Thus, Washington greeted Weems’ book with the same “singular satisfaction” that he afforded to the Reverend Dr. Lathrop’s gift of the report of the Humane Society. The point to be seen here is that the Christian ethic of saving mankind’s physical life and the Christian message of saving mankind’s spiritual life both brought “singular satisfaction” to Washington’s soul.
Washington further declared that he hoped that Weems’ book would receive an “extensive patronage,” or a broad audience. In his opinion, it was an extremely well-named book, given the selections that were offered. Thus, Washington could delight in and encourage Christian ideas, even though these Christian concepts were circulated by the much maligned Parson Weems.
CONCLUSION: THE REVENGE OF PARSON WEEMS
Whether one agrees or not with Weems’ historical writings, it is clear that Washington embraced Weems’ theological perspective and had had substantial historical encounters with Weems and his Christian beliefs. This may come as a surprise to many, since no historian who has written on Washington in the last century has even commented on it, let alone considered this evidence of Washington’s advocacy of the theology of the consistently ridiculed Reverend Mason Weems. Ironically, Washington here stands as an advocate of Reverend Weems and his theology.
What is the conclusion here? Only a Christian could have taken the views expressed by Washington to a preacher publishing a book with such explicit Christian themes. Washington could not have done so as a Deist.
Scholars know they can’t rely on Parson Weems’ biography of Washington. Nevertheless, they must trust Washington’s own words concerning the Christian book compiled by Parson Weems. With “singular satisfaction,” or distinct pleasure, we declare that the only legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from this evidence is that Washington was an advocate of and a believer in the Christian faith.
THIRTY SIX
George Washington’s Sacred Fire
“We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”
George Washington, First Inaugural Address, 1789
1
In his First Inaugural Address, Washington explained that an experiment had been entrusted to the American people. What was at stake in America’s experiment in self-government was the “preservation of the sacred fire of liberty.” This “sacred fire” had been entrusted to Americans by heaven. Liberty’s flame was sacred or holy because it was sustained by heaven’s “eternal rules of order and right.” Washington believed that the great American experiment with the “republican model of government” had no hope of success without regard for these rules and without the aid of the “propitious” or gracious “smiles of Heaven.”
America’s responsibility to keep the divinely given “sacred fire” burning brightly was understood from the birth of our nation. The Continental Congress, of which George Washington was a member, acknowledged this trust in 1774 when they gave their explanation of their understanding of the magnitude of the task on which they were embarking for generations to come,
...it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve these civil and religious rights and liberties for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.2
Is it possible to preserve America’s “sacred fire of liberty” if we strip the divine from our history and suppress our heroic founders’ the concern for the sacred?”
THE REPACKAGING OF HISTORY
Reverend Mason Weems, George Washington’s first biographer, opened his biography of George Washington with these words: “Go thy way old George. Die when thou wilt, we shall not look upon thy like again.”3 Reverend Weems could never have imagined that his words of praise would be ironically fulfilled by the erasure of Washington’s legacy from the minds of America’s schoolchildren and the denial of his Christian faith by many of our nation’s historians.
But this is happening reflecting the adage that “the living can make the dead do any tricks they find necessary!” The re-creation of George Washington into a Deist has been considered necessary by secular historians in order to create a secular America. This is not to say that everyone who treats Washington as a Deist necessarily subscribes to the theory that the founding fathers were secularists by-and-large. In his book, A History of the American People, the esteemed British historian Paul Johnson viewed Washington as a moderate Deist, while Johnson, nevertheless, clearly recognizes the critical role the Christian faith played in the founding of this country.4 But some scholars have essentially become used to quoting other scholars and have not pursued their own original research.5
This enterprise of remaking George Washington, in particular, into a Deist has been one of the most successful repackagings of an historical figure ever. But in the process, a great disservice has been done to our founding father. For no longer can it be said that Washington is “first in war, first in peace, and first in the heart of his countrymen.” This loss of our historical consciousness of Washington’s centrality in our nation’s history was preceded by the denial of his Christian faith. Yet the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Washington was a devout eighteenth century Anglican Christian.
