Was George Washington Baptized Catholic?

Was George Washington Baptized Catholic?

A picture of Virgin Mary found in his personal belongings and his early writings have Jesuit origins

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Oct. 18, 2009

A report surfaced from a 1952 Denver newspaper article that a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary was found in George Washington’s personal belongings, adding to reports in an 1860 book that he was baptized Roman Catholic on his deathbed by a Jesuit priest from Georgetown University.

It is further reported as a 16-year old youth Washington wrote, making emphasis on the “one hundred and ten “Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation,” which were first written by Jesuits and not as first reported by French scholars.

According to researchers, these maxims were so fully exemplified in George Washington’s life that biographers have regarded them as formative influences in the development of his character.

In an article written in 1926 entitled Washington’s Copy of Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation (reprinted in its entirety at the end of this article), the following conclusion was drawn, giving us further evidence that Washington was influenced by Jesuitism at an early age:

“Here, then, is the conclusion of the whole matter as it now stands: The Rules of Civility were composed originally, or compiled, and published in France, by the Jesuits, about 1595; they were translated into English by Francis Hawkins about 1640, and passed through no fewer than eleven editions down to 1672.

“From the Hawkins book the one hundred and ten Rules written by Washington were selected, simplified and arranged by some person at present unknown. One copy came into the hands of George Washington, who from it wrote out the manuscript that is among the Washington Papers purchased: from the family by Congress in 1834 and 1849, and held in the Department of State until 1903, when they were transferred to the Library of Congress.”

Returning to Washington’s alleged Roman Catholic Baptism, the Denver Register reported the following on May 11, 1952:

“A picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary and one of St. John were among the effects found in an inventory of the articles at Mount Vernon at the death of George Washington, first president of the U.S.A. The Rev. W.C. Repetti, S.J., archivist at Georgetown University, reports he has discovered this information in an appendix to a biography of Washington.

“The book is a Life of George Washington by Edward Everett, published by Sheldon & Co. in New York in 1860.

‘”The fact that he had a picture of the Blessed Virgin is rather unexpected, and, to the best of my knowledge, has not been brought out, ” says Fr. Repetti. The long report among slaves of Mount Vernon as to Washington’s deathbed conversion would be odd unless based on truth. These were not Catholic Negroes; it is part of the tradition that weeping and wailing occurred in the quarters that Massa Washington had been snared by the Scarlet Woman of Rome, whom they had been taught to fear and hate. Supposedly, Father Neale was rowed across the Piscatawney by Negro

oarsmen; and men often talked freely when slaves were nearby, confidently ignoring their presence.

On Feb. 24, 1957, the Denver Register added the following post:

“It was a long tradition among both the Maryland Province Jesuit Fathers and the Negro slaves of the Washington plantation and those of the surrounding area that the first President died a Catholic.

“These and other facts about George Washington are reported in the Paulist Information magazine by Doran Hurley. The story is that Father Leonard Neale, S.J., was called to Mount Vernon from St. Mary’s Mission across the Piscatawney River four hours before Washington’s death. Washington’s body servant, Juba, is authority for the fact that the General made the Sign of the Cross at meals.

“He may have learned this from his Catholic lieutenants, Stephen Moylan or John Fitzgerald. At Valley Forge, Washington forbade the burning in effigy of the Pontiff on “Pope’s Day.” Several times as President he is reported to have slipped into a Catholic church to hear Sunday Mass”

Further, there is a Notre Dame University story supporting that Washington may have died a Roman Catholic, as reported by a Notre Dame publication by a Fr. J”

“The Notre Dame angle on the story supports it (Washington being Catholic.) Fr. Sorin in the 1870’s built Washington Hall on the campus. It still stands today. He would not have named the building after a non-Catholic but named it for the first president considering his conversion a providential sign of the eventual conversion of this Protestant nation to the Catholic faith.

The naming of Washington Hall fits with other signs on campus of Sorin’s belief that faith would prevail (and that Notre Dame would be at the heart of the Church in America) including the construction of a domed bicammeral main building reminiscent of the state capitols under construction throughout the nation at the time and a series of murals dedicated to the discovery of America by CC under her Catholic Majesty, Isabella.

At any rate, Sorin believed the Jesuit story of a call to Georgetown University for a priest to baptize the president on his deathbed. I have heard from several Jesuits that the story has credence.)

