TWENTY SEVEN
“Minds of Peculiar Structure”:
George Washington vs. Deism
“Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
George Washington, 1796
1
As we have already seen, reason was in the air during the seventeen hundreds. By reason, man now knew he was no longer the center of the universe, but also by reason he was sure he would be its master. German philosopher Immanuel Kant declared, “Sapere aude!—Dare to reason! Have the courage to use your own minds!—is the motto of enlightenment.”2 Alexander Pope’s “Essay On Man” reflected the intoxicating optimism that was the enticement of enlightenment thought: “O happiness! Our being’s end and aim! Good, pleasure, ease, content! Whate’er thy name.”3
This enlightenment spirit sometimes expressed itself as Deism, which Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary defined as, “The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or deist is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures.”4
DEISM AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS
But this emphasis upon the power of human reason did not mean that our founding fathers agreed on everything, or that all of them became Deists. Norman Cousins has well written, “To say that the Founding Fathers were the products of the Age of Enlightenment does not mean that they had a uniform view of religion or politics or anything else. All the Enlightenment did, and this was enough, was to give men greater confidence than before in the reach of the human intelligence.”5
In fact, some of them, like John Adams, were explicitly opposed to Deism. John Adams wrote to fellow founder Dr. Benjamin Rush on January 21, 1810:
Learned, ingenious, benevolent, beneficent old friend of 1774! Thanks for “the light and truth,” as I used to call the Aurora, which you sent me. You may descend in a calm, but I have lived in a storm, and shall certainly die in one....
I have not seen, but am impatient to see, Mr. Cheetham’s life of Mr. Paine. His political writings, I am singular enough to believe, have done more harm than his irreligious ones. He understood neither government nor religion. From a malignant heart, he wrote virulent declamation, which the enthusiastic fury of the times intimated all men, even Mr. Burke, from answering, as he ought. His deism, as it appears to me, has promoted rather than retarded the cause of revolution in America, and indeed in Europe. His billingsgate, stolen from Blounts’ Oracles of Reason, from Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Be¢renger, &c., will never discredit Christianity, which will hold its ground in some degree as long as human nature shall have any thing moral or intellectual left in it. The Christian religion, as I understand it, is the brightness of the glory and the express portrait of the character of the eternal, self-existent, independent, benevolent, all powerful and all merciful creator, preserver, and father of the universe, the first good, first perfect, and first fair. It will last as long as the world. Neither savage nor civilized man, without a revelation, could ever have discovered or invented it. Ask me not, then, whether I am a Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian. As far as they are Christians, I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all.6
Benjamin Franklin, like John Adams, was clearly not an advocate of the perspective of Thomas Paine. Writing to Paine on July 3, 1786, Franklin declared, after reviewing a draft of the Age of Reason:
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours, B. Franklin.7
In the same letter to Paine, he likened defying God (which the book did) to spitting in the wind wherein it lands right back on one’s own face.
But it is clear that some of our founding fathers did embrace elements of the Deistic perspective. For example John Marshall was a church attender but not a communicant. However, he was converted to the Christian faith at the end of his life.8 Similarly, Virginia Burgessman Edmund Randolph recanted his youthful Deism as he got older.9 Deism’s rejection of revelation in favor of an exclusive dependence upon human reason brought with it in many instances an overt hostility to the clergy as well.10 In mid-eighteenth century Virginia, there was already a growing concern over the emergence of Deism. We can see by a summary in the 1761 Virginia Almanack of a book entitled, An Impartial Enquiry into the True Nature of the Faith, which is required in the Gospel as necessary to salvation, In which is briefly shown, upon how righteous terms Unbelievers may become true Christians: And the Case of Deists is reduced to a short Issue. This was the Almanack that George Washington used for the period of May 24 through October 22, 1761, to write his diary notes. There is a high likelihood that Washington read it in its entirety, since he handled it nearly everyday for six months and because the value of the short 54-page long Almanack was enhanced by the inclusion of informative charts and tables as well as humorous excerpts.11
Contained in the Virginia Almanack that Washington used in 1761 for his diary was the above summation of a book presenting the importance of Christian teaching versus that of Deism.
