36 WGW, vol. 3, 6-19-1775.
CHAPTER 3
1 Hughes, George Washington the Human Being and the Hero, p. 554.
2 WGW, vol. 15, 5-13-1779.
3 Hughes, George Washington the Human Being and the Hero, p. 554.
4 WGW, vol. 15, 5-13-1779.
5 Boller, George Washington And Religion, p. 69.
6 Ibid., p. 74.
7 Ibid., p. 74. C
8 Rupert Hughes, p. 554. (Unfortunately, Rupert Hughes’ only source for this claim is Dr. M. D. Conway’s monograph, “The Religion of George Washington.” The Open Court, Oct. 24, p. 1889, p. 1895. For other relevant texts, see Boller, George Washington And Religion p. 85,
9 As an illustration of this, a private letter to Gov. Henry Lee, dated August 26, 1794, is pertinent. According to the WGW Note on that date: “Lee had written (August 27): ‘… very respectable gentleman told me the other day that he was at Mr. Jefferson’s, and among enquirys which he made of that gentleman, he asked if it were possible that you had attached yourself to G Britain and if it could be true that you were governed, by British influence as was reported by many. He was answered in the following words: ‘that there was no danger of your being biassed? by considerations of that sort so long as you were influenced by the wise advisers, or advice, which you at present had. ‘ I requested him to reflect and reconsider and to repeat again the answer. He did so, and adhered to every word. Now as the conversation astonished me and is inexplicable to my mind as well as derogatory to your character, I consider it would be unworthy in me to withhold the communication from you. To no other person will it ever be made.’” President Washington addressed “what Mr. Jefferson is reported to have said of” him as follows: “With respect to the words said to have been uttered by Mr. Jefferson, they would be enigmatical to those who are acquainted with the characters about me, unless supposed to be spoken ironically; and in that case they are too injurious to me, and have too little foundation in truth, to be ascribed to him. There could not be the trace of doubt on his mind of predilection in mine, towards G. Britain or her politics, unless (which I do not believe) he has set me down as one of the most deceitful, and uncandid men living; because, not only in private conversations between ourselves, on this subject; but in my meetings with the confidential servants of the public, he has heard me often, when occasions presented themselves, express very different sentiments with an energy that could not be mistaken by any one present.”
10 In the context of the preparation of his farewell address, Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton on May 15, 1796, calling Jefferson and Madison “ two of those characters who are now strongest, and foremost in the opposition to the Government; and consequently to the person Administering of it contrary to their views.” See WGW, vol.35, 5-15-1796. Washington originally had considered retirement from the presidency at the end of his first term. Madison and Jefferson were aware of his plan as well as his first draft of a farewell address from their assistance to the president when they were closer to him. Ultimately Jefferson resigned his post as Secretary of State. The relationship between Washington and Jefferson continued to deteriorate as their political differences began to be increasingly evident. Washington had attempted in vain to keep Jefferson on his cabinet. This is seen in the following letter that he wrote on October 18, 1792 to Jefferson just before Jefferson resigned. The four years of Washington’s second term had elapsed between Washington’s heartfelt effort to keep Jefferson on the Cabinet and his painful letter to Hamilton referring to Madison and Jefferson as those “foremost in the opposition to the Government.” Washington unsuccessfully sought to mediate between Hamilton and Jefferson with these gracious words: “I did not require the evidence of the extracts which you enclosed me, to convince me of your attachment to the Constitution of the United States, or of your disposition to promote the general Welfare of this Country. But I regret, deeply regret, the difference in opinions which have arisen, and divided you and another principal Officer of the Government; and wish, devoutly, there could be an accommodation of them by mutual yieldings. A Measure of this sort would produce harmony, and consequent good in our public Councils; the contrary will, inevitably, introduce confusion, and serious mischiefs; and for what? because mankind cannot think alike, but would adopt different means to attain the same end. For I will frankly, and solemnly declare that, I believe the views of both of you [Hamilton and Jefferson] are pure, and well meant; and that experience alone will decide with respect to the salubrity of the measures wch. are the subjects of dispute. Why then, when some of the best Citizens in the United States, Men of discernment, Uniform and tried Patriots, who have no sinister views to promote, but are chaste in their ways of thinking and acting are to be found, some on one side, and some on the other of the questions which have caused these agitations, shd. either of you be so tenacious of your opinions as to make no allowances for those of the other? I could, and indeed was about to add more on this interesting subject; but will forbear, at least for the present; after expressing a wish that the cup wch. has been presented, may not be snatched from our lips by a discordance of action when I am persuaded there is no discordance in your views. I have a great, a sincere esteem and regard for you both, and ardently wish that some line could be marked out by which both of you could walk.” WGW, vol. 32, 10-18-1792.