Besides if Washington was so opposed to the Papacy why would he have overlooked the importance of the 1605 Gunpowder Plot and issue the following statements which seem to support the papacy instead of warning Americans about the Beast in the Book of Revelation:

Here is his Order in Quarters issued by General George Washington, November 5, 1775 pertaining to Guy Fawkes Day (“Pope’s Day” in the United States):

“As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope–He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.”

As promised earlier, here is the article about Washington’s Copy of ” Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation” written by Charles Moore, Washington, D.C. May, 1926:

Among the hundreds of volumes of Washington Manuscripts in the Library of Congress, two contain the school exercises of George Washington, written before he had reached the age of sixteen years. The one devoted to mathematics exhibits a wide range of subjects, combined with sureness and accuracy in working, and clearness and neatness of presentation. Few graduates of colleges to-day, unless they specialize in mathematics, become so well trained in that subject. The problems in surveying show that at sixteen Washington was fitted to earn his living in the field.

The second book begins with legal forms, such as every planter should know: bills of sale and exchange, contracts, conveyances, deeds, leases, and even wills. The middle portion contains a Christmas poem, and also one entitled “True Happiness,” which strongly suggest that the boyish love poems attributed to his pen were taken from some book, now unknown. Probably they expressed his feelings at the moment, and he copied them.

The remaining ten pages of the second book are occupied by one hundred and ten “Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation,” about which much has been written and little is known. These maxims were so fully exemplified in George Washington’s life that biographers have regarded them as formative influences in the development of his character.

During the days before mere hero worship had given place to understanding and comprehension of the fineness of Washington’s character, of his powerful influence among men, and of the epoch-making nature of the issues he so largely shaped, it was assumed that Washington himself composed the maxims, or at least that he compiled them. It is a satisfaction to find that his consideration for others, his respect for and deference to those deserving such treatment, his care of his own body and tongue, and even his reverence for his Maker, all were early inculcated in him by precepts which were the common practice in decent society the world over. These very maxims had been in use in France for a century and a half, and in England for a century, before they were set as a task for the schoolboy Washington.

That romantic and stimulating scholar, the late Moncure D. Conway, was born in Falmouth, Virginia. The Falls of the Rappahannock made music to his boyish ears, as they had sung to the young Washington. Mr. Conway’s knowledge of times and places and people in Colonial Virginia stimulated his zeal for research and gave food for his vivid imagination. He was the first to trace the origin of the Maxims to a treatise entitled “Bienseance de la Conversation entre les Hommes,” prepared, in 1595, by the “pensionnaires” of the French Jesuit College of La Fleche, and sent by them to their brothers at Pont-a-Mousson.

One of the recipients, Father Perin, translated the Maxims into Latin, adding a chapter of his own on behavior at table. The Latin edition appeared at Pont-a-Mousson in 1617, at Paris in 1638, at Rouen in 1651. It was translated into Spanish, German, and Bohemian. A French edition appeared at Paris at least as early as 1640. [Author’s note: George Washington’s Rules of Civility Traced to their Sources and Restored, by Moncure D. Conway; 1891. See also Backer’s Jesuit Bibliography).]

Just as he had completed his comparisons with the French work, Mr. Conway found in the British Museum an English version of the Maxims, “purporting to be by a child in his eighth year,” first printed in London in 1640. “The translations are indeed rude,” he writes, “and sometimes inaccurate as to the sense, but that they were the unaided work of a child under eight is one of the “things hard to be believed” which a Maxim admonishes us not to tell.” Mr. Conway’s conclusion is that “A careful comparison of Washington’s Rules with the Hawkins version renders it doubtful whether the Virginia boy used the work of the London boy. The differences are more than the resemblances.”

Yet admittedly Washington knew no French. As easily as the young Washington himself threw a stone across the Rappahannock, Mr. Conway overcomes this difficulty by having the Maxims translated from the French and made into copy-book form by the Reverend James Marye, who was born within the pale of the Catholic Church, at Rouen, but who came to Virginia with the first Huguenot Colony and was the minister of St. George’s Parish, Spotsylvania County, from 1735 till his death in 1767. His home was at Fayetteville, eight miles from Fredericksburg. There he lived and was buried. [Author’s note: Documents, chiefly unpublished, relating to the Huguenot emigration to Virginia. Edited and compiled by Robert Alonzo Brock. Richmond, 1886. History of St. George’s Parish in the County of Spotsylvania, by Rev. Philip Slaughter, D.D. Edited by R. A. Brock. Richmond, 1890.]

