Hobbes espoused that civil law was the only true law by which men could be judged, and where civil law lapsed, men were to judge for themselves right from wrong. Washington appealed to the eternal rules of order ordained by heaven as the truest standard of morality.³⁷

Lord Shaftesbury held that there was no true virtue, only virtue motivated by the mercenary concerns of final judgment.³⁸ Washington looked forward to “the benediction of Heaven,”³⁹ and “the future reward of good and faithful Servants.”⁴⁰ He believed that the response to the goodness of Providence was true gratitude and virtue, and that he must be “worse than an infidel,”⁴¹ that lacks faith, and “the man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude towards the great Author of the Universe.”⁴²

Tindal asserted that judgment is conditional upon circumstances, and men are to consider the circumstances for each offence in order to pass judgment. Washington recognized the need to seek God’s forgiveness for man’s “manifold sins and wickedness.”⁴³

Chubb taught that there would be no ultimate judgment for impiety, ingratitude to God, or sinful behavior, but only for “injuries to the public.” Washington warned of the consequences of impiety⁴⁴ and considered ingratitude to God a “black and detestable” sin.⁴⁵

Hume’s reverse logic claimed that self-aggrandizing, living only for self, and even suicide, were virtuous acts worthy of pursuit. Washington wrote often of self-denial,⁴⁶ the value of humility,⁴⁷ and sought to avoid anything which might lead one to suicide.

Lord Bolingbroke also affirmed that gratifying the flesh was the chief end of man, and thus adultry and polygamy were worthy pursuits.”⁴⁸ Washington insisted his men avoid lewdness,⁴⁹ sexual immorality, and pursue moral purity.⁵¹

The ethical tenets of Deism, as here summarized by President Dwight, were viewed with horror in the American culture of Washington’s day. Beyond the Deist’s writings, such ethical teaching began to be openly advocated only at the arrival of the sexual revolution in the mid-twentieth century, and only became culturally normative with the expressive individualism of post-modernity. Yet the precursors for these views were the Deists of Washington’s day. Washington was not one of the forerunners of the sexual revolution, precisely because he was not a Deist.

LIAR, LORD, OR LUNATIC? WASHINGTON’S ENDORSEMENT OF TWO SERMONS

It is clear that Deism was making a major impact on early America. Preachers gave sermons with challenges like the following:

If we regard as we ought, our Master’s interest; if we feel that benevolence to our fellow-men, which the Gospel dictates, and that compassion to immortal Souls, perishing in their sins which it inspires, we shall be led to pursue every possible method, in order to make a determined opposition to the flood of infidelity, which is increasing with such rapidity.

But of all methods of opposing infidelity, none we believe is so efficacious as a holy life. To live the life of the Righteous, to exhibit in our daily deportment, a specimen of the christian virtues, is a constant practical defence of the Gospel. It shows the power of divine grace on the heart, and is a convincing proof, of the superlative excellency of Christianity. While we neglect no proper mean of defending our cause, let us be careful to set before unbelievers, this striking evidence in favour of our divine Master. Let our lives convince every beholder, that Religion is an undoubted reality. Let them see in our practice, that is inconceivably the most benevolent, and humane system, ever revealed to man; and that our belief of it is cordial and unshaken. This argument will certainly carry conviction home to their consciences; and without it no other defence will be productive of lasting benefit.⁵²

One could be sure that a Deist like Thomas Paine would have to smile at the success of his beliefs and also disagree very deeply with a clergyman who sought to stop the advance of his views. Clearly, it would be wonderful if we had known what George Washington thought about a sermon like this. If he disagreed, clearly he would have been in the Deist camp. And if he found the doctrine sound, he would have to have been a Christian. The only other alternative is that Washington said something that he didn’t believe, which runs contrary to all that we know about his commitment to character and personal integrity. Well, we now can answer the question of what Washington thought of this sermon, because he wrote a letter about it and declared his view.

