This one passage alone shows that Washington did not view religion in opposition to their enlightened times. The “pure and benign light of Revelation” has a positive impact on society “above all” during their era, an era not marked by “Ignorance and Superstition.” “Revelation” here refers to the Bible as the revealed Word of God. Deists and Enlightenment thinkers placed reason above revelation, and they denied that God had revealed himself in the scriptures.8 Washington, on the other hand, valued revelation as well as reason. Therefore, it is incorrect to call him a Deist. (This is the same letter, by the way, that concludes with the point that America will never be a happy nation unless the citizens imitate Jesus Christ, whom Washington calls “the divine Author of our blessed religion.”9)
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THOMAS PAINE
As the commander of the Continental Army, Washington was a correspondent with none other than Thomas Paine, the author of both the celebrated Common Sense (1776) as well as the controversial Age of Reason (written in stages some twenty years later—Part 1 in 1794, Part 2 in 1795, and Part 3 in 1807). The former book’s potent rhetoric and trenchant reasoning decisively moved colonial public opinion in favor of revolution. With the publication of the latter, Paine’s critical mind delivered a poignant critique of revealed religion, and in particular, Christianity. Thereby Paine assumed both the roles of apologist for the American Revolution and later, foremost opponent of Christian orthodoxy and an acknowledged arch-advocate for Deism, the philosophical expression of Enlightenment theology.
Apparently, it was Paine’s criticism of the Bible that turned President Washington against him. Referring to the Age of Reason, the Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia notes: “The book alienated George Washington and most of his [Paine’s] old friends.”10
Note what Benjamin Franklin, not known to have been fully orthodox or deeply devout in his faith, wrote to Paine upon receipt of the manuscript of the Age of Reason. He did not think it wise for Paine to publish it:
I have read your manuscript with some attention...the consequence of printing this piece will be a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits into the wind, spits in his own face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it?...think about how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself.11
Long before Paine lost whatever faith he may have had,12 long before he wrote his anti-Christian polemics, he set to writing clever apologies for the American Revolution. General Washington wrote to Thomas Paine on September 18, 1782:
Sir: I have the pleasure to acknowledge your favor of the 7th. Instant, informing of your proposal to present me with fifty Copies of your last publication, for the Amusement of the Army. 13
What Washington was referring to was the May 31, 1782, No. XIII edition of Paine’s publication, The Crisis. One of the earlier editions of The Crisis began famously: “These are the times that try men’s souls.”14 George Washington was not a superstitious man, yet he did have a sense of humor. The general believed that his army would find amusement, as Paine’s wit ridiculed the British. At the end of seven years of war, Paine teased the British mind’s superstitious and religious interpretation of the number “seven.” This augured well, argued Paine, for an end to the war itself. Paine with obvious relish reasoned,
I fully believe we have seen our worst days over....I draw this opinion, not only from the difficulties we know they [the British] are in...but from the peculiar effect, which certain periods of time have more or less upon all Men. The British have accustomed themselves to think of the term of seven years in a manner different to other periods of time. They acquire this partly by habit, by religion, by reason and by superstition. They serve seven years apprenticeship; They elect their parliament for seven years; They punish by seven years transportation, or the duplicate, or triplicate of that term; Their leases run in the same manner; and they read that Jacob served seven years for one wife and seven years for another; and the same term likewise, extinguishes all obligations (in certain cases) of debt or matrimony; and thus, this particular period, by a variety of concurrences has obtained an influence in their minds superior to that of any other number.
They have now had seven years war, and are not an inch farther on the Continent than when they began. The Superstitious and the populous part will conclude that it is not to be; and the reasonable part will think they have tried an unsuccessful scheme long enough, and that it is in vain to try it any longer.”15(emphasis added)
Washington highly compliments Paine for this work: “For this Intention you have my sincere thanks, not only on my own Account, but for the pleasure, I doubt not, the Gentlemen of the Army will receive from the perusal of your Pamphlets. Your Observation on the Period of Seven Years, as it applies itself to and affects British Minds, are ingenious, and I wish it may not fail of its Effects in the present Instance.”16
Washington’s sense of being part of the more enlightened era, where reason was important, connected him with royalty as well. As Washington enjoyed the retirement interim between his military and presidential careers, he took pleasure in his correspondence with international leaders. His sense of being an enlightened leader on the world stage manifested itself as he corresponded with his close friend, former colleague and French ally, Marquis de Chastellux. The letter received from the royal leader brought along accolades from the King and Queen of France themselves.