The fact that James Marye was born in France and was educated as a Jesuit makes plausible the theory that he had knowledge of a work on manners known throughout the civilized world. He might have been Washington’s teacher; but there is no proof that he taught in Fredericksburg or elsewhere, or even that there was a school in Fredericksburg in his day, then little more than a name. Indeed we are by no means certain that George Washington went to school. His father, Augustine Washington, died in 1743, when the boy was eleven years old, and thereafter, until he was sixteen, he lived with his half-brother, Augustine, on the ancestral acres in Westmoreland County, forty miles from Fredericksburg. He was often at his mother’s home, at Ferry Farm, across the Rappahannock from Fredericksburg; but we are not certain who his teachers were or whether he was taught outside his own home.

A comparison of texts furnishes proof positive that the Maxims copied by George Washington came from the Hawkins version, and not from the French. The doubts thrown on the Hawkins work because of the author’s youth are unfounded.

Francis Hawkins was born in London in 1628. His father, John Hawkins, M.D. (Padua), was a brother of Sir Thomas Hawkins and of Henry Hawkins, all members of an old, active and influential family. Dr. John Hawkins had pub fished five books before his precocious son Francis, at the age of eight years, turned into English the French version of the Maxims. The pleased father took the manuscript to the printer, William Lee, who published it about 1640. The troubled state of the country kept the book from being reprinted until 1646, when a second edition appeared. Then followed in quick succession nine other editions before 1672.

A second part, entitled “Youth’s behaviour, or Decency in Conversation amongst Women”: with a portrait of Lady Ferrers, was added by the Puritan bookmaker, Robert Codrington, in 1664. This shows that Puritans as well as Cavaliers, Protestants as well as Romanists, regarded Hawkins’s Maxims as stepping-stones to favor. Indeed, so thoroughly was Hawkins’s English version accepted that Hawkins is regarded as the author of the book, and mention of the French authorship does not go beyond the expression on the title-page: “composed in French by grave persons for the use and benefit of their youth.”

Meanwhile Hawkins, at the age of twenty-one, entered the Society of Jesus. In 1662 he was professed of four vows; ten years later he was confessor at Ghent, and from 1675 till his death in 1680-81 he was professor of Holy Scripture at Liege College. [Dictionary of National Biography.]

The open questions are: who condensed, and arranged as exercises in writing, the Hawkins Maxims; and, second, who taught George Washington penmanship by the use of them ?

In any event, and whoever the teacher, it was the Hawkins English version and not the French version that was the source of the rules Washington copied. Is it not probable that the Hawkins book was one of those compilations that “no gentleman’s library could be without,” notwithstanding the fact that no such title appears in the catalogue of the library of William Byrd of Westover, reputed to have been the finest in the Colonies? Is it not possible that either Washington’s father or one of his half-brothers, all three of whom were educated in England, brought back a copy of one of the Hawkins editions?

One copy of the edition of 1663 has survived in the Library of Congress. The New York, Harvard, and Richmond Libraries report no copies. But the British Museum has the editions of 1646, 1651, 1663, and 1672; and also a Latin translation of the same work, London, MDCLII. The Bodleian Library, Oxford, has the seventh impression, 1661; eighth impression, I 663; ninth impression, I 668; and eleventh impression, 1672. Trinity College Library, Cambridge, England, has at least two editions-1663 and 1672. Dr. James H. Penniman of Philadelphia owns a copy of the edition of 1651,–the only copy of any edition I have found in this country, except the one in the Library of Congress.

The Library of Congress copy has been used as the basis of the comparisons herein made between the Washington and Hawkins texts. With its aid the Washington Rules have been restored, in cases of mutilation, with an accuracy more complete than the conjectural restorations of Dr. Toner [Author’s note: Washington’s Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation. Copied from the original . . . and edited with notes, by J. M. Toner, M.D. Washington, D.C., 1888.] and of Mr. Conway. Of the one hundred and ten Rules in the Washington manuscript, not all are in the French version. Among them are a number that were added by English writers in the later editions of the Hawkins book. All the Rules are in the 1663 edition.