THE MOST INFLUENTIAL DEISTS
Meanwhile, Deists in England felt the need to evaluate everything, including religion, in light of the new emphasis on reason. One of the intellectual leaders of the Deists was Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1581-1648), often called the father of English Deism. He wrote Religion of the Gentiles With the Causes of their Errors. His essential articles of faith were: (1) the existence of God; (2) His Worship; (3) the practice of virtue; (4) repentance of sin; and (5) a faith in immortality. These truths he believed to be self-evident and accessible by all men everywhere since these beliefs were rationally based. Undergirding his perspective was the notion that all claims of revealed religion must be tested by reason.12 Lord Herbert found the Christian Gospel by salvation through faith in Jesus Christ untenable under the scrutiny of reason.13
The early English-language Deist writers included the English: Lord Herbert of Cherbury, John Toland, Robert Collins, Matthew Tindal (not to be confused with Bible translator of the Reformation age William Tyndale), William Wollaston, Charles Blount, Henry St. John Bolingbroke, Thomas Chubb, Samuel Clarke, and John Leland. The earliest French Deist writers were Voltaire and Diderot. But the Deist that most Americans became aware of was Thomas Paine, author of the anti-Christian Deistic work Age of Reason in which he declared, “The Christian theory is little less 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.”14
DEISM VS. CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY ON CAMPUS
It was inevitable that Deistic thought would cross the ocean and enter the thinking of America’s young scholars. Examples of Deistic thought appeared in colonial Virginia in the context of William and Mary College.15
Ezra Stiles and Timothy Dwight, the presidents of Yale College during the years of George Washington’s presidency, were keenly aware of the threat of Deism to orthodox Christianity. As early as 1759, Stiles wrote to Thomas Clap, then president of Yale, “Deism has got such Head in this Age of Licentious Liberty that it would be in vain to try to stop it by hiding the Deistical Writings: and the only Way left to conquer & demolish it, is to come forth into the open Field & Dispute this matter on even Footing—the evidences of Revelation in my opinion are nearly as demonstrative as Newton’s Principia, & these are the Weapons he used.”16
Stiles’ successor to the presidency of Yale was Timothy Dwight. His approach to the problem of Deism can be seen in his address to the graduating class of Yale. In September 1797, he gave lectures (published the next year at the request of his students) entitled, “Two Discourses On The Nature and Danger of Infidel Philosophy.”17 This publication by Dwight was sent to George Washington by Reverend Zachariah Lewis, a young tutor at Yale that had been Washington’s adopted grandson George Washington Parke Custis’ tutor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
President Washington responded to Lewis on September 28, 1798, telling him: “I thank you for sending me Doctor Dwights Sermons to whom I pray you to present the complimts. of Yr. etc.” The word “compliments” is an expression of “praise, admiration or congratulation.” Ultimately, we do not know how extensively Washington agreed with the discourses, but they are valuable, because they represent an acknowledged study of what “infidel philosophy” looked like in Washington’s day in the context of a respected college. Given this fact, our purpose here is to capture the essence of what the deistic thinkers of Washington’s day were actually saying about their beliefs and about deistic ethical conduct and practice. And then, we want to compare these deistic ideas with Washington and see if his beliefs and ethical practices conformed to the deistic writers summarized by Dr. Dwight, the president of Yale College. The “infidel” philosophers specifically critiqued by President Dwight included the Deists: Blount, Lord Shaftesbury, Collins, Woolston, Tindal, Chubb, Lord Bolingbroke, Lord Herbert, Voltaire; and the philosophers Thomas Hobbes and David Hume.