At first blush, it may seem strange to raise the issue of sermons that Washington had read and endorsed at this point in our study. An argument for Washington’s Christianity based on the mere fact that he possessed Christian sermons would not be conclusive by any standard of historical evaluation. Moreover, Professor Boller claims that what we can determine about Washington’s attitudes toward the doctrinal content of any of the sermons that he possessed leaves us in a state of uncertainty anyway:

In only two instances did Washington express his opinion on the content of sermons which had been forwarded to him. In August 1797, when he received a collection of sermons from Reverend Zechariah Lewis, twenty-four-year-old tutor at Yale College, he wrote to say: The doctrine in them is sound, and does credit to the author.” Unfortunately, we do not know whose sermons they were (they were not Lewis’, for the young tutor had published nothing at this time), and consequently we have no way of knowing what the doctrine was that Washington considered “sound.”⁵³

Our research shows that Boller is wrong. The letter from Washington to Zechariah Lewis was from Mount Vernon on August 14, 1797. Washington wrote, “For the Sermons you had the goodness to send me I pray you to accept my thanks. The doctrine in them is sound, and does credit to the Author.”

Professor Boller has seemingly done the necessary scholarly work to establish his point. This is seen, for example, when he assures us that young Lewis had not written anything at the time this letter was written. From this, it is easy to assume that he has also established that we really “do not know whose sermons they were ... and consequently we have no way of knowing what the doctrine was that Washington considered “sound.” Should we trust Boller here? We do not think so.

Instead, we should find the letter that Zechariah Lewis wrote to Washington to see if it gives us any clues. Fortunately, for our purposes, his letter is extant. We do not know why Professor Boller did not consult this letter. If he had, he would have discovered that we can clearly establish “whose sermons they were.” Zechariah Lewis’, July 17, 1797, letter from Yale College in New Haven says:

Permit me, Sir, to beg your acceptance of the two Sermons, lately preached by my Father, which accompany this letter. The political sentiments contained in the one, which was preached before the Gove[r]nor & Legislature of Connecticut, accorded with the feelings of a very crowded assembly; & appears to be the prevailing sentiments of this State. This is the only apology I offer for troubling you with the Sermon. I am Sir, with the highest affectation & respect for yourself & family Your much Obliged & very Obedt Servt. Zechariah Lewis.

As we note the details of the letter, we discover several facts. There were “two sermons.” They were “lately preached.” They were preached by Reverend Zechariah Lewis’ “Father.” One clearly was a “political” sermon, preached “before the Governor.”

The name of Zechariah Lewis’ father was Isaac Lewis. When we consult the Evans Collection of Early American Imprints, we discover that there were three published sermons by Reverend Isaac Lewis. Two were preached relatively close together, satisfying the clue in the phrase “lately preached.” The political sermon is easy to identify: “The Political Advantages of Godliness. A Sermon, preached before His Excellency the Governor, and the honorable Legislature of the State of Connecticut, convened at Hartford on the Anniversary Election” preached May 11, 1797.⁵⁴

Isaac Lewis’ second sermon was entitled, “The Divine Mission of Jesus Christ Evident from his Life, and From the Nature and Tendency of His Doctrines.” The sermon is based on the text John 8:46, “Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?” (King James Version)

Washington’s letter in answer to Lewis for the gift of the sermons is significant. Again, he wrote, “For the Sermons you had the goodness to send me I pray you to accept my thanks. The doctrine in them is sound and does credit to the author.”⁵⁵ Washington spoke of both sermons, since he used the word “Sermons” in the plural. Similarly, he referred to the sermons in the plural, since he used the plural pronoun “them” rather than “it.” Washington had only one “author” in mind for these sermons. Thus, the letter comports exactly with Lewis’ letter. Therefore, Washington’s evaluation of the sermons referred to both the political and the more spiritual sermon. What was the sound doctrine in both of these sermons by Isaac Lewis?

We need to take a careful look at each, because both sermons that Washington declared to have been sound doctrine affirm the Christian faith and reject Deism. The first sermon sent by Lewis to Washington, “The Political Advantages of Godliness,” was based on I Timothy 4:8, “Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” In this sermon, Reverend Lewis not only affirms the necessity of Christianity for sound civil government, but he also lifts up Washington as the exemplar of Christian leadership. He writes,

In all situations and conditions of life, true religion is of the first importance...Godliness is a term used in two senses; the one limited, and the other more general. In its limited sense, it includes only the duties of piety toward God...that they may be divided into four classes, the duties we owe to God, to Christ, to our fellow-men, and to ourselves.

In the first of these, are comprised supreme love to God, a fixed dependance on, and a humble trust in him, a cordial submission to his providential dispensations, together with conformity to his revealed will.

In the second, are included faith in the mediator, accompanied with a daily and sincere attention to him, considered as our teacher, our example and lawgiver, our advocate and intercessor with the father.