The hiatus of three quarters of a century between the latest known edition of Hawkins and the date which Washington himself placed upon his manuscript of the Rules is still unclosed. The Rules are not found in The Young Man’s Companion, by W. Mather, a copy of which school-book, with the name of George Washington and the date 1742 plainly written on the title-page, has been on the market. It is not established that the writing is his or that he owned the book, although it is contemporary with him. Nor have the Rules yet been discovered in any other like publication from 1672 till this day.

Professor E. K. Rand, of Harvard University, has called my attention to Dr. F. J. Furnivall’s collections of texts on Early English Meals and Manners and Queene Elizabethes Academy; and to the modernization of these texts by Edith Rickert, under the title of The Babees’ Book: Medieval Manners for the Young (1908). Many rules naturally are similar to those to be found in both the French and the English versions, but identity is lacking. Moreover, although mention is made of compilations so late as Richard Weste’s School of Virtue, printed in 1619, no mention is made of Perin’s work, or of Hawkins’.

Here, then, is the conclusion of the whole matter as it now stands: The Rules of Civility were composed originally, or compiled, and published in France, by the Jesuits, about 1595; they were translated into English by Francis Hawkins about 1640, and passed through no fewer than eleven editions down to 1672. From the Hawkins book the one hundred and ten Rules written by Washington were selected, simplified and arranged by some person at present unknown. One copy came into the hands of George Washington, who from it wrote out the manuscript that is among the Washington Papers purchased: from the family by Congress in 1834 and 1849, and held in the Department of State until 1903, when they were transferred to the Library of Congress.

I am indebted to Mr. R. F. Sharp, Keeper of the Department of Printed Books in the British Museum; to Mr. S. Gibson, Secretary of the Bodleian Library, Oxford; and to Mr. H. M. Adams, Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge, England, for painstaking investigation in their several institutions, and for their prompt and courteous replies to inquiries.

Miss Emily B. Mitchell, long connected with the Division of Manuscripts in the Library of Congress, has prepared the manuscript of this work, and has aided in the research involved. Mr. Levin C. Handy has photographed the Washington Rules in such manner as to bring out the very best that in them is.

7 thoughts on “Was George Washington Baptized Catholic?

  1. Pingback: Anatoliy

  2. Pingback: Jork

  3. What Jim Walker found out:
    Much of the myth of Washington’s alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book “Life of Washington”. The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington’s own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.
    Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington’s initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.
    To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man “ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”
    After Washington’s death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington’s religion replied, “Sir, Washington was a Deist.”


  4. 09/18’09 Christopher Strunk on The Investigative Journal
    Let me give an overview so people understand where I’m going with this.
    During the crusades, King Richard and King John had serious problems in financing their part in the crusade and what they did was to put England in (), and that’s during the period of Robin Hood (“The name was still used to describe sedition and treachery in 1605, when Guy Fawkes and his associates were branded ‘Robin Hoods’ by Robert Cecil.”) […] King John struck a deal with the Pope to pay off the debt. Basically, he gave up the sovereignty and used all of his future holdings as a security against the debt that had been occurred. The point is the Americans were part of that, so the Vatican had a like a banker’s interest in controlling everything that the King’s colonies happened from that point on, so that where England went then, the Vatican went with it. And certainly Henry VIII rebelled against that.
    Let me sort of finish my overview here. So the point is that the Vatican operated from the get-go through the Masonic order and everything else at the colonies. And that it always had an ulterior money modus. And that it was in partnership to that contractional arrangement, the treaty of () 13. And that the Founding Fathers were aware of the king’s debt that was owed to the revolution. And they were forced to write the Constitution as a debt repayment plan, a business plan. And so I don’t give the credence that you give to the Constitution, even to the Articles of Confederation, other than there are people getting enriched “of the vehicles” in order to hoodwink a lot of general people “in the street”. And that’s going on now. But with that in mind, so that’s sort of an outlook that I take into consideration.
    And if you look at the Social Security system – that is a corporate fiction which you’re enslaved by. That you were given a number and that number is controlled through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and the United Nations Treaties oversee that. And the monarchy in England and the Vatican threw that original structure – they are both involved in the corporate structure in the U.S. [and Canada]. You can’t escape from that.
    What I’m looking at, specifically, is the legal structure which is set up from that arrangement. You know, if you’re gonna fight a war, you’re gonna use the same sword that your enemy is using, because it’s got two edges. And you cut your enemy with the same sword that they would cut you with.


  5. Pingback: Сергей

  6. Pingback: Александр

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s