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
Washington’s wish has largely been fulfilled in America. While there have been some ugly exceptions:
• Anti-Catholic mobs fighting on the streets of nineteenth century New York City or Philadelphia
• The anti-Mormon persecution, including the slaying of the founder Joseph Smith in 1844
• African-American Pentecostal ministers lynched for preaching the Gospel
Yet, by-and-large, America has not seen the kinds of wars on religion that devastated Europe in the wake of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. For the most part, America has seen religious conflicts fought by argument and reason.
As the first president under the well-reasoned American Constitution, Washington was given an enlightened pulpit from which to speak concerning his views on religious liberty, even to the clergy. Accordingly, President Washington wrote on January 27, 1793, to ecclesiastical leaders of The New Church in Baltimore. The New Church was a new denomination based on the creative ideas of the novel religious thinker Emanuel Swendenborg. Therein, Washington boasted of America’s triumph over superstition,
We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.33
This conviction came after two or three centuries of wars of religion within outwardly Christian denominations–Catholics vs. Protestants–Protestants vs. other Protestants.
In all the letters that Washington wrote to the many religious groups that contacted him, one of the main points he stressed was America’s religious liberty for all. European history was filled with religious intolerance, perpetrated all too often in the name of Christianity. But Washington saw the United States as an asylum where such bigotry would not gain a foothold. However, in taking such a stance, Washington did not become a Deist.
Writing to Benedict Arnold on September 14, 1775, and speaking of Roman Catholics in Canada, he affirmed: “Prudence, policy, and a true Christian spirit will lead us to look with compassion upon their errors without insulting them.”34 He wrote to his soldiers on July 9, 1776, immediately after receiving a copy of the Declaration of Independence: “The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.”35 In short, a belief in religious liberty did not mean a belief in Deism. In fact, the great original advocates of religious liberty in America were Christian clergymen—Reformed and Baptist thinker Roger Williams in Rhode Island, and Quaker William Penn in Pennsylvania.36
