The religious strife of seventeenth-century England elicited…their characteristic teachings, which included a rational theology, a minimalism in theology, a tendency to exalt moral theology over speculative theology, and an insistence upon moderation and mutual tolerance in matters of religion and worship that were inessential.¹³

But what makes this movement most interesting for our concerns here is that it was conscious of the Christian doctrines of salvation and was also intentionally anti-Deist. In terms of the doctrines of salvation, we find the following that almost sounds as if it were from Washington himself. Quoting Griffin again:

“…true philosophy can never hurt sound divinity….” As Glanvill said, the Latitudinarians held as “one of their main doctrines” that “the principles which are necessary for salvation are very few, and very plain, and generally acknowledged among Christians.” The Bible alone was a sufficient rule of faith, for in it the few fundamentals of religion were set forth, Fowler said, even to the meanest intelligence, “with such perspicuity and clearness, that nothing but men’s shutting their eyes against the light can keep them from discerning their true meaning.”¹⁴

And, important for our purposes, Latitudinarians were not Deists. They affirmed that salvation was revealed in the scriptures, the very thing that Deists denied: “it is sufficient for any man’s salvation, that he assent to the truth of the Holy Scriptures, that he carefully endeavor to understand their true meaning, so far as concerns his own duty, and to order his life accordingly.”¹⁵

For our concerns here, did such sympathy for religious tolerance, a historic commitment to Christian Orthodoxy, and a strong emphasis on morality coupled with a belief in salvation and in revelation fit Washington’s character? This, in fact, is Washington’s theology.

Martin I. J. Griffin, Jr. and Lila Freedman, the scholar who completed Griffin’s study for publication after his death, have summarized and characterized Latitudinarianism with the following traits:

(1)   Orthodoxy in the historical sense of acceptance of the contents of the traditional Christian creeds;

(2)   Conformity to the Church of England as by law established, with its Episcopal government, its Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer;

(3)   An advocacy of ‘reason’ in religion;

(4)   Theological minimalism;

(5)   An Arminian scheme of justification;

(6)   An emphasis on practical morality above creedal speculation and precision;

(7)   A distinctive sermon style;

(8)   Certain connections with seventeenth-century science and the Royal Society.”¹⁶

While (7) and (8) are only tangentially connected to non-clergyman, and a non-resident of England, the first six items are close approximations of what one finds in Washington’s thought. The implications of points (1) and (2) should not be ignored. Like other Latitudinarians, Washington affirmed the doctrines of the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus Christ, the atoning death and bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authority of the Bible. No Deist could affirm such doctrines.

WASHINGTON’S THEOLOGY FITS THE LATITUDINARIAN PARADIGM

Washington in many ways parallels the distinctives of Latitudinarianism. But with these strong similarities, there are some unique distinctives that Washington himself brings to the discussion. So although Latitudinarianism is usually Arminian in emphasis, Washington seems to have Calvinistic emphases in his thinking as well. For example, Washington places a strong emphasis on God’s decree in his statements on Providence. He also shows a deep affinity with the Calvinistic doctrine of sin since he openly and repeatedly emphasizes human depravity. On other occasions, he referred to the hoped for “millennial” era, thereby revealing a Puritan post-millennial vision, which also was a Calvinist view. Given Washington’s “few and simple” points of religion, he did not develop any evident Reformed distinctives of salvation and seems to have left these matters much more in the area of human choice, which is closer to the Arminian perspective. He also seems to have wanted to emphasize the moral principles of authentic Christianity as an expression of one’s salvation. Thus, human obedience and activity are emphasized rather than the free grace of God. But we must be quick to note that Washington’s writings do refer to divine grace. For such reasons it seems appropriate to see a “modified Arminian,” or “inconsistent Calvinist” label resting comfortably, if not precisely, on Washington’s theological expressions.

