37 See letters to Reformed Churches on these dates: November 3, 1780. November 16, 1782. June 2, 1779. November 27, 1783. June 28, 1782. June 30, 1782. November 10, 1783. June 11, 1789. October 9, 1789. December 24, 1789.
38 Boller, p. 35.
39 See the warmth and intimacy of their “reciprocal prayers” in the chapter on “George Washington’s and Prayer.”
40 Washington’s diary references to William White occur only after his presidency, when he returned to Philadelphia to visit:
“November 5, 1798. Mr. White went away before breakfast. I set out on a journey to Phila. about 9 Oclock with Mr. Lear my Secretary— was met at the Turnpike by a party of horse & escorted to the Ferry at George Town where I was recd. with Military honors. Lodged at Mr. T. Peters. [GW was going to Philadelphia to make plans for the provisional army then being raised in case of an invasion by the French. ...] 9. Breakfasted in Wilmington & dined & lodged at Chester—waitg. at the latter the return of an Exps. At this place was met by sevl. Troops of Phila. horse.
10. With this Escort I arrived in the City about 9 oclock & was recd. by Genl. McPhersons Blues & was escorted to my lodgings in 8th. Street (Mrs. Whites) by them & the Horse....
11, 12, & 13. Dined at my Lodgings receiving many Visits. Weather clear & pleasant.
19. Do. at Doctr. Whites—Bishop. Raining.”
41 Washington would not discuss politics with a foreign visitor. From the note on May 19, 1798, we learn: Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz (1758— 1841) visited Mount Vernon on 2 June. Niemcewicz was a Polish literary and political figure who came to America in 1797 ...President and Mrs. Washington came to the Law home on 23 May for a two-day stay while Niemcewicz was still there. Niemcewicz described this event: “The whole time he [George Washington] was courteous, polite, even attentive; he talked very little, now and then on agriculture, on natural history, on all that one would wish, except politics, on which he maintains an absolute silence and reserve.” The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 6. Donald Jackson, and Dorothy Twohig, ed. The Papers of George Washington. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979.
42 Reverend Mason Gallagher, A Chapter of Unwritten History. The Protestant Episcopacy of the Revolutionary Patriots Lost and Restored. A Centennial Offering, (Philadelphia: Reformed Episcopal Rooms, 1883). Low Churchman and Reformed Episcopalian, Reverend Gallagher put is this way: “The Seabury leaven of Sacerdotalism, exclusive Divine right and sacramental grace, was allowed admittance. The Prayer Book of 1785 was essentially changed. The Romish alterations of Elizabeth and Charles were reintroduced. The leaven has spread through the lump, and most significantly though White survived Seabury a generation, the latter has thoroughly supplanted the patriotic Low Churchman, as the acknowledged Father of the Church, among those who control and direct its affairs, and wield predominating influence therein. While the power of the laity was in the ascendant, the Church was Protestant and Scriptural in its services. As the priestly influence became more general the Communion became naturally more sacerdotal, sacramental and exclusive. But these wise patriots were over powered by the insane passion for uniformity, and a hollow, unscriptural unity, which has been the bane of the Protestant Episcopal Church.”
43 PGW, vol. 2: 423-425. To the Baptist of Virginia.
44 See for example, WGW, vol. 3, 9-14-1775 to Col. Benedict Arnold.
45 Boller, George Washington and Religion, p. 90-91. “Bird Wilson, in reconsidering his views on Washington’s religion, finally decided that these were sufficient to characterize Washington as such. Washington’s “aid given for the support of the Church, in his own parish—the correct sentiments on religion contained in several of his public addresses—the unimpeached sincerity of his character, manifested through life, and forbidding a suspicion that those sentiments were not really entertained—and his attendance on the public services of the house of God, furnish satisfactory proof of his respect for religion and of his belief in Christianity. . . .” On the other hand, if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ and his atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be considered a Christian, except in the most nominal sense. “That Washington was a professing Christian,” declared Dr. James Abercrombie, “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.”
One may indeed define Christianity broadly enough (as it is increasingly defined In the United States today) to include Washington within the fold; but this is to place him at a considerable distance from the kind of Christianity which the pietists are talking about when they claim Washington as one of their own. If Washington was a Christian, he was surely a Protestant of the most liberal persuasion. He was, as Bird Wilson lamented in his Albany sermon, more of a “Unitarian” than anything else in his apparent lack of doctrinal convictions.
p. 92. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever-shifting appearances of the everyday world.
p. 93. Twentieth-century scholars customarily lump Washington with Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine as a Deist and let it go at that. But Washington was not a Jefferson or a Franklin or a Paine, and his religious views were by no means identical with theirs. Broadly speaking, of course, Washington can be classified as a Deist. But this is to tell us little of a specific nature about his religious opinions, which were, as a matter of fact, somewhat at variance with those of Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine.
p. 100. No matter what the odds, the human struggle was always worthwhile for Washington. Like the old-fashioned predestinarian Calvinist (and like many modern secular determinists), Washington was stimulated and energized psychologically by the conviction that the course of events followed an orderly pattern and was not the product of mere blind, senseless chance.