In the third, are contained universal love to mankind, mercy, justice, beneficence, truth and the forgiveness of injuries.

The fourth, comprehends the graces of humility, meekness, prudence, fortitude and self-government.

...[Washington] whose distinguished talents and eminent abilities, faithfully consecrated to his country’s service, have not only in an unexampled manner endeared him to his fellow-citizens, but rendered him the object of the veneration of the world. From that valuable legacy of political experience and sentiment, which he bequeathed to his country, in his address accompanying his resignation, I gladly introduce the following passages.

“Of all the dispositions and habits, says he, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of a peculiar structure; reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

“It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifferency on attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?...”

The importance of supporting Christianity is undeniable. All the political benefits, which can be rationally expected from any religion ever taught in this world, may certainly be expected from the Christian, and in a much higher degree than from any other, in proportion to the superior excellency of its moral precepts. The candid enemies of our faith confess, that the morality taught in the gospel is the most pure, and the best adapted to the purposes of social happiness, of any moral system ever published to men. If then some religion be necessary to answer the purposes of civil government, Christianity even on political views ought to be preferred to all others, as it possesses far the greatest tendency to promote the important designs already mentioned. If its morals are the purest, its tendency to promote social happiness is the greatest, and therefore good policy requires its support.

It is not however our wish that any thing similar to the religious establishments of Europe, should be introduced into our country. We hope never to see our magistrates employed, in prescribing articles of faith; nor in the exercise of the least coercive power to compel men to adopt this, or that creed, or submit to any one mode of worship in preference to another. May liberty of conscience, in this land, be never violated. But if there be important political advantages to be derived from Christianity, which cannot be so effectually secured by any other means, as appears evident from the preceding observations, then is it as much the duty of government to endeavor its preservation, as in any other way to seek the public good. ...

No Deist could ever have said that this sermon was sound in its doctrine, unless Deists affirmed, “...the importance of supporting Christianity is undeniable;” and that in “the duties we owe ... to Christ, ...are included faith in the mediator, accompanied with a daily and sincere attention to him, considered as our teacher, our example and lawgiver, our advocate and intercessor with the father;” or, that it is “...as much the duty of government to endeavor its [Christianity’s] preservation, as in any other way to seek the public good.” This sermon draws on George Washington himself to make its point. If Washington disagreed or did not wish his name to be used in such a manner, he would have stated as such. Instead, he approves the sermon.

But even more explicitly Christian was the second sermon sent by Zechariah Lewis to Washington. It was entitled, “The Divine Mission of Jesus Christ Evident from his Life, and From the Nature and Tendency of His Doctrines.” In many ways, this article by Isaac Lewis anticipates the same logic that another Lewis—C. S. Lewis—would make 150 years later in his book, Mere Christianity. Isaac Lewis said,

Either Jesus Christ was what he professed to be, the Sent of God, and the Saviour of the world; or he was a deluded enthusiast, who thought himself the subject of a divine mission, and of divine revelation, when in fact he was not; or he was the grossest and most designing, impostor, who ever lived. One, or the other of these, must have been the truth; for a supposition distinct from all of them, cannot be named. If then his life, and doctrines were such, as it is impossible to suppose they should have been, had he have acted the part, either of an enthusiast, or a deceiver, it must follow, that he was the person, he claimed to be, and that the Religion he taught, is of God. ...

I proceed to consider the supposition, of his having been an intentional deceiver. If he was no enthusiast, either he was what he asserted of himself, or the grossest deceiver the world has ever produced. His pretensions, on the supposition of his having been a deceiver, were the most blasphemous, and his conduct the most studiedly deceitful, and the most extravagantly bold, and daring. If then his life, and doctrines were such, as are altogether inconsistent with his having been such a monster of wickedness, the only consequence which can be fairly drawn is, that he was in truth the Sent of the Father, and ought to be received as such, by all to whom the Gospel comes....

The life, then, and the nature and tendency of the doctrines, of our Saviour, are clear proofs of his divine mission. And if Christ received his mission from God, Christianity is established on an immoveable basis. The nations may rage, and the people imagine a vain thing, but the counsel of God shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure. The Church rests on an unshaken foundation, and the gates of hell shall never finally prevail against it. I will further add, that only on the supposition that the life, and doctrines of our Saviour, do clearly evince his divine mission, can we understand the true import of our text. “Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?”....

