing the settled habits and prejudices of nations and communities.

“Indeed, Mr. President, I am sorry to tell you, you are no more a philosopher than you are of a politician, or you never would have blundered upon your spirit law. Let me advise you to retire from your present station and go back to your professor’s chair and amuse your boys with your idle and impracticable speculations, or go among your patients and dose them with calomel and jalap [internal medical purges] –”

“Stop, stop, sir,” said I. “What do you mean by thus insulting the First Magistrate of your country? Here, John (calling to my servant), turn this man out of doors.” The noise of John coming hastily into the council chamber, and the vexation I felt in being thus insulted, awoke me and made me happy in discovering that the whole of the scene that I have described was nothing but a dream.”
Benjamin Rush: Signer of the Declaration of Independence, by David Barton, pages 153-156; cites Letters of Benjamin Rush (edited by Lyman Butterfield), volume 2, pages 977-979
*DISCLAIMER: It is not the intention of the author to be sarcastic, but the styling of Rush’s words here prompted him, and said author could not resist inserting a little humor. Said author does indeed believe in the humble character of Doctor Benjamin Rush.

There is a lesson that can be learned from this. Rush saw a legitimate problem, and he cared about it enough to try to fix it, as much as was within his power. His solution came through the means of strict legislation, that was sure, he thought, to stamp out the problem (liquor) once and for all. He was convinced that the people of America would “submit to the empire of Reason” — that they would see the wisdom in such legislation, and would jump on the bandwagon of anti-alcoholism, “President Rush”-style. This, of course, did not seem to happen. Such was the complaint among the people, that Congress was flooded with petitions, and “President Rush” was himself personally visited by one of the protectors. This anonymous visitor seems to have taken less concern for the moral health of the nation than for other things; and he did not seem to argue very strongly in support of his view, until he argued that men are more creatures of habit than creatures of logic.

This was his unshakable point. It is a point that we Christians especially seem to miss in so many of our efforts to reclaim our culture and win the hearts and souls of our fellow-men. We think that it will only take reason and the arm of the law to at least preserve the corps of what is long-dead. We try to work up and to manufacture what only the Holy Spirit can do with willing and obedient vessels. As I wrote recently, our refusal to learn this lesson is reaping bitter fruit. Let us learn it and apply it while we still have time.

Thanks for reading Founding Father’s Quote Friday! If you would like to participate in the weekly meme, visit this link, and write me a comment, with a link to your blog, letting me know that you participate. If you participated today, leave a comment with a link to your FFQF post below! Thank you!

Over the past several months, we have cracked open the dusty tomes of the Founding Fathers’ writings, and searched for their wise advice on such subjects as liberty, virtue, and the means of their support. These subjects have lead us to reflect, often with great heaviness, on our nation’s failings, and to the current situation to which it has brought us. These reflections, and often our forebodings, can make us gloomy and sad. And at this time of year, when the weather (especially here in Upstate New York) cannot make up its mind whether to be warm or cold, our moods can take a rather gloomy downturn. So, I’ve decided that for this month, the theme ought to draw out laughter, not furrowed brows.

Now, if you ever got the impression, looking at the solemn faces of the Founding Fathers’ portraits that hung in your schoolroom (ah, this would only apply to those of you who went to public school many years ago), that they were dull fuddy-duddies with grimaced faces and powdered wigs, who never laughed, think again! Quite some characters were our Founding Fathers, and even the most solemn and somber of them (like George Washington) knew how to laugh at their own jokes — which is why the Founders and I have so much in common!

As I intend to illustrate this month, even the most unlikely of them were quite funny at times. The title of my post here should have indicated that — you probably never thought of Alexander Hamilton and James McHenry being funny now, did you? Keep reading — this isn’t April Fools Day!

When both of these men, later to become Framers and signers of the US Constitution, were serving side-by-side during the Revolutionary War as aide-de-camps to General Washington, they toiled day and night at their desks, managing correspondence, espionage, and other important paperwork. Young and energetic men like them often got restless, and Hamilton made it clear to everyone that he disliked his occupation (although he put his absolute best into it, as he did in everything), though he was Washington’s favorite aide-de-camp.