If we review the items we’ve summarized above about Latitudinarianism, we can assemble a list to which we can compare the distinctives of the Latitudinarians with representative statements by Washington. In so doing, we discover Washington’s affinity with the Latitudinarian, or Low Church perspective.

A COMPARISION OF WASHINGTON AND LATITUDINARIANISM

(1) Orthodoxy in the historical sense of acceptance of the contents of the traditional Christian creeds. Washington was an active worshiper in the Anglican tradition, and thus regularly said all of the creeds. As a sponsor of a child in baptism some nine different times, he affirmed the articles of the Apostles Creed, article by article, on nine occasions in a worship setting. No Deist could affirm all those key, historic Christian doctrines.

(2) Conformity to the Church of England as by law established, with its Episcopal government, its Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer. Washington took all of the required oaths to become a public surveyor and to become a vestryman in the Church of England. He remained an active member and parishioner of the Episcopal Church until he died. There is no record of his ever renouncing any element of the Anglican tradition except for loyalty to the King which was set aside in the Revolution.

(3) Advocacy of ‘reason’ in religion. To Burwell Bassett, Washington wrote, “as far as the strength of our reason and religion can carry us…”¹⁷ And to Benjamin Lincoln, “Time alone can blunt the keen edge of afflictions; Philosophy and our Religion holds out to us such hopes as will, upon proper reflection, enable us to bear with fortitude the most calamitous incidents of life and these are all that can be expected from the feelings of humanity; is all which they will yield.”¹⁸

(4) Theological minimalism;

To Dr. James Anderson, “I have no inclination to touch, much less to dilate on politics. For in politics, as in religion my tenets are few and simple.”¹⁹

(5) An Arminian scheme of justification;

He wrote to Tobias Lear, “It is the nature of humanity to mourn for the loss of our friends…To say how much we loved, and esteemed our departed friend, is unnecessary. She is now no more! but she must be happy, because her virtue has a claim to it.”²⁰

And his stepson, John Parke Custis, wrote to Martha Washington from Kings College on July 5, 1773,

I receiv’d Pappa’s melancholy Letter, giveing an account of my dear & only Sister’s Death… Her case is more to be envied than pitied, for if we mortals can distinguish between those who are deserveing of grace & who are not, I am confident she enjoys that Bliss prepar’d only for the good & virtuous, let these consideration, My dear Mother have their due weight with you and comfort yourself with reflecting that she now enjoys in substance what we in this world enjoy in imagination & that there is no real Happiness on this side of the grave. I must allow that to sustain a shock of this kind requires more Philosophy than we in general are (possest) off, …I will no longer detain you on a subject which is painful to us both but conclude with beging you to remember you are a Christian and that we ought to submit with Patience to the divine Will and that to render you happy shall be the constant care of your effectionate and dutiful son.

John Parke Custis²¹

George and Martha Washington instilled a strong Christian worldview upon their son/stepson, so that when death took his sister, he saw the big picture and was not without hope. Washington himself said in a letter to Burnwell Basset informing him of Patsy Custis’ sudden passing, “the Sweet Innocent Girl Entered into a more happy and peaceful abode than any she has met with in the afflicted Path she hitherto has trod.”²²

Yet in terms of the sovereignty of Providence, Washington does not fit simply into the “Arminian” category. This is seen when the comment to Tobias Lear (quoted above) (see p. 912(5)) is put in context.

It is the nature of humanity to mourn for the loss of our friends; and the more we loved them, the more poignant is our grief. It is part of the precepts of Religion and Philosophy, to consider the Dispensations of Providence as wise, immutable, uncontroulable; of course, that it is our duty to submit with as little repining, as the sensibility of our natures is capable of to all its decrees. But nature will, notwithstanding, indulge, for a while, its sorrow’s. To say how much we loved, and esteemed our departed friend, is unnecessary. She is now no more! but she must be happy, because her virtue has a claim to it.