The misinterpretation of Washington’s guarded silence was not a unique phenomenon, as can be seen by a consideration of the debate caused by his careful response to the Philadelphia clergy’s letter.
P. 81. So frequently has this passage been cited by freethinkers as evidence of Washington’s anticlerical bent, as well as his lack of Christian orthodoxy, that the entire episode to which Jefferson referred somewhat vaguely is worth examining with some care.
The reason this is not true is the address itself, and second, Green’s own refutation of the story. The address says, p. 81, “in our special character as ministers of the gospel of Christ, we are more immediately bound to acknowledge the countenance which you have uniformly given to his holy religion.” Moreover, Green wrote, p. 83-84,
In all of the “consultations of the clergy,” Green insisted, not a “single syllable” was uttered regarding Washington’s failure to state publicly his commitment to the Christian faith. Any such “allegation,” declared Green, would have been “palpably false,” since, in his opinion, there was never any doubt as to Washington’s orthodoxy. Bishop White,
Moreover, Green went on to say, “has assured us, that he has no trace of recollection that anything was said in the two meetings of the clergy, relative to the neglect of the President to declare his belief on the subject of divine revelation . . . .” The contents of the address itself, finally Green emphasized, reveal that there was no intention of forcing Washington to declare whether he was a Christian or not.
p. 84 Green also wrote, that in penning the address, it was in the mind of the writer (he knows not that it was in any other mind) that a full and fair opportunity should be given him to speak, on leaving the chair of state, as he had spoken of quitting his military command, and that the address was framed with some reference to this subject.
Pp. 85-86. Washington was in no sense an infidel retorted Green.
The writer of the address most assuredly never did think, or say, that General Washington was an infidel; but he has said, and he says now, that it would have given him gratification, if that great man had thought proper, during his presidency or at its close, to speak out again, as he had once spoken before—spoken in such a manner as not to permit the enemies of revealed truth to use even his silence, for the vile purposes for which they now endeavour to employ it. What were the considerations which...”
46 p. 66. Bishop William White. “I knew no man who seemed so carefully to guard against the discoursing of himself or of his acts, or of any thing pertaining to him; and it has occasionally occurred to me, when in his company, that if a stranger to his person were present, he would never have known, from anything said by the President, that he was conscious of having distinguished himself in the eyes of the world. His ordinary behaviour, although unexceptionably courteous, was not such as to encourage intrusion nor what might be in his mind.”
47 this is a repeat of the above. Is that intentional? p. 66. Bishop William White. “I knew no man who seemed so carefully to guard against the discoursing of himself or of his acts, or of any thing pertaining to him; and it has occasionally occurred to me, when in his company, that if a stranger to his person were present, he would never have known, from anything said by the President, that he was conscious of having distinguished himself in the eyes of the world. His ordinary behaviour, although unexceptionably courteous, was not such as to encourage intrusion non what might be in his mind.”
CHAPTER 23
1 WGW, vol. 32, 1-27-1793, to the members of the New Church in Baltimore.
2 “How the Founders built a nation on religion, philosophy,” Review by Will Morrisey of Michael Novak’s On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (January 28-February 3, 2002 National Weekly Edition, The Washington Times, 28.
3 Sawyer, Washington, vol. I p. 49-50.
4 James Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 4. (Library of Congress distributed by University Press of New England, 1998) p. 4.
5 Washington Irving, The Life of George Washington, vol. I—cited by Character & Influence, p. 31.
6 Lillback, Proclaim Liberty, pp.16-24.
7 WGW, vol. 26, 6-8-1783, Circular to the States.
8 We explore this more fully in the chapter “Minds of Peculiar Structure.”
9 George Washington wrote, “I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection . . . that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.” George Washington, “Circular to State Governments,” June 8, 1783, Writings (New York: The Library of America, 1997), 526.
10 Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia 1979, vol. 18, p. 249. Also, for more on this see Chapter 2, “Deism Defined: Shades of Meaning, Shading the Truth.”
11 Benjamin Franklin, Reasons Against Satirizing Religion, December 13, 1757. See http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=473
12 If one reads Paine’s 1776 classic, Common Sense, he may note biblical references and allusions (in a positive way). Paine grew up in England and was a Quaker. His anti-Christian bias did not fully emerge until decades later. For example, here are a few sentences from Common Sense: “But where, say some, is the king of America? I’ll tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Great Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king.” (Bruce Frohnen, ed., The American Republic: Primary Sources (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002), 188.).