So even though the work was dull and dreary, they found time to amuse themselves. Hamilton wrote in a letter to his best friend, Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens (son of Henry Laurens, president of the Continental Congress; a fellow aide-de-camp) of their amusements at Headquarters:

Harrison, McHenry, Gibbs put in mind of the place you have in their hearts. Mc.Henry would write to you; but besides public business he pleads his being engaged in writing a heroic Poem of which the family are the subject. You will have your part in it. He celebrates our usual matin entertainment, and the music of those fine sounds, with which he and I are accustomed to regale the ears of the fraternity.

Harrison holds a distinguished place in the piece. His sedentary exploits are sung in strains of laborious dulness [sic]. The many breeches he has worn out during the war are enumerated, nor are the depredations which long sitting has made on his [blank in original manuscript] unsung.

If fine print had been in use in those days, Hamilton probably would have used it to write the next little note:

I think it necessary for the credit of my own wit to tell you that I have borrowed the wit of the present collation from Mc.Henry.

To Lt. Col. John Laurens May 22nd 1779 (Papers of Alexander Hamilton, volume 2, pp. 53-54)

*Gasp!* Hamilton, you plagiarist!

Well, “boring Founding Fathers” myth abolished! Another “herculean” episode successfully triumphs over revisionism!! LOL.

I have to admit, that while the themes of liberty and virtue are terrific, and it has been a thrill for me to participate in examining them along with other FFQF bloggers, looking at how our nation fails to measure up to these standards can be very depressing.

So today, I am going to include what is more of an anecdote, with the quote, rather than a lesson in history or political theory (if my “lessons” measure up to that). However, it is no less relevant to this theme.

Today’s quote comes from Alexander Hamilton, and was recorded by his son John, in his magnificent, 7-volume work The History of the Republic of the United States, As Traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton and His Contemporaries. The following statement was made by Hamilton, in private conversation with a new Irish friend, simply called “Blake.” John C. Hamilton says that Blake related this conversation to him.

On [Hamilton's] return, addressing the Stranger [Blake] with tenderness and respect, he said, ‘I have seen Pendleton and formed the ground work of your preferment in life. Come home with me.’

After listening to his little history, [Hamilton] laid his hand upon his shoulder, and pressing it, remarked, “My friend, I pray God, you may ever preserve your virtue.” Some time after he invited him to reside in his family. One day at the table he turned to him, ‘How are your spirits?’ On hearing his reply — he remarked, “I have also experienced vicissitudes in life. I have labored with my head more than any man I know of. I have had my elevations and depressions of spirits. But I have never been happy, but when I was in the pursuit of Religion and of Virtue.”History, volume 7, page 741

In a way, it is fitting that this month’s theme should be concluded by an admonition to personal and private virtue, because that is where it must all start. We cannot expect to remain free, nor can we expect our rulers to exercise public and private virtue, if our own private virtue is not our top priority.

*Happy FFQF! If you participated, please link to your posts in the comments section below. Thank you!

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.

“Resolved, That the Revd. Mr. Duché be desired to open the Congress tomorrow morning with prayers, at the Carpenter’s Hall, at 9 o’Clock.1. [Note 1: 1 "After settling the mode of voting, which is by giving each Colony an equal voice, it was agreed to open the business with prayer. As many of our warmest friends are members of the Church of England, [I] thought it prudent, as well on that as on some other accounts, to move that the service should be performed by a clergyman of that denomination.” Samuel Adams to J. Warren, 9 September, 1774. John Adams says it was Cushing who made the motion that business be opened with prayer, and John Jay and Rutledge opposed it on the ground of a diversity in religious sentiments. That Samuel Adams asserted he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country; and nominated Duché. See note under September 7, post.]”

…”Voted, That the thanks of the Congress be given to Mr. Duché, by Mr. Cushing and Mr. Ward, for performing divine Service, and for the excellent prayer, which he composed and deliver’d on the occasion.1 [Note 1: 1 Duché attended in full pontificals, read several prayers in the established form, the collect for the day (Psalm XXXV), and then "struck out into an extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every man present. I must confess I never heard a better prayer, or one so well pronounced. * * * It has had an excellent effect upon everybody here." John Adams to his wife,--September, 1774. Joseph Reed thought the appointment and prayer a "masterly stroke of policy." Ward recorded "one of the most sublime, catholic, well-adapted prayers I ever heard."] SOURCE:volume 1, pp. 27-28 “Wednesday Morning 9 oClock September 7th [1774]

The Congress was opend with prayers by the revnd Mr Dutche [sic] which he Concluded with one suitable to the occasion. He was much admird both for his Eloquence & Composition & Mr Ward of Rhode Island movd that the Thanks of the Congress be give to him for his Services which was unanimously agreed to; & Mr Cushing & Mr Ward were appointd a Committee for the purpose. It was then movd that he should be requested to print the prayer. But it being objected that as this might possibly expose him to some disadvantage it was out of Respect to him waived.” SOURCE: James Duane’s Notes of Debates 1774 Septr. 7. Wednesday.