And to Burwell Bassett who lost a child just months before the Washingtons, he wrote,

we sympathize in the misfortune, and lament the decree which has deprived you of so dutiful a child, and the world of so promising a young lady, stands in no need, I hope, of argument to prove; but the ways of Providence being inscrutable, and the justice of it not to be scanned by the shallow eye of humanity, nor to be counteracted by the utmost efforts of human power or wisdom, resignation, and as far as the strength of our reason and religion can carry us, a cheerful acquiescence to the Divine Will, is what we are to aim;²³

(6) Practical morality above creedal speculation and precision;

He wrote to Capt. John Posey, “you must give me leave to say that it is Works and not Words that People will judge from…”²⁴

And to John Sullivan, he penned, “A slender acquaintance with the world must convince every man that actions, not words are the true criterion….”²⁵ As we have seen, this was a theme in Washington’s life he was a man of actions, not words. And those actions reflected his active Christian faith.

(7) A distinctive sermon style.

Obviously Washington did not preach sermons in the technical sense. But he collected sermons, read sermons to his family, claimed on a couple of occasions he was “turning preacher” and emphasized the great value of the sermon, not only by commending several clergymen in writing for their sermons, but saying the following to his soldiers,

General Orders: “In justice to the zeal and ability of the Chaplains, as well as to his own feelings, the Commander in chief thinks it a duty to declare the regularity and decorum with which divine service is now performed every Sunday, will reflect great credit on the army in general, tend to improve the morals, and at the same time, to increase the happiness of the soldiery, and must afford the most pure and rational entertainment for every serious and well disposed mind. No fatigue except on extra occasions, nor General review or inspections to be permitted on the Sabbath day.”²⁶

Furthermore, he paid money for pews that were well-situated by the pulpit, and the Communion table so he could hear the sermons. To this day, you can go to see the George Washington box-pews at Christ Church, Alexandria, Virginia; Pohick Church, Lorton, Virginia (where the entire interior has been recreated, including Washington’s pew); Trinity Episcopal Church, Newport, Rhode Island; Christ Church, Philadelphia; and St. Paul’s Chapel, New York City. Hearing sermons was apparently very important to Washington throughout his life. And, we should add, these were Christian sermons, not deistic ones.

(8) Certain connections with seventeenth-century science and the Royal Society of London.

Washington was a member of scientific societies such as the American Philosophical Society, and he corresponded with members of agricultural societies in England. His science and ideas of creation were complementary. To the American Philosophical Society, “In the philosophic retreat to which I am retiring, I shall often contemplate with pleasure the extensive utility of your Institution. The field of investigation is ample, the benefits which will result to Human Society from discoveries yet to be made, are indubitable, and the task of studying the works of the great Creator, inexpressibly delightful.”²⁷

(9) Washington’s comfort level with the Reformed and Presbyterian churches both in terms of Communion, church life, piety and prayer are remarkable. He communed with Presbyterians in Morristown.²⁸ He may have communed with German Reformed in Germantown. He sent many collegial letters to Reformed churches with which he had a special bond because of their intimate support of the work of the army in the Revolution. He corresponded openly with their clergy expressing his views of “true religion.”

•   To the minister of the Reformed Dutch Church, “Your benevolent wishes and fervent prayers for my personal wellfare and felicity, demand all my gratitude. May the preservation of your civil and religious Liberties still be the care of an indulgent Providence; and may the rapid increase and universal extension of knowledge virtue and true Religion be the consequence of a speedy and honorable Peace.”²⁹

•   To the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, Washington asseverated, “I readily join with you that ‘while just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.³⁰

•   To the First Presbytery of the Eastward, Newburyport, October 28. “I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.”³¹

•   To Col. Benedict Arnold (pre-treason). “I also give it in Charge to you to avoid all Disrespect to or Contempt of the Religion of the Country and its Ceremonies. Prudence, Policy, and a true Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with Compassion upon their Errors without insulting them.”³²