11 Hughes goes on to say of Jefferson’s claim that Washington was a Deist, “This would seem to be the truth. In his time the ‘deist’ was a term of fierce reproach, almost worse than atheist, though a deist believed in an all-wise deity who cared for the world and provided a future reward for the good. This deity was not, however, the Israelite Jehovah and was not the father of Christ, who was considered a wise and virtuous man, but not of divine origin. Such was probably Washington’s opinion on the subject, though there is little evidence either way. In spite of his incessant allusions to providence, Washington was persistently silent as to his dogmatic beliefs.” Rupert Hughes, George Washington The Human Being, p. 554.
12 For The Definition of Chalcedon written in 451, see Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom 6th edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), vol. 2, pp. 62-63. The foundational language concerning Christ is “…consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures; inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ….”
13 See Schaff, Creeds Of Christendom, vol. 1, 651-52.
14 Thomas Jefferson was a critic of the theology of the Athanasian Creed: “The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin, are, to my understanding, mere lapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible.” — Thomas Jefferson to Jared Sparks, 1820. Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 20 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1903-04), 15:288. And Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813 “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests.” Ibid., 13:350.
15 Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, p. 66-71, also JMD Kelly, The Athenasian Creed (New York: Harper & Row) 1963.
16 This principle well explains the alleged incident where Boller claims that Washington “avoids” speaking of Jesus Christ in an exchange of letters between Gouverneur Morris and Washington. Boller writes, “Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of Christ, in any connection whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life. Gouverneur Morris once wrote him to say: “Had our Saviour addressed a Chapter to the Rulers of Mankind, I am perswaded his good Sense would have dictated this Text: Be not wise overmuch.” In his reply, Washington avoided speaking of the “Saviour.” “Had such a chapter as you speak of,” he said, “been written to the rulers of Mankind, it would, I am persuaded, have been as unavailing as many others upon subjects of equal importance.” Paul Boller, George Washington And Religion, p. 75. The problem with Boller’s claim that Washington “avoids” referring to the “Saviour” and that it is thus an argument for Washington’s Deism is that his remark in no way implies disbelief in the Saviour. What Washington avoids is the unnecessary and potentially profane use of the name of the “Saviour” in a discussion of the ponderous workings of government. Consider the actual letter of Washington to Morris on May 29, 1778: “Had such a chapter as you speak of been written to the rulers of mankind it would I am persuaded, have been as unavailing as many others upon subjects of equal importance. We may lament that things are not consonent with our wishes, but cannot change the nature of Men, and yet those who are distressed by the folly and perverseness of it, cannot help complaining, as I would do on the old score of regulation and arrangement, if I thought any good would come of it.” Fitzpatrick, editor of the WGW, provides more of Morris’ letter: “Gouverneur Morris wrote (May 21) to Washington: ‘Had our Saviour addressed a Chapter to the Rulers of Mankind as he did many to the Subjects I am perswaded his Good Sense would have dictated this Text: Be not wise overmuch. Had the several Members which compose our multifarious Body been only wise enough Our Business would long since have been compleated. But our superior Abilities or the Desire of appearing to possess them lead us to such exquisite Tediousness of Debate, that the most precious Moments pass unheeded away like vulgar Things.’” See WGW, vol. 11, 5-29-1778. Given that the discussion between Morris and Washington is full of “complaining” and “vulgar Things,” Washington’s sense of honor prevented him from repeating the “Saviour’s” name in what in itself could also be viewed as a profane act— proposing another chapter to the Gospels left untaught by Christ. But even beyond this, Boller’s thesis does not stand the test of examination. If Washington operated under the principle advanced by Boller, he should never have mentioned the “Redeemer” either. Yet he does so as he writes to his military associates in his General Orders of November 27, 1779, speaking of “the merits of our gracious Redeemer.” In the first instance he appropriately avoids repeating the profane use of the “Saviour’s” name from Gouverneur Morris’ letter dealing with complaints about government business. In the second instance he chooses to repeat the “Redeemer’s” name from the call for prayer by the Continental Congress, since it is a worship context, and thus an appropriate use for Christ’s sacred name.