Went to congress again. Heard Mr. Duchè read Prayers. The Collect for the day, the 7th of the Month, was most admirably adapted, tho this was accidental, or rather Providential. A Prayer, which he gave us of his own Composition, was as pertinent, as affectionate, as sublime, as devout, as I ever heard offered up to Heaven. He filled every Bosom present.(1) 1. Adams’ more detailed description of this event and the reaction in Congress contained in his letter to Abigail Adams, September 16, 1774″ SOURCE John Adams’ Diary “[September 7, 1774] Wednesday Morning.

An express arrived from N York confirming the Acct. of a rupture at Boston. All is in Confussion. I can not say, that all Faces, gather paleness, but they all gather indignation, & every Tongue pronounces Revenge. The Bells Toll muffled & the people run as in a Case of extremity they know not where, nor why. The Congress met and opened with a Prayer, made by the Revd. Mr. Deshay [sic] which it was worth riding One Hundred Mile to hear. He read the Lessons of the Day which were accidentally extremely Applicable, & then prayed without Book about Ten Minutes so pertinently, with such Fervency, purity, & sublimity of Stile, & sentiment, and with such an apparent Sensibility of the Scenes, & Business before Us, that even Quakers shed Tears. The Thanks of the Congress were most Unanimously returned him, by a Select honorable Committee. We are just now formed, into Committees, and Our Business, is laid Out, which, as We mean to go to the Bottom, nothing but Genl. Gage & a greater Force than he has at Boston, will prevent Our sitting some time.” SOURCE:Silas Deane to Elizabeth Deane, September 7, 1774

Jacob Duché’s First Prayer in Congress”[September 7, 1774](1) O! Lord, our heavenly father,(2) King of Kings and Lord of lords: who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth and reignest with power supreme & uncontrouled(3) over all kingdoms, empires and governments, look down in mercy,(4) we beseech thee, upon these our(5) American states who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves upon thy gracious protection, desiring henceforth to be(6) dependent only on thee. To thee they have appealed for the righteousness of their Cause; to Thee do they look up,(7) for that countenance & support which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under thy nurturing care: give them wisdom in council, valour in the field. Defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries. Convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause. And if they persist(8) in their sanguinary purposes, O! let the voice of thy(9) unerring justice sounding in their hearts constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their enerved(10) hands in the day of battle. Be thou present, O God of Wisdom and direct the counsels(11) of this honourable Assembly. Enable them to settle things upon the best and surest foundation, that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that(12) harmony and peace may effectually be restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety prevail and flourish amongst thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and the vigour of their minds; shower down upon them and the millions they represent(13) such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ thy son, Our Saviour, Amen.
(*)MS (MdHi: Journals of Congress [Philadelphia: R. Aitken, 1787], J10.A15.V1). “Appendix” in the hand of Charles Thomson. 1 For the selection of the Reverend Jacob Duché to open Congress this day with a prayer and the congressional comment occasioned by his riveting performance, see these Letters, 1:31–;35, 45, 55(*) Duché actually delivered not a single prayer but two—;a prepared one, which he read, followed by a much longer extemporaneous prayer, which led John Adams to effuse that he had “never heard a better Prayer or one so well pronounced,” and Silas Deane to declare that “it was worth riding One Hundred Mile to hear” (ibid., pp. 34, 74). These glowing assessments were aimed primarily at the impromptu prayer rather than his prepared text, which is printed here.