Dwight’s treatise is significant for it gives expression to the Christian enlightenment, or the cooperation of faith and reason, thereby providing an alternative to the secular wing of the enlightenment that expressed itself in Deism. Dwight explains, “That philosophy only, which is opposed to Christianity, is the subject of the following observations.”18
Further, Dwight excludes the philosopher John Locke from the ranks of the Deists. Dwight is clear that Locke is a Christian:19
Infidels have been ingenious men; that some of them have been learned men; and that a few of them have been great men. Hume, Tindal, and a few others, have been distinguished for superior strength of mind, Bolingbroke for eloquence of the pen, Voltaire for brilliancy of imagination, and various others for respectable talents of different kinds. But I am wholly unable to form a list of Infidels, which can, without extreme disadvangage, be compared with the two Bacons, Erasmus, Cumberland, Stillingfleet, Grotius, Locke, Butler, Newton, Boyle, Berkeley, Milton, Johnson, etc. In no walk of genius, in no path of knowledge can Infidels support and claim to superiority, or equality with Christians.20
Thus, argues Timothy Dwight: Isaac Newton, John Locke, Hugo Grotius, John Milton, Robert Boyle were first-rate geniuses and believers in Jesus—whereas, Deists were lesser rate geniuses.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE DEISTS VS. WASHINGTON’S THEOLOGY
Dwight next highlights the theological doctrines of the Deists to show in what ways they departed from historic Christian thought. Here we will summarize the thinking and representative doctrines of some of the leading philosophers considered by Dwight, followed by a summary of a theological statement from Washington’s writings to show that he disagreed with the Deists at every point.
Lord Herbert believed that all “Revealed Religion” (viz. Christianity) was “absolutely uncertain, and of little or no use.” Washington believed that the pursuit of the Christian character should be our “highest glory.”21
Thomas Hobbes’ concept was that man was a “mere machine,” and that the soul was “material and mortal.” In contrast, Washington looked forward to a “glorious immortality.”22
Charles Blount declared that divine revelation was unsupported because men could not agree on the truth of it. Washington declared that heaven had given the “treasures of knowledge” to the citizens of America.23
Lord Shaftesbury believed that the scriptures were an invention and miracles “ridiculous” and inconsequential. Washington spoke of the “word of God”24 and found the scriptures to be so trustworthy that he referred to “the proof of holy writ” to confirm the truth of his words.25
Robert Collins saw the prophets as “fortunetellers” and thus, Christianity was based on a false foundation. Washington wrote of the veracity of Christianity in terms of “true religion,” “true piety,” and “a true Christian.”26
William Tindal asserted that the scriptures were contradictory, confusing, and incomprehensible. Washington found the scriptures to contain the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained,27 and the path of faith “so plain.”28
Thomas Chubb declared that God was indifferent, prayer improper, Christ’s life and teachings ridiculous and useless, the apostles imposters, and their teaching unworthy. Washington wrote of “good Providence,”29 and he prayed faithfully as he “earnestly emplored” the “divine Being, in whose hands are all human events.”30 He called on America to imitate “the Divine Author of our Blessed Religion.”31
David Hume, in a notably perverse logic, conceived that what is seen as God’s “perfection,” may in reality be defects, and his truly excellent nature is one of malice, folly, and injustice. Washington wrote consistently about the goodness of Providence, that “all wise and merciful disposer of events.”32
Lord Bolingbroke acknowledged providences, yet argued there was no foundation for belief in them. God was ultimately unconcerned with man, and there would be no final judgment.”33 Washington attested to the goodness of Providence, “which will never fail to take care of his Children,” and recognized the wrath of God, “the aggravated vengeance of Heaven.”34
The clear conclusion from this survey is that Washington’s doctrines stood in utter contrast from each of these representative Deists at every point. He cannot be classified as a Deist.
THE ETHICS OF THE DEISTS VS. WASHINGTON’S ETHICS
The sermon sent to George Washington by young Zechariah Lewis that was written by President Timothy Dwight not only criticized the theology of Deism, but also the ethics of Deism as well. A simple perusal of the Deist philosophers’ ethics summarized by Dwight, the president of Yale, will show that they were as alien to Washington’s personal values as rape, plunder, and atrocity were to the values of his army. As far as we can find, the issue of the ethics of Deism in the debate over Washington’s religion has not been raised until now.
As we consider the vast chasm that emerges when Washington’s ethics and the ethics of the Deists are compared, even the most strenuous advocate of Washington’s Deism would have to admit that it is ludicrous to think that any of these beliefs reflect Washington’s ethics. Washington’s ethical values were distinctively Christian. So let us again compare Washington with the Deist writers identified by President Dwight.
Lord Herbert claimed that men were not accountable for their sinful actions. Washington, however, repeatedly warned his men to avoid vice and immorality,35 and called them to “unfeignedly confess their Sins before God, and supplicate the all wise and merciful disposer of events.”36