Although reluctant to speak of himself, in a letter dated August 18, 1786, Washington assured Chastellux that he was pleased to receive the “commendations of the virtuous and enlightened part of our species. . . .” Speaking of himself in the third person of American nobility, he explained to the marquis that “he cannot be indifferent to the applauses of so enlightened a nation, nor to the suffrages of the King and Queen who have been pleased to honor it with their royal approbation.”17
Washington’s description of royal France as an enlightened nation did not imply anti-Christian beliefs. The royal title was “His most Christian King” or “His most Catholic King.” In this sense, “enlightened” meant culturally advanced. But the “enlightened” idea of religious liberty that Washington so often celebrated had not yet arrived in France. The Huguenots were still under the crushing weight of royal persecution.
THE DIVERSITY OF ENLIGHTENMENT THINKERS
An important question to consider is this: Was the Enlightenment, by definition, an explosion of unbelief, or were there key elements of the Enlightenment that were Christian in orientation? The answer is the latter. John Locke was a leading figure of the political side of the Enlightenment and has never been considered a Deist. His book, The Reasonableness of Christianity, while not completely orthodox in its Christianity, certainly puts Locke in the Christian camp far more than in the Deist camp.
Locke’s 2nd Treatise on Government is held to have been important to the founding fathers and is full of biblical citations to help bolster his points. John Locke wrote many commentaries on the books of the Bible and paraphrases of portions of scripture. About God’s Word, he said, “The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure, all sincere; nothing too much; nothing wanting.”18
Another example of an “Enlightenment thinker” who was solidly in the Christian camp is Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), the exceptionally well-known British jurist. Blackstone wrote four volumes of commentaries on the British law considered to be perhaps the most important reflections on laws in the last few centuries. These commentaries were influential to the founders, including Jefferson, as he penned the Declaration of Independence. When Abraham Lincoln taught himself the law, he was able to do so because he had come across the second volume of this four-volume set. Blackstone’s commentaries made a major impact on the United States Supreme Court for several generations of the court.
Blackstone writes, “Thus when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, He impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be.”19
These principles to which Blackstone refers are “the Law of Nature,” which was “coequal with mankind and dictated by God himself.”20 Blackstone sees natural law as the will of God that can be discerned from nature in general. But, because of the sinfulness of man, because man’s understanding was “full of ignorance and error,” there was a need for revelation. The Bible was that revelation. “The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law,” Blackstone writes, “and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures.”21
Thus, there is the law of nature (or natural law) and then there is the law known only by revelation as found in the Bible. Blackstone writes, “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”22 The revealed laws of God are not to be contradicted by man’s law. These are the thoughts of a man often categorized as a figure of the Enlightenment. Therefore, we see that the Enlightenment was hardly universally anti-Christian (as is sometimes portrayed today). To the extent that Washington was impacted by “the Enlightenment,” it was not by the atheistic, Deistic and anti-Christian side of the movement (as espoused by men like Rousseau and Voltaire).
GENERAL CHARLES LEE AND DEISTIC BELIEFS
Yet the unbelief, fashionable in some quarters in the last decades of the eighteenth century, impacted even one of Washington’s own generals, Charles Lee. General Lee was highly concerned about religious issues and was substantially impacted by Deistic thought. Thus, in his last will and testament we find the following words that take traditional Christianity to task:
The Will of General Charles Lee:
I desire most earnestly, that I may not be buried in any church, or church-yard, or within a mile of any Presbyterian or Anabaptist meeting-house; for since I have resided in this country, I have kept so much bad company when living, that I do not chuse to continue it when dead.
I recommend my soul to the Creator of all worlds and of all creatures; who must, from his visible attributes, be indifferent to their modes of worship or creeds, whether Christians, Mahometans, or Jews; whether instilled by education, or taken up by reflection; whether more or less absurd; as a weak mortal can no more be answerable for his persuasions, notions, or even skepticism in religion, than for the colour of his skin.23
Charles Lee made another statement, however, where he longed for the practice of what he called “real Christianity.”24
Washington successfully pursued a court martial of General Lee due to his retreat at the Battle of Monmouth. Washington’s military leadership as well as his religion stood in stark contrast to that of General Charles Lee.