The discovery of this text of Duché’s prayer in the hand of Charles Thomson clarifies a longstanding puzzle. Historians have been reluctant to credit nineteenth-century claims for the authenticity of the prayer, and some have misidentified it as one Duché read “at his first appearance in Congress after the Declaration of Independence” on July 9, 1776. See George Hastings, “Jacob Duché, First Chaplain of Congress,” The South Atlantic Quarterly 31 (October 1932): 394. See also James Thacher, A Military Journal during the American Revolutionary War. . .(Boston: Richardson & Lord, 1823), p. 145; and Lorenzo Sabine, The American Loyalists. . .(Boston: C. C. Little and J. Brown, 1847), p. 264. The first text of Duché’s prayer available to the public was published in Thacher’s Military Journal in 1823, although the source of Thacher’s text was not explained. A second printing appeared in 1831 in volume 1 of the University of Virginia’s Chameleon from a text in Thomas Jefferson’s possession at his death five years earlier, which soon after disappeared. Other nineteenth-century printed versions are essentially reprintings of Thacher’s. A manuscript text in the hand of John Hancock is in the collections of the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia. The defect of the texts acquired by Hancock and Jefferson is that neither man was in Philadelphia in 1774 and they were most certainly obtained second hand. Our belief in the integrity of Thomson’s text rests upon what is known of his record as secretary of Congress from 1774 and 1789 and the care he took in preserving their proceedings. The document printed here was copied by Thomson on the first blank page following the index to volume one of his personal copy of the 13-volume printed edition of the Journals of Congress (Philadelphia: R. Aitken, 1787) owned by the Maryland Historical Society. It bears the heading “Appendix. Copy of the reverend Mr Duche Prayer—;see p 11.” And at page 11, which records the congressional proceedings for September 7, 1774, following the entry “the Meeting was opened with Prayers by the Reverend Mr. Duche,” Thomson wrote “see the appendix.” A comparison of Thomson’s text with the three earliest texts traced to John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and James Thacher reveals several, generally minor, textual variations, the most significant of which are recorded in the notes below. No clear evolution between these texts is apparent. The Jefferson and Thacher texts are printed as single paragraphs; the Hancock text produces Thomson’s first two paragraphs as one.

2 “High & mighty” precedes “King of Kings” in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
3 “& uncontrouled” omitted in the Jefferson text.
4 “with mercy” in the Jefferson text.
5 “our” omitted in the Hancock text.
6 “to be” precedes “henceforth” in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
7 “they now look up” in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
8 “still persist” in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
9 “thine own” in the Hancock text.
10 “unnerved” in the Hancock, Jefferson, and Thacher texts.
11 “councils” in the three other texts.
12 “that Order, Harmony & Peace” in the three other texts.
13 “they here represent” in the three other texts.”

(*)MS (MdHi: Journals of Congress [Philadelphia: R. Aitken, 1787], J10.A15.V1). “Appendix” in the hand of Charles Thomson.(*) SOURCE:Letters of the Delegates to Congress, volume 25, pages 551-552

More information on the first prayer in Congress can be found here:
John Adams to Abigail Adams, September 16, 1774

James Duane’s Notes of Debates, entry for September 6, 1774

NOTE: In the middle of the war, Rev. Duche, for reasons uncertain, came to believe that resistance to Britain was futile, and urged General Washington and the Continental Congress to surrender, which they refused to do (see the discussion in this post’s comment section). Duche traveled to England, but upon the success of the Americans in the War for Independence and in establishing their own government, Duche wrote to the new United States President George Washington, a letter dated August 7, 1789, in which he expressed his change of mind back to the American cause he originally espoused when he offered the first prayer at the Continental Congress.

But what is more mysterious and wonderful is little known. Doctor Benjamin Rush, a close friend of both Adams and Jefferson (himself also a signer of the Declaration of Independence) even through the years of their political rivalry, had a dream sometime before the reconciliation of the two men.

A little background: Dr. Rush was not an ardent follower of either political party; he had close friends among leaders of both parties, working in the Presidential administrations of Presidents who were leaders of different parties. And not only was Rush a warm friend of Adams and Jefferson, but of Alexander Hamilton, who, as the years progressed, was less and less friendly with both of those two men. Rush summed up his own political affiliation in the following words:

I have been alternately called a democrat and an aristocrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. … He alone who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.” (1)

Benjamin Rush, especially close to Adams and Jefferson, was deeply disturbed by their irreconcilable differences. But on October 17, 1809, Rush wrote to Adams of a dream in a letter that would change the course of the lives of those three men forever. Rush wrote as follows:

“What book is that in your hands?” said I to my son Richard a few nights ago in a dream. “It is the history of the United States,” said he. “Shall I read a page of it to you?” “No, no,” said I. “I believe in the truth of no history but in that which is contained in the Old and New Testaments.” “But, sir,” said my son, “this page relates to your friend Mr. Adams.” “Let me see it then,” said I. I read it with great pleasure and herewith send you a copy of it.