The most successful engine which they have ever made use of against revealed Religion, is ridicule. An argument in order to carry conviction, must contain reason, or at least the appearance of reason. But by the power of ridicule, a laugh may easily be excited, and the most sacred truths represented in a ludicrous point of light. Though this mode of treating the subject of Religion, has been sufficiently exposed, and clearly proved to carry in it meanness and injustice, yet infidels persist in it, because they find by experience, that men of little information, and still less stability, may easily be laughed out of all regard to Religion. But such conduct as this betrays a weak cause, and evidently manifests, that their opposition to Christianity is not founded in principle, but in enmity and disaffection.

...If Christ be undoubtedly the Sent of God, and the Saviour of the world, then is Christianity not only true, but all-important. Whatever men of prostituted talents may say, or write; or men of vicious inclinations may believe, it infinitely concerns all the friends of morality and religion, to unite in its defense. The gift of Christ, is infinitely the most important gift, which Heaven has bestowed on the children of men.

To have the Gospel supported, and maintained in the world is of far greater importance, than everything else, which can possibly interest the human race. It is of the highest importance in this life, as it respects the civil, and political happiness of society. It is of inconceivable and eternal importance to the future felicity of mankind, as it provides the only possible way of escaping God’s eternal wrath, and of obtaining his divine favor. If then the enemies of our holy religion are improving every opportunity and making use of every art, to disseminate error, falsehood and blasphemy, certainly her friends ought to be equally industrious in spreading the favour of this divine knowledge, as extensively as possible. If they are indefatigable in their work, we ought to be much more so in ours. If they unite all their strength in order to give weight, and influence to the cause of vice, and infidelity, both ministers and private Christians ought to pursue the same measures, in the support of the all important interests of religion.

President Washington was not a Deist, if he found “the doctrine” in this sermon by Reverend Isaac Lewis to have been “sound.” It clearly affirms the Deity of Christ, something no Deist would subscribe to.

MORAL VALUES UPHELD AND VICES OPPOSED BY WASHINGTON

The ethics of George Washington and the morality of his religion demonstrate resoundingly that he was not a Deist in faith or in practice. He desired his army and his nation to be free from the vices that afflicted humanity: “Our Men are brave and good; Men who with pleasure it is observed, are addicted to fewer Vices than are commonly found in Armies.”⁵⁶ But his men and family had to face the dangers of vice of all kinds.⁵⁷ In his Farewell Address he asked the American people to,

Observe good faith and justice towds. all Nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct;...Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human Nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?⁵⁸

Washington’s concern was for men who were self-sacrificing, who cared for character.⁵⁹

It is with inexpressible concern, the General sees Soldiers fighting in the Cause of Liberty, and their Country, committing Crimes most destructive to the army, and which in all other Armies are punished with Death—What a shame and reproach will it be if Soldiers fighting to enslave us, for two pence, or three pence a day, should be more regular, watchful and sober, than Men who are contending for every thing that is dear and valuable in life.⁶⁰

One of the ways that the very life of the new nation and the army that was called to defend its liberty was able to survive and succeed, given the many who resisted the effort for independence from within the country and from without, was through the use of the oath. The oath was a promise that one made to man calling on God to be the witness of the promise, and thus admitting that the one taking the oath would someday be held accountable for that promise by God and, possibly, in the court of law on earth. In the historic Judeo-Christian setting of revolutionary America, the oath was extremely important and powerful.⁶¹ It was because of the importance of the oath for the work of justice in the courts, that Washington warned America of the dangers of the Deist “mind of peculiar structure.”⁶²

A Deist was far more easily tempted to lie under oath, since he claimed that God had no interest in human activities. In some cases the Deists denied the Final Judgment, so men who had, in fact, lied under oath would never have to give an account of their intentional deception. The oath that Americans were required to take at Valley Forge declared:

I ____ do acknowledge The United States of America to be Free, Independent and Sovereign States and declare that the People thereof owe no Allegiance or Obedience to George the Third, King of Great Britain and I renounce refuse and abjure any Allegiance or Obedience to him, and I do swear (or affirm) that I will to the utmost of my Power support, maintain and defend the said United States against the said King George the third, his heirs and Successors and his and their Abettors, Assistants and Adherents and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold with Fidelity according to the best of my skill and understanding.