17 Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 13, March 7-October 1788 (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1956): “I am truly sensible, Sir, of the honour you do me in proposing to me that of become one of the Sponsors of your child, and return you my sincere thanks for it. At the same time I am not a little mortified that scruples, perhaps not well founded, forbid my undertaking this honourable office. The person who becomes sponsor for a child, according to the ritual of the church in which I was educated, makes a solemn profession, before god and the world, of faith in articles, which I had never sense enough to comprehend, and it has always appeared to me that comprehension must precede assent. The difficulty of reconciling the ideas of Unity and Trinity, have, from a very early part of my life, excluded me from the office of sponsorship, often proposed to me by my friends, who would have trusted, for the faithful discharge of it, to morality alone instead of which the church requires faith. Accept therefore Sir this conscientious excuse which I make with regret, which must find it’s apology in my heart, while perhaps it may do no great honour to my head.”
18 Building on a study begun while president in 1804, and pursued in earnest in the summer of 1820, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French and English, the so-called Jefferson’s Bible was Thomas Jefferson’s effort to summarize the teaching of Jesus, without being encumbered by the miraculous and the false additions to his teaching that he believed had been made to Jesus’ historic word. Former President Jefferson wrote of his project to uncover the real words of Jesus from the faulty Gospel history in which they were contained. Jefferson explained that his project was a process of “abstracting what is really his [i.e., Christ’s] from the rubbish in which it is buried [i.e., the Gospel history], easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separate from that as the diamond from the dung hill.” — Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819. Jefferson’s work has no mention of the beginning and the end of the Gospel story. There is no annunciation, virgin birth or appearance of angels to the shepherds. The resurrection of Jesus is entirely missing. Simply put, Jefferson’s Jesus of Nazareth is not the Jesus Christ of Christianity. Nor is Jefferson’s Jesus of Nazareth Washington’s “Divine Author of our Blessed Religion.” When Washington refers to “the religion of Jesus Christ” it is clearly not the Deistic and truncated religion of Thomas Jefferson. As a Deist, Jefferson had no scruple in frequently using Jesus’ name:
“But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object.” Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819
“It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.” - Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, 1820
“The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever more dangerous. Jesus had to work on the perilous confines of reason and religion; and a step to the right or left might place him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.” — Thomas Jefferson to Story, Aug. 4, 1820
“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, is nothing.
3. That faith is everything, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit the faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.” — Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
“The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” — Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823.
19 The radical unbelief in Jesus Christ expressed by Thomas Paine the Deist makes him very free to speak of Christ. The following passages of which there is not a shred of parallel with Washington are illustrative of Paine’s deistic rejection of Christianity: “EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.
“Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all….It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. …The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud….” Thomas Paine, Age Of Reason, Part One,
Chapter two;
“It is certain that, in one point, all nations of the earth and all religions agree. All believe in a God, The things in which they disagree are the redundancies annexed to that belief; and therefore, if ever a universal religion should prevail, it will not be believing any thing new, but in getting rid of redundancies, and believing as man believed at first. Adam, if ever there was such a man, was created a Deist; but in the mean time, let every man follow, as he has a right to do, the religion and worship he prefers.” Thomas Paine, Age Of Reason, Part One, Recapitulation.
20 The Nicene Creed was to be said in the morning prayer, the evening prayer, or the Communion service as a possible alternative to the Apostles Creed, according to the rubric of the 1789 Book of Common Prayer. This Trinitarian Creed declares: “I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man: And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried: And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures: And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father: And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets: And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: And the Life of the world to come. Amen.”
21 WGW vol. 16, 7-29-1779.
22 Ibid., vol. 9, 9-19-1777 Note: “His Excellency General Washington was with the troops who passed us here to the Perkiomen. The procession lasted the whole night, and we had all kinds of visits from officers wet to the breast, who had to march in that condition the cold, damp night through, and to bear hunger and thirst at the same time. This robs them of courage and health, and instead of prayers we hear from most, the national evil, curses.” —- Muhlenberg’s Diary, Sept. 19, 1777.
23 Ibid., vol. 17, 11-27-1779.
24 Ibid., vol. 26, 6-8-1783.
25 Ibid., vol. 30, 10-3-1789.