Rush then wrote down the words of the page of the “history book” he dreamed that he saw. (This book, of course, would have been written many years after Rush actually had the dream; so, to save confusion, Rush was dreaming of reading a history book written in the future.)

“1809. Among the most extraordinary events of this year was the renewal of the friendship and intercourse between Mr. John Adams and Mr. Jefferson, the two ex-Presidents of the United States. They met for the first time in the Congress of 1775. Their principles of liberty, their ardent attachment to their country . . . being exactly the same, they were strongly attracted to each other and became personal as well as political friends. . . . A difference of opinion upon the objects and issue of the French Revolution separated them during the years in which that great event interested and divided the American people. The predominance of the party which favored the French cause threw Mr. Adams out of the Chair of the United States in the year 1800 and placed Mr. Jefferson there in his stead. The former retired with resignation and dignity to his seat at Quincy, where he spent the evening of his life in literary and philosophical pursuits, surrounded by an amiable family and a few old and affectionate friends. The latter resigned the Chair of the United States in the year 1808, sick of the cares and disgusted with the intrigues of public life, and retired to his seat at Monticello, in Virginia, where he spent the remainder of his days in the cultivation of a large farm agreeably to the new system of husbandry.

“In the month of November 1809 [a month after this letter was written], Mr. Adams addressed a short letter to his friend Mr. Jefferson in which he congratulated him upon his escape to the shades of retirement and domestic happiness, and concluded it with assurances of his regard and good wishes for his welfare. This letter did great honor to Mr. Adams. It discovered a magnanimity known only to great minds. Mr. Jefferson replied to this letter and reciprocated expressions of regard and esteem. These letters were followed by a correspondence of several years in which they mutually reviewed the scenes of business in which they had been engaged, and candidly acknowledged to each other all the errors of opinion and conduct into which they had fallen during the time they filled the same station in the service of their country. Many precious aphorisms [truths], the result of observation, experience, and profound reflection, it is said, are contained in these letters. It is to be hoped the world will be favored with a sight of them. . . . These gentlemen sunk into the grave nearly at the same time, full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country.” (2)

Fascinating! Every detail of this dream came to pass. Adams, in accordance with the “dream page” Rush had wrote to him, congratulated Jefferson on final retirement to public life, and this letter did indeed begin a series of letters between the two men on topics most interesting to the world, and they both “sunk into the grave at nearly the same time full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country.”

Another detail of this dream is worth noticing. The son of Rush who introduced the page to his father in the dream was Richard Rush. Richard Rush grew up to serve the American public under the Presidents who succeeded Adams and Jefferson, including President James Madison (perhaps Jefferson’s best friend of his latter years) and President John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams). Amazing; the very young man in Rush’s dream concerning the reconciliation of Adams and Jefferson would serve under the son of Adams and the best friend of Jefferson.

It is impossible that the circumstances and details of this dream could have been controlled by the principle persons in it. True, John Adams may have chosen to write to Jefferson on that date because of Rush’s dream letter, but neither Adams nor Rush nor Jefferson could have controlled every aspect of the dream, including the ability of Adams to live to the incredible age of 96 and Jefferson to 86 so that they would both pass away on the 50th anniversary of American independence, and that at the same time! And what is incredible is that Rush could not have written this letter after the fact, giving himself the credit for the foretelling of these awesome events, because he never lived to see the dream fully fulfilled, passing away in the year 1813. Rush’s date of decease is too interesting; he passed away on April 19, the very day the the “shot heard round the world” was fired at Lexington and Concord, which in turn opened the way for the Declaration of Independence, 38 years before.

The accuracy of Rush’s dream, and the impossibility that man could have controlled the circumstances in order to paint this incredible picture, can point only in the direction of God whom the Founders often referred to as “Divine Providence.” This term of referring to God as Providence is, apart from the interpretation of modern historians, anything but a strictly deistic way to refer to God. The term “Providence” refers to God’s beneficent care and protection of the human race (our “Provider”), something that can hardly be in accordance with deistic principles. But I will write more on the line of deism and the Founding Fathers in another post.

For now, however, we can only acknowledge the indisputable fact that God’s hand was indeed involved in American history, as this set of events so powerfully illustrates.

NOTES:
(1) Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, by David Barton; p. 243
(2) same; pp. 198-200