George Washington’s Sacred Fire, based on Washington’s own words, demonstrates that no other conclusion can honestly and accurately be reached. For if we intend to truly do justice to history, rather than to the hubris of historical revisionism, we must let the words, actions, and primary sources of Washington be determinative in our interpretation of him.
WASHINGTON NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A DEIST
Washington never claimed to be a Deist. In fact, he criticized Deism on various occasions, as we have demonstrated throughout Sacred Fire and as summarized below. And further, he openly and repeatedly claimed to be a Christian. His entire life and words opposed the leading themes that Deism sought to establish. Not only did Washington celebrate Christian character, he attacked both publicly and privately the ethics that flowed from Deism. By way of review, Washington’s rejection of the foundational tenets of Deism can be seen by the following:
• Deism claimed an absentee God. Washington proclaimed an active God of Providence in history some 270 times;
• Deism rejected divine revelation. Washington declared America’s greatest benefit was “the benign light of revelation;” He alluded and referred to the Bible over 200 times;
• Deism held to the non-divinity of Christ. Washington declared Christ to be the “Divine Author of our Blessed religion.” Throughout his life, Washington supported Christian missionary efforts, declaring “and above all learn the religion of Jesus Christ.”
• Deists considered prayer to be useless. Washington composed over 100 written prayers, openly writing of his “pious,” “earnest,” and “fervent” prayers. Washington marveled at God’s providential care for the American colonies.
• Deism affirmed the equality of all religions. Washington called on America “to imitate” Christ, “the Divine Author of our Blessed Religion,” in his “humility, charity, and pacific temper of mind.” He called on Americans to pursue “true religion;” since only in this way could we be “a happy nation.”
• Deism sought the exclusion of religion from government. Washington claimed that “true religion is the surest support for government,” and that “religion and morality are indispensable supports for political happiness.”
• It has been claimed that Washington agreed with Thomas Paine on titles for Deity. But when compared carefully, Washington’s robust and extensive theological vocabulary reflects the Christian clergy of his day, and not that of the Deists who had a meager and truncated vocabulary for Deity. Further, he and Paine had a fatal falling-out when Paine committed himself to the Deistic tenets of the French Revolution.
• Deism reflected an anti-clergy spirit that also reflected itself in non-participation in the churches. Washington was a faithful church attendee and superlative vestryman, with literally scores of friends and correspondents who were Christian ministers.
• Washington, in fact, never even used the words “Deist” or “Deism.” His closest synonym was “infidel.” And when he used that word, he said that a man was “worse than an infidel” who could deny God’s Providence in a specific instance during the War. Referring to the same sort of unbelief, he said, “that man is bad indeed.” In his Farewell Address, he publicly warned Americans of those whose “peculiar Structure of mind” would lead them to remove the “indispensable supports of religion and morality” from government.
In summation, there is not a hint anywhere in Washington’s writings that he ever wanted to be considered anything other than a Christian. His own words show that he desired to be known as an honest man from Virginia who was loyal to his roots, his family, his church, his country, and his God. Those who would transform him into a Deist must produce the requisite written, historical evidence to show that he intended to be viewed as a Deist. Scholars have no authority simply to revise history in an effort to accommodate an increasingly secular America. The facts remain the facts, even when they are manipulated and shaded to hide the truth. And the facts explicitly demonstrate that Washington was a Christian.
We ask every scholar in America this simple request—provide us with only one historically verifiable statement from Washington’s pen where he declares himself to be a Deist. We only ask for one. But the truth is, it cannot be found. There is no evidence for Washington’s Deism. It is a scholarly myth. The Deist Washington is an exemplar of the very worst of scholarly, historical revisionism. Meanwhile, as we will reiterate below, there are numerous instances of his professed Christianity.
A SUMMATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF WASHINGTON’S CHRISTIANITY
Throughout George Washington’s Sacred Fire, we have presented the evidence that proves that George Washington was, without doubt, a Christian. In brief, we have shown that:
1. He was from a British Christian culture and from a Christian family in the Anglican tradition.
2. His childhood home and education were clearly Christian.