AN ENLIGHTENED PEOPLE WITH AN ENLIGHTENED PRESIDENT
The Enlightenment emphasis upon reason, with its assault upon superstition and religious bigotry, remained stamped upon George Washington’s vocabulary throughout his presidency. Thus, the president was confident that the enlightened Congress would heed his call for funding of the arts and sciences and to secure scholarly and accomplished professors. In his eighth and final address to Congress, dated December 7, 1796, he wrote:
The Assembly to which I address myself, is too enlightened not to be fully sensible how much a flourishing state of the Arts and Sciences, contributes to National prosperity and reputation. True it is, that our Country, much to its honor, contains many Seminaries of learning highly respectable and useful; but the funds upon which they rest, are too narrow, to command the ablest Professors, in the different departments of liberal knowledge, for the Institution contemplated, though they would be excellent auxiliaries.25
The word “liberal” here meant well-read or well-studied, and did not have the political or social connotations that the word contains today.
Finally, at the end of his illustrious career, in his Farewell Address he spoke of “the truly enlightened and independent Patriot.” Writing to all his fellow citizens, Washington advocated nothing less than a national enlightenment. He wished “that public opinion should be enlightened. . . ” for a great nation needed to be an enlightened people.
It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. . . . 26
Thus, Washington’s letters indicate that he had an appreciation for the more enlightened thinking that was taking hold in America. But this did not distance him from religious leaders, as was seen in the case of the will of General Charles Lee. Instead, Washington, writing to clergyman Reverend John Lathrop on June 22, 1788, spoke of common vision of both “reason and religion”:
How pitiful, in the eye of reason and religion, is that false ambition which desolates the world with fire and sword for the purposes of conquest and fame; when compared to the milder virtues of making our neighbours and our fellow men as happy as their frail conditions and perishable natures will permit them to be! I am happy to find that the proposed general government meets with your approbation as indeed it does with that of the most disinterested and discerning men. The Convention of this State is now in session, and I cannot but hope from all the accounts I receive that the Constitution will be adopted by it; though not without considerable opposition. I trust, however, that the commendable example exhibited by the minority in your State will not be without its salutary influence in this. In truth it appears to me that (should the proposed government be generally and harmoniously adopted) it will be a new phenomenon in the political and moral world; and an astonishing victory gained by enlightened reason over brutal force.27
Washington was delighted that this minister from Massachusetts was pleased with the proposed Constitution. The future president saw the Constitution as a victory of reason over brute force, yet nowhere did Washington imply that “enlightened reason” was an assault against true religion. Instead, “reason and religion” joined together in opposition to selfish ambition’s use of war for personal gain.
WASHINGTON ON EDUCATION AS ENLIGHTENMENT
Washington wrote to Mathew Carey on June 25, 1788, discussing Carey’s idea of a publication entitled “the American Museum.” Washington wanted to see knowledge spread throughout the country, because it safeguarded liberty and improved the morals of an enlightened people:
For myself, I entertain an high idea of the utility of periodical Publications: insomuch that I could heartily desire, copies of the Museum and Magazines, as well as common Gazettes, might be spread through every city, town and village in America. I consider such easy vehicles of knowledge, more happily calculated than any other, to preserve the liberty, stimulate the industry and meliorate the morals of an enlightened and free People.28
In his First Annual Address to Congress, January 8, 1790, the president explained the importance of knowledge to the new republic. Simply, the American experiment would not work if the people were ignorant:
Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness... To the security of a free Constitution it contributes in various ways: By convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration, that every valuable end of Government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people: and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of Society; to discriminate the spirit of Liberty from that of licentiousness, cherishing the first, avoiding the last, and uniting a speedy, but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the Laws.29
In other words, a well-educated citizenry is essential to maintain both the law and liberty and for having the ability to distinguish between liberty and license. This discernment comes through education. Washington insisted that religion and morality were integral to a sound education.
Washington, along with the other founders, gave us the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, which was then readopted in 1789. The Northwest Ordinance is one of our nation’s four founding documents—along with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation. The goal of the Northwest Ordinance was to retain a certain degree of uniformity as new states were being added to the new nation. Article III of the Northwest Ordinance states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.”30 Clearly, religion and morality, according to our founders, were to be driving forces in America’s schools. An enlightened education valued liberty, but rejected licentiousness (doing whatever one’s nature might desire, regardless of flaws).
ENLIGHTENMENT VERSUS RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY
Because of Washington’s enlightened anti-superstition views, he particularly regretted the religious bigotry he found among some professing Christians. He had hoped that in an era that had learned to celebrate religious freedom, men could have grown beyond that. He wrote to Sir Edward Newenham on June 22, 1792:
I regret exceedingly that the disputes between the Protestants and Roman Catholics should be carried to the serious alarming height mentioned in your letters. Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause; and I was not without hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy of the present age would have put an effectual stop to contentions of this kind.31
Four months later, he wrote another letter to Newenham, dated October 20, 1792, in which he explained:
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes, that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far, that we should never again see their religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of Society.32
